Now the Navy is laying off sailors?

[SoCalDem]

Female sailor interviewed (on CNN) says she wants to stay in so she has a job..and she fears being laid off in the private sector..but then contradicts herself by saying she's there to "serve her country"..

While it obviously CAN be a two-fer, it's also obvious that the Navy is perceived as a relatively "safe" branch of the service (as opposed to say..Army or Marines), nd apparently the powers that be, have decided to cut back...

If a truly universal/single-payer/affordable medical insurance plan is ever enacted, watch the military participation drop like a rock.

Young people all over the place are joining the "volunteer" military because they are facing a bleak non-military existence in small communities of America.

If the albatross of medical insurance is lifted from the shoulders of bosses & employees, people will once again be in a position to change jobs freely, start their own businesses, and would be in a great position to finally start getting real raises again, so the "need" to join the military will be lessened.

[babylonsister]

1. I'm confused; does she have a job in the private industry

but she's in the Nat'l Guard and has been deployed? :shrug:

[SoCalDem]

3. No she's a regular sailor who was refused re-enlistment

beause there were too many doing her job, and apparently she's low on seniority.. It was her first enlistment..

She said her family told her she needed to stay in because there were job-losses all over the place "at home"..

[babylonsister]

5. I'm shocked. Never heard of such a thing. nt

[ddeclue]

7. No it happens all the time.. if you get passed over for promotion more than

a certain number of times, they make you get out.

The Navy isn't "laying people off" as far as I know...

and on USAJOBs the Navy Department is hiring a bunch of civillians for jobs in Central Florida right now from Capa Canaveral on the East Coast to Tampa on the west coast.


Doug D.

[babylonsister]

11. OK, if you get passed over, that makes sense though

I also thought that only applied to officers.

I have 3 nephews in the CG; it's such a small organization this doesn't happen afaik, or they'd be encouraged to change rates.

[margotb822]

12. Being passed over is different

What happened to this sailor is about manning. Basically, when sailors enlist, they don't have to choose a specialty right away. They can then take the written test for a job and, if they pass, they are automatically promoted into that rate. This is why some jobs are overmanned and why they ask people to leave or transfer. If they change they way people are assigned into rates in the first place, it would avoid this kind of problem.

[Captain Hilts]

20. 'Up or out' now also applies to sailors. No 45 year old 2nd classes. But in this case...

it sounds like she's in a rating where they have too many folks.

The NAVY TIMES has had a lot of articles about this.

[MADem]

28. It used to be that enlisted personnel had three cracks at it and then they were

gone.

And E-6s had to get out on 20 if they didn't make Chief. Not sure how close they're cutting it these days, but I imagine they're getting "Cheney drawdown-like" in their vetting process.

For officers, it's failure of selection twice, and you'd better start making other plans. Realistically, if you fail of selection once, it's a tough sell the second time around--it happens, rarely, though, and that's usually the end of the line.

[ddeclue]

51. Thanks folks... I didn't THINK I was crazy...

I was sure it applied to NCO's as well as officers and that the only people not subject to this rule were junior enlisted below NCO grades. Thanks for backing me up..

:)

[jmowreader]

43. The military has Retention Control Points

You have to make X rank by Y years of service or you're separated from the military.

[NeedleCast]

13. No - This Only Applies to Officers

[ddeclue]

15. That's news to me... I thought I remembered that being true for NCO's as well.

my dad was 22 years in the Army and I could have sworn it applied to NCO's too.

[margotb822]

17. The Navy calls it High-Year Tenure

And, it's fairly new for enlisted. For each pay grade there is an alloted number of years (for example E-5 is 14). If one doesn't promote by their 14 year point, they have to get out. It doesn't have so much to do with getting passed over, but with failing to promote.

[NeedleCast]

46. It's possible but extremely rare

For enlisted, at least in the Army, promotion to E-4 is automatic (unless you really suck). After that, it's pretty much just a matter of completing time in service/time in grade requirements and passing the tests to make it to the next rank...PLDC for E-5, BNOC for E-6, ANOC for E-7. You'd have to really piss off someone with a lot of power to end up at the point where a CO wouldn't sign orders to send you to the appropriate school required for promotion. I'm sure it can happen, but its doesn't happen much, and I can't imagine someone on their first enlistment putting out their officers so badly that they'd screw them on promotions multiple times.

[MADem]

58. The Army, though, has some of the slackest promotion criteria since the Vietnam era.

Breathe in, breathe out, you're promoted.

When the Army gets out of "war" mode, a lot of soldiers are going to be "shocked, shocked" at the many onerous regulations and requirements that are reintegrated and reimplemented. People who have been hardworking, loyal soldiers will be kicked out for being fat, not running fast enough, the tests will get astoundingly more difficult with a passing grade requiring many more correct answers, and nitpicking will be the order of the day.

It's called "force shaping." Right now, the Army needs to be fully manned, so they're letting a lot of shit slide. The USN and USAF, though, are not hurting for manpower, in fact, they've been told to reduce their total assets, so they can afford to be very picky and keep only the very best--and they are.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Incorrect. It also applies to enlisted. No more 45 year old 2nd classes. nt

[NeedleCast]

47. My bad, I should have been more clear

It can happen, but it usually doesn't unless you have someone who is actively fighting promotion.

[MADem]

29. That's from the dark ages, I'm afraid. Enlisted personnel are

required to promote or go home, now, too. It's called HYT--high year tenure.

This sort of explains it: http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navypromotions/a/hyt.htm

[Captain Hilts]

33. It's actually a stooopid policy for highly-trained sailors. nt

[MADem]

35. The idea is to foster "competiton." It's also a cost cutting measure.

Someone who is at the E-5 paygrade, but it past HYT, is costing the Navy money. If you look at the pay charts, you can see how an OLDIE in one paygrade who has maxed out on his years can be making almost as much as someone in the next higher paygrade. So basically, you're paying E-6 wages for E-5 talent.

Also, particularly in the lower ranks, younger=healthier. Oldies have aches, pains and hospital visits. By shoving out the HYT types, a lot of them affiliate with the Reserves, and you get their skills "on the cheap" as it were.

I repeat the mantra that personnel costs are the biggest chunk of the budget. Never underestimate the zeal of the paper pushers to save a penny here or a dime there.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Oh, yes, people are what costs the most.

But the re-training for some positions is also a beast. Nukes willing to spend 3 months under the ocean staring at dials controlling the big glowing tea kettle are very expensive to train. If a guy can do that at E-4, why insist he keep working to become E+?

You can oust them after 20 no matter what their rank.

[MADem]

37. You "can" oust them, but you "must" oust the E-6s. They give very few HYT waivers nowadays.

And usually, it's for some Admiral's cook who hits his HYT date in the middle of the Admiral's tour, or something along those lines.

The other issue, that I didn't discuss, that motivates this up-or-out turnover, is "the pipeline." You've got to keep the turnover going so that the training pipeline remains active, engaged and efficient. Otherwise, you get "clogs" in your training, and training that happens in fits and starts, instead of on a continuum, is usually poor training.

[Captain Hilts]

38. Yes, the pipeline is most certainly a driving factor. Here's where

my ties to the sub service distort my perception on the USN.

They just can't get rid of sub sailors fast enough. The Bush Admin wanted to go down to 35 total attack boats. 15 east coast, 20 west coast. Really.

[Stargazer09]

52. Not really

I'm Air Force, but I can imagine it's the same in the Navy.

You get a bunch of crusty older folks who want to stay in until they are forced out, and since the services are limited to a certain number of E-9s, those older folks keep the younger ones from being able to reach the highest ranks. In my experience, the longer people stay in one rank or one job, the more hard-headed and stagnant they become. No longer open to new ideas, inflated sense of their own self-worth, etc. One AF chief I knew told me that officers were worthless, and he made it pretty plain that he felt women were, too. That sort of attitude went out of style quite a few years ago, but he didn't get the memo.

By the time people reach E-8 or E-9, they are no longer really doing the job they were trained to do. They become managers and superintendents, overseeing dozens (if not hundreds) of people below them. All of their training basically goes out the window anyway, and if they stay too long, they stop relating to the people they need to supervise and lead.

High Year of Tenure is basically the military's way of ensuring that the highest enlisted grades continue to grow and meet the demands of an ever-changing military.

[Canuckistanian]

53. Kind of a "Darwinian approach"

Either you evolve or die.

What about people who just excel in their niche and just choose to stay there?

Seems like the "Peter Principle" is built in to this system.

[MADem]

57. As I said elsewhere,

You're paying people, because of the way the pay scales work, more than they are worth in that case.

A person who has maxed out on years of service in one pay grade can be making almost as much as someone in the next higher paygrade. Officers with enlisted experience can, as an ensign, make as much as a Lt (JG), or as a LT, make as much as a LCDR, for example. Longevity pay raises are still built into the system, but one reaches a point where the returns are diminished.

Also, older people are sicker people. They have more heath problems, dental problems, more dependents, and they cost money to relocate and provide for their housing (or housing allowance), family health care, family dental care, passports, overseas schooling, and family support services. Your "maintenance" costs balloon when you retain older personnel who don't promote, and you aren't getting more bang for your buck for your trouble.

Finally, you have to keep the training pipeline operative in order for it to be effective and efficient. If a person can't grow in their job and their responsibilities, they're just not optimum for the organization. They are, in effect, clogging the pipeline, and not making way for someone who will train up and grow in that job.

Back in the old days, when the Services ran on shitloads of "people power," it made sense to hang on to loyal old retainers who were content to do one job well. Nowadays, with so much automation and streamlining (drones, smart ships, etc.) every single person has to be contributing at max efficiency. Old Fred in the corner there, who really knows his way around the paint locker, is a dinosaur.

People get annoyed when the military wastes money. Keeping people on when they just aren't pulling their weight is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It's not a charity, after all.

I'm an old dinosaur, myself--I'm glad I've put that phase of my life behind me. It's a young folk's game. You can call it Darwinian if you'd like, I call it common sense.

[kydo]

60. USAJOBS isn't hiring.....

my husband recently retired from the navy (20 years) and we are in central florida. He has applied for those jobs on USAJOBS that the Dept. of Navy lists and those jobs are actually listed as "open contingency announcements," and they aren't filling them.

[margotb822]

6. It's called Perform to Serve

And basically, if a sailor is in an overmanned rating (job), they're given the option to transfer to an undermanned rate or get out. So, she wasn't necessarily refused reenlistment, but she was told she could only reenlist in certain jobs.

[SoCalDem]

8. Here's the only "article" I was able to find so far

Navy Layoffs
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-navy-layoffs,0,4793153.story
Staff Writer
According to CNN, the Navy is preparing to make job cuts. Some Navy jobs have doubled the personnel needed, so the Navy is making it harder to stay in by not allowing some sailors to reinlist. Some sailors will be forced into new jobs. The Navy admits, however, that not all of them will be allowed to stay.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Scout the Navy Times. WTKR is Norfolk's CBS affiliate. nt

[NeedleCast]

14. This Isn't Really Unusual in a Military Draw-Down

Especially if she is in an over-populated MOS. It does sucks, espcially if she wanted to re-up. She might ask if she can reclassify to a different MOS or even look into going cross-service into the Army.

[margotb822]

16. Yes, blue to green is an option

but most people who join the Navy didn't join the Army or Marines for a reason. I know people that have so that they could get to their 20, but it's a last resort for most.

[Captain Hilts]

23. The Navy will kick you out for being fat, using the wrong fork at dinner, whatever. nt

[Captain Hilts]

19. It depends on your rate. The Navy has a large surplus in some ratings and is forcing people out.

Read the NAVY TIMES. They've had several articles on this.

[msongs]

2. yeah if they're gay nt

[margotb822]

4. Yes, they're trying to cut

as many as 5,000 sailors. They've enacted a program where people can't stay in without promotion (high year tenure) and they're forcing people to either change fields or get out. It's their way of weeding out with actually firing.

On the other hand, the retention bonuses for officers are still high because they're loosing officers faster than they can recruit them in some specialties.

[SoCalDem]

9. This , from military.com..regarding the new policies

http://www.military.com/news/article/March-2009/sagging-economy-sinks-navy-bonuses.html?col=1186032310810

Sagging Economy Sinks Navy Bonuses
March 16, 2009
Military.com|by Bryan Mitchell

A shrinking Navy, the flagging economy and high retention are driving down bonuses for Sailors in a move that may signal an end to the era of plush bonuses to remain in uniform. But some Sailors can still act fast and be rewarded with a soon-to-expire more lucrative bonus.

The new diminished reenlistment bonus will go into effect on May 1 and will impact the vast majority of Sailors eligible for the extra cash. Any Sailor in non-nuclear position must reenlist by April 30 while nuclear fields have until May 10 receive the previous bonus. All told, bonuses for approximately 69 job fields increased while 446 decreased. The Navy is also tightening up its rules on when Sailors can reenlist and receive the bonus, meaning a Sailor must finish their paperwork at least 35 days in advance of their reenlistment date, according to Navy Administrative message 075/09.

snip

In a clear sign the economy has impacted the troops' bottom line, Navy officials confirmed that the highest retention in a decade -- buoyed, no doubt, by the harrowing civilian job market -- has driven down the need for bonuses. "This is a market-driven incentive,” Navy spokeswoman Sharon Anderson told Military.com. "It is not an entitlement.”

snip

"Although some of our most critical skills remain generally immune to the impacts of the nation's economic downturn, many of our skills are in sectors of private industry that are seeing significant workforce reduction,” she said.

snip

But this move by the Navy may signal a trend across the forces as the situation in Iraq stabilizes and the sinking economy prompts more troops to stay in or for more civilians to enlist. While the Army and Marine Corps are increasing their end-strength, the Navy is in the midst of multi-year downsizing that is also working to push bonuses down. The Navy has 331,856 active-duty Sailors as of mid-March. It is hoping to decrease that number to 329,000 by the end of the fiscal year. Ten years ago, the Navy had 373,000 Sailors. These same factors are likely to impact recruiting as well. "We can probably be more selective about the people we are bringing in,” Anderson said. "And that's probably a good thing.”

snip

For more information, see NAVADMIN 075/09

[margotb822]

10. The bonuses for officers

can be as high as $200,000 for a six year commitment. In my area, the bonus is $75,000 for six years, and $47,000 for 6 years after that. Pilots are a bit lower because they're easier to retain.

[Captain Hilts]

26. They are having a hard time keeping nuke submariners.

They've lost a pool of smart people to draw from because folks that used to be disqualified from flying because of vision now get corrective surgery. Those folks used to become bubbleheads. Not any more.

[Stargazer09]

54. Don't forget

The Navy refuses to let women on submarines, so they are also losing out on a large pool of smart people who just happen to have different plumbing.

I wish I had asked my dad for his opinion. He served on submarines most of his career and retired because he didn't want to stop going out to sea.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Under GWB the USN had to lay off 30,000 sailors in three years. This isn't new.

The Navy is the smallest it's been since before the FIRST World War.

[margotb822]

24. We're optimally manned, dontcha know??

It's the next new and exciting thing :sarcasm:

[Captain Hilts]

27. I LOVE hearing folks talk about how Bubba killed the Navy. I really do.

[margotb822]

30. Yea, Bush just threw money away and now we're paying the price

LCS, DDX, San Antonio-class LPD (can you tell I'm a SWO?). What a horrible waste of money. We have 40+ year old Frigates that are still hanging in there. Maybe if our stuff wasn't build by the lowest bidder, and then over budget. What a mess!

[Captain Hilts]

31. Friend of mine is in PA&E in OSec. Defense.

Pulling hair out by the handfulls over that @#*!.

SAN ANTONIO is u - g - l - y as sin. Saw it go over Hampt. Roads tunnel when it first arrived Norfork.

I was just reading about the extension program for the Perry class.

The LCS is junk and I assume we'll sell them to Taiwan within five years.

[Thothmes]

39. San Antionio class LPD

stem from the Clinton years. DDX may never be built. I sailed on WWII era built warships in the 1980s. All of those ships were built by the lowest bidders.

[margotb822]

50. DDX has been cancelled

but they are applying some of the technology to Arleigh Burke class DDGs

[MADem]

32. Particularly when it was Reagan who made plans for an UNACHIEVABLE 600 ship USN, and it was SecDef

Dick Cheney (under GHWB) who formulated the post-"tear down this wall" military drawdown.

I know--I had a chat with him about it. Never mind "run silent, run deep"--it was more like "slash hard, slash deep!"

But it wasn't Bubba's doing. The wheels on the bus were already going round and round, before Bubba even raised his right hand and said "Ah, Will-yam Jeffasun Clinton, do solemnly swe-yah...."

[Captain Hilts]

34. As my dad warned, w/o a draft, there aren't enough smart folks to fill those 600 ships.

Our beloved IOWA is the poster ship for the incompetency of a Navy stretched to far.

My uncle was radioman on IOWA when it took FDR to Teheran.

Dad said the sub service always limited the number of boats for this reason. You just can't lower the standards in subs.

[Thothmes]

40. there werent enough smart people to fill the 2,000 ships of the

U.S.Navy at the end of WWII?

[Captain Hilts]

42. There was a draft. Without one, no. nt

[Thothmes]

44. So the only way the American people would have enlisted

in the Navy in WWII is because there was a draft for the United State army?

[Captain Hilts]

45. It is not comparable with the 1980s on any level. Motivation for signing up...

the competing economy for highly-skilled people, and the training and skills required to create a professional force.

They're all different.

But, in the '80s, without a draft, there were not enough smart folks and enough time to train people to run a 600 ship Navy competently.

[MADem]

25. It's not called "laying off"--it's "force shaping." The Air Force is doing it, too.

People are getting "discharged for the convenience of the government."

Here's why, in a nutshell.

Congress sets the limits on the number of uniformed personnel we can have on active duty at any one time. They even set the limits on how many in each PAYGRADE we can have. That number is hard-and-fast, and it requires a legislative act to change it. It is never a rubber stamp evolution, especially if the number is to be revised upward.

When we need more people in one branch of service, we rob Peter to pay Paul. That way, we don't have to ask Congress for more people--we're simply moving the "slots" from one branch to another. Thus, to support the USMC and the US Army, the Navy and the Air Force are being raided. There's also a program called "Blue to Green" in effect where mid-grade USN and USAF people can transition to the Army with no loss of paygrade (usually, when they'd allow people to transition, they'd make them lose one rank).

People don't just join the military for the medical insurance. They join it to "get the fuck out of Kansas" as one of my subordinates once told me. They do it for the "adventure," the training, the career path, and some actually do it out of a quaint notion, sometimes derided here, called patriotism. Some do it for the money, which is way better than they could get as a high school grad in Bumfuck West Virginia. "You want fries with that?" gets old. Launching aircraft off a carrier flight deck is an absolute rush by comparison--and, there's special pays that plus up that paycheck, too. Some do it for a little bit of "all of the above." You actually can be a patriot who wants a decent payday.

It's a rewarding life, but it certainly is not for everyone. It is a dangerous job, sometimes--and that includes peacetime. You're given orders (they are not invitations) that tell you where to go and when. There will be times when you don't get what you want, and you have to suck it up and go do that crappy or scary job. But if you don't want to do this sort of work, no one's forcing you to sign on the dotted line. It's an all-volunteer force, full of voting age adults who make the decision to participate, and who, if they've read their enlistment or commissioning documents, know full well what they're in for.

The thing is, Uncle Sam has ALL the power--he can tell you to go home, or he can tell you to go to Afghanistan. You know that, unless you're a dumbass who doesn't read documents before signing them, when you sign your contract.

[Thothmes]

41. A good view of the reality of the situation.

[Obamanaut]

48. I think your paragraph on why people join is exactly right. I joined

four days after HS graduation (1960) because I wanted to get out of my dysfunctional family, and I wasn't prepared for college because I didn't prepare because I knew we/I couldn't afford it, and I didn't really know what I wanted to do and this way someone would tell me.

I was in a total of 28 years. Miz O and I were married 22 of them (we still are) and calculated one time that we were separated 11 of those years due to deployments, etc. It is harder on families I think than the service member. Miz raised our daughters practically alone.

And you are also correct about launching acft off a carrier deck. I was in various aviation squadrons on five different carriers, and loved every minute of it.

[Stargazer09]

55. Very nice summary!

I joined because of Dad, and because I wasn't getting anywhere in college at the time. I chose Air Force over Navy (Dad was retired Navy) because the AF had more jobs open to women in the mid-80s than the Navy did.

I've seen a lot over the years. Force shaping, mandatory reductions-in-force, etc. It's painful to watch when someone really, really loves his/her job in the military, and the military just tells that person to get lost. They don't get a consolation prize. They are basically kicked to the curb. It happens all of the time.

[NavyDem]

49. PTS and HYT are real...

I'm a near-20yr vet, about to be "force" retired at 20 because I have not been able to promote in almost 10 years. They don't merit it on what skills a person has either. More times than not, an E-6 cannot promote to E-7 (CPO) because they lack leadership abilities, or have other factors that work against them on their Evaluations.

Hell, I've been taking the examination for E-7 for 8 years, made the selection board all 8 years, and average scores in the 80th percentile or above (99th percentile on my last 3 exams). I failed a PFA (Physical Fitness Assessment) 2 years ago, and that is a factor that will prevent me from promoting. I hold 4 critical Navy Enlisted Classification Codes (MOS for you Army types), that would otherwise pay me a bonus to "Stay Navy".

For the PTS personnel, they usually get an opportunity to change over to a a different job, or get out. Unfortunately, some PTS folks just are not "Military" material. Most that I've seen get forced out, were not the type that did anything more than the minimum to get by.

I've got about 7 months to go, and one more look at the selection board, and then I'm forced out on HYT. Since I'm an E-6, I will get a pension.

I've never regretted my service time, but truth be told, I did not want to retire yet. I just can't get over that hump from E-6 to CPO.

[Stargazer09]

56. I'm leaving as an E-6, as well

I'm in the Air National Guard with 11 years of service. If I had stayed in when I first came on active duty, I would have been able to retire years ago (I had a 12-year break in service).

Anyway, I've been trying for years to earn E-7, but I've worked in jobs that were not "supervisory positions." And what is the first thing they ask you on an E-7 board in the Guard? "What was your favorite moment as a supervisor?" I used to report directly to (and work directly for) an O-6, the commander of the wing, and all you care about is how many junior enlisted people I babysat??? Give me a break!

My husband is being deployed for a year, so I've decided to get out and concentrate on our family. I was in between jobs anyway (my "slot" was taken away by the National Guard Bureau), so this is a good time to say farewell to the military.

My husband is being forced to retire at 20, and he's extremely bitter about it.

[MADem]

59. It's very hard to get over it, too, the older you get. And it has nothing to do with your

skillset, often as not. The PT failure will come back to haunt you---it's like that Clint Eastwood film title, you're 'Unforgiven.' FWIW, there are plenty of senior and flag officers who curse ADM Johnson roundly for his enthusiastic participation in the later iterations of the PT instructions--back in the old days, once you hit fifty, you were FREE! No more running, weighing, any of that crap...when that rule changed, the whining and crying at the POAC was something to hear!

I had a legalman at one command who was smarter than the two lawyers he worked for. Really. He was in your same position, pretty much. He could pass his PT test but he had a weight problem. We got him down to lean and mean fighting weight, and in fantastic shape, too. It didn't help. Didn't matter how glowing his evals were, either, or how many medals we gave him, it just wasn't going to happen.

And of course, if you're in a small community, that makes it even harder. Legalmen, Musicians--they all friken know each other!

Bright spot--that legalman retired, and is now making a bundle in business. Talent will rise to the surface, in or out of uniform.

If you have to leave, and don't make the board, my advice to you is to lean into the wind. Go towards it--and prepare for the day by doing a little networking and "what-if-ing" now. Preparation is the key to being ready for the change, and it's a big 'un. You may be surprised at how much you enjoy the freedom. Good luck to you.