Bill Schulz flipped through a list of Army careers, carefully watching the reaction of Tim Mathis, the 19-year-old construction worker perched next to him. When the potential recruit shrugged in disinterest, Schulz quickly moved to the next job, pointing to those that had the highest signing bonuses or might generate the kind of experience future employers will value.
...
To Serco and MPRI Inc., it is good business. The two Virginia-based firms have more than 400 recruiters assigned across the country, and have signed up more than 15,000 soldiers. They are paid about $5,700 per recruit.
The companies have tried to apply business savvy to the work. They cut the military's typical seven-week training program for new recruiters to three weeks. And MPRI is using about 20 percent fewer people in the average recruiting station to get the same amount of work done, according to program manager Don Tarter.
The latest in Rumsfeld's privatization/outsourcing madness? I wonder how it's going to play when the recruits come back with PTSD, or other injuries and go look these guys up who sent them off to war at $5700 + bonuses a pop?
The one thing about recruiters was they got the same deal everyone else did (for the most part, we won't go into the infamous "Freeman Plan" and how fucked up that turned out to be in some cases). A recruit might run into his/her recruiter someday as a fellow soldier/sailor, whatever and talk about their experiences good, bad, indifferent.
These contractors that the Army is using are all ex-Military and have certainly "been there and done that", but I doubt when they were on Active Duty many of them sought out recruiting duty as a "first choice". Also, the disparity in pay certainly has to make the active duty men and women assigned to recruiting duty now, wonder what the deal is with the whole program, if not look forward to getting out and making some truly significant cash doing what they do now for what is basically minimum wage (in the 24/7/365 world of the military).
It's gonna be interesting to watch this.
posted by Jo Fish on 09.06.06 at 01:21 PM
Comments:
Funny thing. I did run into my recruiter in Korea, about a year into my enlistment. Strangely enough, he recognized me, and it took a minute for me to recognize him.
I think I was his last recruit before his orders came through and he was assigned to a new unit.
I actually gave him quite a hard time, eventhough he told me exactly what I could expect. From talking to the the others who were with me, their experience with their recruiters was very different.
But nonetheless, this move to using "headhunters" in place of regular recruiters is not a good thing. Particularly, if they or the company start getting bonuses and the like for obtaining recruitment numbers.
Especially if there is no risk of the recruiter running into one if his/her recruits.
Considering my niece got knocked up by a Marine recruiter who did the same thing to two other girls, I wonder how many predators of young kids this move will generate. And no repurcussions, since they aren't in the military anymore....
I too was one of the last recruits my recruiter wrangled into the military. He was leaving the service (I didn't know it at the time), and once he got out, he published an opinion article in the local paper about his experiences as a recruiter and his thoughts on the pressure placed on recruiters to get bodies.
I second the notion that contracting out recruiting is not a good idea. May as well contract out the whole military - but then you'd have to pay 'em more than what we currently pay these kids to join up (sans $5,700 bonus). Wait, they're already doing that with outfits like Blackwater and Custer Battles.
posted by: Marcus on 09.06.06 at 05:31 PM [permalink]
Hell, if anyone deserves the bonus, give it to the SM after their first enlistment is up. Outsourcing is about profits for the contractor, and eliminating the requirement to have to fund good retirement pay and benefits to people who would have those future benefits from government jobs. That's just what this country needs... fewer jobs with great benefits. Sheeshhh.
Your post just reinforces my belief in conscription. I think people would actually give a hoot if their sons and daughters(yes women too!) were bound to be inducted.
It might give us a chance to reclaim our democracy?
Conscription? Don't you know, America's freedom isn't worth a drop of sweat from W's kids or a Tax cut from Cheney's.....
posted by: Fred on 09.07.06 at 11:43 AM [permalink]
This is yet another bad idea the administration is forcing on the service. Outsourcing military functions is a bad idea that continues to get worse.
As far as recruiting goes, the real underbelly of the problem is that things are so bad they are recruiting white supremecists - and letting them stay.
