Posted on Aug 10, 2015
Does the military pay system need to be revised?
5.14K
11
13
2
2
0
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/
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/
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
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)
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)
(3)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - Definitely not what we make. I haven't yet been on a ship but I plan to be if I get the chance, so I can experience just that, what the Navy is. All that we can rely on, with the pay we have, is that Sailors and Marines have pride in themselves for doing what they do as motivation. At least, that's what's pushed me the most so far.
(1)
(0)
SSG Derek Scheller
I can agree with this too a point, however, I also see two issues. The first is as there is little to no discipline now besides paperwork in a lot of the branches this cultural change is what is leading to an entitled society where the new generation thinks that everyone owes them something without them having earned it. The second is that the pay should be increased as that is a big reason I have seen a lot of my peers get out. They loved the military as do I. However, lets just take for instance the field that I love which is Cyber. Those jobs, especially talented cyber security personnel pay over 6 figures a year. I am not saying by any means that military members should necessarily make the same amount but make it more worth it.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG Derek Scheller We're never going to have "directly" comparable pay though. Mainly because we're never going to have "directly" comparable duties. In the 2000s it was Intel & Comm/IT, now it's Cyber. In 2020 it will be some other field. That's why fields have reenlistment bonuses, and structural advancement that compensates for exodus.
But keep in mind we don't make "bad" money (Total Compensation Package) either. After 4 years, we're generally at (or better) than the US Median HOUSEHOLD income. Yes, there are stories of folks at the poverty level (with large numbers of dependents, usually at the lower ranks), but these are generally the exception not the rule.
Having an expectation to make comparable pay, when it many cases we already make greater pay is frankly unrealistic.
But keep in mind we don't make "bad" money (Total Compensation Package) either. After 4 years, we're generally at (or better) than the US Median HOUSEHOLD income. Yes, there are stories of folks at the poverty level (with large numbers of dependents, usually at the lower ranks), but these are generally the exception not the rule.
Having an expectation to make comparable pay, when it many cases we already make greater pay is frankly unrealistic.
(1)
(0)
SSG Derek Scheller
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - I get what they mean by TCP however, even with the change in titles the jobs are comparable. I will say though that if you are lower enlisted your TCP is generally more than what you get on the outside if you are a 25B or some other sig or int MOS. But with the new Cyber field and the jobs that go along with it, if you are truly trained and know what you are doing then it will never be comparable. Unless you are a WO or Officer the payscale is not equal. I will not discount the benefits of the military as I am converting to 25D and just reenlisted for another 4 years to do so. In cybersecurity though even though lowest pay is generally at least 80K on the outside and if you are talented you can and will make over 100K very quickly.
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next