Less civilians working in the military?

I do feel like this is the case. Coming from the National Guard, I saw that security jobs were contracted out on the NG Base that my unit was at. These gentlemen were nothing but courteous, however, I feel that the same jobs could be given to MPs put on AD orders at a lesser cost to the military. If we, as a military force, are trained to operate independently, then why, when we are not creating active duty positions for soldiers who struggle to find employment?

1LT L S

This question was posted about a year ago, but I'd like to try to give it some traction. I heard this objection occasionally when I was an Army Civilian and when I worked for a Government contractor.

It's a leadership issue. Commanders and civilian supervisors should clearly spell out the duties of military and civilian employees in the unit. Nobody should believe they are redundant or being cut out of opportunities to contribute because they are military or civilian. Inexperienced military personnel should expect more experienced civilian workers to provide them tools and techniques that can help them do the job well. In addition the civilians should provide a measure of continuity for the unit.

The ostensible purpose of government civilians working for the Services is to free up military personnel to do their assigned duties, focus on warfighting, and provide professional and technical capabilities not available in the military workforce. I know there are some units where military and civilian employees do similar jobs every day. Experience is often the big difference. For example a civilian transportation specialist might work at a Transportation Battalion for 10 years while their military counterpart might be there for only a couple of years and then be off to an overseas tour or deployment. If the military person came back to the same unit, they probably would find the same transportation specialist there dong the same job providing a degree of continuity not possible with military personnel. In the Army manpower system, military and civilian billets don't appear to be interchangeable. They are managed separately and funded differently. As an example of professional capability, I was a GS-14 Lean Six Sigma program manager. I brought special skills and knowledge to the job; there weren't any Army LTCs I ran across who were as qualified to do my job as I was.

There are many areas where only military personnel have the training and experience necessary to do the job. This is very true in Combat Arms, especially in leadership positions. Also, some higher headquarters jobs need to be filled with military personnel with requisite experience. For example the "three" in a combat service or combat service support headquarters (SDDC, JMC, AMC, etc.) needs to be a military officer to provide the appropriate operational context to decision making.

I don't think military employees are less expensive than civilian employees at the equivalent grade. The pay and benefits are similar when the total cost, not just salary, are counted. Additionally, the turnover in military personnel increases their total cost because of the need to train each new military person every time somebody goes PCS. Civilians tend to stay in one location and job for a longer time and require less training over the years. Yes, if you have a GS-11 doing the job that a SPC could do, then there is a cost difference. But you need to look at why there's a GS-11 authorization for that job in the first place. This may be a manpower issue not just a cost issue. Or it may be a leadership issue and the GS-11 shouldn't be doing that job at all, but it was originally intended for as GS-05.