Should more pay be given to Commanders & First Sergeants?

2015-06-08T09:28:21-04:00

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jun 8 at 2015 9:32 AM

2015-06-08T09:32:19-04:00

I'm going to go out on there and say No. Sometimes more responsibility doesn't mean more pay. Sometimes you just have to take the position regardless of any personal gain. Sure the 1SG and CDR work well past the time the rest of the company is present but that is what comes with being in those roles.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 8 at 2015 9:33 AM

2015-06-08T09:33:06-04:00

While there never seems to be a shortage of soldiers wanting these positions, especially in the Guard, a professional stipend as a commander/1SG would be enticing for all the additional required time and duties that go into company command and administration. They do it for doctors and lawyers.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jun 8 at 2015 9:39 AM

2015-06-08T09:39:13-04:00

Air Force Commanders also get more pay. It is a small amount, intended to cover costs of unit events, challenge coins, buying tickets for young enlisted troops to attend events they may not be able to afford, & etc. As a commander, I made sure to use my allowance for these "commander costs", and not for myself.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 8 at 2015 9:51 AM

2015-06-08T09:51:22-04:00

Don't know about Commanders .. but 1SGs definitely don't get paid enough!

Response by SrA Johnathan Kropke made Jun 8 at 2015 9:55 AM

2015-06-08T09:55:33-04:00

I thought both of these jobs were already special duty and received additional pay already.

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Jun 8 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-06-08T10:41:40-04:00

Yes they should (and in the AF do), but it should be quite a bit more. Having done fill in shirt duty, I had to attend the qtrly awards breakfast and ALS graduation. Just these two events take up a big chunk of of the $150 a month that is provided. Tack on the "landing fees" or annual dues for Top 3 membership, First Sgt Council membership, the typical "pass the hat" etc. that that "extra pay" is quickly in to the negative.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Jun 8 at 2015 11:03 AM

2015-06-08T11:03:35-04:00

Everyone should

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Jun 8 at 2015 11:12 AM

2015-06-08T11:12:25-04:00

In my opinion, no. Financial concerns shouldn't be a reason to seek, attain, and/or keep major leadership positions, nor to reward those in key leadership positions. If there are legitimate costs associated with being in those positions (as mentioned by some other posters on this thread), then a reasonable budget, with appropriate controls on expenditures, should be provided.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jun 8 at 2015 12:27 PM

2015-06-08T12:27:19-04:00

Simply put, rank/grade already denotes scope of responsibility, and we are compensated as such. Being a Commander/Senior Enlisted Adviser is not outside of that scope of responsibility, therefore why should it result in additional compensation?

As an example, A Lieutenant is a Platoon Commander. Does he deserve more compensation for being a Commander? What about a Captain who is a Company Commander? We have Majors (Senior Capt/Junior Major) who act as Weapons Company Commanders. Do they need additional compensation, when they are already being billeted as a higher rank, with higher pay?

Now I come from the USMC side where First Sergeants/Sergeants Major is a distinct rank from from the MOS track, so I look at it as "taking one hat off" and putting another on. You give up one set of responsibilities (MOS specific) when you assume command responsibilities. That in theory should even things out compensation wise.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 8 at 2015 12:51 PM

2015-06-08T12:51:45-04:00

I just finished up a rotation as a Company XO.

That company was the largest maintenance company in PA, with over 250 Soldiers. (257, last I counted, but, things were always 'in flux')

Though more Soldiers doesn't necessarily mean more problems/challenges, (and, less Soldier doesn't necessarily mean less problems/challenges) there does seem to be a huge difference between sheer number of Soldiers that fall under certain commanders.

Even Wikipedia defines a company as a "military unit, consisting of 80-250 Soldiers...."

One could be a detachment commander--counting towards command time, as far as I understand--with 80 (or less) Soldiers.

....Personally, I wouldn't have been opposed to my commander receiving extra compensation, considering the additional duties/responsibilities inherent in managing of company of over 250 Soldiers. I know not everything is 'fair' in the military, but it does seem interesting that a commander of a unit 3 to 4 times the size (number of personnel) of a different unit, would reap the "same" compensation. (Granted, if you take into account years of service--prior enlisted service--a CPT, with 15+ years of service, in command of an 80 person detachment could actually be making significantly more than a CPT, with 6 years of service commissioned strait out of ROTC with no prior-service, who is in command of a 250+ person company.)

So, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Response by SSgt Tim Ricci made Jun 8 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-06-08T18:51:13-04:00

I think an E-10 Grade is in Order but only if you work for an O-10

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2015 8:06 PM

2015-07-07T20:06:45-04:00

No, not that I would have returned the money if it was offered.

I'd rather see proficiency pay given to soldiers (especially in the lower grades) for important skills that the unit needs. (Linguists, computer specialists, master gunners, whatever skills are hard to maintain without additional hard work.)