A Look down the Slippery Slope

[Anthony Hoh]

That is to say, Tony was referring to contractors in the theater of of operations--that would include Iraq and Afghanistan and not Germany or Kansas.
Tom

Sorry I took me a while to get back to this thread. Tom had my point. I want to be clear, I am not hating on contractors, they do help us make mission. However I still do not understand the pay gap for deployed contract personnel. I am not outing Blackwater or MPRI or whomever. But the fact is contractors checking ID's at the US embassy here in OEF make a proverbial "s" load more money than the SPC4 up the road checking ID's at CP Phoenix. You still can get blown up, the job description is the same. Someone is in the 120k-150k range someone else wont clear 60k.

[Cavguy]

Sorry I took me a while to get back to this thread. Tom had my point. I want to be clear, I am not hating on contractors, they do help us make mission. However I still do not understand the pay gap for deployed contract personnel. I am not outing Blackwater or MPRI or whomever. But the fact is contractors checking ID's at the US embassy here in OEF make a proverbial "s" load more money than the SPC4 up the road checking ID's at CP Phoenix. You still can get blown up, the job description is the same. Someone is in the 120k-150k range someone else wont clear 60k.

The simple reason is economics.

You can make an E4 do anything, he enlisted and signed a contract. The military decided it had better things to do with that E4 than checking ID's at the entrance gate - and didn't forsee the job lasting 20 years. Therefore, the decision was made to hire a "temp" to do the work. When the job is over, the temp is released, with no strings attached.

The E4 has job security and benefits, and the military looks to develop him into a SGM someday.

Try offering a civilian $30k a year to check ID's at a gate in Baghdad with no benefits. You won't fill the job. The market pays what is required to fill the position.

The Army has determined that the recruitment, training, and benefit costs of recruiting more E4's to pull gate guard is HIGHER than the costs for employing a contractor at $150k a year for 5-10 years. The contractor absorbs the recruitment cost, medical cost, etc. for him.

To get a new E4, you gave him a $40k enlistment bonus, spent $80k recruiting him (ads, recruiters, etc), $100k training him, $30k/year in salary, plus an additional $15k/year in benefits (housing, medical, etc), and accept that he might do 20 years where you have to pay half his final salary for the rest of his life. Not to mention the PCS costs, etc. And if he gets wounded, the govt has to pay for him for life. Not so for the contractor.

Overall, much cheaper to hire a contractor for the duration than to asorb the long term costs of the E4 for non-long term requirements. That can apply to gate guard, fueling, cooking, etc.

There is a break even point though, for each job. And I know it doesn't make it emotionally easier for that E4 to know that the civilian beside him doing the same job gets paid 4x-5x more. However, when I talked to my soldiers about it and explained it, most opted to stay in the army for the job security rather than short term gain with little long term prospects, and no "network" backing you up.

[Anthony Hoh]

Cav Guy,
That actually makes some sense. I appreciate the detail. I never considered things like recruit costs etc. I only focused on what I saw in front of me healthcare, uniform, salary. I dont despair over the pay differences although I agree the simple reason is economics. I cant imagine the minutia used by DoD to calculate the "breaking point" (nothing simple about that I would imagine). Perhaps I have on my rose colored glasses, but the SPC 4 not doing a whole lot is out there and could be used to replace contractors in some instances like the one above. To get back on topic with the thread, I don’t feel we are careful enough in selecting where we place contractors, and we are not getting any better at it.
Maybe it should not only be about economics. Although I picked the embassy analogy out of the blue, it fits this point. How do we project ourselves to others when we place contractors in high visibility positions like embassy security? I am sure the marines are out there somewhere but without busting the ROE I go (really, really) close by there about once a week and never see any. Perhaps I am too emotional about the pride I have in service and it skews my perceptions. But I feel the nation is unintentionally sending the wrong message with contractors in these types of roles. More thought should be given as to where the contractors are placed. You know my concern over economics but more thought on this would stave off our trip down the slippery slope and put more Soldiers faces where they should be, out front ensuring our nations interests.

In Service,
arh

[Tom Odom]

Cav Guy,

Although I picked the embassy analogy out of the blue, it fits this point. How do we project ourselves to others when we place contractors in high visibility positions like embassy security? I am sure the marines are out there somewhere but without busting the ROE I go (really, really) close by there about once a week and never see any. Perhaps I am too emotional about the pride I have in service and it skews my perceptions. But I feel the nation is unintentionally sending the wrong message with contractors in these types of roles. More thought should be given as to where the contractors are placed. You know my concern over economics but more thought on this would stave off our trip down the slippery slope and put more Soldiers faces where they should be, out front ensuring our nations interests.

In Service,
arh

Tony,

Contract external security at embassies plus Host Nation (in the case of Zaire we had Zairian MPs that we trained and paid) has long been standard practice. despite Hollywood's typical depeiction of a Marine at the front gate, MSGs operate inside for 99.99% of what they do. And most embassies do not have an MSG.

Tom