10% cut in military budget

[2sr2worry]

Everyone can be the DoD Comptroller

Start here with the FY09 Green Book

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/FY09Greenbook/greenbook_2009_updated.pdf

Here's a few hints:
1) When you cut a system from procurement, you need to go into the personnel spread and cut the people that go with the system
2) Then you go into the O&MN accounts and cut the sustainment dollars
3) Then you have to decide if you need to go back into the MPN and O&MN accounts and "plus up" the accounts for the systems that were going to be replaced.

You can have a cheaper DoD pretty easily. It's either going to be smaller, or outfitted with less than leading edge (but often still sound) equipment. You also have to get immune to the "sunk cost" argument--which keeps a lot of "dead man walking" acquisition programs going.

 

[FrankTheTank]

And yes, I would take a pay cut and continue to do what I do.

And here in lies the problem! Tell that to a wife and kids!

Unions do not set the pay rates.. the Companies and the Unions NEGOTIATE on an acceptable pay rate.. It is then voted on by the members..

BTDT and can see both sides of the argument... Can you????

 

[incubus852]

And here in lies the problem! Tell that to a wife and kids!

Unions do not set the pay rates.. the Companies and the Unions NEGOTIATE on an acceptable pay rate.. It is then voted on by the members..

BTDT and can see both sides of the argument... Can you????

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the wife and kids part. I don't think any spouse who depends on their wife or husband for financial support would like to see a reduction in disposable income... Frankly, (no pun intended), I forget what this has to do with the conversation.

And as I wouldn't call it negotiation as much as extortion in some cases... i.e. you give us a pay increase/better benefits or we'll strike until we get them while you lose thousands/millions.

Unions were a necessary "evil" during the early years of the industrial revolution when companies completely abused/overworked/killed/injured their workers (i.e. Ford?) and OSHA and other organizations that oversaw/enforced the simple and essential entitlements didn't exist.

At this point, they only seek to greedily take as much as they can get. That doesn't let the executives and higher level managerial employees that make poor business decisions off the hook; both are to blame. And I'm talking almost specifically about the auto industry.

and BTDT=?

 

[FrankTheTank]

Because a wife a wife and kids are supported by income provided under a CBA negotiated between the Company and the Union!

Collective bargaining is the process whereby workers organize together to meet, converse, and compromise upon the work environment with their employers.It is the practice in which union and company representatives meet to negotiate a new labor contract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

 

[Ducky]

And here in lies the problem! Tell that to a wife and kids!

Unions do not set the pay rates.. the Companies and the Unions NEGOTIATE on an acceptable pay rate.. It is then voted on by the members..

BTDT and can see both sides of the argument... Can you????

Icubus has a good pointe about the current state of unions. They were a necessary evil, but with todays massive amounts of gov labor regs the unions just add to the pain and bleed companies dry.

As for the wife and kids statement. No one forces anyone to get married in this country. I am getting married in October, but will be able to support my family no matter what the case. If the day comes where I no longer have my current job I will do whateveer it takes to make it happen and you better believe I won't be relying on a damn union.

Something else unions create is a glass ceiling for the workers in the union.

This whole situation can be solved by less corporate tax. At the very least it would decrease the massive incentive to ship jobs overseas. The fair tax would accomplish this, but would prevent certain parties from using class warfare as a mean to get elected so it will never happen.

 

[FrankTheTank]

i.e. you give us a pay increase/better benefits or we'll strike until we get them while you lose thousands/millions.

Striking is much more complex than that... There are also many, many wickets of negotiating to go thru before it ever reaches that point... Like I said... Call me when you have experienced both sides of the argument and then tell me what you think.. They may not be the best but they are the best we got... Why you think Jetblue in unionizing.. Because Companies can chnage whatever they want, when the want unless binded by law (CBA)!

 

[FrankTheTank]

Icubus has a good pointe about the current state of unions. They were a necessary evil, but with todays massive amounts of gov labor regs the unions just add to the pain and bleed companies dry.

As for the wife and kids statement. No one forces anyone to get married in this country. I am getting married in October, but will be able to support my family no matter what the case. If the day comes where I no longer have my current job I will do whateveer it takes to make it happen and you better believe I won't be relying on a damn union.

Something else unions create is a glass ceiling for the workers in the union.

And with this I am done... After you are done with the Navy and have said wife and kids, perspective might be different... But what do I know.. 12 years active duty, 4 1/2 at a major unionized airline... You guys are right unions...blah, blah, blah...

Enjoy! I believed many of the same things when I was in your shoes but... Well, ah.. nevermind...

PS: Regs aren't as tigh as you think. Get some smart company lawyers and they can find the loopholes with ease... Just like taxes.. Oh those are heavily regulated, no way to get around those laws???

 

[natelzjames]

FrankTheTank

I was in UFCW for about 10 years. I had friends that made more at Wal-Mart than what I made in the union. I paid union dues that I did not see any benefits from except when we went on strike. Except I was part time at the time so I actually made more on the strike than when I was working. Scabs were hired so when the strike was over what did we gain? Not a damn thing. Our raise was less than the last contract and our co pay was higher.

There are many problems with unions as well as with minimum wage. If the economy can support minimum wage then great, but if it can't, then people lose jobs. Unions create a minimum wage and when the economy can't support its work force because the company is not allowed to lower its wages because of the union, guess what happens, lay offs and higher unemployment. I learned this in basic economics.

One more thing, Unions = a form of Communism. Raises are based on seniority and not merit which means a shitbag will keep his job and get the same raise that a hard worker gets. Every one get treated the same way, all are equal. So why should I work my ass off if I am going to get my raise regardless. There is no incentive to work hard, but just do enough to not get fired. I knew a lot of people like that when I was part of the union. But if they pulled that in other jobs they would not get a raise or even fired.

P.S. you don't think that some auto workers getting paid $65.00 an hour for a $35.00 per hour job has nothing to do with why foreign cars are cheaper or why most American car parts come from overseas while foreign cars are being made here with non-union auto workers and don't need a bail out?

 

[PropAddict]

why most American car parts come from overseas while foreign cars are being made here with non-union auto workers and don't need a bail out?

Car and Driver (sh!t maybe it's Road and Track) this month has an article about all the foreign car companies that are not doing so awful well. Mazda has had to cancel a host of programs and do some corporate re-alignment, Subaru is spiraling down the toilet, and Mitsubishi is all but defunct. Even Toyota has had to scale back a lot of its plans and is not the shining beacon of profitable envy for car companies everywhere.

The non-union bit may have bought them some time (debatable, I know), but they're all hurting.

 

[FrankTheTank]

So why should I work my ass off if I am going to get my raise regardless. There is no incentive to work hard, but just do enough to not get fired.

The same hold true for officer and enlisted in the Navy.... You know what I am talking about because you have seen/know them!

You bring up some good points.. However, Socialism is a government policy.. Unions negotiate (legally) with a company... I am sure there are many bad examples of unions doing the wrong thing but... As a whole they are there for the workers! And if they are not there for the workers than therein lies the problem, and it does exist... And just like the Navy, that is a leadership problem not a foundational problem!

(As a side note: Jessie Jackson runs a non-profit organization that has extorted plenty from companies and nobody cares but the unions protecting their workers are this giant monster.. Are many workers overpaid, sure...So are many CEOs (non-union)... But as a whole they look out for the masses or so they should!)

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Comparing problems in the auto-industry to problems in the military does not mean the problems are justified.

 

[natelzjames]

Frank

That starts to teeter on philosophy. Are humans innately hedonistic? If so, what gives more pain working hard for the same raise that Joe shitbag is getting, or doing little as possible all the while getting paid for it. If that is the case, then it is a foundational problem. Unions may have been needed once upon a time, but for the most part there usefulness has run out. But like anything else there are trade-offs. Andrew Carnegie in the 1800's gave more money to charity then anyone in U.S. history until Warren Buffet. He was a giant in the steel industry but he paid his workers crap. He like many other "fatcats" had his workers working in horrible and dangerous conditions (one of the main reasons for unions) and paying them next to nothing, however, they gave a lot of money to the poor. If he had to pay his workers more that meant there was less money to give away. So what is more important, helping those who have none, or giving more to those that have a job but want that extra money to take that vacation, but the 58 inch LCD, buy that SUV, and other non-necessities. Seems to me that a governments jobs is to protect its society, militarily speaking as well as making sure people have health care, food, and a place to live. It is a fine balance. Take to much away from the military and 9/11 happens on a large scale and we are taken over. But what good is a military when there is no one to protect and pay for the military. The fact is, that in our current economy most unions are harming people rather than helping. Unions keep people from getting jobs because that said union expects the company to pay too high of a wage. Government regulates work conditions and for what reasons people cannot get fired i.e. age, race, religion etc. but when unions were needed, there were no such restrictions or government regulation in place. With those regulations unions lost most of their functionalty and became more of a conflict institution, employees vs. managment. As we in the military know, if we have one who is not a team player, that one can get many killed.


Prop
As far as foreign car companies, they might not be doing well, but the majority of them will survive without help from the government unlike the big 3. Also, if you can pay workers less, there are less people that will lose their job.

 

[HAL Pilot]

I was once like all you union haters. I now know better. Try living on the opposite side of corporate greed and see how your opinion changes. It's amazing how all the former officers I know in the civilian world quickly realize this truth after the first hint of economic trouble at their civilian (non-government) jobs.

Unions are a necessary evil. Some are good and some are bad, but without unions, most corporations would be ass-fucking every one of their workers at every opportunity.

You guys need to try living in the real world. The military is unique in its pay and benefits, and the way they are protected.

 

[incubus852]

I'll defer to the higher authorities here, as experience trumps all else.

But I still think we should cancel the Air Force... the whole thing.

 

[bert]

Start here with the FY09 Green Book

http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/FY09Greenbook/greenbook_2009_updated.pdf

Here's a few hints:
1) When you cut a system from procurement, you need to go into the personnel spread and cut the people that go with the system
2) Then you go into the O&MN accounts and cut the sustainment dollars
3) Then you have to decide if you need to go back into the MPN and O&MN accounts and "plus up" the accounts for the systems that were going to be replaced.

You can have a cheaper DoD pretty easily. It's either going to be smaller, or outfitted with less than leading edge (but often still sound) equipment. You also have to get immune to the "sunk cost" argument--which keeps a lot of "dead man walking" acquisition programs going.

But don't get so excited adding up your "savings" that you forget to subtract your cancellation fees. And don't let them move those billets somewhere else: when it comes to saving money people are the problem.