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.
"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.
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?
I would find that acceptable.
KFC:
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)
Bingo. Emphasis on "blanket" truth. Some high rankers earn it, and some do not. More do not in my experience.
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?
Yes, I'm in the Navy. I suppose they walked 20 miles to school in the snow every day uphill both ways too?
Ted:
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.
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_________
Deleted the double, Ted. Hope you don't mind.
I think that little stuff builds up - particularly in rates/MOS's where advancement is tougher. Dunno how the Army or AF work it, but in some jobs in the Navy, advancement is bottlenecked at certain paygrades. Losing that one little hour of liberty isn't so bad if you know that if you work hard you're going to be promoted soon and receive the same perk. That isn't the case in my rate, nor is it the case in many Navy rates. I made E6 sooner than most because I'm a Music theory Ninja and take really outstanding tests. And hell, maybe that isn't entirely fair either. Very little of the stuff we're tested on is of any use whatsoever when actually performing the job.
Oh there's another story of "military intelligence" by the way. I just tell this one for the fun of it, not to make any point.
The musician rate is bottlenecked at E4. There are tons of E4s and very few E5s get made every cycle. It's also bottlenecked at E5 to E6 - same exact reason. The average number of E4's promoted to E5 is about 7. 7 per 6 months. Imagine our surprise this one cycle when 52 got made all of a sudden!! Turns out it was a mistake. Someone forgot to place the decimal right and instead of the 5.2 (which would have been rounded to 5) we got 52! Now in a rate that's closed, what do you think this did for the morale of those that weren't one of the 52? What do you think the Navy did about it? If you answered "nothing" you are correct. People that hadn't even come into the Navy music program at that point were affected adversely by it.
Here's another similar story. There are two Navy Bands that are different - the Washington D.C. band and the Naval Academy band. When I came in, if you auditioned for and made the D.C. band, you came into the Navy as an E6. That is still true today. If you auditioned for and came into the Academy band, you were automatically E5. At some point, someone decided the Academy band should get the same thing as the D.C. band, and a whole bunch of E5s got magically turned into E6s for nothing beyond that the decision was made. The problem was, the bean counters didn't take this into account when they picked how many E5s would be made in the fleet (the not special bands). So ANOTHER 50+ E4s made E5. Same result. people not even in yet were adversely affected by it, and the Navy's helpful response was "Oops."
Anyway...just chatting at this point...I think we've exhausted my rant
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
