0
0
0
Recently I've found myself getting a little irritated at a few situations, the army keeps downsizing it's troops and talking about funding but from what I've seen the army spends way more on contractors in areas I don't understand. For example. The army wants to get rid of all these soldiers to make itself more affordable but they don't even flinch to pay a civilian light vehicle mechanic 90k at fort Irwin for a Monday thru Friday job. Or to move equipment from home base to a training exercise it cost my unit upwards of $16k to move 1 sensitive item conex. I'm an 88M transporter with a secret clearance that the army is gonna pay anyways. Why couldn't the army spend an easy 800 bucks on fuel and have my squad move our own conex. I only know about the transportation piece. What are your thought or experiences?
Posted in these groups: 
Downsizing
Contractors
Downsizing Contractors
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
4
4
0
Contractors are easier to remove when not needed and they do not need to pay them benefits.
A CPT such as myself, all benefits included, will likely cost more than a contractor doing the same position in many situations. The rate that the contractor is being paid is generally what the company is charging for a trained employee who then has to afford them benefits at the cost of the contracting company. Many times it is oddly cheaper.
I don't like it, but that was how it was at least explained to me.
A CPT such as myself, all benefits included, will likely cost more than a contractor doing the same position in many situations. The rate that the contractor is being paid is generally what the company is charging for a trained employee who then has to afford them benefits at the cost of the contracting company. Many times it is oddly cheaper.
I don't like it, but that was how it was at least explained to me.
(4)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
That, and that contractors don't count against Congressional end strengths. This allows you to change over those non-CA slots that you would have previously needed over to CA without the loss of support functions. Potentially allows you to skew your tooth-to-tail ratio in favor of trigger pullers.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
There is also a lot of politics, you don't think all those retired Generals and Admirals on the boards of big contracting companies are there because they refuse to use their connections and influence for profit?
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
While the government was playing shutdown and keeping their employees from working, contractors, including myself, was manning the fort. Our hands wasn't tied up in the political games. Contractor helps provide stability, which is odd considering your position as a contractor is FAR from stable. You can be let go or fired at any time.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
This may be an unpopular comment, but contractors ultimately provide continuity. SM surge and deploy, but the contract force maintains SME support and maintain the ability for our forces to concentrate on the bigger picture.
That said, I KNOW the very contractors that I have Government oversight over easily make more income than I do...but I value their support.
That said, I KNOW the very contractors that I have Government oversight over easily make more income than I do...but I value their support.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
That is the case quite often, that over the years contractors are the ones with the most experience and the ones who provide continuity. That said, that is not how we should be used. The role you describe would best be filled by DA civilians, the role contractors should be filling are temporary ones where we offer greater flexibility.
IMO, one reason we have to pay more for contractors is that contracting companies have considerable political influence and no one is a big fan of government unions.
IMO, one reason we have to pay more for contractors is that contracting companies have considerable political influence and no one is a big fan of government unions.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I have not had good experiences with contractors. Ones I have dealt with are prior military and hide behind their union and gripe about working instead of doing work. I prefer to have the military so that I know the one that has my back knows what they are doing and not trained because a contractor does that job...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
First you must understand WHY we have to cut troops. 1) The number of troops on the rolls is determined by Congress and fall under any caps that Congress sets. Contractors do not fall under Congressional caps. 2) when you are operating under a cap, you need to optimize your force to lean heavily towards teeth than tail (and if you need green suit tail, just enough for any immediate deployment needs). Contractors can do CSS and some CS role, but (generally) cannot do CA roles. And usually do them better as they are likely former SMs themselves with years of experience. Why waste a potential trigger puller on a job that a contractor can accomplish. 3) you dont owe contractors any long term benefits like you do with SMs. Nor do you pay them for housing, food, PCS, etc.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google