Did you hear that Pentagon Moves Ahead With HQ Staff Cuts?

COL Mikel J. Burroughs — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:53:20 -0400

Did you hear that Pentagon Moves Ahead With HQ Staff Cuts?

RP Members what are your thoughts about these HQ Staff Cuts?

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2015/09/pentagon-moves-ahead-hq-staff-cuts-union-cries-fowl/120518/

With Congress and the White House still at loggerheads over the defense budget, Pentagon personnel strategists are proceeding with a more-severe version of an existing plan for cuts to headquarters staff—angering a major union in the process.

On Aug. 24, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work sent all military departments and services a memo titled “Cost Reduction Targets for Major Headquarters,” ordering preparation for a 25 percent cut in appropriations from 2017-2020 for all major Defense headquarters activities, the Office of the Defense Secretary, the Joint Staff, and the Defense agencies and field activities.

Pentagon Moves Ahead With HQ Staff Cuts

Union says civilian employees will bear the brunt of \"indiscriminate cuts.\"

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 10 at 2015 12:03 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:03:21 -0400

Not surprising COL Mikel J. Burroughs. It happens periodically - inherently government duties shift from more stringent to consulting out every few years and back.
When RIFs occur it is good that headquarters are included. One thing I rarely saw in my many years in the Pentagon was wisdom in staff reductions and thinking through who would do the primary missions of those positions being cut.

Response by SMSgt Tony Barnes made Sep 10 at 2015 12:03 PM

SMSgt Tony Barnes — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:03:56 -0400

Now the generals won't have as many colonels to pour their coffee. :-)

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 12:06 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:06:46 -0400

We are/have been top heavy for quite some times. That doesn't mean I know anything about the specific positions being cut, but I have to think that the talking heads at the pentagon have thought this through. Hopefully it will be a move that can reduce unnecessary bureaucracy as well as costs.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Sep 10 at 2015 12:47 PM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:47:01 -0400

would be ok IF it allows the enlisted ranks to grow, some how under the current administration I dont see that happening

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Sep 10 at 2015 12:52 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:52:11 -0400

If the DoD and other governmental agencies are really worried about costs and layoffs, why not lower the MRA to 50-55? That would give quite a few entrenched workers the option to retire and find work elsewhere if they so deserve, yet allowing the overhead they'd have in the more senior GS ranks to be done away with. I'm not mistaken the MRA is 57 with 30years of federal service. They could also implement voluntary retirements at lower amounts at younger ages and again this would lower the overhead saving DoD and the government money with the higher rank positions done away with or consolidated. When I came in 1994 they were still doing the drawdowns from Desert Storm and was offering early retirements as a means to thin the force and save money. This would be an attractive tool especially in DC where traffic is a BEAR to deal with. And to be honest some of these positions are "clique" based rather than merit. Some flag O has his friends with him and really do nothing other than be a friend with benefits. It happens with other senior GS employee's also. What we don't want or need is to lay these folks off with no means of putting them to work. With this, America becomes their unemployed employer where now they had means of providing for themselves, we're now providing for them with unemployment benefits, welfare, and healthcare. Dumping folks sounds like a really good idea, but dumping the wrong ones, just makes it worse on everyone.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 10 at 2015 1:03 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:03:22 -0400

The strategists should be fired based on performance.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 1:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:21:03 -0400

Maybe this will cut down on the sprawl of meetings, planning cells, and briefings about powerpoint slide redesigns.
A man can hope, right?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 10 at 2015 2:12 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:12:02 -0400

DOD: Army headquarters must cut funding by 25% by Sept. 11
Posted: Aug 21, 2013 2:37 PM EDT
Updated: Aug 22, 2013 1:22 AM EDT

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2015 2:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:18:08 -0400

As much as we all always hate the higher HQ, a 25% reduction means a significant reduction in output also. And that does impact us at lower levels. Especially in terms of having to pick up tasks at lower levels that were being done without needing to see it at lower levels.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Sep 10 at 2015 6:06 PM

MAJ Jim Steven — Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:06:28 -0400

but are they cutting any of the work, or just the people?
rhetorical question...could you imagine owning a small landscaping business, and cutting 25 percent of your employees, but not cutting out ANY of your current customers??

Response by PO1 John Miller made Sep 11 at 2015 2:37 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 11 Sep 2015 02:37:17 -0400

Sure they can cut their HQ staff, if the White House and Congress will agree to do the same!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 14 at 2015 9:56 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 09:56:24 -0400

More war fighters and fewer paper pushers works for me

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 15 at 2015 8:58 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 08:58:58 -0400

Not much faith in any real change reading language like "uniformly applied to headquarters elements throughout the department.” What we need is a wholesale clearing of all stars. There needs to be a return to the Title 10 General Officer limits and not allow the services to continue to hide stars in "non-General Officer billets" We have way too many staffs out there and every time a service "reorganizes" a staff to "rebalance internally to prioritize spending on combat power." That is code for lets add two more Flag Officers and an SES that way they can change the uniforms again.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Sep 15 at 2015 10:42 PM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 22:42:01 -0400

More of the current Administrations move to obtain funding for other pet projects will backfire.