Is today's military too civilian dependent?

2016-04-29T16:49:23-04:00

In the years gone by the U.S. Military was mostly self-sufficient, should the military become refocused on building, maintaining, and securing everything on installations? I believe the Sea Bees, Corps of Engineers, and Red Horse units should be expanded and utilized in Federal construction projects on and off of post/base and civilian involvement should be limited to labor/support roles.

Response by SFC Wade W. made Apr 29 at 2016 5:05 PM

2016-04-29T17:05:58-04:00

The military has gone through this before and we never learn. Too many civilian employees have hurt us in the past but too few has made it difficult when we deploy soldiers in mass. I do not like seeing too many of our law enforcement personnel being civilians as that seems to breed a negative environment, even more than the uniformed MP. After Desert Storm I remember the returning soldiers really giving our blue suiters a lot of guff. There is something about being able to tell a soldier to "at ease" when in uniform that carries a lot more weight that a prior service civilian with a badge trying to do it. Civilians in administrative positions are one thing but in certain positions (LE, hospital, security) I believe it creates more problems.

Response by CSM(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 5:54 PM

2016-04-29T17:54:25-04:00

Absolutely!!! Why shouldn't our Soldiers fully operate and grow within their MOS. Is there any better training? We should be a SELF SUSTAINING FORCE and not rely on outsourcing contracts.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 6:05 PM

2016-04-29T18:05:15-04:00

I have noticed this myself. I see contractors training and qualifying me on my job and getting the certs I need, when that job could go to a SME in my field instead. Hell, at my current command, we hire a janitor to clean the building every day when a simple 30 minute field day could remedy that. It's not even a big building. On top of that, we have to have an escort for that person because they are a foreign national so we are losing a body anyways! I mean, I get having civilians work at the Commissary, or the Exchange, or even MWR, but I don't think we need them unless they have some rare specialty that is needed and cannot for some reason be supplied for the military.

Edit: I did not put full thought into all of the positions on base where it is appropriate for a civilian to work, but I'm sure there are others besides "Exchange, Commissary, and MWR"

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 6:06 PM

2016-04-29T18:06:59-04:00

I hear it from engineers all over Schofield. "I just want to do my job!" We have soldiers cutting grass or painting old barracks. Why don't we have engineers building these buildings on post, repairing these facilities? I'm not 100% anti-civilian, but I'll admit my bias. I think soldiers get shafted opportunities to grow, learn, and develop skills when the army pays civilians buku money to do these soldiers' jobs.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Apr 29 at 2016 6:17 PM

2016-04-29T18:17:25-04:00

Two words: Funding & Manpower. Contracting civilians can execute non-combatant roles much more inexpensively than having to draw personnel from already over-burdened ranks.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2016 7:11 PM

2016-04-29T19:11:09-04:00

I do believe it is a very fine balance that is needed between the civilian work force and the military workforce. Many jobs should be kept with the serving members to keep proficient in their jobs. In my opinion to many have been outsourced. But Capt Mark Strobl does make some very valid points. When you look at the big picture as to why it is more feasible and cost effective for the government to have the civilian work force.

Response by SGT David T. made Apr 29 at 2016 8:00 PM

2016-04-29T20:00:24-04:00

Actually you are mistaken. The military going back to the Continental Army has never been self sufficient. There has always been a cadre of civilian employees that have performed support roles. We do the missions we are good at. The military is great at war fighting. The business side...eh not so much. USACE already does all construction projects on bases and many off base.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 29 at 2016 8:29 PM

2016-04-29T20:29:48-04:00

As compared to.....history? Two words "Camp Followers."

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 29 at 2016 8:39 PM

2016-04-29T20:39:13-04:00

Interesting, Hard to say what the right balance should be but I would prefer that the Military do more of the things that are contracted out these days.

Response by SSgt GG-15 RET Jim Lint made Apr 29 at 2016 9:13 PM

2016-04-29T21:13:01-04:00

It is better to have Civilians doing admin and non trigger pulling jobs. The military should be doing jobs that only the military can do. Should the Bde Commander's secretary be a soldier or a civilian? Will they be a force multiplier? Will that secretary position be needed in combat? If not, maybe it should be a civilian position. I am retired active duty military, but I also did 14 years civil service. Not sure if soldiers should be used for jobs that can be done by civilians. Soldiers are unique because we can fight.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Apr 29 at 2016 9:40 PM

2016-04-29T21:40:32-04:00

Congress required all positions that could be done by civilians, must be done by civilians. It's all a jobs program that goes back decades. In state and local negotiations, the politicians expect to get a certain number of jobs for their constituents. Same thing overseas.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Apr 29 at 2016 11:17 PM

2016-04-29T23:17:20-04:00

Yes, the Air Force is especially guilty of this. At Edwards AFB, 75% of the base is civilians. We have become over civilian dependent. What's worse, is that many of these civilians are in unions which limits their flexibility compared to military members. I am not against Unions by themselves, as I am a union man myself. However, when things need to happen extra quick in the military and are dependent on the civilians to gets things done, many times it doesn't happen because they do not or cannot meet our needs because of union rules. Civilians fill critical areas like supply even though we have military members trained for the exact same job.

Response by MAJ Raúl Rovira made May 1 at 2016 2:34 AM

2016-05-01T02:34:03-04:00

The military force can only be so big based on the laws set by the law makers. As fair or as unfair they may seem, it is the reality. Capt Mark Strobl is spot on when he said Funding and Manpower. The reality is that the military is required to have an strengthen of ###,### and only funded with $$$. Then comes the priority games and the good idea fairy which includes positions under contract or as government employee.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made May 1 at 2016 8:13 AM

2016-05-01T08:13:24-04:00

In my opinion, the greater use of contractors has been a shadow expansion of the force. If I have a soldier serving as a cook, and I outsource the cook job while converting the cook into an infantry soldier, I've essentially grown the force from 1 to 2 through a contracting mechanism. The military did this by outsourcing many jobs like cooks, truck drivers, mechanics, etc., and then converting many troops in those job series to more combat-related jobs. The military was able to maintain the same force size with a more lethal force structure, at the expense of greater reliance on contractors for logistical support. If we were to convert those roles back to military, it would require moving troops back into those roles and reducing the number of combat-related troops, or expanding the size of the force in order to recreate those uniformed positions. Given today's fiscal environment at the Federal level, I suspect expanding the force is not an option, and neither is reducing the number of troops dedicated to deployable units. Regardless, I don't think leveraging civilian contractors makes us less self-sufficient.

Response by SFC Andrew Dowell made May 1 at 2016 9:33 AM

2016-05-01T09:33:31-04:00

Yes MPs in our gates and I believe military spouses and family should be given first option in post jobs, and yes engineers should do all construction

Response by SFC William Adamek made May 2 at 2016 5:22 PM

2016-05-02T17:22:44-04:00

With the Current Political Environment, its more about the money that the politicians (they really decide our manning) can bring to their people. And in this context, their people are big corporations that make a hefty sum off those lucrative contracts and sub-contracts.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2016 11:19 AM

2016-12-31T11:19:35-05:00

Yep. Far too dependent. I spent some time teaching at Fort Huachuca and I have to say it was appalling that the majority of the people teaching the MOS were civilians. Just... no. When I went through my first AIT in 2002, it was all military instructing. Seeing the in-fighting, the rivalry, the drama, and the neediness of being a civilian, I'm surprised that we kept the drama so well hidden from our students. Fast forward to today - I think some have their place at like Division or G staff level jobs, but the military is wasting a lot of money on maintaining a huge contingent of civilians within our ranks. We have Soldiers trained to do these jobs - so put them in that position. As a Staff Sergeant, when I walk by an office full of civilians who've put a big bag of trash outside their door, I can't help but chuckle. We're not your fucking janitors and this isn't a fucking corporation. The dumpster is by your car. Take it with you when you leave. Regardless of whether or not it's in your "contract." Rant over.

Response by SGT C Mendez made Dec 31 at 2016 11:45 AM

2016-12-31T11:45:15-05:00

Well, these are all valid points. However, please remember that it is the civilian contractors that cause the bloat in spending. The government could spend less by hiring permanent DOD employees. But its when the government uses an outside contractor, of course they are going to pay double than that of a permanent DOD employee. When I was in, I was glad that the civilians handled some of the jobs out there. That meant more time for training and actually doing my job. Please take into account that when 3/4 of the installation deploys, there are still jobs that need to be done. I know some have an aversion to civilian employees but its totally different when you are out of the military and the shoe is on the other foot.

Response by CAPT Dave Woodard made Dec 31 at 2016 5:36 PM

2016-12-31T17:36:54-05:00

I remember when the decision was made to "outsource" positions on military bases, this included things like maintenance & repair, security, administrative positions. This was done because it appeared to be a waste of a soldier's time to cut the grass etc. Once they put the civil service in charge of the base it then became a life-long position for some. There used to be a headquarter & service company which was supposed to ensure that all the "housekeeping" was done for the company/battalion/regiment/ division etc. (Navy is excepted since it is really different). I don't think anyone ever assessed if the idea really worked, it just became a bad habit. One thing that needs be be recalled into the equation is that the military is not an 8-5, so you do you usual MOS job, and then stand duty etc. Maintenance and repair - we have engineering platoons.
If you look at a navy ship, there are generally no civilians except for miscellaneous contractors who are attending to their very unique and special niche.

Response by SFC George Smith made Dec 31 at 2016 10:50 PM

2016-12-31T22:50:40-05:00

Bill Clinton Hackrd and Slashed the M ilitary has to rely on Contractors to get the jobs done

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Jan 1 at 2017 1:16 AM

2017-01-01T01:16:51-05:00

Well, when I was a shift supervisor in a Jet Engine Intermediate repair shop, the civilian crew produced more engines than all of the military crews. This was because they didn't have to lose personnel to attend hospital, dental, and periodic training appointments. Add to this list all the other "special" tasks such as barracks detail, base clean-up, etc. After I retired, I was hired to manage a private security contract on base. This contract helped relieve an already stretched thin Security Forces Squadron that had numerous people deployed. Currently, civilians provide much needed continuity, experience, and wisdom. Military members PCS and move from position to position in a quest for "career enhancement" opportunities. Civilians allow military members to concentrate on their core competencies. There's more career fields that are support (resembling civilian jobs) than actual strictly military (war fighter) jobs. Having a contractor or civil service employee, who's likely prior military, working back-shops and other support roles, means more military members available for actual military duties.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2017 4:11 AM

2017-01-01T04:11:00-05:00

On my last deployment, I was on an expeditionary assignment with the Marines and everything was ran by SM. Fuelers, food and latrine details. Everything. Things were by far more rough and less comfortable but I loved the fact that it was ran by the military.

I've been on deployments where froeign nationals and KBR did 90% of the heavy work and the NG formations from engineers to fuelers were no where to be seen or found. Things were smoother, but I was annoyed at the fact I know there are guys missing out on deployments, money, and even possible promotions because their MOS's were a "low priority"

Response by SFC David Ocasio made Jan 2 at 2017 5:46 PM

2017-01-02T17:46:36-05:00

No not at all.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jan 8 at 2017 9:39 AM

2017-01-08T09:39:25-05:00

You're going to have more civilians as the Services struggle with tighter manning caps. Best to have more trigger pullers than military barbers. Then the A-76 process got implemented which pushed Civil Service jobs out into the contracting world. So it continues to be an awkward three way prom dance. The Unions, although much weaker now, always cried food was being taken out of babies' mouths if a MIL mowed the lawn. But they could grease the Pols. The Govt missed a larger opportunity when looking at A-76 methods. Civil Service runs as a "Not For Profit". Contractors run for profit. So if the NFP is bloated with pay/benefits, etc. and then layered with nonproductive bureaucracy, then it surpasses the profit delta in cost. Add to that, the rules make it very hard to go back to Civil Service when the contractors get too greedy and the cheaper solution is a Fed. I hate to say it, but when things are Fed, there's a greater part of the workforce making a living wage. Contractors push more towards the poverty line. Prevailing wage means just that; cheap as you can get.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2017 11:07 AM

2017-10-28T11:07:54-04:00

Speaking for my current assignment, civilians are treated like absolute gods here, they can do no wrong. The contractors will work to the bare minimum of what they have to do, and most of the civilians are the same. They will pawn off any extra work they don’t feel like doing onto the military members in the shop because they know that it’s military, we have to do it otherwise we get article 15‘s, sent to disciplinary review board, or worse. Do you contractors for the construction projects on my face, do you take so long to do because The companies know that the longer they take to do the project, the more money they can milk from the military. So with that in mind, we have all these construction Battalion’s that were trying to shut down when intern we can use them to actually do what they’re trying to do instead of running bull crap field training exercises and stuff outside of their job training.

And furthermore coming from a security standpoint, many of the civilian security contractors at work on my base nor will overweight, and have on more than one occasion spoken about not responding to emergent calls, like active shooters. Similarly, many installations can’t run without the civilians. If there’s a full on government shutdown, and I’m in the military is here, this place will be going to Hell faster than anything because projects cannot be met with two minutes ago and is involved as the military stands right now

Response by CPT Andrew L. made Aug 21 at 2018 11:53 PM

2018-08-21T23:53:37-04:00

In regards to physical security and force protection, yes. Trend seems to be many bases are outsourcing law enforcement (particularly gate guards) to civilian contractors. MPs are what the Army trains to provide this service - why are we not utilized more? Law enforcement is the only real specialized skill that MPs provide to the Army. The maneuver support element is sexy and appealing...but it should not be the primary focus of training or resource allocation for the MP Corps. Send Military Policemen through an accredited 800 hr police academy, officially certify them, and utilize them on the road. I'm willing to bet that administrative problems and issues with protecting constitutional rights will decrease drastically. Transitioning between field training and conducting law enforcement on the base on a too consistent basis makes it difficult for MPs to retain their knowledge of law enforcement and cause them to repeat old mistakes, at the cost of their safety and others.