Soldiers to replace contractors for dining, security services. What's your take?

SFC Ricardo Ruiz — Tue, 29 Oct 2013 23:50:02 -0400

Army leaders have approved a plan to put soldiers in base operation roles in place of contractors for up to 18 months,
according to a memo signed by Army Secretary John McHugh and obtained by Army Times.

In the memo, McHugh seeks an exception to policy to assign soldiers or units to work temporarily in “mission critical” roles “both
inside and/or outside their military occupational specialties,” according to the memo to the acting undersecretary of defense.

But at least one Army official disagrees with the plan.

“Non-concur!! Not an appropriate function for soldiers,” reads a note apparently from Army Undersecretary Joseph Westphal in
an attached document.

About 6,000 soldiers “regardless of MOS” will be called on for installation support duties, according to an information paper,
but a source told Army Times the total could be 14,000 soldiers if the assignments are for six months, and potentially 28,000
soldiers if those duties are for three months. The source spoke on condition of anonymity.

The soldiers would be post-initial training in grades of E-1 to E-5.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2013 1:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:21:34 -0400

I think and have thought for a while that this is an outstanding plan actually. I have been to many installations where the services are run by those in Uniform. It makes sense and costs a ton less. There are installations paying contractors more than 20.00 an hour for gate guards, that equates to much more when you look at the contract price itself. Let's not even start on operations in the military where civilian counterparts are involved. I think the cutbacks to military spending would be less severe if we used Cooks for the Dining Facilities and MP's, SP's etc... for installation access.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Oct 30 at 2013 1:29 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Wed, 30 Oct 2013 01:29:55 -0400

About time. KBR has been the biggest hole in defense spending since the invocation of no-bid contracts to support efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.<br>

Response by SFC Ricardo Ruiz made Nov 19 at 2013 12:36 AM

SFC Ricardo Ruiz — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:36:39 -0500

Sure we have our point but this is a major point on the economy for civilians. Not many jobs in the contracting side are as flexible as this king of job.

Response by LTC Jason Bartlett made Nov 19 at 2013 12:41 AM

LTC Jason Bartlett — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 00:41:42 -0500

It's called White Cycle....get ready.

Response by SFC Ricardo Ruiz made Nov 19 at 2013 1:39 AM

SFC Ricardo Ruiz — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 01:39:21 -0500

I just made my last comment on this topic good luck to you all.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:36 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:36:27 -0500

Contracting in general I firmly believe hurts the overall strength of the Armed forces, lets use for example the Intel Analyst position. Active duty Army can't even fill SGT and SSG slots because there is not enough soldiers ready to promote. One big reason if there is a contracting job willing to pay me up to 100K for a year vs what a specialist will bring in overseas est. 45K well thats a no brainer I should take the job and say goodbye to the army and rank structure. Now some will say but that is not for everyone and I agree but. But who usually gets these jobs, the people who are generally the most knowledgeable and experienced. This depletes our military's ability to have experienced and knowledgeable mentors for our junior enlisted and new officers. Another point is that if the Government does not make contracting so enticing then we may retain more soldiers and cut down our turnover rate. Cutting down turnover reduces costs such as training and recruitment. This money could be better spent by the DOD to promote expenditures in the defense industry or heaven forbid give the service members more than a 1% increase in pay per year.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:44 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:44:48 -0500

I think the military needs to be more self-sufficient. If we have Joes that can do the job, and have no other mission (which is becoming more and more the case) then by all means re-purpose them to accomplish the needs of the army. Not only will it save the defense department money, it will also lessen the number of soldiers we loose in the coming years. <br><br>I would love to see DFACs, staff shops and post security mostly handled by soldiers. I consider that the Army handling the Army's business. <br>

Response by CMC Robert Young made Nov 19 at 2013 6:51 AM

CMC Robert Young — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:51:09 -0500

Growing up in an Army family with uncles in the Navy & Air Force, there was a time that all of the military services were far more self sufficient. There were no contractors and very few civilian government employees. Soldiers, Sailors, Airman, Marines, and Coasties took care of base support activities. During my career, we cooked, cleaned, cut grass, painted, etc. in addition to learning and performing our rate (MOS) related duties....a much more efficient and cost effective system. Our recent budget shut down should have make that clear when the "non essential" GS and contract employees were on the base. How many functions ground to a halt because the non essential government employee or contractor wasn't there to perform the job?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 7:33 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 07:33:06 -0500

I personally disagree with this move. While enlisted I was a 14E (Patriot Missile System Operator) and saw stuff like this devastate Soldier proficiency in their jobs. I was fortunate in the fact that my first assignment was 1-43 ADA, Suwon AB, ROK where all we did was train, maintain, and go to the field with very little in additional taskings.

After Suwon, I PCS'd to 3-43 ADA, Fort Bliss, TX, where I was easily the best Patriot Missile System Operator in the whole Brigade because I spent a year doing my job in Korea and the rest of the 14Es had spent their time at Bliss doing everything but their jobs. As a PFC I was a goldmine to the battery I was in and assigned to train the new 2LTs coming out of OBC how to do their jobs.

Fast forward to present day and I'm a 25A Brigade S-6. Since Fort Gordon sends me 25Bs that aren't Security+ certified, I have issues with getting Soldiers admin cards/rights. The BN S-6s have it even worse (the only Security+ certified personnel at the BNs are the S-6 OICs). The main culprit in all of this is the additional tasks the Soldiers and NCOs (trainers) get assigned. There is almost no training continuity here unless I dedicate a disproportionate amount of personnel to the task. This is about to get worse.

This extends beyond 25Bs. As the Army slims down and reduces the manning in my shop, I have little to no depth, and the loss of one Soldier for a day can seriously impact operations...especially in the Signal realm where the unexpected is always happening. I have 8 Enlisted MOS's in my shop, and am one deep in two of them (25Q and 25N...my 25N is clearing)...not counting three others (25E, 25S, 25W) I have completely unfilled. So now I have a WO1 255N who is often doing all things NetOps, along with frequency management. Fortunately he's amazing and I have some awesome 25Bs, 25Ls, and 25Us that can easily step outside of their MOS.

However, if I start losing any more Soldiers to taskings, the second order effects are my ability to crosstrain Soldiers. Other effects are we have Officers covering down on Enlisted jobs (my BN S-6 time I did a ton of 25B stuff which took me away from being a 25A quite often) which kills our ability to plan.

I'm fortunate enough to have a great S-6 section where my we have a lot of depth not because of the MOSs assigned, but because of the focus we put on crosstraining at every single opportunity. I have 25Ls setting up our tactical networking systems, 25Us Security+ certified and doing 25B work. I have 25Bs able to set up and run combat net radio systems, and my warrants (255A and 255N), my automations officer (53A) and I can cover down on a lot of gaps that emerge (can't tell you how many times I'm in troubleshooting FM, TACSAT, or HF; troublshooting network or account problems, or making CAT 5 cables).

So the way I see it, a lot of those repetitive jobs should be contracted out. Make it competitive and let the free market dictate the wage. If one contractor wants to pay people $20 to wash dishes, more often than not someone else will offer less to lower the cost and win the contract. We already have our Soldiers doing a ton of 'other' training (MRT, SHARP/SARC, EO, etc...) that there is little time for basic Soldier skills, let alone MOS specific training.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:11 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:11:09 -0500

sooooooo then no more having everyone sitting around watching the clock playing games and facebooking on their phones waiting until they are released. No more pulling weeds and racking rocks while the civilians inside getting paid twice the wage of a SM are in side doing what Joe who is doing the raking and gardening outside was "trained" to do in AIT? WHAT?! THATS JUST CRAZY!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 9 at 2014 3:42 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:42:58 -0500

It use to be that way before 9/11...makes sense to me...