Recruiting Shortfalls

I think one of the major retention problems amongst JOs is the “stay late” mentality.
Granted, there are times when you have to stay, but too often there is a “game” to see who can stay the latest led by senior leadership.
One of the best commanders I had would walk around at 11:00 on a Friday and ask everyone what they were working on. If it wasn’t something that just couldn’t wait until Monday he would order them to go home and not return until Monday morning. Too little of this. Members of the military spend enough time away from families without self induced separations.
 
UHBlackhawk said:
I think one of the major retention problems amongst JOs is the “stay late” mentality.
Granted, there are times when you have to stay, but too often there is a “game” to see who can stay the latest led by senior leadership.
One of the best commanders I had would walk around at 11:00 on a Friday and ask everyone what they were working on. If it wasn’t something that just couldn’t wait until Monday he would order them to go home and not return until Monday morning. Too little of this. Members of the military spend enough time away from families without self induced separations.
Click to expand...
That is an American problem, not just military. Basically, if the company doesnt need you for one day, they dont need you.

One likely way to cure enlistment problem is to bolster the GI Bill and clamp down on student loans.
 
www.militarytimes.com

The ‘Genesis’ of today’s recruiting crisis

Leaders blame various factors for the recruiting crisis. But some recruiters on the front lines say one big cause is missing from the conversation.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com

1-what does it take for many to enlist today——“fraud and lying” (from a recruiter in the article above)

. The system needs to reflect the reality on the ground not the ground you wish you had or mistakenly thought you had. Get realistic here not idealistic.

ADHD, pot smoking are two that are very common throughout society.. And these folks are DQd from enlisting without a waver. Address both. Recruit both.

2-Americans just don’t like to serve. If given the chance they will pass. Especially if it’s an enlisted position. (Ask the parents or kids that post here how many are willing to go enlisted if they do not get rotc sa etc)

That is why we had a draft. I have no idea why those that did away with the draft thought that this not wanting to serve was going to change significantly.

And there are still jobs in the military that can be done by someone on a two or 3 year enlistment via the draft.

And there are jobs that could be done by members of the (overdue) US Foreign Legion. If Americans don’t want to serve then consider those that want to be Americans.

What I do know for sure , is that doing more of the exact same thing , is not likely to get better results.
 
.
Shoutout to all the JROTC HS programs … what’s wrong with promoting this some more …. Too few programs …. The goal should be every other HS … 1 out of 2 … so that the option becomes available to more students

Our DD opted out of her bus route HS to attend a close by HS that has the NJROTC program … we drove her to and from the HS for the first year and half until she got her drivers license.
.
 
Last edited:
Small Team Bacsi said:
www.militarytimes.com

The ‘Genesis’ of today’s recruiting crisis

Leaders blame various factors for the recruiting crisis. But some recruiters on the front lines say one big cause is missing from the conversation.
www.militarytimes.com www.militarytimes.com

1-what does it take for many to enlist today——“fraud and lying” (from a recruiter in the article above)

. The system needs to reflect the reality on the ground not the ground you wish you had or mistakenly thought you had. Get realistic here not idealistic.

ADHD, pot smoking are two that are very common throughout society.. And these folks are DQd from enlisting without a waver. Address both. Recruit both.

2-Americans just don’t like to serve. If given the chance they will pass. Especially if it’s an enlisted position. (Ask the parents or kids that post here how many are willing to go enlisted if they do not get rotc sa etc)

That is why we had a draft. I have no idea why those that did away with the draft thought that this not wanting to serve was going to change significantly.

And there are still jobs in the military that can be done by someone on a two or 3 year enlistment via the draft.

And there are jobs that could be done by members of the (overdue) US Foreign Legion. If Americans don’t want to serve then consider those that want to be Americans.

What I do know for sure , is that doing more of the exact same thing , is not likely to get better results.
Click to expand...
Politicians and the MIC don’t want the draft. It’s way easier to conduct endless police actions, and pursue questionable military objectives when your military is all volunteer.
 
USMC Crayons said:
Politicians and the MIC don’t want the draft. It’s way easier to conduct endless police actions, and pursue questionable military objectives when your military is all volunteer.
Click to expand...
I served with some of the final draftees on midshipman cruises and I and most of my peers were happy that
the draft was gone. I'm sure that there are places where the military could possibly use them but a modern warship
or squadron is not one of them. The majority of ship/submarine jobs require advanced technical training and 2 year
draftees aren't there long enough to learn the job and be useful. Back when the E1,2,3 pay was under a hundred bucks,
we could and did afford to just keep a whole lot of them around but times are different now. Again, I'm a SWO and
are ships are designed and billeted for a LOT fewer folks than in the draftee era and we just don't have jobs/room
for vast amounts of largely untrained labor.
.
Then there's the issue of whether you want a draftee who REALLY doesn't want to be there at the help of a multi-billion
dollar warship? Want them doing critical maintenance on YOUR airplane? Packing YOUR parachute?
.
Again, from a Navy perspective, we'd end up with so few "slots" for draftees that we'd probably spend more administering
it than the number of folks we'd end up with.
.
As for the MIC, do you really think that the likes of Boeing, Lockheed or Northrop are the ones lobbying against the draft?
.
FWIW, there are politicians who have heavily advocated for the return of the draft, a prominent voice was former Rep Charles
Rangel whose stated goal was to use the draft as a means to make it difficult for the Executive branch to use the military
 
OldRetSWO said:
I served with some of the final draftees on midshipman cruises and I and most of my peers were happy that
the draft was gone. I'm sure that there are places where the military could possibly use them but a modern warship
or squadron is not one of them. The majority of ship/submarine jobs require advanced technical training and 2 year
draftees aren't there long enough to learn the job and be useful. Back when the E1,2,3 pay was under a hundred bucks,
we could and did afford to just keep a whole lot of them around but times are different now. Again, I'm a SWO and
are ships are designed and billeted for a LOT fewer folks than in the draftee era and we just don't have jobs/room
for vast amounts of largely untrained labor.
.
Then there's the issue of whether you want a draftee who REALLY doesn't want to be there at the help of a multi-billion
dollar warship? Want them doing critical maintenance on YOUR airplane? Packing YOUR parachute?
.
Again, from a Navy perspective, we'd end up with so few "slots" for draftees that we'd probably spend more administering
it than the number of folks we'd end up with.
.
As for the MIC, do you really think that the likes of Boeing, Lockheed or Northrop are the ones lobbying against the draft?
.
FWIW, there are politicians who have heavily advocated for the return of the draft, a prominent voice was former Rep Charles
Rangel whose stated goal was to use the draft as a means to make it difficult for the Executive branch to use the military
Click to expand...
In my long life time the US Navy has never used the draft. (OK a small handful of Marines have been drafted not many) So what the needs are on a naval ship is a moot point as far as draft or no draft.

The draft has always been a US Army way to fill ranks. The Navy Marines AF benefited by the draft because of those who did not want the Army and life as a two year draftee..

Those opposed to a draft should tell us how they would suggest meeting the needed military manpower goals.
 
Keith L. Ware was a Army Legend, only draftee to make general and got the MOH in WWII. KIA in Vietnam.
 
With what both sides of the political aisle are spewing, the greed they personify and perpetuate, it’s no wonder recruiting is down. Added to this this the current reality faced by so many veterans of recent wars…the suicide rate and other factors are a national shame.

We the people can do better. If if we do not demand better then the current trend will
Become very quickly the norm.
 
www.wsj.com

The Military Recruiting Crisis: Even Veterans Don’t Want Their Families to Join

The Pentagon is scrambling to retain the main pipeline for new service members as disillusioned families steer young people away. This article is part of a series examining the problems confronting America’s military.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

"The U.S. Army in 2022 had its toughest recruiting year since the advent of the all-volunteer military in 1973 and missed its goal by 25%. This year, it expects to end up about 15,000 short of its target of 65,000 recruits.

The Navy expects to fall short by as many as 10,000 of its goal of nearly 38,000 recruits this year, and the Air Force has said it is anticipating coming in at 3,000 below its goal of nearly 27,000. The Marine Corps met its target last year of sending 33,000 to boot camp, and expects to meet its goals this year, but its leaders described recruitment as challenging."

So for this year it's -26% Navy, -23% Army, -11% Air Force, and 0 Marine Corps. I wonder why that would be.
 
There is a simple solution to recruitment and retention problems in the all volunteer military - compete with the private sector for personnel and accept the costs of doing so. Compare the pay, benefits, working conditions, and terms of employment of military personnel to that of those in equivalent private and public sector employees, and shortfalls in recruiting come as no surprise.

In today's climate, commitment to serve can no longer be relied upon to fill military ranks.
 
jl123 said:
There is a simple solution to recruitment and retention problems in the all volunteer military - compete with the private sector for personnel and accept the costs of doing so. Compare the pay, benefits, working conditions, and terms of employment of military personnel to that of those in equivalent private and public sector employees, and shortfalls in recruiting come as no surprise.

In today's climate, commitment to serve can no longer be relied upon to fill military ranks.
Click to expand...


An e-2 with less than 2 years of service makes, as I read the chart, over $24,000 a year today. Plus housing, plus deployment pay, etc. including full medical , professional job training, and educational bonus, and a very good retirement program.

Exactly how much more will we have to pay to entice an 18 yo with a HS or ged education to join in this days market to compete with the private sector?.

I don’t think the issue is just pay. I think it’s the military part of military pay.
 
You can train a draftee to be a cook, chip paint, or stand a deck watch all day. Those are not the skill areas we're lacking in. We don't need more BMs, CSs, or HMs, as reflected by those rates' legendarily paltry advancement rates. We do have programs for foreign nationals to gain citizenship, but the problem is that they're foreign nationals that can't get security clearances.

We need cryptologists, Aegis techs, EW techs, electronics techs, cyber warfare techs. Even with the best, most highly motivated high school graduates, those training schools and qualification pipelines take years and still have a high washout rate. Officers with fancy college degrees don't necessarily make it through. We talk a lot about nuke power school, but there's plenty of non-nuke schools that would give anyone a very hard time. And just like we have issues retaining nukes, we have just as much of a problem retaining those highly technical non-nuke ratings.

You can't draft someone off the street, give them six months of training, push them through school without rigid academic standards, put them in front of a signal processor, and expect that to go well. The problem is not just the number of bodies, and recruiters that cut corners with things like medical and background investigations are just wasting everyone's time...there are sailors that don't even make it to their first fleet command once the issue is caught.

If you want me to provide a solution, sure: 355-ship Navy is a pipe dream. The goal end strength is unachievable unless someone starts paying E5s as much as O1s. Build capacity and capability by means other than sheer numbers.

There is manpower and resource cost associated with taking in manpower, draftee or not. If we don't do it carefully and deliberately, we are wasting everyone's time. Recruiters can push high school kids off their desks, but if they're not meeting the Fleet's needs, they're just pushing a problem to someone at boot camp, or 'A' school, or a ship/squadron somewhere. And that is much, much worse.
 
Last edited:
nuensis said:
If you want me to provide a solution, sure: 355-ship Navy is a pipe dream. The goal end strength is unachievable unless someone starts paying E5s as much as O1s. Build capacity and capability by means other than sheer numbers.
Click to expand...
Interesting take from the WSJ article, that I'd never thought about:

Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.

Would be interested to know the pay differential between the 20 yr shop foreman in a car factory compared with the fresh faced newbie MBA crunching numbers in the office.
 
nuensis said:
You can train a draftee to be a cook, chip paint, or stand a deck watch all day. Those are not the skill areas we're lacking in. We don't need more BMs, CSs, or HMs, as reflected by those rates' legendarily paltry advancement rates. We do have programs for foreign nationals to gain citizenship, but the problem is that they're foreign nationals that can't get security clearances.

We need cryptologists, Aegis techs, EW techs, electronics techs, cyber warfare techs. Even with the best, most highly motivated high school graduates, those training schools and qualification pipelines take years and still have a high washout rate. Officers with fancy college degrees don't necessarily make it through. We talk a lot about nuke power school, but there's plenty of non-nuke schools that would give anyone a very hard time. And just like we have issues retaining nukes, we have just as much of a problem retaining those highly technical non-nuke ratings.

You can't draft someone off the street, give them six months of training, push them through school without rigid academic standards, put them in front of a signal processor, and expect that to go well. The problem is not just the number of bodies, and recruiters that cut corners with things like medical and background investigations are just wasting everyone's time...there are sailors that don't even make it to their first fleet command once the issue is caught.

If you want me to provide a solution, sure: 355-ship Navy is a pipe dream. The goal end strength is unachievable unless someone starts paying E5s as much as O1s. Build capacity and capability by means other than sheer numbers.

There is manpower and resource cost associated with taking in manpower, draftee or not. If we don't do it carefully and deliberately, we are wasting everyone's time. Recruiters can push high school kids off their desks, but if they're not meeting the Fleet's needs, they're just pushing a problem to someone at boot camp, or 'A' school, or a ship/squadron somewhere. And that is much, much worse.
Click to expand...
Well stated.

But if someone is going spec ops it looks to me like they get a bump in pay that is way above the normal regular pay scale.

Do they not do the same for hard to fill cyber positions or other technical hard to fill positions etc?

Your comments made me reconsider

So where does Army see its short falls? Strictly in those hard to fill tech rates or infantry, rangers, combat engineers etc as well.

This chronic shortfall I find worrisome.

on a side note about supporting families . Does anyone remember when the Corps tried to forbid any married enlisted until e-4 I think it was. They took a beating on that one.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
Do they not do the same for hard to fill cyber positions or other technical hard to fill positions etc?
Click to expand...
Nope. Not in the Navy.

Best a sailor can hope for is career sea pay and maybe a re-enlistment bonus. That's a solid maybe...don't get me started on that career waypoint business. Even if they do get a bonus, I've watched the value fall gradually over time.

I can't explain what kind of math wizardry they're using to calculate anything. BAH is falling. COLA is falling. BAS has been utterly static. Base pay has never been close to catching up to inflation. The 20 year retirement is now the BRS If you do the math, BRS is less value than the old High-3 system if you retire at 20 years.

The overall benefits package has fallen significantly in value over time.

cb7893 said:
Interesting take from the WSJ article, that I'd never thought about:

Defense officials said the military pay scale was designed for single teenage men content to live in barracks and who joined to seek adventure, among other reasons. But the military has seen a shift from teens to people in their 20s, who come in later in life with greater expectations for benefits, pay and marketable skills and who pay more attention to the job market.

Would be interested to know the pay differential between the 20 yr shop foreman in a car factory compared with the fresh faced newbie MBA crunching numbers in the office.
Click to expand...
It's not about getting more E2s. It's about keeping the E5s and E6s.

We give them all the marketable skills they need. Financial services, guidance, mentorship on how to make it out in the world after high school. Set them up with the GI bill, training and education, commercial and civilian certifications and ratings.

After all of that and 6 hard-earned years in the Navy, they're still not eligible for BAH in most locations, and at 24-26 still have to live in the same rat-infested barracks that a was state-of-the-art facility in 1991.

Meanwhile their DIVO gets BAH after two minutes in the Navy and 30% more pay despite having zero sea time and zero usable qualifications. They'll enjoy watching the dumb look on his face for a while, but at least some of them wonder why he's being paid so much to stare so blankly. It's an archaic system. The divide is too wide.

There are some Sailors that love what they do and are truly living a lifelong dream to serve in the Navy. They don't care about the pay or conditions. But the Navy can't keep putting the weight of the entire fleet on the backs of the highly motivated few.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top