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 3)
7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Apr 17, 2008
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?


I would right there with you, KFC, if Ock wasn't a musician in the military. Since he is, why shouldn't it count towards being an officer? The military is beauracratic, which means that there are going to be rules that apply to everyone that shouldn't. It's ridiculous. Having to wear certain attire on a plane is, too.
on Apr 17, 2008
I would right there with you, KFC, if Ock wasn't a musician in the military. Since he is, why shouldn't it count towards being an officer? The military is beauracratic, which means that there are going to be rules that apply to everyone that shouldn't. It's ridiculous. Having to wear certain attire on a plane is, too.


Actually, all anyone needs to apply for Officer Candidate School is 60 credits. It doesn't matter what the credits are in.

Sorry Ockham, but you chose to be an NCO knowing that college your degrees wouldn't come into play for promotion. They don't count because of your own choices.
on Apr 17, 2008
I don't see this as Ock complaining about not being an Officer. He chose the path he wanted and he is perfectly able to alter that path if he chooses.

To me, I see this as observations on how some of the more bizarre and unnecessary social conventions come into play. It's almost like degradation of lower enlisted Soldiers just for the sake of making sure they know they're worthless.

Yes, leaders must lead. But a good leader considers the needs and value of his team and invests in them accordingly. A leader who is petty about rank just for the sake of it doesn't inspire his men (and/or women) to trust him or to go above and beyond for him.

on Apr 17, 2008
One point I'd like to point out, the military needs a higher percentage of Senior NCOs and Officers to stay in than Lower Enlisted and Company Grade Officers.

The military needs hundreds of thousands of lower enlisted and thousands of company grade officers. However, they only need 1 in 10 of the lower enlisted to make E5 (depending on MOS) and probably about the same ratio of company grade officers to make field grade ranks.

There is no reason for the military to create incentives for more people to be able to stay in than there are slots to fill. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

So, yeah, life sucks rocks for the lower enlisted and company grade officers. So most of the people in those positions do their first tour and move on to other things. Most company grade officers end up resigning their commissions. If there aren't enough opting out, the bean counters at the pentagon come up with ways to further thin the herd.

But it is in the interest of the military to encourage senior NCOs and Flag Officers to stay in.

"Perks" are actually relatively cheap ways to make this happen. Someone said that they would rather get more pay than the perks, but the fact is, that isn't what happens. Business learned years ago that across the board raises do little to improve performance of employees. What does improve performance is merit raises, and perks. They are also much cheaper.

So, while it sucks being one of the people 'weeded out' by the bean counters (being one of them, I know how much is does suck), there is method to the madness.
on Apr 17, 2008
"Perks" are actually relatively cheap ways to make this happen. Someone said that they would rather get more pay than the perks, but the fact is, that isn't what happens. Business learned years ago that across the board raises do little to improve performance of employees. What does improve performance is merit raises, and perks. They are also much cheaper.


I don't have an issue with the perks in general, as they make life more pleasant and obviously save money. No big deal to me there.

I also don't have an issue with a leader using their authority to make sure those under them understanding the pecking order. There are good reasons for that.

But seriously, some of this stuff is just petty. Eating first before your men? Come on! Petty! A half dozen parking spaces for certain ranks (and yes, it's like that in some places)? Petty!

I would also like to add that there are perks to being lower enlisted as well. There are many military services (daycare, military hotels/resorts, etc.) that charge less for lower enlisted due to a sliding scale.
on Apr 17, 2008
But seriously, some of this stuff is just petty. Eating first before your men? Come on! Petty! A half dozen parking spaces for certain ranks (and yes, it's like that in some places)? Petty!

I would also like to add that there are perks to being lower enlisted as well. There are many military services (daycare, military hotels/resorts, etc.) that charge less for lower enlisted due to a sliding scale.


True, there are perks that are available to enlisted only. Again, it has to do with retention. If everything about life as an enlisted person sucked rocks, not enough of them would stay around for promotion to NCO ranks.

Plus there is the "here and now" to consider. When I was in the #1 reason for good troops to decide not to re-enlist was an unsupportive spouse. The perks you point out are there to help keep good troops in.

If you look at benefits from the perspective of retention engineering, most of them do make sense. (although I still question the quality of any NCO that would eat before the enlisted, especially in their own section, squad or team).
on Apr 17, 2008
Perhaps that's why KFC's son is so admired by those outside of his unit (by mommy and various newspapers, oh my) yet seems to get no respect from his 'lessers' within it.


just stopping by to slam KFC yet once again LW? Gonna let all these other very interesting and informational comments pass you by?

What you said isn't true btw.

 ( 
on Apr 17, 2008
You could fly into a mission on a military flight in civvies? You could expect to leave baggage unsecured while you go to the Q? What? Are you in the Navy? Geezer, Ted, and MM and Mason and all the other old vets traveled all around the world in Class A uniform with 66lbs of dufflebag and AWOL bag combined. And trust me, NO one kept watch over them, they went with you everywhere you went. There's a perk for ya.
on Apr 17, 2008
Actually, all anyone needs to apply for Officer Candidate School is 60 credits.


Not AF. Gotta have that degree and usually a pretty awesome GPA...
on Apr 17, 2008
Eating first before your men? Come on!


I have never heard of this....ever. I think there are certain situations which may be unique to a ship/sub.

Can you imagine the type of mentality who thinks they deserve to EAT before the next man? I can see allowing someone I respect who outranks me to eat first, because its something I want to do...but I've never seen it mandated.

Weird.
on Apr 17, 2008

I suppose I could respond specifically to the things Ted and KFC have said, but I'd almost rather just try to make the point over again from scratch, because it's being missed utterly.

 

The basic premise is "You can't measure a person's value by their rank."

 

By the way, some of you can stop making this about me.  It may be a bizarre idea, but I'm incensed about this stuff on behalf of others.  I actually have the career I chose, am more or less happy with it, and I don't mind walking a long way to the front door of the commissary.  So just to save you time, this isn't about me.  Mmkay?  It's about fairness.  My thought is that people should get paid for the job they do, and that's it.  Any clearer now?

 

You could fly into a mission on a military flight in civvies? You could expect to leave baggage unsecured while you go to the Q? What? Are you in the Navy? Geezer, Ted, and MM and Mason and all the other old vets traveled all around the world in Class A uniform with 66lbs of dufflebag and AWOL bag combined. And trust me, NO one kept watch over them, they went with you everywhere you went. There's a perk for ya.

 

Yes, I'm in the Navy.  I suppose they walked 20 miles to school in the snow every day uphill both ways too?

on Apr 17, 2008
Okham:
The basic premise is "You can't measure a person's value by their rank."


I got your point, my comments have just attempted to explain some of the methods to the (admitted) madness.

I did miss the point about your degree and your slot though, which Brandie did a good job of pointing out and explaining.

The thing is, there is no correlation between "a person's value" and their rank, position or anyting else. The military doesn't provide pay and perks out of value of the person, they do it out of pragmatic cost benefit values.

BFD:
Geezer, Ted, and MM and Mason and all the other old vets traveled all around the world in Class A uniform with 66lbs of dufflebag and AWOL bag combined.


Actually, for me it was usually BDUs, 110lbs ruck sack and 35lbs of parachute, with my duffle and AWOL bag coming later with the main body a few days to a week later. ;~D

Tova:
Not AF. Gotta have that degree and usually a pretty awesome GPA...


Good to know. Actually, I gotta hand it to the AF for one thing. They're the only branch where the NCOs are smart enough to stay back and let the officers go forward to fight. ;~D
on Apr 17, 2008
Good to know. Actually, I gotta hand it to the AF for one thing. They're the only branch where the NCOs are smart enough to stay back and let the officers go forward to fight. ;~D


hahahahaha.

They don't call it the chair force for nuttin.  
on Apr 17, 2008
LOL. The other day I was asking Adrian how he would feel about the boys joining the Armed Forces. I won't give the replies he gave me for most of the branches, haha, but when I said Air Force, he said, "Good job, son. You made the right choice." Hahaha.

Tova, you know pockets are called Air Force Gloves right? Hhahahahaha.
on Apr 17, 2008

Ted:

The thing is, there is no correlation between "a person's value" and their rank, position or anyting else.

 

Agreed.  Then why do they receive compensation beyond their pay?  That's what I'm asking.  To explain ANY perk beyond pay or ANY kind of special treatment, as well, you will have to discuss the different values that the military applies, in a blanket fashion, to an inanimate object: a rank insignia.  That rank insignia represents an entire group of different people that all hold that rank.  Some ought to own the commissary parking lot, and some shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it (metaphor applied).  When this blanket "perk" - whatever that may be - is applied across the board to both the deserving and the undeserving of a particular rank, it's bad for morale and it's bad for business.

 

The military doesn't provide pay and perks out of value of the person, they do it out of pragmatic cost benefit values.

 

And the cost benefit of giving an E6 of equal age and demonstrated responsibility an extra hour of liberty over an E5 is.... *drum roll please*

 

_______Your answer here_________

7 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last