Posted on Jul 20, 2023
How would you solve the military recruiting challenges currently facing DOD?
75.9K
1.61K
862
134
134
0
The recruiting struggles continue across all branches. What is causing it and how should it be addressed?
https://www.wsj.com/story/the-us-army-expects-to-end-up-15000-recruits-short-this-year-b5e9de86
https://www.wsj.com/story/the-us-army-expects-to-end-up-15000-recruits-short-this-year-b5e9de86
Posted in these groups: 
Recruiting
Readiness
79V: Retention and Transition NCO (USAR)
79R: Recruiter
8411: Basic Recruiter
Recruiting Readiness 79V: Retention and Transition NCO (USAR) 79R: Recruiter 8411: Basic Recruiter
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 436
0
0
0
I would start with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the lack of congruent medical care and mental health support therein. I became a disabled veteran in 2005, my children (17 and 13) have watched their father give up on his VA benefits and seek out private health and mental care. This is a very big issue amongst many OEF/OIF vets.
So, what can a recruiter say to my kids that would make them believe that Uncle Sam will take care of them after they serve? What propaganda could possibly overcome a lifetime of watching the Veterans of the most recent conflict getting all but forgotten by the nation? My kids will never serve this country, not because they aren't patriotic, because they have full confidence in the government forgetting about them as well.
So, what can a recruiter say to my kids that would make them believe that Uncle Sam will take care of them after they serve? What propaganda could possibly overcome a lifetime of watching the Veterans of the most recent conflict getting all but forgotten by the nation? My kids will never serve this country, not because they aren't patriotic, because they have full confidence in the government forgetting about them as well.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Harp on the possible benefits. I was talking with our Gen Z intern, at my architecture firm. I let him know that because of my time in, I have extreme job flexibility. I could work a part time job and do school full time and still have a sufficient income. This enticed him greatly and he's now considering finishing his degree, going officer, and doing civil engineering.
What people want is the promise of a secure future, for the most part. Sell that.
What people want is the promise of a secure future, for the most part. Sell that.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Too late for all that now. A draft will be coming for the next war, and it is coming.
(0)
(0)
SPC Athelred Davis
Only reason we would need a draft is against a super power, which means we wouldn't need a draft because there would be no way to mobilize after the ensuing nuclear exchange.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I think it is straight forward. As a student of economics and finance, at the end of the day, the employee pool of the DOD are going to go where the money is.
Now.............. it's not all about money. There is a balance................ I think it's simply a balance of how much one gets paid for how much crap one has to endure relative to the skills they bring to the employment market.
My favorite example to use is tuition assistance employers give to young employees. On can flip burgers at McD's or sling coffee and Starbucks and they are going to have access to the same tuition assistance benefits dollar wise they will get in the military.
Additionally............... the amount of crap service members have to deal with to get those benefits will be astronomically more than they would at McD's or Starbucks. For example, in the USAR, it's not uncommon for a student to have to throw away an entire semester because of Annual Training. Service in the USAR is a detriment to young college students. That doesn't happen working for McD, and the benefit is similar. Then to boot, they are on the hook for 8 years, which is nearly half of a traditional career track
Secondly, the wonderful new retirement program, by design gives military employees more mobility to leave and not forfeit a massive economic retirement nest eggs. Again, the DOD has aligned their economic retirement programs with the civilian sector, but kept the level of crap one has to endure for those economic packages at the same higher threshold.
How does the system design in more employee mobility with the new retirement program, and not expect turnover to increase?
So all things being equal................ economically and now even job security wise the military is a less desirable career pathway. The programs and policies are moving in a direction that simply makes the civilian sector more appealing, and they are discouraging the vast majority of the main population of employees, leaving behind those sticking around for patriotic reasons (the super performers) and the "can't find anything else" (low speed high drag)
Just my theory.
Increase the amount of money one tolerates for the crap they deal with, or lower the crap they deal with for the current amount of money they get.
Now.............. it's not all about money. There is a balance................ I think it's simply a balance of how much one gets paid for how much crap one has to endure relative to the skills they bring to the employment market.
My favorite example to use is tuition assistance employers give to young employees. On can flip burgers at McD's or sling coffee and Starbucks and they are going to have access to the same tuition assistance benefits dollar wise they will get in the military.
Additionally............... the amount of crap service members have to deal with to get those benefits will be astronomically more than they would at McD's or Starbucks. For example, in the USAR, it's not uncommon for a student to have to throw away an entire semester because of Annual Training. Service in the USAR is a detriment to young college students. That doesn't happen working for McD, and the benefit is similar. Then to boot, they are on the hook for 8 years, which is nearly half of a traditional career track
Secondly, the wonderful new retirement program, by design gives military employees more mobility to leave and not forfeit a massive economic retirement nest eggs. Again, the DOD has aligned their economic retirement programs with the civilian sector, but kept the level of crap one has to endure for those economic packages at the same higher threshold.
How does the system design in more employee mobility with the new retirement program, and not expect turnover to increase?
So all things being equal................ economically and now even job security wise the military is a less desirable career pathway. The programs and policies are moving in a direction that simply makes the civilian sector more appealing, and they are discouraging the vast majority of the main population of employees, leaving behind those sticking around for patriotic reasons (the super performers) and the "can't find anything else" (low speed high drag)
Just my theory.
Increase the amount of money one tolerates for the crap they deal with, or lower the crap they deal with for the current amount of money they get.
(0)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
I agree with a lot of this. The external job market is always a big factor and as someone who studies this issue recently told me "The options of someone who isn’t going to college right now is better than it’s ever been in recent years, and the military has to compete with that."
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
I agree, BUT.....
The military has pretty much always been in the losing end of that comparison. We have survived on a) the bennies (like housing and free health care for family) b) patriotism, d c) uniqueness (where else can you get paid to blow stuff up?), and d) paid training for marketable skills (most civilian jobs you need to pay to get the skill then HOPE to find a job).
Very few civilian jobs can match any of those and even fewer can match all of them.
I do not think the military as a whole is doing a good enough job talking about the above. The public only sees the crap-to-pay ratio, and not the other stuff (and a lot of this goes back to what SFC Kelly Fuerhoff discussed about social media).
We will never truly be able to compete with the civilian market on a dollar for dollar basis. We also won't be able to compete on a crap-to-dollar ratio basis. So we HAVE to restart re-emphasizing what the military can provide that the civilian market cannot. More" join the Navy, see the world," less "free tuition assistance once you jump through 17 hoops, and if you have spare time when you aren't training."
Not trying to discount what you said, because it is very valid. Just highlighting then "next step" IMHO.
The military has pretty much always been in the losing end of that comparison. We have survived on a) the bennies (like housing and free health care for family) b) patriotism, d c) uniqueness (where else can you get paid to blow stuff up?), and d) paid training for marketable skills (most civilian jobs you need to pay to get the skill then HOPE to find a job).
Very few civilian jobs can match any of those and even fewer can match all of them.
I do not think the military as a whole is doing a good enough job talking about the above. The public only sees the crap-to-pay ratio, and not the other stuff (and a lot of this goes back to what SFC Kelly Fuerhoff discussed about social media).
We will never truly be able to compete with the civilian market on a dollar for dollar basis. We also won't be able to compete on a crap-to-dollar ratio basis. So we HAVE to restart re-emphasizing what the military can provide that the civilian market cannot. More" join the Navy, see the world," less "free tuition assistance once you jump through 17 hoops, and if you have spare time when you aren't training."
Not trying to discount what you said, because it is very valid. Just highlighting then "next step" IMHO.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - ***The public only sees the crap-to-pay ratio,*** Even worse, the public doesn't see the whole pay ratio. They always quote the base salary pay table. They don't include BAH, BAS, etc... Recruiters need to find a way to be able to speak to those numbers as well. I know it's complicated by the fact that new recruits wont get BAH and BAS while in the barracks, and as soon as they join they find that out, and the military gets everyone trying to shack up with each other to get those bennies.
(0)
(0)
SPC Athelred Davis
What happened to conditioning people to not only endure the "crap" but to look forward to it? Is this something we can no longer do? Some of my best memories in the service were actually the most uncomfortable grueling times of my life. I think the term is "lifer". I don't believe they are born, I think many can be molded as well from regular sane individuals, I certainly was. Money is for mercenaries, they have their place in the world, but every generation of my family has served since crossing the Delaware with Washington as an associator...this talk of money turns my stomach. You either want to do it or you don't, we either have enough of those people or we don't, but what's the point in getting people through the door if we can't show them what they're made of and that's enough for them to stay? As our economy produces increasing income mobility...recruitment using the purse to entice is simply unsustainable, the military is not competitive. Instead of trying to address that, perhaps it's time we shifted perspective to selection, if you can't get the prom queen, see if one of her friends is willing.
(0)
(0)
0
-1
1
First of all, our standards are too high. We should allow people with minor convictions and those overweight and over the tape measure to join (pt will help them get in shape anyways). Some of the testing is outdated and should be based on a wider variety of intelligences. The military should allow those with mild ADHD to join. The age range should also be increased people are living longer now we should allow people to enlist up to 50 years of age. Also, we need to allow beards and goatees, and a variety of mustaches in uniform. It
(0)
(1)
PO3 Mitchell Haynie
Since when, did the WAR machine of the US MIlitary, which stabilizes and defends freedom in the world around us filled with predators and enemies like china, russia, and iran, become an EEOC employer? Your suggestion is about equal opportunity, and the enemy would ove that, because they recruit, train, and send their best WARRIORS! This is not about feelings and social justice, FYF!
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Brown
PO3 Mitchell Haynie - This standards have moved up and down historically they have never been static it really depends on what we need in order to field any kind of fighting force and sometimes stricter standards have to be sacrificed this happened in both world wars,korea and vietnam.
(0)
(0)
SPC Michael Brown
PO3 Mitchell Haynie - Also our opponents or (likely opponents) also have looser recruiting and drafting standards because they too have real manpower issues even worse in Russia's case that is now drafting 55 year olds and sending convicts with violent felonies into combat.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
