This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Nobody Asked Ale to Join a Union, But . . .
The American Federation of Government Employees has voted four to one not to try to unionize the military, but the subject of military unions is not likely to go away.
Unions will continue to be a topic of discussion for reasons that have nothing to do with long working hours, family separations, the hazards and trials of military service, or anything like that. These things are part of the military way of life that you either accept or reject, and any thinking person will review them any time he raises his right hand, reenlists, or accepts a set of orders.
What I am talking about is the endless flap about erosion of benefits, and what it really means. There are so many inconsistencies, irregularities, and inequities in the military pay and benefit system that one scarcely knows where to begin a discussion on these issues.
First, the entire pay system is based upon an erroneous set of assumptions.
► It is assumed that the system applies equally to all, and it does not. Furthermore, in certain instances where it does in fact apply equally, it should not.
► The system assumes that the average military professional has no interest in taking care of himself and his dependents, providing for his future, in managing his resources wisely, and that if left to his own devices, the average serviceman will wind up selling pencils on the streetcorner.
► The system, as it applies to the retirement part of the picture, assumes that beyond a given point in one’s career, a person has too much invested in the system to leave before the 20- year point. If that is true, it means that a person who conscientiously feels after 15 years, say, that he wants to do something else with the rest of his life, has only two choices. He can throw away the investment, or he can hang around until the 20-year point, putting in time. That the average military professional cannot simply throw away that quarter-of-a-mil- lion-dollar package amounts essentially to economic bondage, whether intended or not.
Whether these assumptions are deliberately incorporated into the system, I don't know. I only know that the results can be hard to live with, especially when all the talk about military benefits misses the mark so widely. It is not that a few lesser benefits may be slipping away, it is that the big ones which remain are not all they are cracked up to be.
A few specific examples should serve to illustrate. Take commissaries. Many military families have working wives and live off military posts, often long distances from the nearest commissary store. That means that they must often drive long distances (at X< per mile) to shop and stand in long lines waiting to get in the door. Those travel costs, the costs of waiting (is time not money?), and the fact that one simply has to shop outside the commissary at times, all subtract from the value of that particular “benefit.”
Concerning exchange privileges, similar things apply, in addition to which, many items that involve substantial expenditures are not sold at stateside exchanges. Washers, driers, refrigerators, and freezers are but a few such items. Luxuries? Perhaps, but the feeling seems to be that we can get everything we need at exchanges, from razor blades to sports cars. Further, the brand selection on exchange items is often limited, so that to take advantage of exchange prices, one has to take what is there, or go outside at a higher price.
Medical care is perhaps the most misunderstood item of all. There is no question that for serious emergencies, where heavy medical costs would be involved, our medical benefits are worth a great deal. But how about routine things like school physicals for children, and non-emergency medical problems? A 30-mile trip to an emergency room for a cut knee is some “benefit.” Of course CHAMPUS is supposed to take care of travel problems, but anyone who has wrestled with a CHAMPUS claim knows what that is all about. A U.S. News and World Report article recently stated that medical benefits to a person of my rank are worth $1,760 per year. I know very little about medical insurance, but I am sure I could get excellent coverage for less than that elsewhere. And I would have a greater choice of doctors, hospitals, and would usually have less distance to travel.
That same U.S. News article reported that my retirement benefits are worth $4,000 per year, in that I contribute nothing to the program. I assume that figure is correct. But I also know that I cannot pay rent with it, buy freedom with it, send kids to school on it, or do anything else with it. I can’t even borrow against it. The only way I can collect it is to retire, and that just might come at a time when I can hardly afford to cut my salary in half. And every so often I get a sick feeling that if I were to get hit by a truck the day after I retired, I would have worked a long time for less than I was worth for no good reason. In any case, if anyone would like to give me that extra $4,000 a year, I believe I could do a fair job of providing for my own future. At the least, I would have some alternative to the all-or-nothing scheme that now exists.
I would also point out that the system is based on the idea that those benefits mentioned above are available to the retired person. That means that when the military person retires, he or she has to locate within reasonable distance of a commissary, exchange, and military hospital, in order to reap the full benefit of that retirement check.
If one chooses to live elsewhere, one
UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC. 237 East 52nd Street New York, New York 10022
(212) 644-1550
IM§
new era, new service, “new” USO
Support your “new” USO through the United Way or local USO campaign.
simply loses money, one way or another. So my salary, while I am on active duty, is held down because of the value of my retirement, which I do not realize until I leave active serv- *ce. Then I must restrict my freedom to some extent to reap the full value of retirement.
Commissaries, exchanges, and medial care, then, are the real issues when we talk military pay. Yet the carping in recent years has been focused on such things as partial loss of the G.I. Bill, the shutting down of the U.S. Armed Forces Institute (USAFI), and so on.
It all boils down to the fact that the military pay and retirement system is aIl out of whack, and while we have been hearing for years about blue ribbon panels, special studies, and quadrennial reviews, no results seem to be forthcoming. In the meantime, I recommend the following:
^ Abolish commissaries and exchanges in bases in the United States, and pay the serviceman directly instead. Bases should open up commissary stores to chains or independent retailers on a concession basis for the convenience of those who live on base. Small military stores could be set up to handle uniforms and other special 'terns where needed. In fact, they already exist in most places. In this way the clever shoppers can make their °wn best deals, and shop when and where convenient.
^ Separate the officer and enlisted retirement systems. They serve two different sets of people with different needs. The officer, in most cases, has at least one college degree—probably having been paid for all or in part by the government—by the time he reaches the 20-year point. The officer has many marketable skills in management, and so on, that will help him find useful and productive employment when his military service is terminated. The officer should have more flexibility in deciding when he should leave the service. But provid- lng half of base pay at 20-years is unreasonable. A contributory system whereby the officer could recoup at least part of his investment whenever he decided to leave would remove the ttecessity for paying an officer half pay after 20 years, an expensive proposition that serves the needs neither of many officers nor of the taxpayer. Further, if military retirement pay were delayed—all or in part—to a later date, much of the controversy of “double dipping” would evaporate.
The career enlisted man, on the other hand, deserves a full retirement after 20 years, if he chooses to leave at that point. The current system is far more reasonable for the enlisted person, and should be left alone. The enlisted program could incorporate a voluntary contributory program so that the enlisted member could also enjoy an alternative of getting out early without forfeiting everything.
^ Military doctors should treat only active duty military personnel. A comprehensive medical insurance program should be provided at reasonable cost for dependents of military personnel, and military people should be allowed to buy into it upon retirement or separation. That would solve most of the current problems with military health care, and probably lower costs.
The sum of all this is that the military pay system attracts the wrong kinds of people, does not meet the needs of the career force in a fair way, and necessitates consequential decisions at a time when the average head of a household can least afford to make them.
What does all that have to do with unions? I believe simply that all the screeching about erosion of benefits is misplaced. The problem is not with the minor erosion of some so-called benefits, it lies with the major benefits themselves, which we are retaining, and which, in too many cases, are costing us money. The government, in other words, has done a miserable job taking care of the soldier and his family, and the smoke sent up about erosion has clouded the real issues.
I am not asking for more pay.
But, I am asking that if U.S. News & World Report can claim, based on DoD data, that my salary is actually six or seven thousand dollars a year more than I in fact get paid, then there is something wrong when I have no say over how that money is controlled. The government should either revamp the entire pay system drasti
cally, so that pay and benefits are fair, responsive, and equitable to all, or it should stand aside and let the unions do it for them.
If it came to a showdown tomorrow, I might be curious to see how a union might propose to straighten out the mess that now exists.
MODERN DICTIONARY OF MILITARY TECHNOLOGY:
ENGLISH-SPANISH, SPANISH-ENGLISH
This entirely new 323-page dictionary compiled by LCDR R.A. Wells, USNR (Ret.) provides an up-to-date inventory of Spanish scientific and technical terms attributed to defense activities, aerospace and aeronautical research, missilery, telecommunications, electronic warfare and automation. It is especially oriented towards freshly minted words and expressions and those terms formerly known only to small coteries of specialists.
If you are an interpreter...translator... scientist.. . engineer. . . government researcher... technical abstracter... Foreign Service Officer, you need this work.
Order prepaid from Lexicon Press, 9109 Southwick Street, Fairfax, VA 22030. $20 postpaid within USA. Outside USA $23 (Int'l Money Order).