Posted on Jul 20, 2023
How would you solve the military recruiting challenges currently facing DOD?
81.8K
1.62K
873
144
144
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 >1 y ago
Responses: 442
0
0
0
The military lost its moral compass. There is no fixing that reality until those who live in Darkness face that truth.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Start w8th going back to when it was worth joining, now days it's nothing but LGBTQ crap and men wanting to be females, females wanting to be men, Officer's as women when clearly they're males and vice versa and the same with Enlisted, I wouldn't have my Grandsons join at all
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Recruiting challenges are honestly just going to get worse. Social media and the ease of access to news really hurts the military. Wars and possibilities of war also don't help; especially ones so heavily contested. There are so many of us gen x and millennials who lived through the gulf war and OEF/OIF, raised kids and grandkids who're at the right age but, have seen how fucked up we are. It's a much softer time now too. It's a time where people make videos talking about how hurt they are and their mental instabilities. People have no idea what gender they are and have a heart attack over someone's pronouns. Sayings like, "man the f**k up" or "why do you care" are looked down upon and considered hurtful. This just isn't a good time for recruitment. It'd almost be better to recall all us broken and disabled vets. We'd know our jobs and it'd be a lot different. Lemme not even put that idea in the aether. Forget that last sentence LOL
0
0
0
Shift to equipment which requires fewer service members to operate it
The M-777 155 mm howitzer has a crew of 7 plus the military has to buy a prime mover to drag it around.
The M-109 A 5–7 Paladin has a crew of 4 GVW and is 84,000 lb.
The GVWs for a HEMTT are:
69,000 lb
75,500 lb with a-kit
109,000 lb with b-kit
If you REALLY wanted a wheeled vehicle there are two available:
The French CAESAR 155 mm self-propelled howitzer crew of 5, can be crewed by 3 in an emergency
The Israeli ATMOS 155 mm has a crew of 2 – 6.
This is just one example. There are a LOT of places to trim personnel. We just need to get out of the mindset of “just get more privates to move/do XYZ”.
The M-777 155 mm howitzer has a crew of 7 plus the military has to buy a prime mover to drag it around.
The M-109 A 5–7 Paladin has a crew of 4 GVW and is 84,000 lb.
The GVWs for a HEMTT are:
69,000 lb
75,500 lb with a-kit
109,000 lb with b-kit
If you REALLY wanted a wheeled vehicle there are two available:
The French CAESAR 155 mm self-propelled howitzer crew of 5, can be crewed by 3 in an emergency
The Israeli ATMOS 155 mm has a crew of 2 – 6.
This is just one example. There are a LOT of places to trim personnel. We just need to get out of the mindset of “just get more privates to move/do XYZ”.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Something of a mythological issue. Great options mean fewer recruits. Combined with the huge percentage of youth who require waivers, even the willing interested sour on the first impression of bureaucracy.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I would start by returning it to a military outfit instead of a transgender medical depot and homosexual hide out. Short version, reinstate psych evals. Then I would start treating the vets we already have with a bit more respect(and by "a bit" I mean A LOT) so that recruits dont see discarded toys of the government and start seeing that there is benefit in being honorable even tho the honorable dont usually expect recognition. The US government has taken a dump on their soldiers for so long, there's no wonder there is a recruiting problem.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
The WOKE MILITARY is ruining all of the ARMED SERVICES. Until it changes recruiting will be difficult.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I t may be time to reconsider universal service with options to serve in the military or in public service for 2 years. A delay can be authorized for people in essential training. BCT should be extended a little to improve physical conditioning. People who have a hard time adjusting be sent to special training platoons, we had those and some good soldiers came out of them. Don’t let folks out just because they feel they don’t want to do that. Toughen up. Then make sure the benefits of serving honorably in the military are something to be desired in general such as subsidizing education of veterans to the extent we used to. Don’t exempt folks with ADHD and ASD as they can funnction well in structured consistent environments.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
First of all, what kind of person would want to serve? Someone who was RAISED to see the United States as WORTHY of service. Me, I was in a family that had served for generations, and my dad's great uncle was one of only three Generals of the Armies of The United States. It was in my blood, quite literally. But today? The United States is wasting it's money dissolving college debts, and spending money on illegal aliens. WHAT has it done for VETERANS? Look how veterans are treated! We have trouble getting jobs, when corporations would rather import cheap foreign workers under programs such as H1B. FIRST, cut off the flow of imported cheap labor. Hell, remove the authorization of those already here. MAKE the corporations hire Americans! Corporations are not people with rights! Thomas Jefferson hated them, calling them "Aristocratic, defying the rule of law." THEN, give them incentive to hire veterans, let's say by giving them tax incentives. When your employer deducts income taxes, don't they also have to chip in? MAKE VETERANS TAX FREE. This would benefit the employer... AND it gets to the point of making veterans visibly valuable, THEN people would want to serve! We are not civilians, DAMMIT, and if the civilians don't like it, too freaking bad!
That still doesn't address the fact I wouldn't want to serve under the current administration even with my family history, but giving corporations a viable reason to hire American veterans would be a very good start. Hell, just make veterans tax free for all taxes! Use something like id dot me for validation. If those who seerve the country represent just a small portion of the population at large, then it would not be a great hit in so far as deriving operating revenue from the population, but it WOULD be a damn good incentive for service, wouldn't it?
There's my input, submitted for your approval. Semper fi.
That still doesn't address the fact I wouldn't want to serve under the current administration even with my family history, but giving corporations a viable reason to hire American veterans would be a very good start. Hell, just make veterans tax free for all taxes! Use something like id dot me for validation. If those who seerve the country represent just a small portion of the population at large, then it would not be a great hit in so far as deriving operating revenue from the population, but it WOULD be a damn good incentive for service, wouldn't it?
There's my input, submitted for your approval. Semper fi.
(0)
(0)
CPO Melvin Miller
Did you everwatch thr movie: A day without a Mexican. I was about the labor force in California that most Caucasions would or could not do. Every state pretty much has migrant workers that either stay in the state or ravel from one stated to aother to plant and spick crops and thenn process them. Meat packing plants etc hire immigrants because they would do the nastiest jobs that others will not. If you got rid of all tehm and started paying higher wages and benefits the economy would be ten times worse than it has been since Covid.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Arthur Grant
OK, please consider that I have had business accounting courses. What does a business want? They want a "personnel resource" to "deliver" a specific labor product at the CHEAPEST rate possible so that the company can make the most money possible from the delivery of said product in some form. Now, in a free market economy, those with skills have to compete for jobs, and some deprecation in compensation occurs as a result of this. However, liberal Hollywood products would like to tell us that corporations cannot exist without cheap foreign workers. That's utter nonsense! As proof, I ask the simple question: "How did corporations exist before the availability of cheap foreign labor" They existed by not paying executives unreasonable salaries! Executives do not DESERVE huge salaries, they are not the ones doing the work. Those with the skills to perform skilled labor are the most important.
Now, menial labor jobs are not skilled, they are just labor units that provide basic functionality at the lowest rate possible. I'm not talking about so-called "minimum wage." I'm talking about a wage necessary for subsistence existence in the vicinity of the work environment. Can a lower worker afford to live in the vicinity of the job? If not, that is a failure of the company choosing an inappropriate site for operations. If you want good American workers, they have to afford the rents charged them by the apartments available in the area of the job site. Now the apartments are run by what? Other corporations, right? Corporations that want the most PROFIT, so they want to charge the highest POSSIBLE rates tolerated by the rental customers in the area. Tolerable rents are directly connected to the available salaries in said area for workers of the appropriate skills level.
It's not that US citizens will not do the work, they cannot AFFORD to live in the vicinity of the job.
Foreign labor is not the answer. We lived just fine without foreign labor for a long time. The problem with both rental rates and available salaries is connected to the very same problem: unreasonable corporate executive compensation. That's the way my basic accounting education allows me to view the situation.
Now, menial labor jobs are not skilled, they are just labor units that provide basic functionality at the lowest rate possible. I'm not talking about so-called "minimum wage." I'm talking about a wage necessary for subsistence existence in the vicinity of the work environment. Can a lower worker afford to live in the vicinity of the job? If not, that is a failure of the company choosing an inappropriate site for operations. If you want good American workers, they have to afford the rents charged them by the apartments available in the area of the job site. Now the apartments are run by what? Other corporations, right? Corporations that want the most PROFIT, so they want to charge the highest POSSIBLE rates tolerated by the rental customers in the area. Tolerable rents are directly connected to the available salaries in said area for workers of the appropriate skills level.
It's not that US citizens will not do the work, they cannot AFFORD to live in the vicinity of the job.
Foreign labor is not the answer. We lived just fine without foreign labor for a long time. The problem with both rental rates and available salaries is connected to the very same problem: unreasonable corporate executive compensation. That's the way my basic accounting education allows me to view the situation.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google