Downsize troops or cut contractors?

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:29:00 -0500

Recently I've found myself getting a little irritated at a few situations, the army keeps downsizing it's troops and talking about funding but from what I've seen the army spends way more on contractors in areas I don't understand. For example. The army wants to get rid of all these soldiers to make itself more affordable but they don't even flinch to pay a civilian light vehicle mechanic 90k at fort Irwin for a Monday thru Friday job. Or to move equipment from home base to a training exercise it cost my unit upwards of $16k to move 1 sensitive item conex. I'm an 88M transporter with a secret clearance that the army is gonna pay anyways. Why couldn't the army spend an easy 800 bucks on fuel and have my squad move our own conex. I only know about the transportation piece. What are your thought or experiences?

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 3 at 2015 4:31 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:31:54 -0500

Unfortunately, this same kind of crap is going on in the civil service. At DHS, it seems like we have nearly as many contractors as we do federal employees. Yet, all we ever hear is that we need to cut federal employees.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 3 at 2015 4:36 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:36:50 -0500

First you must understand WHY we have to cut troops. 1) The number of troops on the rolls is determined by Congress and fall under any caps that Congress sets. Contractors do not fall under Congressional caps. 2) when you are operating under a cap, you need to optimize your force to lean heavily towards teeth than tail (and if you need green suit tail, just enough for any immediate deployment needs). Contractors can do CSS and some CS role, but (generally) cannot do CA roles. And usually do them better as they are likely former SMs themselves with years of experience. Why waste a potential trigger puller on a job that a contractor can accomplish. 3) you dont owe contractors any long term benefits like you do with SMs. Nor do you pay them for housing, food, PCS, etc.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:37 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:37:55 -0500

My girlfriend works for the local Geological Survey. They are finally getting rid of all their contractors. Each contracted employee cost the Survey $80k - $40k to the employee, and an additional $40k to the contractor.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 3 at 2015 4:39 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:39:56 -0500

Contractors are easier to remove when not needed and they do not need to pay them benefits.

A CPT such as myself, all benefits included, will likely cost more than a contractor doing the same position in many situations. The rate that the contractor is being paid is generally what the company is charging for a trained employee who then has to afford them benefits at the cost of the contracting company. Many times it is oddly cheaper.

I don't like it, but that was how it was at least explained to me.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:40:32 -0500

The Contractors are in a volotile position. i have worked with some and would not like to be in that position all the time.

Another reason they are leaning heavily on Contractors is that although it may seem more expensive many times it is cheaper as they have to pay for their own insurance and other things.

I know when I came back to Active Duty in 2007 I was surprised to see how many civilians do jobs which we used to.

I believe that it is a bad time to make the cuts as we are still in an unforeseen future. It is easy to state that the War is over but there are many still wanting to attack us.

The next few years are definitely going to be hard.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:42:31 -0500

This is an ongoing argument since Clinton started his famous "Clinton's Cut Backs". I have seen them hire 2-4 civilians to replace 1 SM..... I have been trying to figure out the math for years... When we were in Afghanistan we were trying to figure out why we had civilians working in areas that we had actual MOS's for and when we found out how much they were making it made most if us just a little upset since they were making 6 digits and they didn't work the same hours we did... And honestly did not run 24/7, they worked 40 hours and were paid overtime if they went beyond that... Wish I could have made overtime... Maybe if someone has a better insight to this I would also like to hear how this actually works... Because I have been lost for over 20 years trying to do the math and have yet to fully grasp it...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:45 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:45:29 -0500

I completely understand your comments so far, another example is at fort bliss we have "pride industries" a company that will most likely out last the post itself and they take care of all the facilities here and associated work orders but remember a time when the army had plumbers, and construction guys.... And for that matter I remember it havering fireman. How much do we pay these civilian fireman?

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 3 at 2015 4:59 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:59:22 -0500

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 a.k.a. the Army Clause:

"The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years...."

When the Constitution talks about the Navy, it refers to Maintaining the Navy. But for the Army, it states Raising.

What that means is "constant cuts." Additionally, no long term funding per the "two years."

I know it seems silly, but Congress is actually following the Framers Intent, and exact Language when they shrink & grow the Army according to the nation's needs.

Response by SFC Donald LeBlanc made Mar 3 at 2015 5:30 PM

SFC Donald LeBlanc — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:30:53 -0500

SSG Stoops, I feel your pain. Before retiring, I ran into that same problem and actually was quite annoyed that people who ETSd out of the Army ended up making quite a LOT more cash doing something we did for a lot less pay and more danger.

However, in the end- I think I got the best deal. Service to my Country, Retirement, Education and pride of accomplishing something to the end.

I agree that perhaps it would be better to pay the troops more and cut the contractors down a bit - who knows maybe the military could save a little money and bring back some of the great unit level functions we used to have.

Good luck and stay strong!

Response by MSgt Michael Durkee made Mar 3 at 2015 5:49 PM

MSgt Michael Durkee — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:49:35 -0500

This may be an unpopular comment, but contractors ultimately provide continuity. SM surge and deploy, but the contract force maintains SME support and maintain the ability for our forces to concentrate on the bigger picture.

That said, I KNOW the very contractors that I have Government oversight over easily make more income than I do...but I value their support.

Response by LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® made Mar 3 at 2015 9:34 PM

LTC David S. Chang, ChFC®, CLU® — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:34:09 -0500

I think over the long-haul the military thinks it is cheaper to pay contractors because they don't get the pensions and other benefits that military do. Outsourcing I think is a good idea to a point though.

I do a lot of exercises and I know that many contractors are there to teach and essentially referee the games. I don't know how things would be without them, unless a unit is very green at everything

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2015 12:45 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:45:01 -0500

I'd say cut the contractors before cutting the troops. The troops signed that line, trained, and worked hard to get where they are. They want to be in the military. The contractors are just civilians who saw a good job and took it. Some are former military members even. As far as jobs goes I think the pecking order goes active duty and only after they are satisfied should we hire contractors to fill the voids. I came from a department so understaffed by the AF that we literally depended on contractors - had we just properly staffed the office and trained new troops to fill voids, we wouldn't need the contractors at all. I like the contractors, I'd like to be one since I'm out, but I can't see myself (or anyone else) taking a job before an active troop.