Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-30-2013, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
5,039 posts, read 6,322,692 times
Reputation: 7197

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
My two cents will probably inflame a few people, however, here we go:

Why should a supply clerk, a motor transport, or any other NON combat MOS be given the same retirement as a combat MOS. A grunt who has been humping the hell out of hills, being shot at, shooting others, spending many tours of duty in a non permissive environment, should be compensated beyond belief.

Some REMF should NOT be receiving the same benefit. Even if they spend 20+ years in the military. A retirement? Yes, of course. But not the same retirement as someone who has been facing combat on a daily basis.

Of course, I am going to get the: But, many clerks were in combat zones. Uh, yes/no. Hearing a few bombs go off, and getting a mortar round or two, isn't the same as running combat patrols for a living. Unless you have BTDT, please do not use that excuse. Those men/women who are running such patrols should be the ones highly compensated for it; including their retirement.
Your concept of REMF is slightly outdated, and if you think an 11B has been 'facing combat on a daily basis' for 20 years, you are sadly mistaken. It's not the movies, man.

Motor Vehicle Operator (TRUCK DRIVER) was the single most dangerous MOS in Iraq.

I have BTDT as an enlisted 'combat' soldier. In West Germany, peacetime. The beer was great. I humped over hill and dale, but that was about the hardest part, and my experience was not atypical. I faced significantly more danger later in my career as an officer in a support branch.

After Vietnam, we went about two decades without anything truly dangerous, and even then it was a small percentage of the Army. The recent everyone-went-to-combat bit was just that, recent. I imagine after Afghanistan is finally over our appetite for adventurism will be blunted for a little while.

How have they been getting rewarded in the combat MOSes? Bluntly, faster promotions to about E-6, which equates to higher basic pay. It's faster because the job sucks, so people get out, clearing room for promotions.

As the Army, at least, gets away from faster promotions for some MOSes, your idea takes on merit. But you'd really have to base it on actual days in combat (which could be done) rather than by branch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2013, 06:20 AM
 
336 posts, read 376,103 times
Reputation: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
Slippery slope. Cut this, just this once, what prevents them from changing the deal again after the fact....maybe 2% below inflation. Or cutting out the 'adjustment' at 62. Maybe a CUT in retiree income. Why not? After all, it's generous. Never mind that the promise was made and opportunities were foregone for that promise. Can you give me back my youth that I spent in the service, not seriously looking for other opportunities? I didn't think so.

Finally, seriously pursue the 401K-style option that's been bandied about. If someone enlists KNOWING that's the system, that's their own doing. If our recruitment drops through the floor after that change, then we'll know that wasn't the thing to pursue, we can target critically short jobs with bonuses for the short-term, and retirement can be changed back.
I think the first step is to make reforms to retirement benefits (i.e., pensions, Tricare costs) for those that have not yet committed to staying 20 years. Let those in the military now (and in the future) factor a reduced pension benefit and additional health care costs into their decision to stay for a full 20 years or longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
My two cents will probably inflame a few people, however, here we go:

Why should a supply clerk, a motor transport, or any other NON combat MOS be given the same retirement as a combat MOS. A grunt who has been humping the hell out of hills, being shot at, shooting others, spending many tours of duty in a non permissive environment, should be compensated beyond belief.
Hazard pay for combat and associated positions makes sense to me. I suspect the military has plenty of stats concerning fatalities for different positions in different zones, which could be factored into compensation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka View Post
Those that stay in the military and retire are not really "robbing the bank". They don't receive any of the same payments civil servants receive while on active duty which saves the taxpayers trillions of dollars. I would like to see all military personnel shifted over to civil servants and receive the same pay etc....overtime, holiday pay, comp time etc...then the issue will be settled.
The vast majority of civil servants are exempted employees that are not eligible for overtime pay. If the job requires a civil servant to work 10-11 hours to complete a task, then that is what they do, without any monetary compensation. In many agencies, working 10-11 hours per day is expected at certain times during the year. Generally, the only civil servants that qualify for overtime pay are those involved in some sort of combat support or law enforcement activity (e.g., border control). One can certainly request unpaid comp time, but, in many organizations, frequently requesting comp time will reduce one's promotion potential.

As I'm sure you are aware, civil servants also pay a portion of the cost for a pension ($4000/yr on a $90K salary) that they generally cannot take before age 56-57 (and that's at a reduced rate), or age 62 if they want the maximum benefit. Civil servants also pay for a portion of their health care (e.g., $150-500/mo depending on single or family), their food (e.g., $250-750/mo), their transportation to/from work (if no public trans. is available), and rent/mortgage for housing (e.g., $1800/mo for a 1-bedroom apartment in DC).

Last edited by VAGeek; 12-30-2013 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 06:31 AM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
5,039 posts, read 6,322,692 times
Reputation: 7197
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAGeek View Post
I think the first step is to make reforms to retirement benefits (i.e., pensions, Tricare costs) for those that have not yet committed to staying 20 years. Let those in the military now (and in the future) factor a reduced pension benefit and additional health care costs into their decision to stay for a full 20 years or longer.
That was actually part of a recent proposal, which essentially said "if you have 5, you get pension on 5...if you have 10, you get pension on 10...if you have 15, you get pension on 15...if you have 20, you get pension on 20...from here on out, you get a new 401K plan".

The proposal went nowhere, but I think it has serious merit. It doesn't shaft those in completely out of the plan they signed up for, but it doesn't put off getting to a more sustainable (cheaper) system nearly immediately-which is the whole point.

However, reducing COLA is, in my opinion, a completely asinine idea, and I'll be checking the voting records of my elected representatives to know who NOT to vote for in the next election. That's changing the deal well after the fact.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,866 posts, read 11,180,933 times
Reputation: 7123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
My two cents will probably inflame a few people, however, here we go:

Why should a supply clerk, a motor transport, or any other NON combat MOS be given the same retirement as a combat MOS. A grunt who has been humping the hell out of hills, being shot at, shooting others, spending many tours of duty in a non permissive environment, should be compensated beyond belief.

Some REMF should NOT be receiving the same benefit. Even if they spend 20+ years in the military. A retirement? Yes, of course. But not the same retirement as someone who has been facing combat on a daily basis.

Of course, I am going to get the: But, many clerks were in combat zones. Uh, yes/no. Hearing a few bombs go off, and getting a mortar round or two, isn't the same as running combat patrols for a living. Unless you have BTDT, please do not use that excuse. Those men/women who are running such patrols should be the ones highly compensated for it; including their retirement.
It's the military and there is sacrifice and hardship required in all military service. Now, the ones that were injured and killed while serving our country should be taken care of with compensation for their disabilities and loss regardless of their job, however, you should not be dismissing the sacrifice of others service by saying your sacrifice is more noble than theirs. We all volunteered on how we were going to serve, you were not forced.

I can assure you my years of service living in miserable conditions on a ship at sea with no access to phones, internet, mail, etc. was no picnic and I've served with combat Army Soldiers that were transported on our ships and they always say "this sucks, I don't know how you do this". You don't think my work on the flight deck of an Aircraft Carrier is dangerous? I did that every day for 12-18 hours a day for 6-9 months while at sea and did it for years during my career.

I'm not saying my sacrifice was worse than a person "in combat" I'm just saying that it was a severe hardship and sacrifice and I'd be willing to bet there were times when I was sacrificing more than those "in combat" people were just as there were times when they were sacrificing more than I was.

Last edited by LBTRS; 12-30-2013 at 08:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,261,741 times
Reputation: 3984
"Hazard pay for combat and associated positions makes sense to me. I suspect the military has plenty of stats concerning fatalities for different positions in different zones, which could be factored into compensation."

Now here is something which could be looked into. A bonus/incentive for certain MOS in their retirement. I can handle that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 05:04 PM
 
Location: Hard aground in the Sonoran Desert
4,866 posts, read 11,180,933 times
Reputation: 7123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
"Hazard pay for combat and associated positions makes sense to me. I suspect the military has plenty of stats concerning fatalities for different positions in different zones, which could be factored into compensation."

Now here is something which could be looked into. A bonus/incentive for certain MOS in their retirement. I can handle that.
There is already "hazard pay" for those performing these jobs. Hazard pay shouldn't follow you into retirement when you're no longer in hazardous positions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
5,039 posts, read 6,322,692 times
Reputation: 7197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
"Hazard pay for combat and associated positions makes sense to me. I suspect the military has plenty of stats concerning fatalities for different positions in different zones, which could be factored into compensation."

Now here is something which could be looked into. A bonus/incentive for certain MOS in their retirement. I can handle that.
Well, glad you can handle that. Particularly as you're not on a compensation committee, since it's nonsense.

You're not tracking the reality of life in the military. Simply holding the MOS does not inherently bring higher hazard. It brings the higher probability of hazard.

In reality the 'REMF' holding an 'easy' MOS might have a much harder career than an 11-series depending on postings and what duties the unit pulls and has him or her pulling. You can't just chalk it up to the job. It's not as cut and dried as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 08:01 PM
 
28,597 posts, read 18,634,196 times
Reputation: 30835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
My two cents will probably inflame a few people, however, here we go:

Why should a supply clerk, a motor transport, or any other NON combat MOS be given the same retirement as a combat MOS. A grunt who has been humping the hell out of hills, being shot at, shooting others, spending many tours of duty in a non permissive environment, should be compensated beyond belief.

Some REMF should NOT be receiving the same benefit. Even if they spend 20+ years in the military. A retirement? Yes, of course. But not the same retirement as someone who has been facing combat on a daily basis.

Of course, I am going to get the: But, many clerks were in combat zones. Uh, yes/no. Hearing a few bombs go off, and getting a mortar round or two, isn't the same as running combat patrols for a living. Unless you have BTDT, please do not use that excuse. Those men/women who are running such patrols should be the ones highly compensated for it; including their retirement.

Because ultimately every soldier serves as the service requires. If the soldier has been fortunate, his desires have meshed with the needs of the service. But that is not, by any means, guaranteed--especially over the course of 20 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2013, 09:41 PM
 
191 posts, read 453,053 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
If you're faking injuries, that's fraud.

Plus, like the previous poster mentioned, the whole point of the thread is discussing whether benefits are fair.
How do you know they are faking, have you seen their medical records, or just going by their say-so? A lot of people say one thing to guys they barely know to save face, but their medical records say something else. If you're sure it's fraud, do something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2013, 01:38 AM
 
Location: The Land of Reason
13,221 posts, read 12,282,904 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
Well, glad you can handle that. Particularly as you're not on a compensation committee, since it's nonsense.

You're not tracking the reality of life in the military. Simply holding the MOS does not inherently bring higher hazard. It brings the higher probability of hazard.

In reality the 'REMF' holding an 'easy' MOS might have a much harder career than an 11-series depending on postings and what duties the unit pulls and has him or her pulling. You can't just chalk it up to the job. It's not as cut and dried as that.
I don't understand, if a cook is working in a danger zone is'nt the proability of him getting killed as a trucker driver? Why should pay be different? If you are in the theater of war, well you should be paid for it period
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:04 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top