USAF force shaping & contractors

Started by mikeylikey, May 26, 2006, 01:26:34 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mikeylikey

Since we have a thread on the problem with CAP, heres one for the AF.  First let me say that force shaping http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020821 is a great way to say, "thanks for your desire to serve your country, but the Air Force doesn't want you anymore, try the Army".  The Army will only take so many of these officers, and Reserve positions are getting difficult to find.  I just don't get it sometimes.  Two of my friends received notice that they will not be retained, one tried the Army who told him no, the other has tried finding a reserve slot in the AF and has had no luck.  This is absolutely ridiculous on the part of the Air Force.
What's up monkeys?

Al Sayre

Something tells me that when the USAF figures out that they really needed to keep these people they are shedding left and right, and tries to recruit them back, they're going to get the old middle finger salute from a lot of former USAF members.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Hammer

I have no idea why the Air Force is cutting so many jobs.

SKYKING607

There's something more to this than we think.  Only 192 officers....hmmmmm...something's up guys.
CAWG Career Captain

dwb

Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 02:23:24 PMI have no idea why the Air Force is cutting so many jobs.

That's an easy one: their budget is being cut.  The Army, including Reserve and Guard components, are carrying the most weight for the current deployments.  The Army needs more people, the Air Force needs less.

Al Sayre

True, but the USAF appears to have forgotten rule #1 of Leadership:

TAKE CARE OF YOUR PEOPLE!!!

You know, when you stop and think about it, Congress and the rest of the military hierarchy seem to have forgotten that rule also,  just look how they treat Veterans now as opposed to just after WWII...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Hammer

Quote from: justin_bailey on May 26, 2006, 04:46:05 PM
Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 02:23:24 PMI have no idea why the Air Force is cutting so many jobs.

That's an easy one: their budget is being cut.  The Army, including Reserve and Guard components, are carrying the most weight for the current deployments.  The Army needs more people, the Air Force needs less.

If they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 05:43:13 PM
If they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

Nope.  Doesn't work that way.  The AF doesn't pay the contractors.  They just pay for the contract.

shorning

Quote from: mikeylikey on May 26, 2006, 01:26:34 PM
First let me say that force shaping is a great way to say, "thanks for your desire to serve your country, but the Air Force doesn't want you anymore, try the Army". 


That's kind of a mischaracterization of the situation.  It's not a matter of the AF not wanting the people.  The AF and Navy been direct reduce the number of troops we have.  Because of a totally different mission, the Army still needs more people as long as we have boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And the AF isn't just cutting officers.  They've cut enlisted billets too.  There goal is to get to a certain end-strength that has been mandated by DoD.  While the "Blue-to-Green" programs are options, not everyone will be accepted.

Think of it this way:  if the military has a (relatively) fix total number of troops, then the more the Army is allotted, the fewer the other services can have.  That's an over simplification of the problem, but it helps illustrate the issue.

If you think this is ugly, you should have been around for the RIFs of the early 90s!



Cadet Bonnett

Cadet A1C Christin Bonnett
Registered Peer Mediator
SET, GES Certified
NH Wing

El Campamento del Ala de NH aquí yo vengo.

MIKE

Quote from: Cadet Bonnett on May 26, 2006, 08:03:36 PM
Are members of CAP losing thier jobs.

Some members of the National Headquarters staff did get let go earlier this year.
Mike Johnston

Cadet Bonnett

Quote from: MIKE on May 26, 2006, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: Cadet Bonnett on May 26, 2006, 08:03:36 PM
Are members of CAP losing thier jobs.

Some members of the National Headquarters staff did get let go earlier this year.

why :-[
Cadet A1C Christin Bonnett
Registered Peer Mediator
SET, GES Certified
NH Wing

El Campamento del Ala de NH aquí yo vengo.

MIKE

Mike Johnston

shorning

Quote from: Cadet Bonnett on May 26, 2006, 08:03:36 PM
Are members of CAP losing thier jobs.

This topic has nothing to do with CAP jobs.  We're talking about manpower in the Air Force.

Hammer

Quote from: shorning on May 26, 2006, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 05:43:13 PM
If they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

Nope.  Doesn't work that way.  The AF doesn't pay the contractors.  They just pay for the contract.

But they are paying the salary of the person who is the Contractor, right?

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on May 27, 2006, 01:15:44 AM
Quote from: shorning on May 26, 2006, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 05:43:13 PM
If they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

Nope.  Doesn't work that way.  The AF doesn't pay the contractors.  They just pay for the contract.

But they are paying the salary of the person who is the Contractor, right?

The AF isn't.  You misunderstand how "contractors" work.

RAZOR

The Contract with the Air Force when you enlist or become an officer has a little clause in it that says "we reserve the right to terminate your enlistment at the convience of the government".

dwb

Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 05:43:13 PMIf they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

Speaking as a contractor puke, allow me to say that in a lot of cases, they're not doing the same job as USAF personnel.  It's not as easy as just swapping military and contractor personnel.

It's easier for the military to contract out things that are not their core competencies, because it would cost them a lot more to grow that capability internally, if that were even possible.

Hammer

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 01, 2006, 01:05:47 PM
Quote from: Hammer on May 26, 2006, 05:43:13 PMIf they cut their Contractors and used Air Force People in their place, that would help out on the budget.  I do not support the fact that Contractors make alot more money then the Military Personnel who do the same job.  It just is not fair..

Speaking as a contractor puke, allow me to say that in a lot of cases, they're not doing the same job as USAF personnel.  It's not as easy as just swapping military and contractor personnel.

It's easier for the military to contract out things that are not their core competencies, because it would cost them a lot more to grow that capability internally, if that were even possible.

I just want to say that at USAFE/DO and USAFE/LG, they DID did do the same things.  I have nothing against Contractors, but when one is making more than an O-6 makes for doing less work, that's not right.

dwb

I'll assume that you are correct that it could be an even swap of military vs. civilian personnel (because sometimes, it is).

You have to separate salary from cost.  Although a contractor may be making a higher salary, you have to consider the cost of health care, paid time off, other benefits, housing, administration, issued equipment, insurance, etc. that the AF has to pay for its own people.

The total cost of outsourcing that function may be less to the AF than the cost of paying for a military officer (or enlisted) to serve in that billet.  Not just the salary cost, but the other personnel costs as well.

The company awarded the contract probably has less overhead costs, so it can pass that on to the employee in the form of salary.  Or, the contractor could be his own business (seen that before), in which case he's getting to keep what would normally go to corporate overhead/fee.

In any event, it's not simple.  While there are certainly cases of companies receiving favorable contracts that don't necessarily benefit the AF, in more cases, it is of financial advantage to the DoD, if for no other reason than the contract money is a different bucket than the operational funding.

afgeo4

There is a different issue.  There's a fixed number of airmen slots in the air force and the more you use contractors for non-combatant jobs, the more airmen you free up for jobs like security police, civil engineering, flight operations, aircraft maintenance, etc. 

If you take a look at Air Force manning, you'll see that there are lots of heavily undermanned AFSCs out there and those aren't ones that are being replaced by contractors. 

Also, when we talk about personnel expenses, please remember that even though the contractor expenses are higher than airman salaries, these contracts do not receive BAH, BAS and Tricare and not just for the worker him/herself, but for the entire family!  The BAH alone can more than make up the difference.  For example, an E-6 with 2 dependents and 10 years of service who is stationed in the NYC greater area makes $2770.50 in pay a month plus $2119.00 in BAH, and $267.18 in BAS for a grand total pay of $5056.68 of standard pay without any extra flight, hazard, or combat pay.  I bet it's a lot more than most people thought the military paid.  Now I know that NYC isn't the standard BAH rate, but it's out there.  The average BAH rate's probably closer to $800 a month, but it's still not shabby at all.
GEORGE LURYE

Hammer

Quote from: justin_bailey on June 01, 2006, 03:06:06 PM
You have to separate salary from cost.  Although a contractor may be making a higher salary, you have to consider the cost of health care, paid time off, other benefits, housing, administration, issued equipment, insurance, etc. that the AF has to pay for its own people.

True, I never thought of that.

Quote from: afgeo4 on June 01, 2006, 03:19:34 PM
There is a different issue.  There's a fixed number of airmen slots in the air force and the more you use contractors for non-combatant jobs, the more airmen you free up for jobs like security police, civil engineering, flight operations, aircraft maintenance, etc. 

If you take a look at Air Force manning, you'll see that there are lots of heavily undermanned AFSCs out there and those aren't ones that are being replaced by contractors. 

That's also.  However I have heard of some Military Bases that Contract out the Security at thee gates.

Al Sayre

What do you mean some?  I haven't been to a U.S. base in the last 20 years that had military gate guards.
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on June 01, 2006, 01:17:23 PM
I just want to say that at USAFE/DO and USAFE/LG, they DID did do the same things.  I have nothing against Contractors, but when one is making more than an O-6 makes for doing less work, that's not right.

I assure you, while it may appear that they do the same things, they don't.  I'm sure your dad says they did, but if he really thought about it, they don't.  They are paid to focus on specific areas whereas the military member has a whole gambit of other things they are required to do in addition to their primary job.  If they don't like it, they can always get out.  No one is ever going to get rich being in the military.  Military service is not about the money.  Anyone who thinks it is (or should be) needs to find another line of work.

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on June 01, 2006, 04:13:50 PM
However I have heard of some Military Bases that Contract out the Security at thee gates.

So?  Putting civilians on the gates frees up military members to work other issues.  Security patrols, deployments, etc.  It's all about manning.


Quote from: Al Sayre on June 01, 2006, 04:20:18 PM
What do you mean some?  I haven't been to a U.S. base in the last 20 years that had military gate guards.

The AF recently started hiring contractors to man the gates.  Both bases I've been at in the past two years have just hired contractors.  So, five years ago, there were still many military members on the gates.  If I'm not mistaken, the Army is in the same boat.

Al Sayre

The Navy's been that way for years, and the Army base here where I live has been for at least the 5 years since I moved to town...
Lt Col Al Sayre
MS Wing Staff Dude
Admiral, Great Navy of the State of Nebraska
GRW #2787

Pylon

Quote from: shorning on June 01, 2006, 07:47:22 PM
Quote from: Hammer on June 01, 2006, 04:13:50 PM
However I have heard of some Military Bases that Contract out the Security at thee gates.

So?  Putting civilians on the gates frees up military members to work other issues.  Security patrols, deployments, etc.  It's all about manning.

Exactly as Steve said -- so what?  When an Airman (or Soldier, Sailor, Coastie, etc.) has been trained, where are they more valuable?  Playing mall security guard at the gate of an ANG base in an American suburb or performing other more important military-specific jobs for which he or she is trained?  Anybody can staff the front gate to a base and check ID cards.    Why waste talent in the skycops we've trained for so many other things?

Contractors free up our military personnel to do "military" things.  Why bother put an airman through BMT, train him to shoot, drill, and all this other stuff if you're just going to have him doing landscaping?
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

Hammer

Quote from: Pylon on June 01, 2006, 08:30:54 PM
Quote from: shorning on June 01, 2006, 07:47:22 PM
Quote from: Hammer on June 01, 2006, 04:13:50 PM
However I have heard of some Military Bases that Contract out the Security at thee gates.

So?  Putting civilians on the gates frees up military members to work other issues.  Security patrols, deployments, etc.  It's all about manning.

Exactly as Steve said -- so what?  When an Airman (or Soldier, Sailor, Coastie, etc.) has been trained, where are they more valuable?  Playing mall security guard at the gate of an ANG base in an American suburb or performing other more important military-specific jobs for which he or she is trained?  Anybody can staff the front gate to a base and check ID cards.    Why waste talent in the skycops we've trained for so many other things?

Contractors free up our military personnel to do "military" things.  Why bother put an airman through BMT, train him to shoot, drill, and all this other stuff if you're just going to have him doing landscaping?

I didn't say that I disagree with puting Contractors at  the gate.  I ws just saying that they are there.

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on June 02, 2006, 01:17:29 AM
I didn't say that I disagree with puting Contractors at  the gate.  I ws just saying that they are there.

You're not even following along with your own arguments, are you?  You should at least try to remember what you're arguing about.  As for the "contractor issue", I'd say "case closed".  Nothing to see here.  Move along...

afgeo4

Oh and let's not forget that many, if not most, of those DOD civillians are actually traditional reservists and guardsmen.  They are fully trained in their respective AFSC/MOS and perform their jobs as civillian employees most of the time and as military reservists/guardsmen on drill days.  Their full-time service earns them points toward retirement, points toward rating upgrade (3,5,7,9), and experience similar to active duty counterparts.   That experience and constant readiness of the said individual saves the DOD money on pre-deployment training and overall unit ability.  Not to mention the fact that it provides these men and women local jobs when they could have moved out to the big cities to commute to drills once a month.
GEORGE LURYE

mikeylikey

Lets face the fact that by contracting out services, it not only helps provide jobs for the locality but will help to keep the money in the area.  You can really see how much of an impact the closing of a installation has not so much on the military, but the community because a lot of people had a stake in providing services to that base or post.  You can go to the Defense Contracting Office website, and see what percentage of contractors operate on a national scale, and what percent are strictly local business.  It is very interesting.  One contracting change that needs to be made, is to open up military bases and posts to other national chain retaurants.  I am so sik of eating at the PX/BX fast food courts or the Burger Kings!  Get something like Outback or TGI Fridays!  Sorry, these type of contractors are different than what ws being discussed above. 
What's up monkeys?

afgeo4

Shouldn't be a problem in bringing in restaurants such as you've mentioned on the AAFES side.  It's just that these restaurants would directly compete with the Enlisted/Officer Clubs and I'd rather have the clubs than some TGI Friday's.  Now, having said that, I do see new "faces" on posts.  Subway is one.  You may see many fast food joints replaced by more healthy alternatives soon, but in the end, it'll still be fast food.  "Normal" food's served in dining facilities anyway.
GEORGE LURYE

dwb

QuoteGEORGE LURYE, Capt, CAP

Woah, when did that happen?  Congrats!

afgeo4

Upon PCS'ing to NYC and taking on the group staff slot and thanks  ;D   I'll send you 10% of my pay for all the stuff you've done for me, k?  k.
GEORGE LURYE

Hammer

Quote from: afgeo4 on June 02, 2006, 05:38:22 AM
Oh and let's not forget that many, if not most, of those DOD civillians are actually traditional reservists and guardsmen.  They are fully trained in their respective AFSC/MOS and perform their jobs as civillian employees most of the time and as military reservists/guardsmen on drill days.  Their full-time service earns them points toward retirement, points toward rating upgrade (3,5,7,9), and experience similar to active duty counterparts.   That experience and constant readiness of the said individual saves the DOD money on pre-deployment training and overall unit ability.  Not to mention the fact that it provides these men and women local jobs when they could have moved out to the big cities to commute to drills once a month.

Sweet. That's good.  BTW, can the DoD Civilian Awards earned as a DoD Civilian be worn on the Air Force's Uniform?

shorning

Quote from: Hammer on June 08, 2006, 10:20:54 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on June 02, 2006, 05:38:22 AM
Oh and let's not forget that many, if not most, of those DOD civillians are actually traditional reservists and guardsmen.  They are fully trained in their respective AFSC/MOS and perform their jobs as civillian employees most of the time and as military reservists/guardsmen on drill days.  Their full-time service earns them points toward retirement, points toward rating upgrade (3,5,7,9), and experience similar to active duty counterparts.   That experience and constant readiness of the said individual saves the DOD money on pre-deployment training and overall unit ability.  Not to mention the fact that it provides these men and women local jobs when they could have moved out to the big cities to commute to drills once a month.

Sweet. That's good.  BTW, can the DoD Civilian Awards earned as a DoD Civilian be worn on the Air Force's Uniform?

No.  But the AF uniform manual would have answered your question too.