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?
Posted >1 y ago
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.
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.
Read This Next