Battle over Military Pay

And yet.... O-4's (which in some services are still considered junior officers) can receive retirement for life.... mid-level leadership.... possibly 40 years old..... "retiring".... hmmmmmm.

And an E6 can retire at 20 years at age 38. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying an O4 is "mid-level" leadership. At least within the Navy an O4 can command a warship, I wouldn't necessarily consider that mid-level leadership.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
And an E6 can retire at 20 years at age 38. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying an O4 is "mid-level" leadership. At least within the Navy an O4 can command a warship, I wouldn't necessarily consider that mid-level leadership.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

The retiring E7 is the guy we should be basing this discussion on. Those NCOs are the heart of the US Military- not the Officers. what distinguishes the effectiveness of the US military from most others is the quality, training,experience and independence of the NCOs. ( I know this is a shock for many on this forum who are all about how to get commissioned)- they are the people we need to retain and incent. That E7 retiring at 20 will have a basepay of $4200/ month which means that he will be receiving a pension of $2100/ month. During th epast 13 years the average Army or Marine Infantry NCO will probably have spent at least 42 months on a FoB at best or a COP. Away from his family. In combat getting shot at. Not in an office shuffling paper. He probably didn't get a free bachelor's degree and certainly didn't get one from an Ivy League level college like a Service Academy grad did. He generally won't walk into a 6 figure salary upon retirement at 40 years old- in fact the jobs that most Enlisted retirees walk into upon retirement are supervisors jobs - which in my Fortune 50 manufacturing company will pay around $50k annually. So that retirement check is a big deal benefit and is a big deal in retention for the NCO Corps. And when the next balloon goes up- you aren't jsut going to hire a bunch of hourly techs and supervisors away from GE or ArcelorMittal to be your NCO Corps. You either developed them in house or they are not there when you need them.

Talking about this as though it primarily affects Officers- who have by and large gotten a much sweeter deal both before and while in service and will walk into more lucrative positions upon leaving the service gets it all wrong. And extrapolating from ones personal experience " I know officers who got out at 12 years so it doesn't influence the majority of people in that situation" is pretty flawed- especially when the poeple that you are referencing are young 03s/O4s with multiple degrees and good resumes.
 
Well, Bruno, its on the military to prepare members to leave. In fact, while you've listed some of the great aspects of members of the military (and the services in general) one of the biggest disappointments I see with the military is the transition period.

I spent four years at CGA and five years as a Coast Guard officer. I was hardly indoctrinated... or institutionalized.... but at the end of those nine years... I went to a week long TAPS, which is not service-specitic and that was it.

It was a dump on info too... but as alarming as I saw that, I can only imagine how confusing it was for the folks with 20-30 years of service. And that's it. A week.

The services and federal government (White House) want to put it on the private sector (hire our vets) but do NOTHING really to ease the transition. That takes some nerve (hey, we're done with them.... now clean up our mess).

Again, the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard are volunteer services. You elected to serve. You get paid to service.

So Bruno, explain to me how the 19 year veteran who has been shot at deserves "nothing" but the 20 year veteran who has been shot at suddenly deserves 50% (or more) pay for the rest of his life? "He was shot at and had to move"..... the same is true for the 19 year guy. What gives?

The truth? It's arbitrary. It's not because they have earned or deserve it.... it's a retention tool, and it can't be sustained. The folks who suffer are the vast majority of service members (the REAL meat of the military) who leave prior to 20 years with no employer supported retirement.... head to the real would with little real world skills (or at least skills that don't translate clearly to many in the private sector).... these are the people really "suffering" so your retired vets can have all of their benefits.
 
And an E6 can retire at 20 years at age 38. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by saying an O4 is "mid-level" leadership. At least within the Navy an O4 can command a warship, I wouldn't necessarily consider that mid-level leadership.

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

Let's loosly define "warship". :wink:

And yes, that's mid-level.
 
Let's loosly define "warship". :wink:

And yes, that's mid-level.

Haha, I know, I know. But Command at Sea is Command at Sea, no matter if the ship is made of wood :)

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
The retiring E7 is the guy we should be basing this discussion on.

How do you separate the retirement offered? Who gets what? Or am I misreading your intent?

Don't forget the opportunity cost that the retired officer took. A 22 year old "ivy-league" graduate has a much higher opportunity cost than an 18 year old high school graduate.

If we are suggesting different retirements for different folks then I sure would like to see 50% of my pay at retirement :) instead it will be closer to 20-30% as they have so thoughtfully removed the vast vast majority of my pay as a physician from base pay and made it "bonuses."

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Haha, I know, I know. But Command at Sea is Command at Sea, no matter if the ship is made of wood :)

Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app

I guess I draw a line between their level of thought.

A Coast Guard O-2 is the CO of an 87' cutter in the Florida Straits. He is leading more people than most in the corporate setting. But at what level is he thinking?

Is he thinking and acting strategically or tactically? Is he determining alien migrant interdiction policy or is he carrying it out? Yes, tactics can affect strategy, but senior leaders deal in strategy and policy while junior or mid-level leaders deal in tactics.

A lieutenant commander in the Navy is a junior officer.... that's not a technicality.

"But LITS, an O-6 is the CO of an aircraft carrier, is he strategic or tractical?"

I'm not entirely sure.... maybe a little of both. I don't really know. There are exceptions to my outlook.
 
This isn't entirely popular, but I think it needs to be said, so I'll say it.

We're very quick to discount the experience and position of the private sector, in favor of veterans.

"They had to move, they got shot at for a living, they deserve a spot in the private sector."

First, yes, everyone deserves a spot in the private sector. For people who find that spot, and do well... it's because they worked at it. The military is all volunteer. Each year you serve, you better your position in the service, but worsen your position in the private sector (to some degree, I realize some of the experience also helps in both worlds).

As you learn about intel, or shooting or shiphandling... or anything else, you also lose time to learn any number of skills in the private sector. This works the other way too.... the longer you spend in the private sector, the less time you'll have in the military.

And as you're learning those skills... and doing that military work.... you learn your system. You learn rates and ranks, the chain of command, how to dress, how to speak..... etc. You weren't drafted. You take the good with the bad. Travel the world, see amazing place.... kill and possible be killed. You work bad hours. You're away from family and friends. You make new friends, create stories, and test who you are (or find out who you are).

And the entire time you're doing that.... someone else graduated high school or college. They spent some time looking for a job. They spent some time going crappy grunt work. Sure they probably weren't being shot at, but they probably had to clean and wash dishes or filing paperwork. They knew how to speak to customers or coworkers or bosses. Eventually they moved on to a new employer.... learned more there.... and either stuck with it or moved on. Some went back to college (or went to college for the first time) and looked for work in areas that would take advantage of those degrees. And they worked a little more. Sure, they're ignorant of getting shot at, or taking a life, or being away from family for many months at a time.... but they delt with other things too.

When you leave the military, the private sector is waiting there for you. But your time in a service is not worth a 1-to-1 exchange in experience. You will excell at some things... like dealing with preassure or leading people toward a goal. And you will have trouble with some things.... like the gray areas.... how to talk to people.... and how to accept others who were not trained and raised in the same institutional settings.

Your service does not, and should not, put you at the front of the line "just because." Many leave the military thinking that (but not always saying it.) You'll see the "honor our troops" at sporting events. You'll hear it on the news or from leaders or in ads.

You earn your way into that world. It's not given to you as a "thank you."

So please, lets not pretend that the people we consider heroes are suddently victims after their service is complete. They made a choice. They continued to make that choice over the years with the understand that, while they were moving forward in the military, the longer they were in, the harder the transition might be when it was time to leave.

The 20 year mark is arbitrary. It ignores the needs of anyone under 20 years.... and it creates a false target. It's a liability to the military and the federal government. It's a poor system that only cares for a minority of those who serve, and it ignores more efficient ways to "spread the wealth" while requiring every service member to have a little skin in their retirement, whether it be 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or 40 years.
 
Why should they have fewer options? Um, because they have invested less time in those options.

A military career is great, but its voluntary. Every year you're in, you've lost a year in private sector career time. This isn't news. Everyone in understands it, to some degree. This is also why getting out is so hard…. the unknown. The unknown on how to work in a different setting…. what "right to work" really means…. it's all a big change.
 
Does the US military have an organization the lobbys the Hill on its behalf? An equal to the AARP or NRA? Why not if no and why are they such an unknown if yes.

AUSA (Association of the US Army), MOAA (Military Officers Association of America), NGAUS(National Gaurd Association of US), VFW, and American Legion are organizations (I am familiar with other services) that lobbys the Hill on the military. My impression is that they have different focus areas, so there is no synergy, and military members benefits are not on the top of their agenda.
 
Google "The Military Coalition." MOAA plays a key role in lobbying efforts on a variety of military-vet issues, organizes MOAA member elected representative correspondence by providing pre-addressed draft emails and suggested content to members, keeps its members informed. I hear about them a lot, but that's because I am plugged into a number of networks.


Sent using the Service Academy Forums® mobile app
 
Each service has congressional liaison offices, on both the Senate and House sides. Those liaison offices aren't lobbies. They're there to provide information to congressional offices and receive requests from members of Congress. I went TAD to the Coast Guard's Senate Liaison Office. It was a lot of tracking bills, responding to congressional requests, reviewing "my kid did drugs in the Coast Guard.... they kicked him out... help us Senator XXXXX"..... hint: do drugs... a member of Congress isn't going to save you.

The services are banned from lobbying or exerting political influence on the process.
 
There's no "re-uping" for officers, it's not a contract. You serve until you have to leave to request to separate.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark a bit too. First, understand that the VAST majority of the military doesn't get retirement. Why would I care if retirement benefits change? They SHOULD change. The communicators want to make this a "all military" issue... it's really, what somewhere between 1-10% of the military (brain fart on the number). Second, the compensation, benefits and retirement system for the military is in need of changes. That won't make retirees happy.... but tough.

Now, what do they have going for them? It can be very uncomfortable to argue against service members (however, if you make it about the big parent organization, instead of the individual service members, it's much easier to challenge.)

Lastly.... there are "ways out." Can they ditch you at a moments notice? Eh.... maybe. It's not as easy to be ditched as say.... anyone in a "right to work" state, but yes, they can get rid of people or they can create incentives for people to leave on their own.

This isn't about "pay". This is about benefits. It's about retirement. In my job, neither are listed as my "pay".... however here... it's easier to do that.
 
This isn't about "pay". This is about benefits. It's about retirement. In my job, neither are listed as my "pay".... however here... it's easier to do that.

With all due respect, I believe you are off base on this particular point. I'm not sure how many people you supervise in your current civilian role, or what your annual compensation budget is that you have to manage; so I grant that perhaps your experiences are different than mine. But as someone with decades of experience in the field and currently leading a revamp of the recruiting strategy for a global corporation; I can tell you that you absolutely do consider retirement and other benefits as part of the total compensation package.
 
Last edited:
So that got me wondering if y'all got your coordinated and had some united organization that represented service members and got the word out, that it could motivate the public at large, carry huge clout on the Hill, and be mightly effective on behalf GI Joe and Jane on issues like this.

Or I could be miles off base...

Personally, I think you are off base. I can't remember the exact number, but something 1.4 million serving and even if we include those served before and family members at best 10 million folks that might feel strong about military benefits that is spread all over won't carry too much political power.
 
But as someone with decades of experience in the field and currently leading a revamp of the recruiting strategy for a global corporation; I can tell you that you absolutely do consider retirement and other benefits as part of the total compensation package.

Do you employ same recruiting strategy for all types of employees? Folks serve for different reasons. If the compensation package becomes the primary reason for staying in the military for someone, he or she just working, not serving.
 
There's no "re-uping" for officers, it's not a contract. You serve until you have to leave to request to separate.

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're off the mark a bit too. First, understand that the VAST majority of the military doesn't get retirement. Why would I care if retirement benefits change? They SHOULD change. The communicators want to make this a "all military" issue... it's really, what somewhere between 1-10% of the military (brain fart on the number). Second, the compensation, benefits and retirement system for the military is in need of changes. That won't make retirees happy.... but tough.

Now, what do they have going for them? It can be very uncomfortable to argue against service members (however, if you make it about the big parent organization, instead of the individual service members, it's much easier to challenge.)

Lastly.... there are "ways out." Can they ditch you at a moments notice? Eh.... maybe. It's not as easy to be ditched as say.... anyone in a "right to work" state, but yes, they can get rid of people or they can create incentives for people to leave on their own.

This isn't about "pay". This is about benefits. It's about retirement. In my job, neither are listed as my "pay".... however here... it's easier to do that.
There is a thing called an "Active Duty Service Commitment" (at least in AF-speak). You commit to serving a set amount of time for certain training or benefits (tuition assistance, pilot bonus, etc). It is a relatively one-way contract, in that the AF can waive that commitment and let you go, if the AF so desires. I for example, have one ADSC close to running out for my USAFA training, one about to expire for UH-1N specific training, and one with more than a couple years left for pilot training. I'll incur another with tuition assistance. (They run concurrently.)

I think it was 17% that earn a military retirement, according to some congressional arguments I read. In 2012 that worked out to about 2.5 million people directly affected.

LITS, how "SHOULD" the retirement system and benefits change?
I'll agree that we could do better for the ~83% that don't do 20+. I do think it would be a bad idea to reduce the 20+yr retirement benefits from currently serving members. I'm in that category, admittedly, but I also think reforms in things like SS and Medicare should be implemented in the long term, rather than changing "the deal" for people already in the system.
 
Do you employ same recruiting strategy for all types of employees? Folks serve for different reasons. If the compensation package becomes the primary reason for staying in the military for someone, he or she just working, not serving.
No; of courses people's needs and motivations vary. Which is why savvy organizations are well advised to understand what members (potential or incumbent) want, what makes the organization special, and where those alignments are strongest. Those are your value propositions. Classic example..... Southwest Airlines. For years held up as the poster child for how you can pay less in direct compensation but still attract the best employees. Great case study if you are interested.

As for your second point/question... Seems to me that there is an assumed leap there. If your premise is that it's not "service" unless you are taking a vow of poverty then I respectfully disagree. I believe our brave men and women in the military ALREADY make huge sacrifices in life style, family life, mobility, physical danger, mental trauma, long hours, etc etc etc etc. To say that aren't "serving" unless they also have to be compensated less, now and in their future, is just.... well... a different position than I can rationalize.

You can't have the debate in a vacuum. While the direct compensation to military has reached some level of parity with the civilian world (for many reasons including stagnant wage growth), there are still a number of other factors that must be considered. Again an example was pointed out earlier in this thread that no one responded to.... Please point out the plethora of opportunities that military spouses have for career that includes 7% or 5% 401k matching funds they are 100% vested in when they have to PCS out in 12 months? Anyone?

If you want to take away the "carrot" at the end of active military service, fine. But then at the very least we owe it to these warriors and their families to discuss balancing the scales elsewhere including things like lifestyle changes with reduced/no transfers to allow second wage earners to have real careers. Or guarantees of set hours so they can get a second job like civilians do. And on and on. Have the debate.... but let's be fair and really talk through all of the critical factors. We owe them that for their service at the very least.
 
Last edited:
. . .

As for your second point/question... Seems to me that there is an assumed leap there. If your premise is that it's not "service" unless you are taking a vow of poverty then I respectfully disagree. I believe our brave men and women in the military ALREADY make huge sacrifices in life style, family life, mobility, physical danger, mental trauma, long hours, etc etc etc etc. To say that aren't "serving" unless they also have to be compensated less, now and in their future, is just.... well... a different position than I can rationalize.

I don't expect military service members to take a vow of poverty, but more like take 51% for "service" and 49% for other reasons. If someone is dumb enough not to know what their compensation will be or possible "huge sacrifices in life style, family life, mobility, physical danger, mental trauma, long hours, etc etc etc etc" when they join the military, I have no sympathy. I don't think any company will have sympathy to an account manager that has to travel as a part of his job to asking for increase compensation because he has to travel.

You can't have the debate in a vacuum. While the direct compensation to military has reached some level of parity with the civilian world (for many reasons including stagnant wage growth), there are still a number of other factors that must be considered. Again an example was pointed out earlier in this thread that no one responded to.... Please point out the plethora of opportunities that military spouses have for career that includes 7% or 5% 401k matching funds they are 100% vested in when they have to PCS out in 12 months? Anyone?

If you want to take away the "carrot" at the end of active military service, fine. But then at the very least we owe it to these warriors and their families to discuss balancing the scales elsewhere including things like lifestyle changes with reduced/no transfers to allow second wage earners to have real careers. Or guarantees of set hours so they can get a second job like civilians do. And on and on. Have the debate.... but let's be fair and really talk through all of the critical factors. We owe them that for their service at the very least.

It's not a "plethroa" of opportunties, but military civilians positions provides very good benefits plus military spouses get placement/hiring priorities for certain positions. I also don't know too many civilian companies that provide "7% or 5% 401k matching funds they are 100% vested" in a year. On a side note, most military bases have Walmarts around them and Walmarts benefits and transfer policies are not bad at all. I lucked out as when I got married, we had no plan, but things worked out. I guess we were in love as we didn't even discuss my wife working or moving to Fort Hood after we got married :) And my spouse working was one of the things I considered when I decided to leave the active duty. Again, its not like when you join or get married suddenly the military change the rules to make you make more scarifices or magically transfer your duty station for a major city to middle of nowhere.

Yes, we can't have a debate in a vacuum, so how about employability and willingess of military spouses to work? Not all military spouses are the same, some are professional and some have no marketable skills and don't want to work.
 
If someone is dumb enough not to know what their compensation will be or possible "huge sacrifices in life style, family life, mobility, physical danger, mental trauma, long hours, etc etc etc etc" when they join the military, I have no sympathy.

I am not sure this is the strongest argument to be made here. It is eerily similar to the "they knew the deal and didn't have to take the job" variations used throughout history to justify deplorable working conditions, paying workers in company scrip, harassment, and a hundred other practices we all agree are unacceptable. If your position is truly one of supporting totally unfettered free-market employment where as long as there is someone dumb enough (or disadvantaged/desperate) enough to take the job, then who cares how badly they are treated or compensated... then I have to wonder what sort of professional military you are expecting in the future?

I also don't know too many civilian companies that provide "7% or 5% 401k matching funds they are 100% vested" in a year.

That is exactly the point, thanks for making it. The simple fact is most families today must include two wage earners. And for folks today to have any real hope of security in their later years both of those wage earners need to have long-term investment strategies and/or pensions. Military spouses are significantly disadvantaged on both counts because they are forced to relocate. I have seen this in action from all sides including as an employer who watches people be forced to walk away from their vesting and/or stock options because their spouse transfers.

Where we (hopefully) can find common ground, is that IF we want to change the compensation system for the military, then we owe it to them and their families to look at the entire pie and not just focus on the one piece that we may have an issue with. There must be balance... that is the right thing to do for those that serve our nation and allow us to pontificate (me too) about how things should be from our safe and warm homes while they stand watch.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top