Should the military start cutting the civilians during this downsizing?

SPC Daniel Edwards — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:13:21 -0400

This downsizing is getting ridiculous. The Pentagon has no problem cutting the military's legs out, saying that we are the reason so much money is being wasted. But what about the civilians? They get paid enormous amounts of money to do exactly the same job as us, but don't have to be to the same standards. Case in point: while I was deployed, a construction worker with a company on my COP made roughly 9 1/2 times more than my base pay, was unequiped, unarmed, and not trained as we were. He was the lowest paid guy there, too. If we got over ran, I would have to risk my life to save his because he had no weapons to defend himself with. Thoughts?

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Apr 1 at 2014 1:13 PM

LTC Jason Strickland — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:13:45 -0400

Daniel, you make a good case. It's difficult to see the civilians make more to do nearly the same duties. I believe the cuts within the DOD should be proportional to the population of service members and civilians. I think that would be much more equitable.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 3:14 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:14:03 -0400

Another good example is the civilian gate gaurds that provide security for the installations... Go back to detailed soldiers. There are several civilian jobs that could be eliminated to save money.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 1 at 2014 3:16 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:16:32 -0400

Good god no. Military personnel are rotated out of positions very quickly. As a general rule, by the time we acheive a modicum of competence, it's time to PCS. Civilians provide the continuity that keeps things running. If I had to choose between losing civilains or military personnel, I'd shed Soldiers. Those are a dime a dozen, but the civilians often have decades of experience, and the mission WILL fail without them...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 7:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:24:12 -0400

I agree that us green suitors do get rotated out of positions quickly especially those that are Non-MOS specific however I feel that civilians offer us a crutch in garrison that we rely on far too much. In theater we rotate out and conduct left seat right seat rides to ensure continuity. Checks and balances to ensure that the mission does not fail when we leave. I feel that if we provide that same fervor, zeal and tenacity towards out garrison mission then the mission would not fail nor would the lessons learned leave when we do.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 6:06 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 06:06:03 -0400

Here comes the heat... My opinion is, before they start cutting a Soldier that the Army and American people put time and money into for training, lodging, food, clothing, education, ect. that they should cut civilians. My personal opinion is that we dont need 75 percent of the civilian force that we have. Also, why would they cut Soldiers to save money? Civilians make much more money than we do, especially deployed civilians. Also, many civilians are rude and are not eager to help so I tell them if it werent for Soldiers then you wouldnt even have a job. So to answer your question, YES cut the civilians. Thank you for your time.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 12:24 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:24:52 -0400

The cuts are already being done on the civilian side. Depending on where you are and what you do they are more apparent. Make sure you consider all of the benefits when you are comparing salaries. One may have a larger base pay, but less in the way of benefits and allowances. I have worked both sides now and I am not so concerned on pay equality. As has been mentioned elsewhere; we are the continuity in many offices and cannot be replaced with active rotational members.

Response by SFC Thomas Butler made Apr 6 at 2014 12:16 PM

SFC Thomas Butler — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 12:16:51 -0400

Are you sure that "construction worker" was a DoD civilian and not a contractor? I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was a contractor.

Response by MSG Jose Colon made Apr 6 at 2014 1:37 PM

MSG Jose Colon — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:37:05 -0400

The gravy train for contracts in the military is over. Department of State, however is a different thing all together.

There are not that many DA Civilians in a deployed environment, and, while DA Civilians pay seem inordinate high by most standards, the deductions, requirements, and other bureaucratic stuff reduces DA Civilians pay to that of a comparable military person.

Something else that is not considered, is that base pay is not what a Soldier makes. Just add BAQ, BAS and medical and dental for you and your dependents and it throws you out there with the dreaded civilians that people like to talk about.

Contractors are also in constant fear of not having a job a few months down the road. That is no way to live.

I am speaking because I did 27 years of active service and 5 deployments. Now, I am a civilian.

In my many deployments I saw an attitude toward civilians that made me think. High leadership sometimes hate civilians, but, unless there is a 100% 180 degree change in policy and our forces are boosted by about 60%, DA Civilians are and will be needed. Those same people that criticize civilians, will be just that in a few years.

Right now, DA Civilian positions are being cut and more are scrutinized for reduction in the upcoming years. Reduction by attrition is also the reality of the Civilian life style.

Not carrying a weapon in the battlefield is also a command decision. I am pretty sure that most of those old civilians who have being former military would like nothing more than to be allowed to carry a weapon and ammo to help defend the FOB/COB. I know I would.

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Apr 6 at 2014 4:42 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:42:33 -0400

Absolutely, I am a firm believer that more money is spent on civilian GS employees than what would be spent if they were to be replaced by Soldiers. Not to mention how many of the civilians have forgotten their purpose to provide support to the Soldier, recently I have noticed this attitude that they feel we are here for them. I pay no homage to a GS employee, nor do I answer or report to them. If the time come that I am required to answer to them, I will quickly request separation from the Service.

Response by Sgt Vance Bonds made Apr 6 at 2014 10:54 PM

Sgt Vance Bonds — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:54:53 -0400

There is a huge difference between a GS 7 and a contractor. A GS7 or 9 (CIvil Service) Doersn't make anywhere near that kind of money, and that is the average Civil Service Civilian position. Contractors however, I must agree. 45+ an hour isn't a high estimate. A GS 9 starts at about $41,000 a year and on average is a Veteran or a Spouse of a Veteran or Military member. After 20 Years they "Step Out" (Top of that pay scale and make approximately $54,000 a year. People get confused when we say civilian. I never mean Civil Service when I use the term, but Contractor. They are out of hand with the money, 100% free health care, by contract paid for by you and me, and the unions on my Home Station even have influence into the Federal System.

If you are talking about contractors I have your back. They are under trained, over paid and the owners are getting HUGE amounts of money. I could hire 3 Civil Service for the price of One contractor. Of course Civil Service can't make the Huge gift and money donations that others can.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 10:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:58:33 -0400

Yes! I really don't understand why we have civilians for certain things. My husband works with some civilians and some (not all) don't do their job. He does. Save the money and cut some of their jobs!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 3 at 2014 3:59 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 03:59:12 -0400

The civilian pay is fairly similar compared to ours (on active duty) for the most part. The exception is those that are overseas. Those construction crewmen were probably in a union and, on top of that, they are paid extremely well to compensate for them being civilians in a war zone. A friend of mine was Security Forces in the Air Force and went back to Afghanistan after he ETSd with a security contractor. He made close to $50,000 in 6 months. It is ridiculous but I don't blame him. He stayed at Bagram the whole time, too. As for CONUS civilians, get rid of them and stop cutting our numbers, IMO.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2014 5:56 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:56:55 -0400

I totally agree, im new in the army, but have been affiliated all my life. I now work in a hospital as a lab tech. Im sure most people notice that there are usually more civilians than military personell. While i agree they get overpaid, most dont get all the benefits we do.. But yes overpaid. What really kills me though about this is to your point that we have military for these jobs, this is an example. I know tons of lab techs who are in motor pools/caches. They just clean an do busy work all day everyday. So the army is paying them to clean(and lose their technical skills), and then paying a civilian to do the job that they paid a SM to get trained and get a degree.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Oct 19 at 2014 1:22 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Sun, 19 Oct 2014 13:22:25 -0400

The reason that there are so many civilians is because when the draft ended there were not enough volunteers. Most of the jobs that DACs do were once done by soldiers. Yes, we had some DACs, bu not a whole bunch. There were MPs, not civilian police officers, quarters were run by military, finance was run by military, mess halls had all military, area beautification was done by the military, post buses and taxis were driven by military, Open messes and closed messes were run by the military, DECA was mostly a military operation, medical care was done by the military, and on and on. If more troops are cut more DACs will have to be hired to take up the slack.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Mar 3 at 2015 11:06 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:06:58 -0500

Couple points
- you have to differentiate between contractors and government employees.
- contractors are paid somewhat higher for a short duration task. They bear no long term cost to the government.
- contracts in general are being drawn down and reduced.
- the only reason a soldier is not doing that job is because since the end of WWII support force structure has been drawn down and cashed in to save combat arms billets. The most dramatic in recent history has been the post ODS draw down from 18 Divisions to 10. What is swept under the rug is the EAD logistics and engineering functions drawn down disproportionately (much of those functions resides at EAD). We are about to see more if we head to 420K on active duty. The nation elected to depend on contracts vice force structure. Contracts do not count against force caps, joes do.
- DOD civilians are being reduced as well, mostly at HQ levels and the Pentagon, but installations are also taking 10-15% cuts year on year for the last decade. The low hanging fruit is gone. We are into hard choices about what we do and do not do.
- contractors being armed is legally dicey. There are some, most actually worked for DOS in Iraq. There is a ragged line between armed private military contractors and mercenaries, prosecuted under the Geneva Convention. The Theater Commander may arm contractors, that has not happened. Do you really want some yahoo not subject to UCMJ engaging will nilly inside the wire? BLUF: being armed is not in their statement of work. The USG has elected to underwrite that with our forces providing security. OBTW , contractors with their own security significantly drives up the price (and their pay).

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 11:17 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:17:30 -0500

SPC Daniel Edwards you talking about contractors? I know DA civilians would argue that they get paid less than the green suiters. I think as we decrease military size we will need more contractors to cover down on our vacancies. There are however other civilian positions (DA civilian or MILTECHs) that may be paid less, however are not 24/7 like green suitors. So do you get rid of all of them and make them all green suiters? Their union would have a say in that. I do believe though at in the AC they are decreasing those slots as well as the green suiters.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 3 at 2015 11:23 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 23:23:19 -0500

I am no expert on Government Civilians, but I was in the Army for a good bit, and served as a Garrison Commander (2009-2012) for Large Garrison (the largest category), with a staff of over 3000, mostly civilians. During that time, the Army was gutting the civilian work force, both GS and contractor, and this continues today. Many of our organizations lost 25-50% of their required work force forever; that is they took 25% percent or more in cuts. Contractors, took even deeper cuts.

The Army has many more civilian employees than Soldiers, and that workforce is sized to support the active duty force. As the active duty force reduces, so too does the DOD civilian workforce, and most time in much larger numbers than the Soldiers.