Trade soldiers for civilians?

CPT Eric Diaz — Sat, 12 Jul 2014 20:04:00 -0400

http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140709/NEWS05/307090063/CBO-Save-19B-by-replacing-70K-troops-civilians

My experience with this concept has been mixed. The math may work out but in the short term it appears that the cost is very high. When we are paying Intel and security six figure salaries for 6 months of work, I can't see how it's cheaper. At least that's my experience during my deployments.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 12:18 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:18:39 -0400

I think this is becoming an increasing problem of interest especially in light of the troop draw down/RIF of all the services. My personal opinion includes what you noted Capt Diaz, in that is is expensive to hire and train both contracted and GS civilians. As a nurse manager, I had to sign/approve the contract nurses time sheets. We were paying the contract agency double the amount of what the contract nurses were getting paid. That's a huge profit at the tax payers expense! Secondly, we are potentially taking a position away from an active duty member who could gain valuable training and experience by working in the same capacity. On the flip side, how do we man the short staffed duty stations when the military members are deployed? Often times the civilians help hold "hold the fort down" so to speak. I have no idea as to what the solution may be. I do know from personal experience, that I have seen many active duty members who were months from retirement, convert their job position into a GS or contract slot, and then promptly move into that slot right after they retired.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Jul 13 at 2014 12:30 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 12:30:00 -0400

CPT Eric Diaz there really are benefits and drawbacks for having contractors on the payroll.

Some long term cost's for having us (Soldiers) include medical liabilities and retirement options for Soldiers. A benefit is that we (Soldiers) get the mission done regardless of the hours required or the difficulty - especially if we have lives that depend on us completing the mission.

Its been my experience that contractors must have their own insurance and any type of retirement is based solely on the company they work for and many times it comes in the form of a 401K program or bonus oriented compensation. The advantage is that once they complete the work, we can move on to something else as SFC Chris Smith indicated and owe them nothing else.

Response by PO2 Christopher Morehouse made Jul 13 at 2014 6:28 PM

PO2 Christopher Morehouse — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:28:00 -0400

In the Navy, there has been an increasing use of civilian contractors for major ship repairs. Often, we would be told to wait until refit or fly out an civilian expert to do the work for us. When combined with a decrease in the level of technical ability in the pertinent rates, I have often wondered how a ship would fair in battle conditions. I look at the extensive damage ships received during WWII, and I cringe at the thought of our ability to cope with such damage today.

In peacetime, it may be cost effective to use civilians, but if they are doing work that a service member would have to do in war time, then we are robbing our forces of valuable experience that could be useful in the future.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2014 6:54 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:54:18 -0400

Gents
As a retiree I've seen both sides. As AD in Iraq during the First Gulf war - there was a lot that was accomplished, but we really relied upon military support a great deal. The final evaluation was basically: the military did what was asked of it, but the cost was prohibitive. Forward a few years later and we find ourselves back in Iraq. After I retired, I ended up back in Iraq....and found myself, a sailor, working on Army and Marine Corps equipment. There was no training of our civilian staff - period. If it was discovered you didn't know how to do the job - you got shipped home on the next plane screaming off the runway - there was no second chance. There was no support by the military for much of anything in regards our creature comforts. The military was free to do what the military is good at: putting rounds on target. We civilians pitched our own tents, installed our own generators, wiring, etc on our off time and worked on the military gear during the day. We crapped in shitters we dug, we showered using the same water everyone else had - and when there was no water for showers....we stank just like everyone else. We sucked the same sand down just as the military did, ate the same MRE's.

So, what is it that you pay for? You pay for a certain skillset. You pay for that man/woman to be damned close to an expert in whatever they are doing. There's no training, if you don't know it, you don't belong out there. When that skillset is no longer needed - you (the military) cut that skillset loose - your costs stops immediately. There is no retirement, no VA costs, no hospital rehab. There's no fanfare, there are no ceremonies, there's no acknowlegement of a job well done, there are no medals, no ceremonies, no escorts for those wounded or killed.

Now, are there civilians that require and get training? I never met anyone in that arena - I'm betting it's task specific. For any of the contracts I worked on - there was no training, ojt or otherwise by the military.

Response by SSG Daniel Miller made Jul 14 at 2014 3:17 PM

SSG Daniel Miller — Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:17:52 -0400

With the downsizing of the force, all of the ousted senior NCOs and officers need somewhere to go. The Army, in particular, has never batted an eye at paying a civilian up to 3 times what a Soldier would get for the same job (with less control over the "employee"), so don't expect that to change anytime soon.