Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
29. The end result will probably be that they'll slow cost of living increases--they've already been
Tue Nov 19, 2013, 05:15 AM
Nov 2013

shafting retirees on this score for a while) and they will continue to aggressively downsize.

When you send people home, you don't have to keep paying them.

The "trick" (no shooting the messenger, here--this is how former SECDEF CHENEY devised the last massive drawdown that got implemented under the Clinton administration) is to shove as many people out the door without having to pay them any retirement. How is this done?


--- You target people who need to move "up or out" and if there is an exam or some other hoop they need to jump through to get that promotion, you make it VERY hard to get through that hoop. The ones who fail get booted and you don't have to pay them anything.

---Another way to get rid of people is to piss test early and often--there's always a small percentage of weed smokers or weekend coke sniffers or name-your-poison ingesters--nail them and catapult them outta there.

---Get all "zero tolerance" over misbehavior, to include nit-picky misbehavior. Five minutes late for muster? Treat it like the crime of the century. Flunked that personnel or barracks inspection? Make it a mandatory lower mark on evaluation forms, making the servicemember less competitive against his or her peers. And if a military member gets in "civilian" trouble? Haul out the catapult and jettison them from the ranks!

---The dreaded "PT" test....make the standards more difficult, quantify the standards so the test isn't just noted as PASS/FAIL--make sure that people who barely scrape by are shamed, and those who do nothing but hit the gym are lauded. Getting a little thick around the middle, or wide across the beam? Be draconian in the imposition of weight standards, and dog the living shit out of people who don't meet the requirements. If they can't shape up quick enough, show them the door.

---Finally, if, after doing all this, you still don't get your numbers down, start offering severance packages. Say, you too can leave six months early if your enlistment is coming to an end! We'll give you a few perks to make a couple of months after we've shown you the door easier--commissary benefits, say, or a couple of months of medical care and a transition workshop. Or, alternatively, if you don't express an intention to reenlist by X date with no assignment guarantee (you could end up in Hell on Wheels, Shitville--it's a--pardon the expression--crap shoot!, we're not going to let you re-up. OR...for people who are well on their way to retirement, we'll offer those guys a "Temporary Early Retirement Authority" whereby we'll give 'em a smaller retirement, worth less, but it's still something, if they'd just hit the bricks, take their ball and go home.


I could tell you horror stories about that drawdown--a lot of good people were shoved out the door. Many didn't want to go. Feelings were hurt. People felt betrayed. Those of us who survived the axe were left with emotions that ran the gamut from survivor's guilt to giddy jubilation to shame at knowing that so-and-so over there was probably a better candidate to stay than you or someone you knew was, and damn it, life is just not fair.

It was an angst-laden and divisive time. I'm sure that's coming again. It's terribly unfortunate.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I doubt any of them are volunteering cuts to their own pay Scootaloo Nov 2013 #1
Generals and Admirals live like Arab Sheiks. JaneQPublic Nov 2013 #45
You said it well dballance Nov 2013 #2
Many enlisted personnel are already on food stamps as it is KamaAina Nov 2013 #3
Nearly all enlisted qualify Scairp Nov 2013 #21
Would make a nice little vignette KamaAina Nov 2013 #22
Well, they were on food stamps. That will probably get "fixed", too. n/t winter is coming Nov 2013 #24
Yeah, that'll win wars. RC Nov 2013 #56
Or they could buy ten fewer F-35s and give all active personnel an extra $1500... (nt) Posteritatis Nov 2013 #4
The generals don't care about what happens Kelvin Mace Nov 2013 #5
Start with the generals and admirals!! lastlib Nov 2013 #6
I'm frankly surprised they just don't pull prisoners & force them to enlist for free tomm2thumbs Nov 2013 #7
During the 60's, Viet Nam era, they did give some men that choice. RC Nov 2013 #57
The Pentagon's Biggest Overrun: Way Too Many Generals Lasher Nov 2013 #8
Paygrade creep has been a problem for awhile. It got really bad under Bush. MADem Nov 2013 #26
It's not about strategic need. It is about maintaining a posh high society. Ash_F Nov 2013 #53
Figures. Solly Mack Nov 2013 #9
replace private contractors with active duty troops and give them a raise...will still cost less nt msongs Nov 2013 #10
It would cost far more which is why the military uses private contractors. former9thward Nov 2013 #13
Military pay vs. contract workers salimbag Nov 2013 #23
See, in today's military, you would never have been hired without a real job and a MADem Nov 2013 #28
Food for thought: Are Private Contractors Really Cheaper? Lasher Nov 2013 #32
The article is correct. It's all down to what DoD does NOT have to pay out. MADem Nov 2013 #37
It's more complicated than that, as I'm sure you are aware. Lasher Nov 2013 #41
They're subject to civilian law--which can be problematic if you're working in a place with MADem Nov 2013 #48
All true. As the former wife of a former Army officer, I am totally familiar with this. ancianita Nov 2013 #34
Of course the pay is higher salimbag Nov 2013 #49
They don't WANT to recruit people for support. It's cheaper to hire them as needed. MADem Nov 2013 #52
+1--seems more expensive in the short term, but over time it saves a bundle. MADem Nov 2013 #27
The employer's cost of benefits is in the price billed to the military. SharonAnn Nov 2013 #46
The reason any employer uses contractors is because it is cheaper. former9thward Nov 2013 #47
yeah, cut pay and benefits to people serving.... olddad56 Nov 2013 #11
Oh.... the South (and their rep.s - mostly Repubs) are not going to like that underpants Nov 2013 #12
The end result will probably be that they'll slow cost of living increases--they've already been MADem Nov 2013 #29
I was in the Army during the first downsizing underpants Nov 2013 #31
I survived that mess, too--I was in a job where I was difficult to replace. MADem Nov 2013 #38
Yeah underpants Nov 2013 #39
If you ever do find it, bring it back! MADem Nov 2013 #43
Thanks for informing everyone of middle and lower level shafting. Military brass seem to follow the ancianita Nov 2013 #35
It is a sad fact that the places they make the cuts affect the lower/mid pay grades more than the MADem Nov 2013 #40
But we need more multi-million dollar war machines Ash_F Nov 2013 #14
Fucking scumbag Generals hardtravelin Nov 2013 #15
Congrats tazkcmo Nov 2013 #54
oddly, they are only doing what Congress is telling them to do pasto76 Nov 2013 #16
guest workers hollowdweller Nov 2013 #17
The brass should prove its leadership quality and undergo its own austerity program. ancianita Nov 2013 #18
The main problem is NobodyHere Nov 2013 #19
The "brass" has PLEADED with Congress to not spend money on bullshit in the past--and CONGRESS does MADem Nov 2013 #30
Thank you for the links. I stand corrected, though the brass have the power to use/not use ancianita Nov 2013 #33
Here's the problem with not utilizing contracts, and let's use the "grass cutting on the base" one MADem Nov 2013 #42
The military doesn't say anything, or point fingers, because "civilian control of the military" is a MADem Nov 2013 #44
Well at least they aren't weaning themselves off contractors, because that would be terrible. nt killbotfactory Nov 2013 #20
Shrinking Pentagon budgets? Mnpaul Nov 2013 #25
Outsource to China Blandocyte Nov 2013 #36
My bet is pay and benefits will largely remain at their current level in the end cstanleytech Nov 2013 #50
My guess is that base pay and benefits will remain static. Kaleva Nov 2013 #51
What a surprising response. NutmegYankee Nov 2013 #55
Soldiers must suffer to protect the profiteers! tabasco Nov 2013 #58
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Top military chiefs: Cut ...»Reply #29