Senior enlisted tell Congress that troops are concerned about pay
Chock Block sends us a link to the Military Times which reports that “Enlisted chiefs tell Congress pay fears are hurting morale“.
Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Dailey said he’s visited dozens of installations in his first year in his position and spoken with thousands of troops and families.
“Fiscal conservation is our duty as leaders in the public sector. But it’s hard to explain program and compensation cuts to a young soldier and his or her family,” Dailey said. “Whether actual or perceived, these things affect how they view our decisions. … We have to ask ourselves, is the value of these cuts worth the potential impact on our soldiers and their families? They’re still deploying and still separating from their families.”
That’s 180 degrees from the last group of senior NCOs who told Congress that pay cuts would make the military a better force on the battlefield. The last Marine Corps’ Sergeant Major, Micheal Barrett in 2014;
Barrett argued that the lower quality of life would be beneficial to Marines.
“I truly believe it will raise discipline,” he said. “You’ll have better spending habits. You won’t be so wasteful.”
The new Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Ronald Green in 2016;
Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green said that service also has had to deal with funding decreases that “continue to eat away at our readiness.” The Marine Corps “shouldn’t have to make decisions between quality of work and quality of life,” he said.
The difference two years can make along with some experienced senior enlisted folks who take their jobs of protecting the troops from Congress seriously.
Category: Big Pentagon
So, pay and readiness concerns are affecting troop morale? Hmm.
That kinda falls in the “No sh!t” category, doesn’t it?
Actually, Hondo, I think it probably deserves the full “Sherlock!”
Rock on SMA.
About time.
Mail, time off, chow, families and…..pay.
This is what it is about. Not thrift programs and SHARP.
Good to see the SMA laying it out.
RLTW.
What freaking IDIOT would say that less pay would improve morale? WTF are these clowns smoking?
When you make the money they make they don’t really care how the military pay is. Civilians at they best.
Does this mean the troops will have more bullets?
Now, let’s not have any crazy talk here, Ex-PH2
Every troop should have to go to the range for qualifying all the while wondering if there will be enough rounds to even do it.
I mean pew, pew, pew knocks the targets down right?
I don’t know, i’ve had more than one Private that only could have qualified if they had 120 rounds for the 40 targets.
But then I guess that just makes the old SMG’s point of “then they won’t be so wasteful”
“Here is 38 rounds, 40 targets, be more disciplined!”
So pay and benefit cuts WON’T increase morale, GEE WHIZ who’da thought of that? Come to think of it, when was the last time any political denizen of the Great Whorehouse on the Potomac River even remotely suggested THEY themselves call of one of their automatic pay raises or cut back on their own perks and luxuries they treat themselves to?
Barrett is a fucking moron!
No, he was just a ladder climber who was willing to wear those kneepads out.
He was one of those “PC NCO’s” that we see/have seen during our careers. You know, those that Blue Falcon the people they are suppose to be leading just to promote themselves and their career.
Yep!!
Just a few points: I made 300 bucks/month BEFORE taxes when I joined in 1976. And I thought I was living large. I ended up with a base pay of 4113.60/month before I retired, with a net pay of 3073.00, after taxes. Never married, never had kids, but I helped support my disabled mother and 2 disabled siblings. That did take a large portion of my pay, but I had to help my family. I didn’t get any extra pay for them because single Soldiers aren’t afforded the same benefits as married troops, but I managed. Speaking of which, back in the day, you had to submit a request in writing to the Company CO to get married. I think we ought to return to that concept. We’ve got people enlisting into the military that already have 3 or 4 kids. That’s fucking ridiculous. Your first mission is the military and your duties. If you’re burdened with too many dependents, that puts a strain on you financially as well as your readiness.
I agree with A Proud Infidel that the Congress should be forced to reduce their own pay and perks, especially since all they do is screw the country and become bureaucratic morons when they get to D.C.
Morale also increases when the troops are given the resources, equipment, gear, and weapons they need to do the mission and when they’re actually allowed to finish the job by completely defeating the enemy. And that hasn’t happened since WWII.
I saw a story this morning that special ops guys were having to buy their own gear, including body armor, before heading out on deployments.
If they, the people who typically get the first and best of equipment, are having to buy their own shit, where does that leave the average Joe?
Hmmm… if you’re having to buy your own gear, including armor, doesn’t that give you a wide range of options?
Please send a link. I’d like to read that story, because I simply don’t believe it’s true.
It is true that many troops choose to buy equipment that they feel is superior to the standard issue kit (boots seem to be a popular item) I have never heard of a Soldier, especially a SOF troop, having to buy their own gear because their unit simply didn’t provide it.
There are all kinds of problems when Joe buys his own stuff, but it often gets portrayed in the media as ‘my son had to buy his own boots/gloves/eyepro/ninja pouch because the Army/Navy/Marines wouldn’t buy it for him, but he has to have it because it’s what they wear on Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon’
There have been a few legit controversies over the past few years- one had to with DragonSkin armor vs the Interceptor, and the other had to do with the new ACH or MICH vs the old ballistic helmet (aka ‘the kevlar’ for you legs out there). Bottom line to both is that the military was sending troops out with the best gear available at the time.
“…especially since all they do is screw the country and become bureaucratic morons when they get to D.C.”
Not only that, the vast majority of them become multimillionaires while in orifice.
I love SMA Daily. I love that man. I would say “no homo”, but I’m not sure I would mean it….that man is that awesome.
I especially loved the Congressman who says he doesn’t understand why service members get out when they, “get so many benefits.”
After all, when he retires from Congress, he’ll only get $60k/yr from retirement.
And he gets paid $174,000 a year while in Congress, too.
Wonder why he doesn’t serve in Congress for “allowances only”?
I have heard from somewhat reliable sources that Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Ronald Green is a lackey and a tool.
Just passing it along.
I know him SgtMaj Green from back in the day. He is top flight. Superb in looking after his Marines. My guess is that you can always find something ‘wrong’ with any of us if you keep looking…
As you well know, everyone has different experiences.
I was just passing it along.
But let me ask you, what do you think of him taking the stand he did with regards to the pay issue?
That does not sound “top flight” to me.
Not Green, Barrett.
My bad.
That may be true, but Gen Neller is NOT a tool.
Obviously, pay and morale are directly proportional (more/higher pay=happier troop, less pay makes Joe a dull boy). But, as Mick and the ‘Stones said, you can’t always get what you want. The bottom line is that when it comes to troop pay (to include bonuses, special pay, housing allowances, enlistment/reenlistment incentives, etc), it is simple math. I just wish Congress would let us try to get what we need, which is a professional, well equipped, highly trained force that will be able to deal with the complex world we live in. Here’s the deal: You can build it, buy it, or fake it. In other words, you can ‘buy it’ (pay top dollar to recruit and retain the best troops), or you can ‘build it’ (pay a little less for mid grade recruits and train the hell out of them), or you can ‘fake it’ (pay less up front AND pay less for readiness) and just assume that because you have a large force that is up to strength that you have a high quality force. The thing is, whether you decide to build it or buy it, you end up paying the same in the end, in training and optempo dollars. Give me a few hundred troops and unlimited training dollars, gas, and ammo, and I will give you a world class battalion in 180 days or so. That battalion will maintain that readiness level for 90-180 days, then unless deployed it will start to decline (unless you put it back in an intensive training cycle). Want them to stick around to be your NCOs and company grade officers of the future? I have to make military life seem more attractive than life on the outside. That costs money, because at this point these guys have families (or expensive hobbies). Plus, they joined the Army (or Marines) to do Army (or Marine) stuff- go to the field, shoot, blow stuff up, drive tanks, etc. If they are sitting around garrison because there are no training dollars AND their pay sucks, they will take their GI bill and go home.… Read more »
False motivation is a bitch.