Should we do away with enlistment bonuses, allowing high-quality, effective service members to be entitled bonuses to continue serving?

2017-11-01T20:46:09-04:00

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2017 9:00 PM

2017-11-01T21:00:43-04:00

Bonuses are put in place to better attract high quality initial enlistments, which is a challenge. Recruiting -barely- makes mission, -barely- brings in (Active) or simply does not bring in (Reserve) enough new enlistments. So, we need to throw more money at it.

This is not a problem for Retention. We hit retention marks consistently, to the point where the Army was kicking people out against their wishes not too long ago. Why give people money we don't need to, when they'll stay in anyway?

High quality initial enlistees tend to re-enlist and stay in longer, well shown over the years.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Nov 1 at 2017 11:58 PM

2017-11-01T23:58:02-04:00

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member The standard Reenlistment bonus is a good thing. Special bonuses are for hard to retain specialities

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Nov 2 at 2017 7:36 AM

2017-11-02T07:36:04-04:00

I don't think so. It's all based on supply and demand. We have problems attracting new troops, so enlistment bonuses draw them onto the team. We don't have as many problems keeping troops on the team, so we don't have as many re-enlistment/retention bonuses. We do in select fields where we have needs, but not everywhere. Enlistment and retention bonuses are tools to shape the force, not to reward the force. That's what promotions, longevity increases, awards, etc., are designed to accomplish. Different HR tools for different purposes.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 2 at 2017 9:37 AM

2017-11-02T09:37:14-04:00

Any bonus is a business decision. Do you pay say 5% of what it costs to train up a new body to keep an existing one for a few more years? Makes sense if the asset is worthwhile. It's wasted when that asset should be canned. I remember the Seabees once had a subspecialty in water well drilling. The Navy paid extra to keep the few in, and they knew it. Some essentially became RADs (Retired on Active Duty). In that case, a bad business decision. Other bonuses reflect the competition from the commercial sector. Seabees who are qualified high voltage electricians can make much more on the outside vs. inside, bonuses included. Those that stay aren't doing it solely for the money.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 6 at 2019 4:33 PM

2019-09-06T16:33:39-04:00

Well sir. I've noticed in my short time in the army that those soldiers who get their enlistment bonuses tend to want to stand in because they're motivated to keep going. If not for their own reasons to motivate them, money always helps.

Response by SN Mike Duffy made Jan 25 at 2020 6:59 PM

2020-01-25T18:59:25-05:00

They've done away with the "old sweat". Nobody retires as an E-5 anymore.
It's not exactly fair to the type. Not everyone can cut it as an administrator.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jan 18 at 2021 6:36 AM

2021-01-18T06:36:57-05:00

Enlistment bonuses draw more applicants, the more applicants the higher quality to select from. The days of joining because the judge orders it are so long gone. Even when I was in, mid 70s the amount of Marines with some college was pretty amazing, I’m sure it’s more now.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jan 7 at 2022 7:18 PM

2022-01-07T19:18:55-05:00

You run on experienced quality people, whether it’s the military or in the outside world. We waste billions on bullshit political wants that go nowhere, so retaining young NCOs and mid grade NCOs seems like a sound investment. You cant run on only one and out personnel and be great.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2022 11:30 PM

2022-01-07T23:30:32-05:00

I have never been a recruiter. Many other NCOs I still serve with would say that these incentives to enlistment are what draw people to join the military initially. Re-enlistment bonuses are still there and in the current climate the real changes seem to be in how the Army adapts to training future Soldiers. The Army has to adapt in certain ways to the population we serve in order to maintain strength. Now I'm sure with the two major wars being concluded, this will refocus where and how these changes are implemented to ensure manning requirements.