Posted on Jan 4, 2015
Bounuses: Why does the military have it so backwards!?
2.43K
15
2
1
1
0
If you work for any company and you rise up in seniority, especially a successful one, you usually get a bonus at the end of the year (provided the company is well in the black), and you also get a "longevity", "performance", and/or "loyalty" bonus. Note: this is not every company out there, and it is more prevalent in European countries than in American ones.
However, in the military, you usually get your biggest bonus for your first enlistment! Why? This is completely ass backwards.
For example: You get some pimply faced kid, off the streets, who barely just graduated from high school, and you throw him into one of the most rigorous and structured environments he/she will ever be in. You throw them through some combat training, and then you put them through some sort of "skills" school where they learn their job.
At any point, this kid can just say screw this, and a some of them do. The Military has at this point, already invested over $50,000-$350,000 (depending on job) in training alone, and then the turd either goes AWOL, is a thief, gets busted for drugs, or something else - On top of it, they got a $50K bonus - for what? Being a dumbass?
For some reason, rather than keep the people who have the experience, who have proven they at least can be to work on time, not do drugs, and generally know their job, the military would rather just let them get sick of all the BS they have to put up with. Rather than give a bonus to the people who HAVE and ARE toughing it out and proving their worth, the military gives bonuses to new kids off the block who may not even last past the first few weeks of military training!
And by the way: I know the military is supposed to "recoup" the money if the new recruit busts out, but once that bonus is paid, if the newbie ups and leaves, good luck getting much, if any of that back! It is just more money that the military has to spend to "try" to get the bonus they paid out back.
People say there would be a recruiting problem if they didn't give bonuses. I think this is a myth or bad psychology.
I think if you come in, and you know you're going to get your first $20K-50K bonus (guaranteed regardless of MOS) when you reup at the 4 year mark, plus say a yearly "performance" bonus of $1,000-$2,500 every year past the first for "good performance", and another increasing (say $10K-$25K) bonus every 3-4 years you stay in after the initial reenlistment, you'd have the following effect:
1) New enlistees would know that their bonus is dependent on them being able to hack it
2) The incentive to stay in is therefore increased because they know their $$$ is on the line if they bust out
3) The incentive to re-enlist is also much greater
4) Quality people are going to stay in as long as they can
5) Because you're retaining quality, your overall military's ability to fight the fight goes up, way up!
6) Because you tie a yearly bonus to performance, your borderline duds are going to be forced to either do good things (and therefore quit being duds), or they're going to eventually quit - thereby increasing your quality again!
7) You could effectively reduce your force strength slightly (about 5% [in my opinion]) because the quality of people would be high enough to be able to sustain readiness despite the reduction.
So: For you new recruits and you old farts like me: What do you think?
However, in the military, you usually get your biggest bonus for your first enlistment! Why? This is completely ass backwards.
For example: You get some pimply faced kid, off the streets, who barely just graduated from high school, and you throw him into one of the most rigorous and structured environments he/she will ever be in. You throw them through some combat training, and then you put them through some sort of "skills" school where they learn their job.
At any point, this kid can just say screw this, and a some of them do. The Military has at this point, already invested over $50,000-$350,000 (depending on job) in training alone, and then the turd either goes AWOL, is a thief, gets busted for drugs, or something else - On top of it, they got a $50K bonus - for what? Being a dumbass?
For some reason, rather than keep the people who have the experience, who have proven they at least can be to work on time, not do drugs, and generally know their job, the military would rather just let them get sick of all the BS they have to put up with. Rather than give a bonus to the people who HAVE and ARE toughing it out and proving their worth, the military gives bonuses to new kids off the block who may not even last past the first few weeks of military training!
And by the way: I know the military is supposed to "recoup" the money if the new recruit busts out, but once that bonus is paid, if the newbie ups and leaves, good luck getting much, if any of that back! It is just more money that the military has to spend to "try" to get the bonus they paid out back.
People say there would be a recruiting problem if they didn't give bonuses. I think this is a myth or bad psychology.
I think if you come in, and you know you're going to get your first $20K-50K bonus (guaranteed regardless of MOS) when you reup at the 4 year mark, plus say a yearly "performance" bonus of $1,000-$2,500 every year past the first for "good performance", and another increasing (say $10K-$25K) bonus every 3-4 years you stay in after the initial reenlistment, you'd have the following effect:
1) New enlistees would know that their bonus is dependent on them being able to hack it
2) The incentive to stay in is therefore increased because they know their $$$ is on the line if they bust out
3) The incentive to re-enlist is also much greater
4) Quality people are going to stay in as long as they can
5) Because you're retaining quality, your overall military's ability to fight the fight goes up, way up!
6) Because you tie a yearly bonus to performance, your borderline duds are going to be forced to either do good things (and therefore quit being duds), or they're going to eventually quit - thereby increasing your quality again!
7) You could effectively reduce your force strength slightly (about 5% [in my opinion]) because the quality of people would be high enough to be able to sustain readiness despite the reduction.
So: For you new recruits and you old farts like me: What do you think?
Enlisted
Re-enlistment
Military Pay
Benefits
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
I think "other." Some times you need bonuses to get folks to come in, other times you need bonuses to keep people in. Bonuses should be tied to the services end strength.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
If you spend a quarter or half-million dollars on your and your spouse's education, some professional bonuses will be needed to lure top candidates from the civilian sector. I would like to see more loan forgiveness type bonuses. It could reduce individual debt early into a career and give a troop more incentive to use TSP earlier.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google