If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   Thanks for going to Iraq, Afghanistan 10 times or more. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out   (stripes.com) divider line 71
    More: Asinine, U.S. Army, Army Reserve, non-commissioned officers  
•       •       •

7416 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2014 at 11:36 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 10:22:03 PM
"The needs of the service"
 
2014-02-12 11:41:24 PM
That article probably made sense to the enlisted, but all I can comprehend is that middle management is being fired for redundancy.
 
2014-02-12 11:42:40 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: That article probably made sense to the enlisted, but all I can comprehend is that middle management is being fired for redundancy.


If that's the case then I need to whip out my tiny $50,000 tactical violin.
 
2014-02-12 11:44:12 PM
They're downsizing and laying off 80,000 people. They should have no problems finding jobs.
 
2014-02-12 11:46:08 PM
How about we reduce the number of admirals and generals down the a number equal with the number of installations and fleets we have.  For a laugh try The Pentagon Wars  A friend who was in the army said it was pretty close to the truth.
 
2014-02-12 11:46:42 PM

Russ1642: They're downsizing and laying off 80,000 people. They should have no problems finding jobs.


Sure. There's no shortage of jobs right now, especially for qualified veterans.
 
2014-02-12 11:47:24 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-12 11:48:14 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: That article probably made sense to the enlisted, but all I can comprehend is that middle management is being fired for redundancy.


Fired but offered separation pay or early retirement, aka "laid off". A little gentler butt rape than firing.
 
2014-02-12 11:48:20 PM
Don't go in without a plan for when you get out.

/can apply to other things besides the military
 
2014-02-12 11:54:24 PM
are they bringing them back first or are we saving transportation costs too?
 
2014-02-12 11:57:06 PM

Watubi: Don't go in without a plan for when you get out.

/can apply to other things besides the military


THIS

Anyway, why can't they just become mercs? Lots of browns in different places need killin.
 
2014-02-12 11:57:24 PM
Welcome to the drawdown. Cutting scores go up, commisions go down, and if you don't pick up rank fast enough you are out the door. I couldn't choose a better time to try for commision, ugh.

Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials. I recall the Army being supplied more tanks than it needs for spares, and specifically requesting less(and being denied), Navy or Marines(can't remember which one) got an amphibious assault vessel with no welldeck, and the F-35 is still in design hell. Maybe if we weren't stupidly wasteful, we could retain manpower and stop increasing the pool of unemployed.
 
2014-02-13 12:01:16 AM
Whoah there, we have expensive weapons systems to pay for, and consultants and contractors.  Noncoms are like union workers, and you need to nip that sort of entitlement thinking in the bud.  Nip it!
 
2014-02-13 12:03:34 AM
Serious question, why do so many vets have an issue finding jobs once they're out of the service? Is this only an enlisted issue or does it affect officers as well?
 
2014-02-13 12:03:43 AM

Cyclometh: Russ1642: They're downsizing and laying off 80,000 people. They should have no problems finding jobs.

Sure. There's no shortage of jobs right now, especially for qualified veterans.


I recall many of them whining about the hardships they and their families had to face and how they could make more money working for private industry. Well, here's their chance. I guess the service is doing them a favor by providing some motivation to do better for their families.
 
2014-02-13 12:04:13 AM

Caffienatedjedi: Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials.


Because you can recruit and promote faster than you can ramp up production of materiel. Also, nobody gets paid to produce recruits, but tanks and planes are big business.

/That should cover both ends of the argument, and both are true
//going from stop-loss to RIF must really suck
 
2014-02-13 12:05:41 AM

bearcats1983: Serious question, why do so many vets have an issue finding jobs once they're out of the service? Is this only an enlisted issue or does it affect officers as well?


Officers have a much easier time getting good work. Some of my best bosses in civilian life were retired officers, the worst ones have been over-degreed morons.
 
2014-02-13 12:07:42 AM

The Repeated Meme: Watubi: Don't go in without a plan for when you get out.

/can apply to other things besides the military

THIS

Anyway, why can't they just become mercs? Lots of browns in different places need killin.


They ought to start with the honkys in DC
 
2014-02-13 12:08:29 AM

Caffienatedjedi: Welcome to the drawdown. Cutting scores go up, commisions go down, and if you don't pick up rank fast enough you are out the door. I couldn't choose a better time to try for commision, ugh.

Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials. I recall the Army being supplied more tanks than it needs for spares, and specifically requesting less(and being denied), Navy or Marines(can't remember which one) got an amphibious assault vessel with no welldeck, and the F-35 is still in design hell. Maybe if we weren't stupidly wasteful, we could retain manpower and stop increasing the pool of unemployed.


I'm with you on not buying more tanks and planes that the service doesn't need or want.  I don't agree with you about developing new weapons systems. Spend the money on R&D to develop the most advanced stuff out there so that we can get by with a smaller number of more highly trained personnel and be just as effective.

Cutting manpower sucks, but the nature of warfare is changing.  We really don't need hundreds of thousands of grunts and the NCOs that go with them anymore.  WWII style warfare isn't coming back.
 
2014-02-13 12:09:37 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Spend the money on R&D to develop the most advanced stuff out there so that we can get by with a smaller number of more highly trained personnel and be just as effective.


Yep, more drones, better advanced infantry systems, better vehicles.
 
2014-02-13 12:12:20 AM

Winston Smith '84: I recall many of them whining about the hardships they and their families had to face and how they could make more money working for private industry. Well, here's their chance. I guess the service is doing them a favor by providing some motivation to do better for their families.


That's nice. Bless your heart.
 
2014-02-13 12:15:15 AM
Unless I misunderstood the article, they have a year's notice and programs to help them find jobs.

I'm not sure what our military could do that would be better if they need to lay off people. Should we keep them on for life guaranteed?
 
2014-02-13 12:15:31 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Caffienatedjedi: Welcome to the drawdown. Cutting scores go up, commisions go down, and if you don't pick up rank fast enough you are out the door. I couldn't choose a better time to try for commision, ugh.

Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials. I recall the Army being supplied more tanks than it needs for spares, and specifically requesting less(and being denied), Navy or Marines(can't remember which one) got an amphibious assault vessel with no welldeck, and the F-35 is still in design hell. Maybe if we weren't stupidly wasteful, we could retain manpower and stop increasing the pool of unemployed.

I'm with you on not buying more tanks and planes that the service doesn't need or want.  I don't agree with you about developing new weapons systems. Spend the money on R&D to develop the most advanced stuff out there so that we can get by with a smaller number of more highly trained personnel and be just as effective.

Cutting manpower sucks, but the nature of warfare is changing.  We really don't need hundreds of thousands of grunts and the NCOs that go with them anymore.  WWII style warfare isn't coming back.


I agree with you on R&D. It just bugs the crap out of me when actual research is sidelined for throwing extra features in for more district pork, or cutting features that are core to the design because it doesn't give the right people kickbacks. From my understanding, the F-35 would be finished if not for meddling for the sake of kickbacks. Adding auxiliiary powerplants it doesn't need, and stupid things like that. Not fully briefed on that, but that is my understanding.

As to manpower, yea we probably have more than we need, but it still bugs me when thats the first thing cut down and its mostly the enlisted taking the hit, and not the officers who spend more time on the golf course than in uniform. In the end, government operates like a business, so throwing people out is easier.

Basically, I'm saying I'd be fine with a drawdown if waste were also cut down and if the job market was more friendly to the unemployed.
 
2014-02-13 12:17:17 AM

Caffienatedjedi: Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials.


For the same exact reason that if a school budget gets cut, the very first thing they do is announce they can no longer afford to bus your kids to school, or why if police dont get the budget they want, they announce you wont be getting patrols or timely responses in your neighborhood anymore.

Because management sees it as a way to directly piss people off, in the hopes that the outcry will result in a larger budget next time the issue comes up.
 
2014-02-13 12:17:48 AM
Wait, the military isn't a jobs program with guaranteed lifetime employment?
 
2014-02-13 12:23:39 AM

Caffienatedjedi: TuteTibiImperes: Caffienatedjedi: Welcome to the drawdown. Cutting scores go up, commisions go down, and if you don't pick up rank fast enough you are out the door. I couldn't choose a better time to try for commision, ugh.

Still don't understand why the budget cuts seem to first cut manpower, and not surplus materials. I recall the Army being supplied more tanks than it needs for spares, and specifically requesting less(and being denied), Navy or Marines(can't remember which one) got an amphibious assault vessel with no welldeck, and the F-35 is still in design hell. Maybe if we weren't stupidly wasteful, we could retain manpower and stop increasing the pool of unemployed.

I'm with you on not buying more tanks and planes that the service doesn't need or want.  I don't agree with you about developing new weapons systems. Spend the money on R&D to develop the most advanced stuff out there so that we can get by with a smaller number of more highly trained personnel and be just as effective.

Cutting manpower sucks, but the nature of warfare is changing.  We really don't need hundreds of thousands of grunts and the NCOs that go with them anymore.  WWII style warfare isn't coming back.

I agree with you on R&D. It just bugs the crap out of me when actual research is sidelined for throwing extra features in for more district pork, or cutting features that are core to the design because it doesn't give the right people kickbacks. From my understanding, the F-35 would be finished if not for meddling for the sake of kickbacks. Adding auxiliiary powerplants it doesn't need, and stupid things like that. Not fully briefed on that, but that is my understanding.

As to manpower, yea we probably have more than we need, but it still bugs me when thats the first thing cut down and its mostly the enlisted taking the hit, and not the officers who spend more time on the golf course than in uniform. In the end, government operates like a business, so throwing people out is easier.

B ...


I agree in regards to the pork and the profiteering of defense contractors.  Reforming the defense contractor system to shift greater risk and accountability on the contractors so that they eat the losses when they go over budget, as well as putting the specifications and requirements for a project in the hands of experts in the military alone (to keep Congressmen out of lobbying to have unnecessary things built in their districts) would be great.

The military is probably also a bit top heavy with the current officer structure.

As far as opportunities after service go, depending on what you did in the military there are a lot of great options.  Military pilots can walk into commercial aviation, IT and technology related roles shouldn't have a problem in the private sector, etc.

Plus, I know when I was last job hunting, almost every application I filled out had a section to declare if you were a veteran, with the subtext being that they would give special consideration to those with military experience.  Of course, for those coming back with PTSD or severe physical trauma, the future is considerably less bright.
 
2014-02-13 12:31:58 AM
WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."
 
2014-02-13 12:35:25 AM

wingedkat: Unless I misunderstood the article, they have a year's notice and programs to help them find jobs.

I'm not sure what our military could do that would be better if they need to lay off people. Should we keep them on for life guaranteed?


The military's not like running the fryolator at McDonald's or coding PHP as a consultant. People often commit to a long time of service- doing  really nasty, dangerous shiat, that doesn't pay well, comes with a pretty significant risk of death, dismemberment or mental trauma, in return for being able, after twenty years of putting their ass on the line, of having access to certain (not unreasonable) benefits afterward.

This program is targeting a few hundred senior NCOs- that means people who have put in a long time doing a pretty thankless job, and have probably done a decade or more- or are even coming up on twenty years of service. They're not getting promoted fast enough into the top-tier NCO ranks (first sergeant, sergeant major, etc) because there's not enough positions for them or 15 years ago they chose an MOS that was made less personnel-intensive by advances in technology, or just plain became obsolete on the modern battlefield.

But this program, according to TFA, is targeting something like 500 people. There's around 750 thousand members of the Army right now, including both active duty and reserve. In short, this program is targeting about one-half of one percent of active duty servicemembers. Most estimates I've seen put the number of people leaving the Army every year at between 50 and 100 thousand (mostly lower-ranking folks not intent on a career being replaced by new recruits). If you're looking to draw down, a better way to do it is just to accelerate retirements (which they're doing) and reduce recruitment.

In short, this seems to be doing very little or nothing to address overstaffing issues, and maybe it would be more appropriate to provide opportunities for these soldiers to take another position or cross-train to another MOS, if they wish to continue in their service. Unless there's something I'm missing here, I don't think it's unreasonable. If these guys are underperforming or have other problems, there are better ways to address it.
 
2014-02-13 12:37:21 AM

Winston Smith '84: WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."


I think I'd rather take my chances off the grid before I'd considerworking for Walmart.  Possibility != Walmart unless they are handing out 100,000 positions above part part time bagger.
 
2014-02-13 12:37:26 AM

Winston Smith '84: WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."


Sure. And they pay a steady living wage, too.
/Wait.
//No. No, Walmart farking doesn't.
 
2014-02-13 12:38:53 AM

Winston Smith '84: WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."


Those with the right skills (which most every vet picks up first term) at Wal-Mart wind up in either store management or their distribution centers, which are some serious heavy-duty shiat. And they pay very well. OTOH, you're working for Wal-Mart.
 
2014-02-13 12:44:39 AM
Did they get paid what they were promised? Are they getting the benefits that they were promised? Yes? Then fark 'em. Only a sociopath would complain about a country reducing the number of hired killers it has at it's disposal. Hopefully someday the number can be zero.
 
2014-02-13 12:45:38 AM
meh, sounds like their gonna get rid of the fatties and 16 year E-6s that they needed to retain while Iraq and Talibanistan were hot.
 
2014-02-13 12:47:32 AM

Cyclometh: But this program, according to TFA, is targeting something like 500 people. There's around 750 thousand members of the Army right now, including both active duty and reserve. In short, this program is targeting about one-half of one percent of active duty servicemembers. Most estimates I've seen put the number of people leaving the Army every year at between 50 and 100 thousand (mostly lower-ranking folks not intent on a career being replaced by new recruits). If you're looking to draw down, a better way to do it is just to accelerate retirements (which they're doing) and reduce recruitment


This is a short article on a tiny little program the Army is running to clear out the clutter at the top of the enlisted ranks and middle officer grades. It is intentionally very targeted. The overall reduction goals are proceeding through different means.
 
2014-02-13 12:47:56 AM

Boojum2k: Winston Smith '84: WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."

Those with the right skills (which most every vet picks up first term) at Wal-Mart wind up in either store management or their distribution centers, which are some serious heavy-duty shiat. And they pay very well. OTOH, you're working for Wal-Mart.


Since WalMart is hiring 100,000 veterans for very good pay, I don't see why anyone would biatch about the military downsizing.  They need to face reality that there aren't any lifetime guaranteed careers and get on with it.  Yeah, I know, they feel entitled to those guaranteed benefits after retirement so they can complain about all the other American workers who also want benefits.  The sooner everyone has to save and pay for their own retirement - the better.
 
2014-02-13 12:52:13 AM

That Guy Jeff: Did they get paid what they were promised? Are they getting the benefits that they were promised? Yes? Then fark 'em. Only a sociopath would complain about a country reducing the number of hired killers it has at it's disposal. Hopefully someday the number can be zero.


The world will have need for warfighters as long as two men stand. Its human nature. And way to strawman the entirety of the  armed services as tools of murder.. I guess I should disassociate with my best friend in the army. She is a 76B Clothing repair specialist, sure is tons of killing there. I guess I should disown my grandfather, Army Corp of Engineers. I guess every Corpman, Medic, and Dentist is a bad human inside. And I guess all those men working disaster relief are real monsters. The Marine MEU on the scene of a natural disaster within hours is obviously only there to murder brown people. Hell, they probably caused it.

And I don't know how it works for SNCOs, but an early EAS can  cut into retirement benefits. Only heard this story from people signed up for only a single tour though.
 
2014-02-13 12:52:50 AM

Cerebral Ballsy: Fired but offered separation pay or early retirement, aka "laid off". A little gentler butt rape than firing.


What sort of benefits do they get?  Specifically, those who have served in combat?

This may be a kindness; if you keep deploying someone enough times, eventually they will suffer a debilitating injury, either physically or mentally, and the US is doing a lousy job of taking care of the new disabled veterans that we have been creating.  Worse; if you suffer from PTSD or other psychiatric problems, instead of offering treatment the military will build up a file of your "disciplinary problems" (not hard to do when you have PTSD) so that they can dismiss you without any benefits or coverage at all.
 
2014-02-13 12:54:02 AM
You guys all realize that  Winston is a troll, right? Just let him dribble in peace.
 
2014-02-13 12:54:32 AM

Winston Smith '84: They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.


Citation please.

I'll wait.
 
2014-02-13 12:55:34 AM

Winston Smith '84: WTF are these guys biatching about?  There are plenty of jobs available unless they expect some cherry contractor position.  They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Walmart projects it will hire more than 100,000 veterans during the next five years. As the biggest private employer in the U.S., the company has 1.4 million U.S. associates working in 4,601 stores and clubs in the U.S.
"We believe Walmart is already the largest private employer of veterans in the country, and we want to hire more," said Bill Simon, Walmart U.S. president and CEO, in a statement. "I can think of no better group to lead in revitalizing our economy than those who have served in uniform. Through their service, veterans give us a land of freedom. When they return, it must be to a land of possibility."


Loss prevention just got real, yo.
 
2014-02-13 12:56:11 AM

pigeonstopper: This is a short article on a tiny little program the Army is running to clear out the clutter at the top of the enlisted ranks and middle officer grades.


Agreed, but on its face it seems that there's a small group of senior NCOs and middle-ranking officers who are going to be involuntarily denied the opportunity to get the full benefits package because of it. Servicemembers aren't middle management to be laid off at a whim; they've put a lot on the line to serve, and I think that needs to be factored into the calculus.
 
2014-02-13 12:56:47 AM
Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?
 
2014-02-13 12:57:26 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?


lolno.

/on paper, sure
//there's a reason vets are over-represented among the homeless
 
2014-02-13 01:00:59 AM

Cyclometh: TuteTibiImperes: Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?

lolno.

/on paper, sure
//there's a reason vets are over-represented among the homeless


I don't know, but logically I'd think military would get special treatment if they were something fancy like SOF or an MP. Then you have really kickass SWAT or a guy mostly pre-trained and used to dealing with strong drunken idiots on liberty. Run of the mill grunt, not as large of an advantage. Still think they'd have better firearms skills than someone fresh from the Academy.
 
2014-02-13 01:04:36 AM
On the bright side we'll have thousands of men and women qualified to write you tickets, kick your ass, or stomp/shoot you to death as new members of some law enforcement agency.
 
2014-02-13 01:06:26 AM

2wolves: Winston Smith '84: They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Citation please.

I'll wait.


30 years working in the same offices and sitting on hiring panels (Army Material Command, US Southern Command, US Atlantic Command, US Joint Forces Command, and lastly Joint Staff) with these entitlement addicts.Talk to these guys when they're within a year of getting out about what they want - I have - its shocking.  Also watched them rewrite civilian position descriptions with specific requirements matched to their resume while they were still on active duty so they could apply for the position immediately upon retirement.  I really can't blame them for grousing about getting caught in a reduction because their retirements benefits are very sweet - sweeter than most people realize.
 
2014-02-13 01:07:15 AM

Cyclometh: TuteTibiImperes: Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?

lolno.

/on paper, sure
//there's a reason vets are over-represented among the homeless


Aren't the homeless vets mainly the ones coming back with undiagnosed (or untreated) PTSD and other mental disorders stemming from their experiences overseas?  That's certainly an indictment against the medical care afforded to returning service members, and the VA could use a huge budget increase to deal with it.
 
2014-02-13 01:10:12 AM

Winston Smith '84: 2wolves: Winston Smith '84: They all feel entitiled to a government GS-15 step 10 position or contractor equivalent.

Citation please.

I'll wait.

30 years working in the same offices and sitting on hiring panels (Army Material Command, US Southern Command, US Atlantic Command, US Joint Forces Command, and lastly Joint Staff) with these entitlement addicts.Talk to these guys when they're within a year of getting out about what they want - I have - its shocking.  Also watched them rewrite civilian position descriptions with specific requirements matched to their resume while they were still on active duty so they could apply for the position immediately upon retirement.  I really can't blame them for grousing about getting caught in a reduction because their retirements benefits are very sweet - sweeter than most people realize.


There's no reason they shouldn't get those retirement benefits.  Hell, there's no reason everyone shouldn't have the opportunity to earn a solid pension and medical benefits upon retirement.

I can understand that the military doesn't need as many people as they have, but there should be another way to go about it.  Maybe shifting the ones from the military into other federal jobs for the remaining years they would need and then giving them the full retirement benefits upon completion could work.
 
2014-02-13 01:14:27 AM

Caffienatedjedi: Cyclometh: TuteTibiImperes: Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?

lolno.

/on paper, sure
//there's a reason vets are over-represented among the homeless

I don't know, but logically I'd think military would get special treatment if they were something fancy like SOF or an MP. Then you have really kickass SWAT or a guy mostly pre-trained and used to dealing with strong drunken idiots on liberty. Run of the mill grunt, not as large of an advantage. Still think they'd have better firearms skills than someone fresh from the Academy.


Speaking as ex-military myself (82nd Airborne Division, Artillery), I can tell you that there's not many SOF soldiers. They're special forces and there's just not that many of them. MPs, there's more of them (and I know a guy who used to be an MP), but there's still a tiny amount compared to the rest of the military.

What the military teaches isn't necessarily a specific set of skills that you can just bring across to any cookie-cutter civilian job. It teaches different skills- independence, self-reliance, mental discipline, leadership. These are soft skills that you can't really put on a bullet point skill list for a job opening.

Using myself as an example again- When I got out, I was an expert in land navigation, weapons handling, knew a good amount about ballistics, meteorology, surveying, maps, math, was an expert at rifles, certain machine guns, grenade launchers, pistols, shotguns and about half a dozen types of artillery pieces. I could run two miles in about 11.5 minutes, carry half my body weight for 12 miles in under 4 hours, knew how to jump out of airplanes, and could go without sleep for days. Those were my "hard" skills, at least as far as what the Army had taught me.

Basically I was qualified for zero jobs except maybe being a smoke jumper (which I really considered) or some other esoteric stuff.

However, many military vets are good employment prospects not because of their specific hard skills (some more, some less, especially outside of combat arms), but because of how they think, how they work, and their attitude. Those are things you can't really teach as a civilian, and they're valuable to any employer. But in a job market where there's a hundred people applying for every opening, you fall back on bullet point lists, and veterans- especially young ones who didn't develop a career in the military- often lose on those.

It doesn't help that the modern veteran is seen with so much stigma by employers as a risk (like the perception that every combat vet is one flashback away from murdering everyone in the office).

What it comes down to is that there really aren't many people hiring lots of veterans except places like Wal-Mart. And it's hard to go from driving equipment worth millions of dollars, commanding people with the best military training in the world, to stocking shelves for 1/4 the pay and no benefits.
 
2014-02-13 01:20:46 AM

Cyclometh: Caffienatedjedi: Cyclometh: TuteTibiImperes: Don't ex-military folks (with honorable discharges) get preferential treatment with applying for law enforcement positions, especially federal ones?

lolno.

/on paper, sure
//there's a reason vets are over-represented among the homeless

I don't know, but logically I'd think military would get special treatment if they were something fancy like SOF or an MP. Then you have really kickass SWAT or a guy mostly pre-trained and used to dealing with strong drunken idiots on liberty. Run of the mill grunt, not as large of an advantage. Still think they'd have better firearms skills than someone fresh from the Academy.

Speaking as ex-military myself (82nd Airborne Division, Artillery), I can tell you that there's not many SOF soldiers. They're special forces and there's just not that many of them. MPs, there's more of them (and I know a guy who used to be an MP), but there's still a tiny amount compared to the rest of the military.

What the military teaches isn't necessarily a specific set of skills that you can just bring across to any cookie-cutter civilian job. It teaches different skills- independence, self-reliance, mental discipline, leadership. These are soft skills that you can't really put on a bullet point skill list for a job opening.

Using myself as an example again- When I got out, I was an expert in land navigation, weapons handling, knew a good amount about ballistics, meteorology, surveying, maps, math, was an expert at rifles, certain machine guns, grenade launchers, pistols, shotguns and about half a dozen types of artillery pieces. I could run two miles in about 11.5 minutes, carry half my body weight for 12 miles in under 4 hours, knew how to jump out of airplanes, and could go without sleep for days. Those were my "hard" skills, at least as far as what the Army had taught me.

Basically I was qualified for zero jobs except maybe being a smoke jumper (which I really considered) or some other esoteric stuff ...


Thank you for the insight. This is the kind of stuff that you can only really hear from people with experience. Didn't cross my mind the significance of the frame of mind the Armed Forces instills.

Hope someday I'll be in the position to give others insight on this. Gunning for a Marine Commision through OCS. Best friend is pressuring me to go Infantry(which I am okay with the idea of), but I'm up for anything in Intel or Aviation.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report