Does the military pay system need to be revised?

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 01:42:59 -0400

An interesting article discusses many possibilities such as different pay scales for in demand specialties, bonuses for performance and more.

Is this needed or will revising the system break it?

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/allowances/2015/08/07/force-future-pay-tables-reform/31226597/

New military pay tables, performance bonuses in play

The ambitions effort to overhaul the military personnel system underway inside the Pentagon could result in big changes to the way troops are paid,

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 10 at 2015 2:07 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 02:07:09 -0400

Always. We expect so much of these people and just galls me when I hear they are on Foodstamps. They will never get paid what they are worth but let's pay them more.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 10 at 2015 6:39 AM

LTC John Shaw — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:39:47 -0400

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member This article is more than the pay system, it speaks to career management and promotion timelines. We need to extend the amount of time officers and enlisted spend in lower ranks to gain responsiblity and experience gradually. The pay ranges for specialized fields will always be lower than market, some flexibility is needed than using a generalized pay scale.
If people spend longer at lower ranks, the pay ranges at the lower level need to improve.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 10 at 2015 6:53 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 06:53:56 -0400

Most likely yes. It is antiquated

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 10 at 2015 7:02 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 07:02:00 -0400

Honestly, they're approaching it from the wrong angle.

Although though pay IS important, to the point of essential, is it really the deciding factor for someone getting out? And more importantly, do you want to "bribe" someone to stay in? We're incentivizing the wrong style of behavior (and I had one of those VERY large reenlistment bonuses).

There's a certain point where you aren't going to be any be happier because of income (about $75k), assuming your bills are covered. So it boils down to job satisfaction.

The military is rather unique because we don't have a traditional 9-5 job. We're on call 24/7. We put up with A LOT of crap, especially at the lower ranks, where retention is more of an issue, and quite honestly we "abuse" the hell out of our younger folks. I'm not saying we don't treat them good, we do. But we also put them through some of the stupidest things imaginable, which are just active deterrents to staying in. That's not a "pay & benefits" issue. That's a Morale & Welfare issue. And this is coming from some who LOVED being in the Service. Who thought the BS was worth it.

Now imagine you have a 22 year old E3 with a College degree, who we have highly trained in their field, and one of the first things we do is "Alright, I need you outside painting those rocks, and mowing that lawn." And when he picks up a bit of rank he can supervise those E3s... Sure things have to get done. We all know that, and not all of them are pleasant, and quite a lot of them are just down right stupid, but when you start thinking about re-upping... those things start going on the one side of the scale, along with "I had to do it when I was a troop, so you have to do it now."

I'm a firm believer that people should stay in because they enjoy it. Because they and the military can both benefit from their presence. Almost all of the proposals I have seen over the last 20 years have either been monetary, school, or duty station based. No one is really trying to correct the underlying "cultural" reason of why people are getting out.

I pose this question.

"Shouldn't we have just as many people trying to re-enlist as enlist? Shouldn't being in be such a GOOD experience that people want to stay in, and never leave?"

It's like 60% of our force that is first termers (E4 and below). Think about that attrition rate.

Edit: Word correction (Allow to Although)

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Aug 10 at 2015 8:50 AM

SPC Robert Patrick — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:50:43 -0400

Honestly I think it does need to change. There are some jobs that do require a lot more than others in the Army. We already base the jobs that are eligible to a service member based on their test scores why shouldn't an individual in a job that requires those higher scores and skills not get paid more than one that requires less. That is not to degrade other positions in the Military because they are necessary for a successful operation. Our intel and comms fields are two of the areas where they are required to have a lot of knowledge but do not get paid what they are worth. You have a lot of the jobs in the military that are high skill requirements it is harder to get promoted in because their branch is "at capacity for that job skill identifier" yet you have organizations that are underpowered for those MOS's that they require.

Better pay incentives can result in better performance especially if the Military starts giving these incentives based on job performance. It should not be oh you got a 300 pt score and you shoot 40/40 you get the pay incentive over this individual who exceeds the standard and runs circles around you in your field of expertise.

As long as individuals are meeting/exceeding the basic standards for military service all should be looked at based on their performance in their MOS alone.

Overall military pay needs to be increased in general across the board. Maxed out points in fields where they are above strength is limiting individuals who are getting promoted and forcing some who have more knowledge than some of their seniors (notice I said some not all) in their field, to get left behind. (This is more of an issue in the Army than in other branches I believe because they do not require a test for knowledge in the Army to get promoted).

The Military can still weed out the bad eggs and keep those with potential and hard chargers. But we can start seeing even higher quality of Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen over all because all these individuals will be competing with each other to be the best in their section/unit.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 16 at 2015 6:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 06:43:37 -0400

From a Career Counselor perspective I think this would be a great idea. Right now the Army is paying every Soldier the same base pay for each rank but the Army is not receiving the caliber of work and contribution from each Soldier for each rank. For instance, there are 42 Staff Sergeants that work in a battalion. Only 10 to 15 of them pull their weight in the battalion, while others are doing absolutely nothing. I hate to admit it but I see it everyday in all ranks and this course of action will allow the Army to cut back more spending if they decrease the pay of those who are not interested in exceeding their level of competence in their MOS's while others work harder and validate their presence in our organization. However, this mentality will only work in a time of downsizing and in a garrison like environment not in combat. The traditional pay system needs to be revisited since we are doing more with less resources than ever before.

Response by SGM Omer Dalton made May 7 at 2020 8:18 PM

SGM Omer Dalton — Thu, 07 May 2020 20:18:28 -0400

A lot has happened since I retired in 1982 and went back to work for the Army for another 22 years. The pay scale has changed often since I retired but I don’t feel it has been sufficient to offset the opsec. Frequent deployment and duty station changes takes a toll on family and finances. There should some more compensation to offset that and longer time on station. Some MOSs are more demanding than others and in more demand. These should be paid more. I realize that there has to be an uniform pay scale otherwise the system would drown in such complexity. In my early years there was something called proficiency pay over and above other pay and allowances. It wasn’t really that much at the time but it could be reinstated and provide a means to pay certain skills according to their contribution to the total Army.