PDA

View Full Version : Suggested changes to the Military pay system


CMC Bruce Bradley
03-13-2006, 06:47 PM
Thoughts?

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28, 2006 - A committee that's spent the past year studying the military compensation system is recommending sweeping changes that, if approved, would bring military compensation more on par with private-sector compensation.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation released details of its recommendations today and is incorporating them in a final report expected to go to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by late April, the committee chairman told the American Forces Press Service.

The proposed package includes two major ideas, retired Navy Adm. Donald Pilling, former vice chief of naval operations, explained. These include revamping the retirement system so servicemembers receive more pay throughout their careers rather than at their completion, and basing pay on performance rather than longevity and other factors, he said.

Pilling emphasized that any proposed changes to the compensation package would be grandfathered in, so currently serving members would not be affected. The only exception could be in the case that current members are offered the opportunity to voluntarily "opt in" to the new system, he said.

In terms of retirement, the committee recommends:

- Vesting members at 10 rather than 20 years;

- Paying graduated retirement plans ranging from 25 percent of base pay at 10 years to 100 percent of base pay at 40 years;

- Establishing a Thrift Savings Plan with government contributions of 5 to 10 percent of base pay;

- Providing "gate pays" at specific service milestones, as determined by the individual services; and

- Delaying payment of the retirement annuity until age 60.

In terms of pay for performance, the committee recommends:

- Revising the pay charts so pay is based on time in grade rather than years of service; and

- Eliminating the "with dependents" and "without dependents" provision of basic allowance for housing so all servicemembers in the same pay grade receive the same allowance, regardless of their family situation.

The proposed system would benefit servicemembers, giving them more upfront cash throughout their careers, Pilling said. He noted that most private-sector compensation packages give 80 percent of their cash up front, deferring just 20 percent for retirement. In contrast, the current military compensation package pays about one-half the total compensation up front and defers the rest.

The committee's recommendations help update the current military retirement system that Pilling said was based on a 1940s-era model. At that time, most members served 30 years, retired in their 50s and typically lived into their 60s, he said. Today, it's typical for servicemembers to retire after 20 years of service to start second careers and to live longer lives.

Restructuring the compensation package will provide more options for servicemembers, Pilling said. Rather than offering no retirement benefit short of 20 years, the proposed system would offer a portable retirement system with reduced-level benefits after 10 years, he explained.

Revising the pay tables to reward time in grade will ensure consistent benefits for servicemembers promoted ahead of their peers, Pilling said.

And by paying equal housing allowances to all members of equal grade in equal locations, the proposed system will reward people "for their performance, not their marital status," he said.

While bringing the military pay system more on par with systems in the private sector, Pilling said the proposal maintains sight that service in the military is unique. For example, while it calls for greater cost sharing among Tricare recipients, it continues to ensure full medical care after 20 years of service, he noted.

If Rumsfeld approves the plan, it will be subject to congressional review before being introduced, he said.

The secretary established the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Compensation to study the current pay system and come up with ways to bring it more in line with what servicemembers want and operational needs demand.

The seven-member committee spent a year reviewing the military pay package, holding public hearings and developing its recommendations.

DCCS Todd Holcomb
03-13-2006, 08:26 PM
Bruce,
I had heard a rumor about this. My thoughts vary but here are a few.

Like:
40 yrs 100%
TSP w/ Gov contributions, if this is in addition to your 100% retired pay!!!!!!
Gate pays depending on how the milestones are defined.
TIG rather than TIS

Don't like:
delaying payment until 60, that's fine for the members who wait until 20 yrs old to enter then do 40 years, but what about the 18 yr old who does 20 takes his 50% and moves on????
25% at 10 years for the rest of your life, or will you have to wait until 60? I'm all for vesting at 10 years but only what has been put into the TSP and the GOV contributions.

on the fence:
the BAH thing.


"The proposed system would benefit servicemembers, giving them more upfront cash throughout their careers"

That seems pretty tough if you're if they're talking about giving someone 100% at 40 yrs plus a 5-10% of base pay match on TSP. I don't know it just seems like a lot to me I'm willing to bet that it's not as clear as they have made it out to be.

It sounds great ;) I'll do 40 yrs get 100% of my base pay for the rest of my life plus all those yrs of TSP with matching contributions.

I don't buy it. I do think that with the state of the world and all the military is tasked with doing, the system needs to be realigned, but man this sounds to good to be true.

my .02,
Todd

DCCS Brett Wickett
03-13-2006, 08:42 PM
Gotta be very leary about anything that sounds good for the member. If the gov't can't save money, it won't happen. Remember the retirement switch, and then the big push to sell the "take the 30K". Don't think so. But I also agree that some things need to change. Will be interesting to see what is actually proposed and what if anything is accepted.

BMCS Jim Madsen
03-14-2006, 12:43 PM
Brett is right on the money (no pun intended). Anytime the Government offers a "bigger, better deal", I look really close because you can bet it is a bigger better deal for Uncle and not the average member. BAH is based on housing needs when Govt housing is not available. Not simply on the members marital status. Any changes to that should be based on # of dependants, and not just married or not. What about single parents? Wait till your 60 to recieve your retirement pay? BS!!! I would venture to guess that the average military person that has served at least 20 years has a shorter life expectancy than the average American. Just simply based on the nature of the jobs that we do. I bet there is a study somewhere that someone has looked at.
These are stricly "business decisions" designed to save Uncle some $$$.

DCCS Todd Holcomb
03-14-2006, 07:49 PM
Jim, you can bank on there being a study somewhere, that is giving the gov more than they will be giving us. Just think of all the people who will never collect their retirement if that goes into effect. If you are one of the lucky ones I mentioned earlier who get's 100% plus TSP match after you retire at 60, after 40 yrs of service, you would be in fat cash city.

I presented a flag today to a widow of a YNC and according to what I was told at the cemetery he retired in 1949. That's what I'm talking about!!!!, and that's what the gov don't want. To pay you for more years in retirement than you served in the service.

I was at Fort Gordon right before I came into the Guard, so it was 91-92, getting a haircut and was talking to a retired Sergeant Major from the Army. His words were something to the effect of (I retired in 1956 and I am the Govts. worst nightmare, a retiree who serves more time collecting retirement than serving active, that's what they bank on son you doing your 20-30 yrs, retiring, and dying off 5 yrs later) Now those aren't his exact words but pretty close. I remembered that because I had an uncle who retired from the Army and died almost 5 yrs to the day of his retirement. So that SGM had been collecting retirement for around 36 yrs. At the time he still looked to be in pretty good shape, I don't know how many yrs he had in when he retired, I just sat and listened to the SGM respectfully.

Todd

DCCS Brett Wickett
03-14-2006, 08:20 PM
Can you say interest free loan to our uncle while he is waiting on you to turn 60......I think not. Give me my Gov't cheese as early and for as long as I can. But then again, I didn't come in till I was 27, so hell I might be 60 when I leave.

BMCM Stuart S. Slesh
03-14-2006, 11:29 PM
You think that we have some people with attitudes now....? I see too many people close to the 30 year mark who haven't worked in the last ten. If you let some of them stick around till they have 40, forgettaboutit. Also, if the pay benefits come earlier in the career, what's the benefit to sticking around again....?
As for the BAH, it's about time. I never understood why people got paid for the amount of offspring they had. What other employer gives extra compensation to employees with dependents?
Some of these proposals sound good on paper......but I don't think they're going to translate well. Remember, they're not talking CG, they're talking about all of the services. I saw people in the Army who put in their 20 and looked like they were 60. Some people in the Air Force might opt to stay in past 30 just to see if they can make E-7.
And waiting until you're 60.....? I won't be opting for that one. I want them to start paying me the minute my retired 4$$ finds the street.

Things that should come with a warning label:
1.) Any government proposal that claims to benefit the service member.
2.) Any government official who says "Trust me."

If Congress really wanted to adopt a retirement program that benefited American Service Members, they would extend their plan to include us. And they could add us in the next time they vote on their own pay raises.

BMCS Bill Gheen
03-15-2006, 12:22 AM
While I agree with 100% at 40 years (taking into consideration what Stu pointed out, as I view him tracking but not on target). I do not concur with the 10 year 25% thing. There are many other issues pointed out, to which I cannot comment as I have many questions regarding contingencies, special circumstances, etc. etc...It has been my experience that not everything fits everyone, but merely fits several, while loosely fitting many others.

Basically…I would need more definitions with each line item proposed.

SKC Eric S. Highland
03-15-2006, 08:30 AM
Senior Chief Slesh, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said! This goes back to our other thread of "selling back leave".

Indefinite reenlistment was sold to the CG as a great way to save paperwork, hassle, time etc.

It was "good" for the member so that he/she did not have to bother going through the process and gave them some sort of "warm fuzzy" about job security.

What it REALLY did was keep people from selling back leave at a decent paygrade, or when they actually had 60 days saved on the books.

To quote a certain Master Chief I know.. "The Coast Guard does not care about you. Don't ever forget that."

Now you would have to understand that he wasn't saying that individuals in the organization don't care about others or that friendships are not made within the organization. He is saying that the Organization as a whole, sees the member as a billet or number.

Anyhow.. I'm ranting now...

v/r :mad:

CMC Bruce Bradley
03-16-2006, 04:44 PM
Well one of the benefits for the service would be the ability to "write you off" once you move off into retirement. Just think about how much of the annual CG budget goes to pay the retired force. It has to be huge. But like most said and I totally agree. They wouldn't want to do it unless it was good for them, with little consideration to your needs.

The 40 year/100% came from what SecDef proposed a year or so ago. It was designed for senior enlisted and flags. Almost all of them in DoD are beyond that 30 year mark anyway. So it was just a way to get them a little something extra for the effort. I'll agree that it sounds very interesting. Not that the 40 years mark is great, but that 85-90% has a nice ring to it.

And the BAH issue is one that I could argue either way.

OSC Mike Tylman
03-17-2006, 05:10 AM
I just attended the HRMax supervisor's training workshop a few weeks ago and I have to say, that proposal looks very similar to the new DHS civilian compensation program.

I thinks I smell a unified government employee compensation program in the works.

YNC Josh Braarud
03-20-2006, 03:58 PM
I just attended the HRMax supervisor's training workshop a few weeks ago and I have to say, that proposal looks very similar to the new DHS civilian compensation program.

I thinks I smell a unified government employee compensation program in the works.

I was just thinking the same thing. By the way, sitting through that MaxHR training was the most mind-numbing experience I've had in a long while.

I have to agree with the BAH thing, but I'd veto the increased retirement over 30 years. That would mean more people staying in after 30, which would in turn kill advancements.

MKCS Mark Cummings
06-01-2006, 09:43 AM
Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help........ :eek:

ETC Joe Jester ret
06-02-2006, 12:58 PM
I wonder about the TIG vice TIS compensation steps.

Does that mean someone, say a PO2 with many years, won't get increased compensation when they advance to PO1? Now, if they adjust the scales so the minimum TIG PO1 makes more than a 18 year TIG PO2, well ... you can hear the screams already. But it will provide the necessary incentives to advance.

Of course, this could very well be the reason we have compensation steps based on TIS.

Just my thoughts.