5 ms·

The military is especially prone to this problem. I’d hesitate to refer to people as dead weight, but the retirement structure encourages mid-level management

by poof131 12y ago

The military is especially prone to this problem. I’d hesitate to refer to people as dead weight, but the retirement structure encourages mid-level management to hang-on for twenty. Even if people are burnt out after 10 years, which the military is very capable of doing, many stay even when they and the Service would be better off if they moved on.

fredophile 12y ago
The problem with the military is how benefits are set up. There is a big jump in benefits at twenty years. If you put in 10-12 years your benefits aren't significantly better than someone who just did minimal time. If there was a small jump around the ten year point they'd probably see people willing to stop there instead of holding out 8-10 more years.
- mpyne 12y ago
  Well the personnel problems with the military go far beyond the timing of benefits alone, unfortunately. As it stands the military actually has great difficulty retaining people past 10 years. Many military communities are chronically undermanned at the senior enlisted and officer leadership levels. So while it's fair to say that the military has held onto lower-skilled workers, it's not exactly the case that it's leading to a glut of excess deadweight just hanging on. Rather, we use the "idiots" to fill the desks that would simply be left empty were it not for these guys biding their time to 20 years. Whether that's a net positive or not depends on the given billet being filled, but we'd have to do away with billet-based manpower and fine-tuned "year group" tracking entirely in order to truly see benefit from dropping deadweight in the 10-18 YOS ranks. But the way it stands now, many billets require a certain rank or grade to fill them, no matter what the skill level might be of excess junior (or senior) personnel.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    I know several people who left the U.S. Navy after 6-8 years rather than taking unpalatable billets (one was a master-at-arms (IIRC), serving on several of the hospital ships who was given the choice of leaving or moving to Diego Garcia; several others were Sea-Bees) or who took the latter of the up-or-out option after being unable to advance under new requirements. It always seemed like the Navy was doing its best to get rid of skilled workers.
- crag 12y ago
  It's also a feeling of being stuck. I mean, you a 13B, where you gonna get a job? At Burger King? And you're (were) an E6; a platoon leader with responsibility for personnel and artillery equipment worth millions and now you're flipping burgers? I've always thought the Army needed a job training problem (maybe through the VA, if nothing else) where you could "un-learn" your military skills in favor of civilian skills.
  - Loughla 12y ago
    I live in an area that had a relatively high number of returning vets about a year ago. We instituted a job training program at our college. Many institutions, especially community colleges, provide similar programs. We have been surprised to see that some of the skills making these young people successful while serving have almost no translation into the civilian world, outside of being able to follow orders really, really well. It's easy to forget that many members of the services do jobs that don't exist in the civilian world. It's easy to forget that many returning vets enlisted at 18 and have had no practical training to ease their transition back to civilian life.
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      Could you elaborate on those kinds of jobs? Obviously relative few companies hire people to plan artillery strikes, etc, but I suppose those aren't what you mean. Does a purchasing department at Big Corp really differ that much from logistics and supply work?
      - Loughla 12y ago
        It's actually less to do with military as in fighting, and more in the direct application of the skills they're supposed to have. For example: Most requests for our returning vets come from transportation and trade (we're a river town relatively close to major north/south and east/west highways and a major railway line). The largest portion of our returning vets were in the army or army national guard, in the local transportation groups. We don't have infantry in our area, we have truck drivers and mechanics. Anyway, the requests and the expertise seemed a custom fit - the soldiers ran big trucks and trains, and there is no better organization than the United States Army when it comes to large-scale logistics. Our returning vets, though, are unable to branch outside of their assigned mode of operation. The mechanics are able to work on, say, heavy machines and diesel engines so they're able to work on the trains and barges really well, but are unable to translate those skills to tractor trailers or small(ish) engines like pick-ups or delivery vans. The Army transport drivers are able to drive tractor trailers or operate barges. BUT, they do not have the certifications necessary to legally do that work stateside, AND they lack skills in the classroom to be able to sit and pass the test for the licenses. Usually it's because they have never been able to do math well, and are unable to pass a college level mathematics course (it's applied math, so it has practical applications in their jobs - not college algebra or statistics or anything like that). Along with that, they're unable to translate their existing skills into heavy machinery for construction, demolition or excavation. The leaders/officers are unable to transition out of the military 'because I said so' mentality and into the corporate 'because it's in your best interest' mentality. Our retraining in this area has been the biggest failure; they don't see the need to change their mode of people management, and we don't have a reason for them to either (other than long-term employment). The paperwork individuals, like you use in your example, transition easily. If the person worked in an office, they will come back and find employment almost immediately. This could all be helped if the military provided training ON THEIR END before they come back to the world. Believe it or not, the transition from the military to a college environment is incredibly difficult for most folks.
- mgkimsal 12y ago
  "If there was a small jump around the ten year point they'd probably see people willing to stop there instead of holding out 8-10 more years." Or if there was less of a jump at 20.
gnopgnip 12y ago
The military has the up or out program. It varies depending on the branch, but if you don't get promoted past e5 by ten years you get separated. Generally if you get to e6 you will do 15+ and get retirement benefits.

by poof131 12y ago

fredophile 12y ago

The problem with the military is how benefits are set up. There is a big jump in benefits at twenty years. If you put in 10-12 years your benefits aren't significantly better than someone who just did minimal time. If there was a small jump around the ten year point they'd probably see people willing to stop there instead of holding out 8-10 more years.

mpyne 12y ago
Well the personnel problems with the military go far beyond the timing of benefits alone, unfortunately. As it stands the military actually has great difficulty retaining people past 10 years. Many military communities are chronically undermanned at the senior enlisted and officer leadership levels. So while it's fair to say that the military has held onto lower-skilled workers, it's not exactly the case that it's leading to a glut of excess deadweight just hanging on. Rather, we use the "idiots" to fill the desks that would simply be left empty were it not for these guys biding their time to 20 years. Whether that's a net positive or not depends on the given billet being filled, but we'd have to do away with billet-based manpower and fine-tuned "year group" tracking entirely in order to truly see benefit from dropping deadweight in the 10-18 YOS ranks. But the way it stands now, many billets require a certain rank or grade to fill them, no matter what the skill level might be of excess junior (or senior) personnel.
- mcguire 12y ago
  I know several people who left the U.S. Navy after 6-8 years rather than taking unpalatable billets (one was a master-at-arms (IIRC), serving on several of the hospital ships who was given the choice of leaving or moving to Diego Garcia; several others were Sea-Bees) or who took the latter of the up-or-out option after being unable to advance under new requirements. It always seemed like the Navy was doing its best to get rid of skilled workers.
crag 12y ago
It's also a feeling of being stuck. I mean, you a 13B, where you gonna get a job? At Burger King? And you're (were) an E6; a platoon leader with responsibility for personnel and artillery equipment worth millions and now you're flipping burgers? I've always thought the Army needed a job training problem (maybe through the VA, if nothing else) where you could "un-learn" your military skills in favor of civilian skills.
- Loughla 12y ago
  I live in an area that had a relatively high number of returning vets about a year ago. We instituted a job training program at our college. Many institutions, especially community colleges, provide similar programs. We have been surprised to see that some of the skills making these young people successful while serving have almost no translation into the civilian world, outside of being able to follow orders really, really well. It's easy to forget that many members of the services do jobs that don't exist in the civilian world. It's easy to forget that many returning vets enlisted at 18 and have had no practical training to ease their transition back to civilian life.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    Could you elaborate on those kinds of jobs? Obviously relative few companies hire people to plan artillery strikes, etc, but I suppose those aren't what you mean. Does a purchasing department at Big Corp really differ that much from logistics and supply work?
    - Loughla 12y ago
      It's actually less to do with military as in fighting, and more in the direct application of the skills they're supposed to have. For example: Most requests for our returning vets come from transportation and trade (we're a river town relatively close to major north/south and east/west highways and a major railway line). The largest portion of our returning vets were in the army or army national guard, in the local transportation groups. We don't have infantry in our area, we have truck drivers and mechanics. Anyway, the requests and the expertise seemed a custom fit - the soldiers ran big trucks and trains, and there is no better organization than the United States Army when it comes to large-scale logistics. Our returning vets, though, are unable to branch outside of their assigned mode of operation. The mechanics are able to work on, say, heavy machines and diesel engines so they're able to work on the trains and barges really well, but are unable to translate those skills to tractor trailers or small(ish) engines like pick-ups or delivery vans. The Army transport drivers are able to drive tractor trailers or operate barges. BUT, they do not have the certifications necessary to legally do that work stateside, AND they lack skills in the classroom to be able to sit and pass the test for the licenses. Usually it's because they have never been able to do math well, and are unable to pass a college level mathematics course (it's applied math, so it has practical applications in their jobs - not college algebra or statistics or anything like that). Along with that, they're unable to translate their existing skills into heavy machinery for construction, demolition or excavation. The leaders/officers are unable to transition out of the military 'because I said so' mentality and into the corporate 'because it's in your best interest' mentality. Our retraining in this area has been the biggest failure; they don't see the need to change their mode of people management, and we don't have a reason for them to either (other than long-term employment). The paperwork individuals, like you use in your example, transition easily. If the person worked in an office, they will come back and find employment almost immediately. This could all be helped if the military provided training ON THEIR END before they come back to the world. Believe it or not, the transition from the military to a college environment is incredibly difficult for most folks.
mgkimsal 12y ago
"If there was a small jump around the ten year point they'd probably see people willing to stop there instead of holding out 8-10 more years." Or if there was less of a jump at 20.

gnopgnip 12y ago

The military has the up or out program. It varies depending on the branch, but if you don't get promoted past e5 by ten years you get separated. Generally if you get to e6 you will do 15+ and get retirement benefits.