Warrior
-
Posts
419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Warrior
-
-
So this is what that last csaf memo was about. I saw that email about organizational climate or whatever and just said wtf.
When's that vector coming out?
-
Exec, exec, exec.....UFB
And she has 3 masters degrees. Talk about overachieving! Maybe next years RIF (after they cut everyone who doesn't have theirs yet) will cut anyone who doesn't have 2 of them
-
Say it ain't so! ...standing by to stand by
-
[fyi this is real…]
Prove it...if you're not joking, I'm applying for vsp.
-
1
-
-
It wasn't an amc crew?
-
Welp, that explains Welsh's weird-ass "dignity and respect" email from earlier this week.
Glad I'm not the only one who said wtf when I got that email. I thought our primary mission was sex assault prevention. Turns out it's actually dignity and respect or something. I'll try harder to figure it out after my flight...
-
2
-
-
Strategic would be not getting your Masters done by your second year as a Lt. Tactical would be puking in the Wg/CCs shrubbery the day before your PRF is evaluated.
Another strategic attempt: go to Moscow with a certain former 20th AF commander
-
There is a push in leadership to not allow SOS in correspondence until you've hit your 7th year and haven't been in-res.
I don't foresee this happening with any urgency.
The SOS commandant was very clear that that is the direction correspondence was supposed to be going. But that was 2.5 years ago...some things never change
-
1
-
-
From the CMSgt PSDM:
Emphasis added.
When's the last time a chief got an epr with less than a 5? Maybe 2 in the whole AF this year? For diddling the wrong chick?
-
You're kidding right?
In addition to lengthy pay freezes and furloughs, all of which we've avoided on active duty, federal civilians have already been asked to contribute significantly more to their retirement in recent years and this new budget deal has piled on to that effort.
Most current government employees pay 0.8% of their annual salary as the cost of the FERS annuity. Those who were hired after Dec 31, 2012 now contribute 3.1% for the exact same benefit, i.e. congrats new guy, you just took an annual pay cut of 2.3% for the exact same benefit each and every year of your employment.
Now, not 1 year later, any employees hired recently (less than 5 years of service) will have to pay an additional 1.3% each and every working year for the exact same retirement. End result: dude hired 5 years ago is contributing 0.8%, dude hired 4.9 years ago is contributing 4.4%. On, say a $95K salary, that's an immediate $3,420 difference per year and those guys are getting the same benefit on the back end.
So while military retirees are getting 1% less per year until age 62 (about 24 years at the most if an 18 year old enlistee retired at 20 years of service), recently hired federal civilians are paying 3.6% more every year they work, which on the civilian side is usually at least that long and possibly longer i.e. 30+ working career before reaching the minimum retirement age which is at most age 57.
I'm not a fan whatsoever of either the military or federal civilians picking up the slack in the national budget, but the civilians are getting a much worse deal than the military retirees. And the negative effects hit immediately rather than the reductions in benefits being deferred until retirement.
Accounting like this is a huge part of the problem. If I understand this scenario correctly, dude who was hired 5 years ago contributes .8 percent. If he's still contributing .8 percent then no one took a pay cut, even if the new hire squadron secretary is contributing 4.4 percent. It's a different job for a different person with a different set of benefits which were known before they signed up.
I'm not arguing this is all rainbows and unicorns but it doesn't sound like the sky is falling either.
Or am I way off track?
-
Someone should look into that.
Have no fear. Chang is on it.
-
As much as I hate to perpetuate the division of the athlete vs. normal cadet, there is something to be said of the potential decrease in quality of cadet that comes from trying to win NCAA games. This link from the Denver Post reports on discussions at USAFA on making it a 5 year college for some cases. It's easy to read between the lines and see that they are talking about athletes, otherwise they wouldn't have interviewed the AD or football coach. So many things at that place revolve around athletics. The place now has three gyms, one for normal cadets, one for intercollegiates, and a separate one for football players. If they would donate the money to support actual military training (shooting, field craft, flying training) then the cynicism and suck factor of that place would decrease by 69%. Football makes money and it's all that the leadership sees. The physical, fiscal, and time requirements to be a NCAA D-1 football athlete are so high now that the service academies should not be investing the amount of time or money in. Devote it to the other 70% of cadets and make it a better institution, not a better show of ESPN Ocho.
Rant off
I would love to see the service academies play D-III sports. Then you funnel all the football money into the soaring/wings of blue programs. One argument I've consistently heard for sports programs is recruiting-just imagine what having more jump teams would do for recruiting if you had a team jump into the MI vs Ohio state game in front of 110k people. You know-it might help us recruit people who want to fly and do shit the AF does.
-
1
-
-
Holy shit! Regardless of how, when, or why...the fact (if true) that HALF of eligible fighter guys just left should be a giant clue bird that the ship is taking on water. Titanic, anyone?
Not so fast.
We are assuming that half the guys getting out this year is a statistically significant change from last year. I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying that we don't have enough info to claim the sky is falling (in this instance)
Holy shit! Regardless of how, when, or why...the fact (if true) that HALF of eligible fighter guys just left should be a giant clue bird that the ship is taking on water. Titanic, anyone?
Not so fast.
We are assuming that half the guys getting out this year is a statistically significant change from last year. I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying that we don't have enough info to claim the sky is falling (in this instance)
-
I can't help but figure the AF will still figure out a way to waste the cost savings that are made.
2.
I think nasty is assuming that the cost/hour reflects all of the logistics chain, FTU, etc. some accountants would argue that the cost/hr should include those but the .gov cooks the books however they see fit
-
Putting you that much closer to 20 yrs on AD anyway...
Halfway there is a still a loooong way to go when my crystal ball says the future holds a 365, less and less flying and no end to the retarded BS.
I'm too far out from check O the month club to just stick it out. I'd rather go fly for the guard/reserve as a traditional guy and get a real job. Then I still get to fly and big blue doesn't own my ass anymore.
-
3
-
-
Such irony that the ANG has been a shining beacon to so many frustrated dudes on AD for so long, only to hear that it's starting to suck so bad retention is going to be an issue.
Word. Maybe that palace chase/palace front plan of mine needs to sit on the back burner for a minute to see how this plays out.
-
Holy hell, that audio is entertaining.
-
Masshole, this is probably your best post ever. Spot on. Liquid, take note: your incomprehension of what everyone on this board is trying to tell you on this subject has just been boiled down to four sentences. By a ROTC cadet.
Unfortunately, Masshole, the answer to the rhetorical question in bold is (barring some big cultural changes, and NOT related to those which Liquid espouses) an unequivocal "yes."
There are dirtbags of either gender in any community--those who make you scratch your head and wonder how they got there in the first place. Speaking from first hand experience (various -135s over 21 years), the men are usually dealt with, up to & including administrative separation where warranted. The women... not so much. Everyone is so terrified of charges of sexism that they will ignore, coddle, look the other way, etc., rather than address the issue if the person in question happens to be female.
Thus you end up with a situation where a minority group (last time I looked, females were something like 20% of the total force, and much smaller yet in rated billets) has its normal share of bad apples to start--no more & no less than the men--but, since those bad apples aren't weeded out, an already more visible group (by virtue of their minority) gains a disproportionately high share of the under- or non-performers, where they REALLY stand out.
That's not fair to anyone (and certainly is counter-productive to mission accomplishment). Staying on this particular point, though, is it fair to the women who perform well? Hell, no--and, also in my experience, it is those women who are MOST pissed off about the situation, for precisely the reasons you cite: they're forced to deal with people questioning their qualifications simply because of their gender coupled with the institutionalized pattern of allowing sub-standard performance from a "protected" group.
Well stated. Giving preference to minorities cheapens the efforts of the strong performers who happen to be part of that minority group.
-
^ holy shit, this!
2.
However, we're not all stone cold killers. Remember the "everyone's a warrior" phase? It doesn't work to have different standards for different communities, and id love for us to all be killers. But we're not.
I fly herks. If I ever have to shoot someone it'll be with my M9 and we're having a really terrible day. I'm picking up what you're putting down-landing at Salerno on nvgs is my idea of a party. But how can we possibly relate the combat mission to support agencies? I went to finance yesterday and got there too late. Their hours are no shit 830-1500. I can't remember the last time I left work at 1630 unless I had an 0430 show the next day...
The "closed for training/pt/going away lunch/CC call/softball tournament" mentality does not equate to the A-10 CAS/fighter pilot let's kill migs mindset.
-
....I'm confused. I thought all navigators were homosexual.
But not all homosexuals are navigators.
-
1
-
-
I'm on board with civilian control of the military, but this witch hunt over sexual assault because someone in congress is unhappy with the ucmj process is ridiculous.
-
Am I the only one who wants to commit suicide as a result of resiliency training? I mean, nothing says 'don't kill yourself' like a day dedicated to it that really just results in getting to stay late® than normal in order to get/stay caught up since I can't spend that day doing my normal job.
-
Interesting. I maintain that the only way to really have zero sexual assaults in the military is if we don't have anyone in the military. And we have been repeatedly told that zero is the only acceptable number. I just think that's awfully disingenuous. But don't tell the boss or the SAPR dudes that...
-
1
-
-
There might be some amount of good in all that, but I see a shitload of YGBSM. Yet another reason to be glad we're not marines.
FY 14 Force Management Program (RIF, VSP, TERA)
in General Discussion
Posted
Seriously now - is this the Wg/CC from Little Rock who Azimuth is so fond of? Because I heard from a friend in the Med Group that he was told not to even bother applying because the Wg/CC wouldn't support it. I haven't gotten my paws on a copy of the PSDM yet so I'm not sure if the Wg/CC even gets a vote in this particular process...