Posted on 05/22/2002 7:51:19 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
ARLINGTON, Va. — U.S. servicemembers should be paid more than what workers in the private sector earn, "in order to compensate for the special demands associated with military life," according to the Pentagon’s latest salary assessment.The Defense Department’s ninth annual Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation (QRMC), released May 17, concludes that military pay for all grades and specialties should be set "above average levels in the private sector."
Pentagon officials use the QRMC as their principal source of evidence when they ask Congress for higher salaries and better benefits for servicemembers.
The 2002 pay raise, which ranged from 5 to 10 percent for everyone in uniform and was the largest increase in two decades, was based on the previous QRMC’s findings.
The newest report backs up the Bush administration’s recommendation to Congress to approve an across-the-board pay hike in 2003 of 4.1 percent, with targeted raises of up to 6.5 percent for some midcareer personnel.
Both branches of Congress have agreed to support the 2003 salary increases, so they are almost certain to be part of the Pentagon budget President Bush will sign into law later this year.
The raises will bring the military close to the new study’s specific recommendation that servicemembers should earn 20 percent more than the average civilian makes working in a job that requires comparable training, education and experience.
For example, if the average reported salary for a civilian accountant in the United States is $30,000 per year, a servicemember who does accounting at the same level should be paid $42,000 each year.
As have past versions of the study, the new document continues to express concern over compensation for mid-grade enlisted servicemembers and junior officers.
The Pentagon’s salary and benefits packages have "not kept pace with earnings for comparably educated workers in the private sector," the report says, although it does acknowledge that the 2002 pay raise "did much to remedy" the mid-grade pay gap.
But the gap is not closed, and in order to meet the 70th-percentile goal, the additional targeted pay raises contained in the 2003 budget are necessary, the report says.
In addition to basic salary, the QRMC includes detailed analysis of issues such as special pays and bonuses, earnings for military spouses, allowances for people assigned overseas, veteran’s education benefits and military retiree earnings.
I'm quite certain that those who have government credit card problems are already making significant incomes. Think generals and other very senior officers.
Unless things have changed a great deal since I got out, darned few people in the military have government credit cards.
They are given out like candy to all ranks. The debt and misuse associated with these cards are epidemic in scale and are not limited to junior enlisted.
... ~50% time deployed overseas away from home and family (especially in the Navy), not being able to use that 30 days per year leave due to 'operational needs' in many cases, working in some of the most dangerous environments in the world (ie carrier flight decks, combat zones, etc), being both a representative and target whether on duty or off, etc.
Just balancing your paybenefits points with the scarifices demanded of servicemen and women.
No flames either.
V/R
FWIW, pay scales should go up, with a large bump for NCOs and Field Grade officers. Let there be turn over in the lower grades, but do a better job of attracting and keeping professional, career-minded people.
Somebody in the Pentagon decided that EVERYBODY needed to have government credit cards.. in fact, if you are travelling on orders, some military facilities won't take anything EXCEPT a government credit card (issued by Bank of America).
The REALLY fun part is that finance still doesn't pay the soldiers until they're damn good and ready (30 to 90 days later), but the bank wants their money NOW (not later than 45 days). Guess who typically is stuck floating a loan to the bank, and it damn sure isn't the pogues at post finance?
Bank of America got mad, tho... GIs learned, and requested that their expenses charged on the card be paid directly by finance... so the bank is no longer getting free loans from GIs.
They threatened to cancel the contract (leaving GIs down range with no funds or ability to pay for anything.. how thoughtful!), until Uncle Sugar threatened to yank their license to do business...
Overall, the damn things are one of the biggest pain in the ass items around... but since the burocrats know best, we're directed to follow... Until the reg gets changed again.
The comaraderie was great. The challenges were fun. Just knowing that you were making a difference in a small way was fulfilling. Meeting the rest of America and being assigned to foreign lands was a kind of payment in itself. I didn't join the Army to make a lot of money. I didn't stay in to make a lot of money. My retirement pay is certainly not a lot of money.
I'm all for paying these folks whatever the public/market will bear but those that stick with it are doing it for reasons other than money.
They are 'issued' with strict understanding of their use, and yes some are too immature to handle that responsibility. The real purpose behind them was not a benifit of the job, however. It was to reduce the inconvenience, time, costs and paperwork associted with filing travel claims, getting advance travel pay, etc, for servicemen when they travel.
I can say that in my most recent experience (last month), the system works far better than it ever did when I was active duty. I went on a reserve assignment and was able to pay all my travel expenses on the credit card, showed receipts at the gaining command, and was direct deposit paid three days before I left the command (with no paperwork due). In the old days it would take several weeks and multiple mailing of orders and receipts to one or more disbusing offices to do the same. I often was not paid yet when the card balance ws due and had to take it out of pocket until the reimbursement arrived.
V/R
An accountant in Akron is going to make less than his counterpart in NYC, due to cost of living and market forces. By the same token, military personnel stationed in different places will face different living standards. Skilled personnel in non-profits typically earn less than those in the for-profit sector, some organizations compensate partially based on seniority, others don't, etc.
The military is free and clear to assess the value of its personnel based on the very unique nature of its mission and environment. Comparisons to the "real world" will undoubtedly bring farcical compensation schedules to certain classes. The best idea listed: tax free earnings for active personnel. When I think about that, it seems to make a tremendous amount of sense....
But the best part was the generous overtime, shift, and holiday pay schedule. Let me think.... how much extra did I get for those extra long hours at odd times, in strange places? Oh, now I remember! A 3-day pass, sometimes!
The issue with making salaries competitive with the market is that in order to attract the best and brightest, you do need to give them some competitive compensation, otherwise, as soon as you spend $50000 training an electronics technician, or ~2 million training a pilot, you will lose that investment when they are enticed to leave service by a significantly better salary offer in the civilian sector. Those that remain are either the most patriotic who do the jobs for love of it, or those who don't have the skills/aptitude to do anything else. That makes for a poor work environment as it is depressing for those who want to be there, and those who don't really want to be there have little motivation to do a good job anyway.
I must add, in my experience most servicemen love their jobs and are willing to be below market salary, as long as they feel they are not being abused or taken for granted, and as long as their families are not living at substandard or poverty level.
Remember that military personnel get (especially REMFs):
30 days (that is 6 weeks) of paid vacation a year
Wrong! Military personnel must take weekends as leave. For instance, I want to take off 3 consecutive weeks then I must take the days as 21 consecutive days, we don't just take the weekdays as leave.
Average a 3-4 day weekends nearly every other week
Wrong, I don't know where you worked but the military I'm in doesn't have this luxury.
Paid to work out/exercise
Correct, since we are paid based on a 24 hour duty day I don't see that this should be a problem. Also, being physically fit is a prerequisite to being in the military.
Can not be fired (ie kicked out of the army)
Wrong, haven't you ever heard of a courts martial or administrative discharge?
Can not be laid off
Wrong, haven't you heard of the RIF (reduction in force) program. In the 90's we cut our forces significantly (laid off).
Full benefits (health, dental, 401k, etc)
Correct, what's wrong with this?
Need only 20 years until full retirement
Wrong, retirement at 20 years is at the 50% of base pay rate. Housing and other allowances are not used to calculate retired pay.
It is not really comparing apples to apples. And what do you compare (in the civilian world) to a Ranger or SF?
No flames - I have lived in both worlds
I don't know what military you were in but you sure don't know what you're talking about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.