Why get rid of the soldier instead of the civilian contractors?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 01:17:46 -0400

Congress wants us to get rid of all these soldiers to save money. Why not get rid of the civilian contractors who are doing the exact same job as the soldier that sit next to the soldier getting paid 2x, 3x or more than the soldier him/herself?
I've only been in for 6 years 2 deployments and seen contractors in both fronts, why pay a civilian to do the exact same thing when that is what I was trained to do?

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 1 at 2015 1:24 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 01:24:16 -0400

Civilians are not controlled by congress like the military is, and they fall outside the manpower limitations.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 1:30 AM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 01:30:14 -0400

Congress and the Senate have proven to have their heads up their collective ass for decades. They are propaganda and punch lines rather than making correct decisions. What we need to do is make sure that in order to be in that organization one must have served.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 1 at 2015 6:30 AM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 06:30:01 -0400

Contractors are cheaper. The government doesn't pay near as much for them as they do for the military

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Aug 1 at 2015 7:16 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 07:16:26 -0400

Some contractors and COR's will point to some convoluted math and try to say contractors are cheaper. The real reason is some political types can say they "created or saved" jobs in their district if they have contractors on their base. Soldiers are usually from districts outside the base.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 1 at 2015 8:06 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 08:06:29 -0400

This issue is MUCH more complex than it appears at first glance.

First the the Defense Budget and Army sizing is done on a Two (2) year cycle. This is mandated by the Constitution. Civilian Labor, and Government Contractors do not have the same restrictions,

In general, Government Contracts will be multi-year (whether it be 5 year or 3 year etc, with additional option years at the end) which means the Government doesn't have to constantly renegotiate them. This reduces an "administrative burden" tremendously.

Let's use a couple basic services like chowhall, and base maintenance as an example. We know they have to be manned in perpetuity, so you write a 5 year contract, and just be done with it. You compete it every 3 years (with 2 option years at the end, if you like the service provided by the vendor), meaning that you don't have to man it with soldiers. This reduces total force size by that many people. The same applies to every Government Civilian, but they are what is considered "essential" personnel, or "longevity staff."

Longevity staff ensures that institutional knowledge is maintained at HHQ units. You can't rotate everyone every 2-3 years out of the Pentagon and expect to keep it running. It won't work. What works at a BN doesn't work at "Command Level." It's a matter of scale. There's a certain point, usually when you start having Generals that you need civilians who are there as the command teams transition. They retain "institutional knowledge" and just make things operate better than if we didn't have that billet. Or more aptly, we would need several more service members to do the same thing, which would cost more in the long run. It actually costs less to have them than to fill the billet with a civilian. It's counter intuitive.

But the major reason is so that we can expand and contract force size as needed.

Civilian force is "essential" administrative personnel. The military has a "range" which we operate within. It shrinks and grows based on the current active contingencies in the world. If we aren't fighting, we don't need as many troops. If we are, we need more. Government contractors are hired based on active government contracts, which is essentially "as needed." This philosophy allows us to expand VERY quickly and helps alleviate the need for the draft since we use the All Volunteer Force model now. It also lets us reduce very quickly (in under 3 years), which is comparable to a Draft model.

I get that most people don't like it, however it is functional, and it parallels models used through the Vietnam era for "expansion as needed." It's less about saving money, and more about only having needed Soldiers. Money is a secondary concern.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 9:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 09:59:54 -0400

I think that, once a civilian contractor is done, he or she is done, out, and gone. Part of their contract is that they are now off the support & supply chain of the military, and are owed no pension, VA support, etc-- all those long-term expenses that troops are offered as part of their service. In the long run, it is cheaper.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 1 at 2015 11:15 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Sat, 01 Aug 2015 11:15:41 -0400

There's been a long standing union supported "you're taking food out of babies mouths" argument that any military doing something in CONUS that can be performed by a civilian worker harms the country. Of course that's BS but the lobbyists made it happen. That's why we can't train our Seabees properly but have to send them overseas a great expense to train on building larger projects. I recall at one time a prohibition on laying anything more than a miniscule amount of asphalt at Port Hueneme. They went after the Government employees too by insisting the Government was too fat and expensive in performing base maintenance. I watched the A-76 process play out and wasn't surprised that the low bid was from contractors but the cost growth over 5 years was 100%, far in excess of what the Government employees would be. The struggle both ways continues.

When I went to O-6 knife and fork school, we had the Secretaries there and I bought the point up. The response was you're right but that's not what they want to hear on The Hill.