A place where we practice random acts of insight and humor.
Ignore it if you like
Published on April 15, 2008 By OckhamsRazor In Ethics

Not only is this a rant, but it's a ramble, too.  I just got back from 9 days aboard a ship, and every time I go to one of these things, I see stuff that for me, at least, is a clear indicator of why the gears are starting to grind more often.  Morale on most of the ships I've been on is very low, but guess what?  It isn't because of the job itself.  It's something else - something deep.  So, in order to deal with it, I just started writing in a word document about some little things that bug me.  It isn't well written, but I publish it because...well, because that's all I ever intended this blog to be for.  For me to spew whatever I wanted to now and again.

 

Enjoy.  Or don't.




Once upon a time, men were conscripted into armed services.  They were conscripted by various means - law and societal pressure being the most prevalent.  Yes, there have been times when lots of people joined for a cause sparked by some international event, but for the most part, people don't grow up aspiring to kill others or be killed by others in a war.

 

These days, the military is different.  People join it voluntarily, but their choice to do so is varied.  Most do not actually want to go to some war and put their lives on the line for what they believe.  Hell...many would be hard pressed to tell you, and defend with anything that remotely resembles reason, what exactly it was that they DID believe.  The truth of the matter is, the military is a place to turn for many people that have no other marketable skills.  It's also a good place to go do a quick 4 years and walk out with a lot of college money.  The military offered me, as a musician, far more than the guy that ran the bar down the street.  That guy would have me play four hours a night for a pittance and no future.  So it isn't a stretch that I joined.  It was a good business decision for my family.  For our survival.

 

Over the 17 years I have been in, I have heard a lot of rhetoric.  Things like "Mission first, people always," and a whole bunch of lip flapping about "honor, courage, and commitment."  And then I walk by the closest 15 parking spaces to the commissary which are reserved for O-6 (high ranking officer) and above and it makes me wince.  Not because I want to park closer, but because it is so clear to me that the words "people always" are Orwellian in nature.  It’s “people always, but me first.”  In the military, all are created equal, but some are more equal than others. 

 

It is necessary in the military (and I would argue in ANY business) for some person to be definitively in charge - to lead the way ahead.  But why is it necessary to magnify the value of those in charge to the point that they get better parking privileges? (And hopefully you realize that parking is just an example of a whole trend of other perks that the "more equal" set gets)  It has been said that "rank has its privileges" but that is an outdated counterproductive way of thinking in today's age.  We are one team, set to accomplish one mission, and no person on that team should receive one iota less treatment in something that has nothing to do with that mission.  This includes who gets to sit where on a plane, who gets to board the plane first, who gets the first meal, what time liberty expires, best parking places, best housing, and etc... 

 

The people that join the military, though they do so for varied reasons, are preached to from the outset, that the military is one big team.  That every person doing his or her job is of equal importance, and they're right.  With downsizing of the military and limited funds an increasing political camping ground, every person doing his or her job IS of the utmost importance.  It is for this reason that I suggest lines between ranks need to be erased.  It isn't so that Private First Class Schmuckatelly gets to burn less calories on his long walk to the commissary door.  It's because if we're all the same team, then why are clean lines of differing values of individuals on the "one team" being drawn?  The answer is simple.  So that some team members can be more equal than others.  In other words, it's a lie.

 

Admirals live in large houses with servants, people to cook their meals, and a wealth of people, military and civilian alike, to do their bidding.  They have people to screen their e-mail.  And I grant - they have some rough decisions to make, and sometimes the things they do can be the deciding factor between failure and victory.  That’s why they get paid more money.  Why do they need more compensation beyond what they're paid if they value a "one team" concept so highly? 

 

Here's the real truth.  While they’re spouting off about the one team, they secretly harbor the belief that they deserve more than just their paycheck over the guy whose job it is to clean the toilets.  It's "Mission first, people always, as long as I get mine off the top."  And why do I say this?  Because I believe in honor, perhaps foolishly, and I have the courage to say it, and I'm committed to the idea that all people are created equally.

 

I remember one time me and three guys in my band were flying back from somewhere on an Admiral's plane.  And there were cooks on the plane!  And they were serving breakfast like it was a restaurant!!  And they started to serve us and went to me first because I outranked the guys I was with.  I said "screw that...serve them first.  I can wait."  It wasn't that I was trying to be noble.  It's just that the idea that because I had some extra stitching on my sleeve made me more valuable than they were made me sick to my stomach.

 

The fear I have is that rank-based respect will be our undoing.  It may seem trivial to the average reader that I resent having to call a man "sir," with the clear implication that I am "not a sir," to a guy who was in diapers when I graduated high school.  But I have seen the effects of this rank based thinking, and it isn't good.  People deserve respect based on their merits that they prove over a period of time, and it doesn't matter whether they are enlisted, officer, or how many years they have in.  If their character, and especially their competency, is such to warrant the respect of the people around them, they need to be compensated as such.  And I don't care if it's an 18 year old Seaman Recruit just out of boot camp who happens to be a ninja at his job or if it's a venerable Admiral who's seen a world that's hurting and has had to make some tough decisions along the way.  If the "one team" paradigm is going to work, it means that each team member has an equal value.  Extra perks that accumulate with every 10 cent stripe you add to your costume – er, I mean uniform - are an indicator that “one team” is just more rhetoric.  And though the financial compensation may differ due to the gravity of the situations dealt with and the responsibilities that must be born along with those decisions, the individual team members will not be at their best on the "one team" if they are taught to perceive themselves as "less than."  Cloths don’t make the man, I hear.  Well rank doesn’t either.

 

Rank is archaic.  It's unnecessary.  And it makes people on the "one team" feel like they aren't a major part of that one team when, in fact, they most definitely are.  Once upon a time, it worked and it made sense.  Today, not so much in my opinion.


Comments (Page 2)
7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Apr 16, 2008
Really, why don't we get rid of 'perks' and just have higher pay for all instead?
on Apr 16, 2008

My husband was an E-7 (MSGT) when he decided to become an officer.

He did it for several reasons, one of which was there was only two more stripes for him to make as enlisted and he was at ten years in service.

So he can speak about both sides of the fence on active duty and I can on the spouse/family side.

I wondered when we were enlisted why officers got bigger housing.  Especially when our families were the same size.  Answer:  It is part of the compensation/enticement to get educated professionals into (and keep in) the service. 

When we were enlisted we looked at the pay chart and thought it was unfair.

Now we know that my husband's Master's Degree pays almost three times more than a Major in the AF doing the same type work (without all the military drama) in the civilian sector.  So  yeah, the housing, the parking, the "perks" are to help keep educated professionals in.  (Yes I understand some enlisted people have higher education.  The difference?  They don't HAVE to have it...and chose a job that doesn't compensate them for it.)

Even as a Senior NCO, the scope of leadership was more micro than macro.  When he had 150 guys working for him it was still micro...he needed to know the details of the enlisted jobs to make sure things were going as they should.

As an officer most everything is on a macro level.  You don't learn the details of a certain career field (that's what Senior NCO's do)..you run SEVERAL different career fields at the same time.  (And my husband would say...take care of your people, always.)  ...This is of course not every career field...I am speaking from a perspective of running a squadron, wing, base....certain jobs (Drs for instance) are different.

I think rank is a wonderful thing.  It echoes our capitalistic values in this country in compensating people for their education and leadership.  Yes, there are educated enlisted people...but they chose a job that didn't require a degree so while its great they have it...the military doesn't really care.

KFC is right.  Everyone starts out on the same playing field.  Everyone makes decisions which affect their careers later in life.  Some people choose college and then military.  Some choose military then college.  Some choose military AND college and then take the initiative to be compensated for their degree.  No one is stopping an enlisted person with a degree from applying to become an officer.

BFD said its not about the money, the perks.  That's right, its not ABOUT them at all...but they do matter.  Though its not militarily correct for an officer's wife to say so is it?  We have it sooooo easy...

Heh.

Does my husband deserve more respect for his rank and time in service?

Damn straight.

He earned it.

But you know what?  He'd be the last person to demand it.  He's more about earning it.

 

on Apr 16, 2008
KFC: You have an elitist attitude that permeates everything you post on here, and it is most readily apparent when you write about your children. You lack humility.

Tova's husband is a high-ranking military officer, and no doubt he has awards, experiences, and accomplishments that would boggle the mind. She doesn't prattle them off endlessly, though. She is real and refreshing. When she shares something impressive, it is pertinent and welcomed. You create opportunities to brag endlessly while never admitting to any flaws. It's offensive and very off-putting.

I don't begrudge you for being proud of your children, and in fact I would be worried if you weren't, but you are one of the most boastful, elitist people I have ever encountered, and that's saying something.

As far as your son goes (and he may not appreciate this being discussed on a public forum, but YOU brought it up), if he is having problems directing and motivating the men he's taken under his wing, that is HIS failing. Leadership.

Parated: Thanks. I feel far less "military" now that we are living off-post (and my husband isn't in Iraq or an -istan).
on Apr 16, 2008
LOL, Tova, I posted while you were posting.
on Apr 16, 2008
Oh, and BTW, I still don't understand how parking makes a good perk. Seriously, is that something that will keep in you in the military?

It's strange.
on Apr 16, 2008
LOL, Tova, I posted while you were posting.


So did you change your mind about all the nice stuff ya said about me? heh.

Oh, and BTW, I still don't understand how parking makes a good perk. Seriously, is that something that will keep in you in the military?


Well I can't honestly say I am impressed with it....and most people say they aren't...BUT they are...oh yes indeed they most certainly ARE.

Let me tell ya, I park in the reserved spots all the time...if there aren't any other spaces at the hospital or BX and the only space is the base General's. I park there. I always have, even when I was an E-1 my own self.

In 22 years the only people who have bitched at me (and I hate to say this, sorry sisters) are officer's wives. hahahaha

on Apr 16, 2008
Well I can't honestly say I am impressed with it....and most people say they aren't...BUT they are...oh yes indeed they most certainly ARE.


I can't edit...this was tongue in cheek..I don't really think most people stay in for the parking...but its like any other perk...it makes the ride better.

on Apr 16, 2008
So did you change your mind about all the nice stuff ya said about me? heh.


Of course not!

Let me tell ya, I park in the reserved spots all the time...if there aren't any other spaces at the hospital or BX and the only space is the base General's. I park there. I always have, even when I was an E-1 my own self.

In 22 years the only people who have bitched at me (and I hate to say this, sorry sisters) are officer's wives. hahahaha


LOL, I haven't ever parked in one. I would feel guilty! haha.
on Apr 16, 2008
OL, I haven't ever parked in one. I would feel guilty!


hahaha

I hate when I go to the ER and the only spot is the base General's spot (which is every time). I park there...its an emergency after all.

Ear aches can be an emergency...on the weekend, when the child is in pain, I'm just sayin....  
on Apr 17, 2008
I will say though, I was proud of making Sergeant. I worked hard for that rank and was military enough to expect the E4 and below to respect that (Parachute Riggers don't make NCO easily. Back when I was in the average was 1 E5 promotion every 2 years. NCO rank is about responsibility and a PFC Rigger has as much responsibility as most E5s in the first place). It bothered me when other NCOs would tell the troops it doesn't matter. Part of the job of the NCO is to motivate troops to aspire to higher ranks. If the troops are taught that it doesn't matter, then they take away part of that motivation. I don't know about the other services, but if a soldier wants to reenlist, rank is all important. I can't remember how many troops I knew who wanted to stay in, but hadn't made E5, so they couldn't. Why didn't they make E5? Because they were taught "it doesn't matter". Well, when they were E4 and didn't think they would re-enlist, it probably didn't matter, but when the time came.. it was all that mattered.

Rank shouldn't be the basis of respect from supbordinates, but if an NCO or Officer teaches the troops not to respect rank well, I think that breeds disrespect towards the person.
on Apr 17, 2008
Ok stirred up a lot of good stuff here.

TW: Let me parrot what Ted said, I have a soft spot (and some say in my head) for military families and the things they endure, voluntarily and otherwise. The services have gotten better over the years at taking families into consideration, in part thanks to service wives like MamaCharlie who organized support groups and mentored young wives BEFORE the Army mandated it. But there is much improvement yet to be made. Military families rock.

Tova made some really good points about retention and caring for ranking individuals whose education would earn them more on the outside. The services have always had a hard time retaining quality personnel. In the seventies a First Class Petty Officer at an NAS in central California was making more money bagging groceries at Safeway after normal duty hours than his active duty pay. Anyone below the grade of E6 with a family was qualified for food stamps. Keeping good people in is a challenge that hasn't always been well handled.

The comment that Ok made about rank being archaic is really silly and if he reflected on it, he would see that. His eyes are blurred with the passion of his rant. Rank is necessary. No army could succeed if it operated as a democracy. Someone has to make the hard calls...sometimes deciding who lives and who don't. As people develop their trade and related skills, they become more valuable to the system. Does that mean they EARN a better parking place? No, that is silly, too. But there are perks of rank that are deserved and earned. Ok mentioned the split from dungarees to khaki when you make Chief. I remember when my dad made chief and the excitement and joy that new hat brought to him. When I made sergeant the first time (another story sometime) I almost ran into a dozen doors cause I was looking at my sleeves. Rank should identify the guy you can go to and the guy who knows his stuff. And people do treat you differently at different rank. As it should be.

The rant is still valid. There are a lot of extravagant excesses in the RHIP system, parking places seem to rankle some, housing is always an issue, the folks who can least afford it are forced to live off post while those who need it least go to the top of the list. I think I will share a story or two about how the award system works between officers and enlisted, and there are lots of other things. But the bottom line is that no matter how much they get, it isn't enough to pay them for what WE expect them to do for us...no matter what their rank.
on Apr 17, 2008

"those Higher rankers are in their positions because they earned it"

 

I nearly pissed myself at that one.  Only someone without a clue would ever say that as a blanket truth.

 

on Apr 17, 2008

The comment that Ok made about rank being archaic is really silly and if he reflected on it, he would see that. His eyes are blurred with the passion of his rant. Rank is necessary.

 

I should rephrase then.  Sometimes, rank shouldn't matter or be a factor.  Here's a pissy little whine, but when enough of these types of things stack up, it gets annoying enough that I've seen good people get out over it.

 

EUCOM has decided that all milair flights into and out of Africa will be in Uniform.  My group just went to Africa to stay aboard a ship, and because flights are iffy at best (C-130's tend to break down a lot) we had to take way more stuff than we needed for the 9 days we were supposed to be there.  The problem arose in that due to country flight clearances, the plane had to fly from Naples to Rota, Spain first.  Then we stayed the night in the BEQ (Bachelor Enlisted Quarters) followed by a flight on the same plane the next day to Senegal.  (OPSEC says it's ok to tell you where I *was* just not where I am going   The flight from Naples to Rota was in civilian attire.

 

At the Rota base, there is no shuttle system, and the BEQ is quite a walk from the air terminal.  Instead of just being able to take a change of civvies in our backpacks and leave our seabags on the plane, we had to haul the whole lot to the BEQ so that the next morning we could wear our cammies to the flight.  The same thing in reverse.  We flew home in cammies and had to haul our seabags to the BEQ because there's no way to fit those bulky boots into a backpack.  This is a minor inconvenience until you ask one question.  Why do we have to fly in uniform?  3 guys from Sigonella, enlisted like myself, also were on the flight there and back.  No one bothered to tell them they needed to be in uniform, so they didn't even HAVE cammies.  They flew to and from in civvies and there was no problem from it in terms of wearing the uniform having any kind of affect on the flight or where we landed.  Where we landed, vehicles from the ship met us and took us to the ship.  So why the rule?  It has no affect on anything...why was that rule ever made?  All it does is cause inconvenience to people and has no value added to mission whatsoever.  Anyone?  Bueller?

 

Really, why don't we get rid of 'perks' and just have higher pay for all instead?

 

I would find that acceptable.

 

KFC:

Those higher rankers are in the positions they are because they have earned it. They have put in the hard work and built their way up. The military doesn't work like the civillian world where you might become CEO of a company just because your Daddy owned the business. All military members begin on level playing ground, the first few promotions are virtually guaranteed, after that the decisions they make as individuals and the hard work they put in to the job influence their ability to climb the rank ladder.

 

Ooh...ready for this part?  All players do NOT begin on a level playing ground.  The way an officer *earns* his officership is with a college degree.  Guess what *I* have?  A degree in Music Education...not just a degree in music, and not just a degree of some sort, but a degree IN MY FIELD.  Guess what it got me?  Zero.  And it shows.  I work for some people that never went to college.  I often have to do their jobs for them.  Hell, I work for some people that DID go to college and didn't learn anything.  It's a sweet kind of irony that I, as an E6, am going to the Senior Musician Course in August with two of the Chief's I work with here.  They've expressed that they're glad I'm going because I'm good at certain skills that they suck at.  I have as yet to decide if I plan on helping them at all.  They won't be my bosses in a training environment, and I have every right to say "Hey...you're a Chief.  Don't you know how to do this?"

 

As for "earning" your way up, let me explain how it works in the Navy on the enlisted side.  Every year we get an evaluation that reduces our contribution to a number which can be calculated.  Lots of traits are judged and averaged and then people are awarded a score of EP, MP, P, and two others so low you almost never see them.  Those stand for "Early Promote" which translates to 4.0, "Must Promote" - 3.8, "Promotable" - 3.6.  We then take a test in our field and a score from 0-80 is given.  The time you have been in is a factor, your personal awards are a factor, and your time in your rank is a factor.  They crunch all these numbers together every promotion cycle, then some bean counters decide how many people can be promoted PER RATE (a rate is a job - MU-Musician, MM-Machinist Mate, ET-Electronics Technician, etc...) from a budget standpoint.  Let's say arbitrarily that this year the number is 8 new Musician E6's.  They take the top 8 scores. 

 

The "earning your way up" part is only represented by one of those factors.  The eval.  And I should point out that commands can only award a percentage of the highest score - EP.  I think for E5 to E6 promotion, we are allotted 1 EP for every 5 people evaluated in that cycle.  Before anyone thinks I have "personal bitterness" on this part, I'm an EP every time.  My evals glow in the dark.  Not bragging - just pointing out I have no personal vendetta against the system.  In a closed rate, that EP is critical to ever getting promoted due to competition and low promotion numbers.  But "pick your rate, and pick your fate" applies.  We knew going into it that it was tough to get ahead.  The eval is a big problem, though.  Some of the judged traits are entirely subjective, so people that brown nose often get the nod and wind up getting promoted into positions they don't have the skills for.  In short, hard work and perseverence isn't enough, and not everyone starts level.

 

There's way more to comment on here...you guys wrote a lot while I slept, but this is getting long and I know it's tough to slog through a whole lot points without hitting the reply button.  Then when you do, you can't remember all the things you wanted to comment on and all the quoting is tedious (and risky as Big Fat daddy pointed out with his lost post)

 

I nearly pissed myself at that one.  Only someone without a clue would ever say that as a blanket truth.

 

Bingo.  Emphasis on "blanket" truth.  Some high rankers earn it, and some do not.  More do not in my experience.

 

on Apr 17, 2008
KFC: You have an elitist attitude that permeates everything you post on here, and it is most readily apparent when you write about your children. You lack humility.


I actually don't write about them that much TW. But anytime I do, you're right there to remind me. Besides....just betcha you write much more about your kiddos than I do mine.

The opposite of pride is thankfulness. I am very thankful to God for my children and I'm very thankful to my children of who and what they turned out to be. If that's lacking humility so be it.

Tova's husband is a high-ranking military officer, and no doubt he has awards, experiences, and accomplishments that would boggle the mind. She doesn't prattle them off endlessly, though


Now, you're comparing Tova's husband to my son? No comparison. How often do I mention my husband and his accomplishments? And what awards, experiences and accomplishments have I told you about my son in the military other than I just wrote in response here? I'm very careful NOT to say very much about him and his accomplishments.

I think rank is a wonderful thing. It echoes our capitalistic values in this country in compensating people for their education and leadership. Yes, there are educated enlisted people...but they chose a job that didn't require a degree so while its great they have it...the military doesn't really care.


Exactly. Amen.



on Apr 17, 2008
Ooh...ready for this part? All players do NOT begin on a level playing ground. The way an officer *earns* his officership is with a college degree. Guess what *I* have? A degree in Music Education...not just a degree in music, and not just a degree of some sort, but a degree IN MY FIELD. Guess what it got me? Zero.


Have you gone to OTS?

When you got in did you not know that a degree in Music was NOT going to help you? Maybe a degree in Music is not something they're looking for? I mean you can't just expect because you have a degree in x,y,z that you automatically get high rank especially if they're not even interested in the degree you have. I could get a degree in library science or anothor could get a degree in youth pastoring....doesn't automatically mean you deserve officership if there is no need in this area.

What if you had a degree in Engineering? Would that have made a difference?

7 Pages1 2 3 4  Last