I like this idea of Warrior Pay:
The Army is preparing to ask the Defense Department to move forward with a new type of compensation for soldiers who serve repetitive deployments in a combat zone.
Called “warrior pay” by the Army, the special version of hardship-duty pay has been on the drawing board for several years.
Similar to the sea pay available to sailors, Marines and Army mariners, warrior pay would recognize the cumulative time a soldier spends deployed over the course of a career. (…)
Sources said they believe that, when implemented, warrior pay will be paid to officers and enlisted soldiers who are in a location that is eligible for hostile-fire pay. That means it will be tax-free.
Because the program would recognize cumulative deployments, payment levels would increase each time a soldier deploys.
“Our vision is that this will carry through a soldier’s entire career so that anytime he deploys, he will not only be adding to his deployment history, but will receive extra money during the time he is deployed,” said one Pentagon source. [Army Times via the Early Bird]
It will be interesting to see if doing a tour in Korea is considered a deployment for this pay or only tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Either way I support whatever the Pentagon decides to do to pay soldiers more for serving on multiple deployments.
Complete article can be found below the fold:
Army Times
May 19, 2008
Pg. 9
‘Warrior Pay’ Plan Rewards Deployment Time
Compensation akin to Navy’s sea pay
By Jim Tice
The Army is preparing to ask the Defense Department to move forward with a new type of compensation for soldiers who serve repetitive deployments in a combat zone.
Called “warrior pay” by the Army, the special version of hardship-duty pay has been on the drawing board for several years.
Similar to the sea pay available to sailors, Marines and Army mariners, warrior pay would recognize the cumulative time a soldier spends deployed over the course of a career.
While Pentagon sources declined to provide specific details about Army coordination efforts with the Defense Department, legislation approved by Congress in January, and now part of federal law, authorizes up to $1,500 per month in hardship-duty pay.
The top-end payment is double the $750 maximum authorized for hardship-duty pay before enactment of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act.
Soldiers currently receive much less than the maximum in both the old and new laws.
For example, soldiers in the combat theater receive $100 per month in hardship-duty pay for their first 12 months of deployment, and $200 in hardship-duty pay plus $800 per month in assignment incentive pay if they are involuntarily extended.
Sources said they believe that, when implemented, warrior pay will be paid to officers and enlisted soldiers who are in a location that is eligible for hostile-fire pay. That means it will be tax-free.
Because the program would recognize cumulative deployments, payment levels would increase each time a soldier deploys.
“Our vision is that this will carry through a soldier’s entire career so that anytime he deploys, he will not only be adding to his deployment history, but will receive extra money during the time he is deployed,” said one Pentagon source.
More than 838,200 soldiers have deployed to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, according to Defense Department data as of March 31.
Of those, 576,908 have deployed once, and 261,347 have served more than once. In addition, 171,912 soldiers currently are deployed.
Briefing materials provided to Congress last year by the Defense Department included a notional chart of pay rates for junior officers and enlisted soldiers; mid-career NCOs and officers; and senior NCOs, field-grade officers and generals.
Pay levels for all three categories began at $200 per month for the first year of deployment, increased to $400 for the second, $600 for the third and fourth, and up to $1,000 per month for the fifth and sixth year deployment, depending on grade.
Popularity: 3%
My StumbleUpon Page
9:14 am on May 22nd, 2008 1
“It will be interesting to see if doing a tour in Korea is considered a deployment for this pay or only tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I think that would be a slap in the face to those serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. A deployment in Korea does not in any way produce “warriors”. Don’t get me wrong, I think all public service pay needs to go up, but this inclusion would be a joke.
9:25 am on May 22nd, 2008 2
The article says this is meant to be similar to sea pay where sailors get paid more depending on how many years out to sea they have cumulated over their careers.
A sailor going out on a six month sea tour does not necessarily mean combat either but yet they still get paid because they are away from their families.
The way I am reading the intent of this Warrior Pay is to pay servicemembers more for being a way from their families not because they are in combat. Servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan already get combat pay and tax exemptions which servicemembers in Korea do not get to compensate them.
If you are in Iraq or Korea you are still away from your family and I think this is what the intent of the Warrior Pay is trying to address.
10:07 am on May 22nd, 2008 3
The article clearly says that the Army is looking to compensate those who serve in combat zones.
“The Army is preparing to ask the Defense Department to move forward with a new type of compensation for soldiers who serve repetitive deployments in a combat zone.”
10:17 am on May 22nd, 2008 4
Joining the military suggests time away from ones family, so I don’t buy that “Warrior Pay” should be given to anybody who has to be separated from their loved ones. And since it is assumed that military service could translate to time away and the Army wants to compensate for it, why not compensate on the front end? Would that not increase the lure of service in the first place?
I’m shooting in the dark at this point though…
11:26 am on May 22nd, 2008 5
I interpret the proposed stipend the same way you do, GRH. Soldiers already receive combat pay, but the key phrase is “repetitive deployment.” Clearly the military is intending the pay to provide even more compensation for soldiers who spend years in combat zones.
12:39 pm on May 22nd, 2008 6
Some pro “warrior pay” arguments would be to promote retention and fairness.
Honestly, many soldiers enter the military single and end up with a family at some point. Because the conditions of their lives have changed, one should expect different attitudes toward family separation and deployment to hazardous environments. It could be said that they could just leave service at the first available opportunity, but that wouldn’t necessarily be in the best interest of the military. Cost of training a new soldier with basic soldiering, combat, and specialized skills can be quite a lot. Not to mention, the time and years it takes to replace soldiers with mid level supervisory experience as well as cumulative on the job experience. Extra pay is always a good way to get soldiers to re-enlist, if they aren’t otherwise inclined to do so. As far as lumping the incentive in to a front end bonus, I think that may be effective. However, many soldiers and especially soldiers with families will too much foresight to take a one time payment if other elements are included in the package. After all, that’s why it can be so difficult to get military members to take early retirement or seperation packages. The loss to future benefits usually outweighs the benefit of a one time payment.
As far as “Warrior Pay” increasing fairness, extra pay(if enough) might encourage some soldiers to be less vigorous in attempting to avoid assignments they know will land them in a deployment situations. Anybody that’s been in the military awhile has met that soldier that’s managed to stay in relatively the same place for years and years, avoiding deployments or having to PCS, just by bouncing from one assignment to another in areas with plenty of military installations, like San Antonio or D.C. or anywhere there seems to be a headquarters of one kind or another. This creates a resentment amongst those that end up having to do multiple tours in combat zones. Adding additional pay might even up the score a bit, encouraging some to seek out deployment opportunities and making those soldiers that have received the short end of the stick a little less disgruntled.
I think the real issue behind Warrior Pay is the military’s competitiveness with defense contractors. Many job specialties are facing a crisis with a lack of NCOs within them. There was an Air Force
Times article a few weeks back that discussed it, what the AF Times didn’t mention was that many of those specialties are also ones that are increasingly staffed by defense contractors, especially in combat zones. When someone can get two or three times their pay by getting out and taking a contracting job in Iraq or Afghanistan, that becomes a real consideration for the soldier, airman, or sailor. As I mentioned before, the loss of the experience a soldier may have creates a situation that may not be beneficial to the military.
2:23 pm on May 22nd, 2008 7
Eventually the personnel costs for the US military will result in bring back the draft.
2:53 pm on May 22nd, 2008 8
Pete,
I feel sorry for the administration and party that has to deal with that.
Luckily, I’m old enough to avoid a draft, but can’t wait for the backlash!
3:16 pm on May 22nd, 2008 9
The draft will never come back. It would be political suicide for anyone who tries it and the military doesn’t want it. I would rather have the military downsize before filling it with forced labor that doesn’t want to be there.
4:42 pm on May 22nd, 2008 10
That downsize has to come after America wises up and uses its resources where they are needed. That would not be limited to Iraq by any means.
3:07 am on May 23rd, 2008 11