Posted on Jun 25, 2015
Have the standards for unit footprints and post areas gone down?
3.46K
4
4
1
1
0
Is it just me or have the standards for unit footprints and post areas has gone down? It seems ever since the contracts to mow and up keep the areas there are places that look abandoned.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
1SG Alan Bailey
The appearance of most posts/camps/stations/bases have definitely taken a hit because of budget constraints. Most no longer use service member labor to "beautify" the common areas and, instead, use civilian employees or contractors to maintain the bases. With the limited funds available, this was one of the easy targets for cuts.
While civilians probably maintained portions of or all of "unit areas" in some places, and may have been cut, there is no good excuse for them not being kept to high standards, although I assume some may be wary of union complaints from civilian employee unions if they see it as soldiers doing their jobs.
The appearance of most posts/camps/stations/bases have definitely taken a hit because of budget constraints. Most no longer use service member labor to "beautify" the common areas and, instead, use civilian employees or contractors to maintain the bases. With the limited funds available, this was one of the easy targets for cuts.
While civilians probably maintained portions of or all of "unit areas" in some places, and may have been cut, there is no good excuse for them not being kept to high standards, although I assume some may be wary of union complaints from civilian employee unions if they see it as soldiers doing their jobs.
(0)
(0)
1SG Alan Bailey I guess we have to go back to the good old days when I was a private and I had to mow and clean up the company and battalion areas the old fashion way. I thought that built character and it didn't cost the taxpayers a contract. What have we come too!
(0)
(0)
1SG Alan Bailey
I agree 100% Sir, I mowed alot of grass for Uncle Sam, there are alot of areas on the post here that really look bad and go that way for way to long.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next