Posted on Mar 29, 2014
SGM Matthew Quick
16.9K
64
54
4
4
0
What MOSs (or jobs) in your service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps or Coast Guard) should the military consider eliminating.

If not eliminate, which ones should be contracted out? (Contracting jobs out saves money in the long run)
Posted in these groups: 702767d5 DownsizingExpertsights-e1324327272686 MOS
Avatar_feed
Responses: 21
1SG First Sergeant
11
11
0
Military should consider Downsizing the CIVILIAN force.
(11)
Comment
(0)
SSG Section Sergeant
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
I Concur. Give the Army back to the Soldiers
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Maurice Tillman
SPC Maurice Tillman
>1 y
Nope. No offense but civilians has proven to be more technically proficient than soldiers and they are cheaper to hire. They standards are much higher for civilians than soldiers and there is more at stake. If a soldier fucks something up, at worse, he/she will get demoted. On the other hand, a civilian must ALWAYS maintain hi/her bearings or get terminated instantly.

The secondary purpose for hiring civilians is to maintain a large force, while allowing soldiers to stay combat trained.

Basically, military personnel are civilians' customers and supervisors, at times.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
1SG Brigade Security Manager
8
8
0
Edited 7 y ago
12C Bridge Crew member. I think this MOS should move to the Reserves only. 
(8)
Comment
(0)
1SG Brigade Security Manager
1SG (Join to see)
7 y
Combat Engineers also learn these skills in Basic Training, but they should allow 12B the ability to continue to maintain these skills which may allow the Total lineament to the Reserves.

Would anyone else like to add their thoughts.

(1)
Reply
(0)
MSG Combat Engineering Senior Sergeant
MSG (Join to see)
7 y
I Agree 1SG Haro. I never understood why they could not have put a bridge crewmember assigned to an A&O Platoon or make it an additional ASI verses a MOS. I mean back in the day when I went to BRAVO6 and learned how to operate the ACE and AVLB I thought for sure we would be the ones up front with those vehicles in the invasion of Iraq. Glad we have bridge crewmembers but I agree with you we as 12B's learn all about the Bailey Bridge and go into the Mabey Johnson in ALC.
(1)
Reply
(0)
1SG Brigade Security Manager
1SG (Join to see)
7 y
Sounds like a good idea.

(0)
Reply
(0)
Kim Porter
Kim Porter
>1 y
Why do you think this mos should be removed ?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar_small
MAJ Battalion Executive Officer
6
6
0
This question should be easy! Eliminate civilian contracted positions or GS positions that have been generated to bridge gaps or shortfalls in personnel at the unit level.

Contracting jobs do not save the government money as Soldiers do not get paid the same nor are they drawing retirement at the same time (e.g. civilian supply techs are paid way more than a SSG or SFC)----take it a step further, we could really save more money if we used organic equipment to move organic assets in and out of theatre of operations---driving a true joint/interagency supported logistics network. However, that point doesn't really drive home cost savings because it would require the US to continue to maintain a higher quantity of naval assets for surface mobility. Now, take the contracting jobs or GS positions out of the equation and some of the MOSs that could potentially be named for elimination automatically would be retained and have adequate need instead. Take a look at the nearest Dining Facility---which used to be operated and maintained by Food Service Specialists with minimal contracted worker staffing. Now they are almost always 100% contracted. 92Gs are almost always the first example of an MOS that seems to be a dying skill set that has become under utilized except for training or combat environments. The problem is that they are super important in a combat environment such as Afghanistan----more importantly for combat out posts. I feel that we have gotten way too comfortable and reliant upon contracting. If we continue to place emphasis on contracting and allow MOSs to be chopped, then we will not be prepared for future conflicts.

Reduction in Force doesn't mean or equate to find which portions to cut, however I see it as an opportunity to manage strengths and weaknesses pertaining to overall capacity. Thus, eliminating an MOS would not be as effective as consolidating a few similar functional areas down to fewer with more training and responsibility----more modularity, less confusion, simplified MTOEs/TDAs, etc. Build efficiency, eliminate redundancies, however not an attempt to target individual MOSs as they may possess a very important function. All in all, some of these other issues that I have mentioned could be managed from the Brigadier General level for each of the respective Branch School Houses with input from the vast experience that are not only active, but from all of the retired CSMs, SGMs, and key leaders that work onsite.


(6)
Comment
(0)
Avatar_small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close