Pentagon’s 46,000 Temporary Workers May Lose Their Jobs

[Purveyor]

Source: Bloomberg

The Pentagon has given managers authority to start firing some of its 46,000 temporary workers now in anticipation of across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect in March according to Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.

By mid-February, the Defense Department is also likely to begin notifying its 800,000 civilian employees that they face mandatory unpaid leave one day a week starting in April unless Congress and President Barack Obama agree on a way to avert the spending cuts aimed at reducing the federal deficit, Carter told reporters in a briefing at the Pentagon today.

“There will be 800,000 people subject to furlough all over the country who will not be getting a fifth of their paycheck” if the cuts take effect, he said.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/pentagon-s-46-000-temporary-workers-may-face-immediate-job-cuts.html

[lexw]

1. "Firing" ?

I'm a little shocked that Bloomberg's article used the term "firing." It sounds like those being let go (laid off), were all involved in wrong doing.

[Igel]

59. Perhaps.

I've always understood "laid off" to usually mean "we'll call you back when there's the need."

"Fired" has always meant "goodbye, we don't expect to see you again and if we need somebody you're free to apply again."

You can be fired or terminated for cause. Or just fired or terminated because the company's going out of business or reducing forces.

[lexw]

70. Everywhere I look....

"firing" means it was the employee's fault.
My wife used to work H.R., and was always correcting me when I said "fired" as opposed to "laid off."

[annm4peace]

2. maybe the should also cut the billion dollar toys

how many nuclear subs, drones, missles do we really need ?

Lets take some of those engineers they are going to lay off and put them to work on roads and solar power.

[humbled_opinion]

3. Sadly it doesn't work like that... n/t

[annm4peace]

4. but a nice thing to remind the letters to the editor

I'm sick of hearing how we have to keep funding the Pentagon or they'll cut staff.

they have bizzzzzion dollars going to toys to create more and more conflicts and wars... get god forbid we have a pentagon employee on furlough.

Ok to furlough those building our bridges, and ok to furlough the social worker who checks on abused kids.

[NutmegYankee]

21. So you support furloughing Civil Servants?

Do you think people who lend their talents to this nations security should get a 20% pay cut?

[Purveyor]

24. Like most of the rest of the working middle class in this country. Ask the autoworker about 'pay

cuts'...

[NutmegYankee]

49. Do you support pay cuts for the middle class?

I don't support them for any of the middle class. I don't for Teachers, Civil Servants, Manufacturing jobs, etc.

I'd support them for Wall Street though.

[Purveyor]

50. Of course not but that is what has happened especially in manufacturing. eom

[lunatica]

27. Employees, including Faculty went through Furloughs in UC Berkeley

a couple of years ago. They were on a sliding scale, but we all got unpaid leave days for a year. It meant we all kept our jobs too.

[shanti]

65. yea, i worked for the state during furloughs too

it was very painful and really affected morale. i wasn't in any danger of losing my job though.

[modrepub]

32. Our Office Lost Nearly All of our Contractors

this year. We've had our budget cut several times. My state colleagues have taken unpaid leave. We've had a pay freeze for almost three years. There's talk of furloughs or unpaid leave floating around. Our school district laid off staff, instituted an activities fee and is talking about eliminating kindergarten. The defense budget can not be a sacred cow. I have no idea why we have 11 aircraft carrier task forces which probably eat up billions of $ for support per year. They don't even audit the defense department like every other federal agency so who know how much they waste.

[Hugin]

52. This article is only about the DoD, the other agencies (social) are going to make similar cuts.

This is Govt wide.

[modrepub]

74. Sorry

I work for another federal agency and I can tell you we've lost almost all of our contract support already and they're looking to cut more. The DoD has been immune to cuts for almost forever. Heck they don't even get audited properly.

[annm4peace]

60. No that is not what I was saying

I was saying they can cut the civil servants but still have money for military weapons that we don't need.

I was also saying we have too many Pentagon positions when we need more workers in our infrastructure.

[Revanchist]

7. Blame congress

There are plenty of projects that the Pentagon doesn't want but were forced into by Congress in order to ensure jobs for their home districts. If the military had a say in what they wanted I think the budget would be smaller.

[Kolesar]

10. Layoffs are a PR gimmick by the Pentagon--they are hiding behind middle class Americans

Look at the families that will be affected!
Don't look at the grotesque mismanagement of the F-35!!

[valerief]

19. But that would only help the 99% and we don't matter to them. nt

[jeff47]

40. Because the 99% don't have jobs making that stuff. (nt)

[Rosa Luxemburg]

66. yes, cut the old junk

[SoapBox]

5. Sell off all those fucking golf courses!

What is there...something like 200 of them?

Get rid of them!!!

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

11. Also get out of Nascar!

That would save a lot too.

[SoapBox]

6. p.s...

Stop all the "double-dippers".

They "retire" in their 50's and then are hired right back as a "independent contractor", making even MORE money than being on the military wage!

[lunatica]

28. How about not picking on those who work and picking on those

who fire workers. Just a thought.

[fasttense]

8. Austerity for workers

While about 50% of all US based corporations pay NO TAXES, while gas and oil corporations do NOT PAY their pumping fees, and while banksters get practically free loans from our Fed.

Austerity for workers while the Pentagon has yet to find that missing $6.6 Billion in cash floating around in Iraq.

Lets cut some more jobs and see how the economy does. Maybe we will get a triple dip Recession like England.

[lunatica]

30. And when they cut the jobs then they should make sure to cut the unemployment benefits

after all the American workers are all a bunch of takers aren't we?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

35. North Carolina Republicans are all over that.

They're proposing a maximum weekly benefit of $350, covering only 20 weeks, rather than the current 26. Thank you, Chamber of Commerce.

GOP, N.C. Chamber hatch plan to reduce unemployment benefits, pay state debt
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/gop-nc-chamber-hatch-plan-to-reduce-unemployment-benefits-pay-state-debt/Content?oid=3220017

"North Carolina's debt is the fourth-highest in the nation," and our unemployment rate is the fifth worst. It's hard to imagine how fucked up this state is.

JOBS!

[unhappycamper]

9. Some other cuts:

Navy orders cuts to begin now; thousands to be fired

Few Army employees would escape furloughs

The Air Force nominates Officers for 60 new stars



on edit to add: I've been posting (military) sequestration stuff in the Veterans forum.

[Hugin]

16. Thanks for the background links, UHC. n/t

[DCBob]

12. This could be a tactic to pursuade the Republicans to make a deal.

I am sure many congressman will be getting thousands of calls and emails from angry DoD employees.

[underpants]

13. and southern states economies will feel the pain

the Republicans have gone past the wrapped-in-the-flag BS and are openly displaying how much their constituents rely on the FED'RAL GUBMENT

[Hugin]

14. Oh, look... It's a pay cut for Federal Employees.

Not to worry, Contractor profits will remain unaffected.

This is EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted.

[olddad56]

15. Doesn't temporary usually imply that the jobs are not permanent?

[Hugin]

17. Those "Temporary" positions are sometimes used to maintain continuity of operations during...

restructuring.

They typically become permanent... But, not being good managers I assume Congress is unaware of the need for continuity when it comes to National Security.

[jeff47]

36. "temporary" includes things like "you'll do this for us for the next 5 years".

It's not like a temp job in the normal world.

Getting all the authorizations for a permanent position to be open, much less filled, frequently results in people being hired as "temporary" or "term" workers.

[Ikonoklast]

18. The pitfalls of looking to the MIC as a jobs program.

The treasure of this nation has been stolen with the help of those we hired to protect it.

The Defense Dept. doesn't even know where the money goes anymore, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "GIVE US MORE!"

[TwilightGardener]

23. That pretty much nails it.

[jeff47]

41. Give me another jobs program that can get through Congress, and I'll happily support it

Fact is, unemployment is still WAY too high, and DoD spending is the only stimulus spending we can get through Congress.

I'd far prefer programs like infrastructure spending, but that's not the choice we have.

[Sunlei]

20. cut Pentagon management pay FIRST. Cut ALL the percs of the Leadership first!!

Let the Leadership buy their own health insurance.!

[jeff47]

42. Yeah, slashing the salary and benes of those 6 people will make all the difference! (nt)

[Sunlei]

53. probably cost us taxpayers a billion a year or more for those 6 people. let them use ss and medicare

[jeff47]

55. Math isn't your strong suit, is it?

You think the Secretary of Defense makes about $200M/year?

[Sunlei]

57. yes with benefits for all his family, his luxury spots vacations, free airfare for all, yes.

They can game the system if they care to and spend way more than that. It's not just the one persons pay.

There is no accountability, no audits nothing stops them from abusing their positions. Costing America millions, probably billions in taxpayer money.

[jeff47]

58. Um....no.

The President doesn't cost $200M/year, and he gets a much larger salary and spends a ton more on security for his travels.

You might wanna consider strolling back to reality. I think you'll find that you are more successful in getting your goals accomplished when people can't immediately dismiss you for your wildly-wrong statements.

[Hugin]

62. Wow! A $200M a year position in the Pentagon?

Where do I sign up?

No accountability? Pensions and perks!

There seems to be a lot of confusion between Civil Service and Wall Street out there.

[Katashi_itto]

63. 200 Million a year is reserved for defense contractor executives...

[Hugin]

67. The DoD Civilians I know don't even have Commissary privileges. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

73. Yup, I am really glad i don't work for DoD, precious few perks. Commissary privileges are a big one

I rate myself lucky to have access to the Coast Guard commissary

[patrice]

22. The first internet bully I ever encountered, during O's '08 campaign, was a staffing recruiter

out of VA specializing in DOD civilian staffing contracts, who ridiculed me viciously, in a FB thread, for being unemployed.

[Hugin]

26. Are you sure it wasn't a 12 yo in their folk's basement with daddy's login?

Happens quite frequently.

I'm always suspicious of overblown self-righteous Right Wing blowhards claiming fictitious credentials on FB.

Especially, when they're a bully in a semi-public forum.

[patrice]

31. Yeah, account security over at FB isn't the greatest, so I guess the probability is about 50:50.

[Hugin]

34. Well, never the less, I'm sorry it happened to you.

If someone I supervised did something like that, there would be repercussions.

[patrice]

38. Thanks. I remember it, because I do think the best most of the time. I know it isn't characteristic

of an entire group.

Staffing recruiters in other sectors aren't all that either!!!

[Purveyor]

69. Hey...don't knock the 12 yo in the basement, thats how I started out with a 300 baud BBS. ;) eom

I remain...

[Hugin]

71. Yes, but, in those days it was a level playing field.

[tabasco]

25. The Pentagon is not a jobs program

and is bloated and inefficient. "Defense" taxes should be cut 50 percent.

End the empire, stop "nation-building" and take care of Americans with LOWER TAXES.

[Hugin]

29. However, these cuts are not directed at the Contracts.

They are directed at the only watchdogs of DoD malfeasance... The Civilians.

Otherwise, it's business-as-usual.

[jeff47]

44. Contractors got their cuts in October

There was a lot less spent on FY2013 contracts in anticipation of the sequester. Didn't affect long-running programs like the F-35, but greatly affected short-term projects.

Unfortunately, those kinds of contracts are how the DoD funds research, which is the DoD spending with the greatest societal benefits.

[Hugin]

51. I don't recall a single Contractor leaving in Oct.

They get paid by the body and they're still there.

[jeff47]

54. They get paid by the contract, not by the body.

As I said, long-term contracts weren't very affected because they're long-term. For example, if you're talking about the computer helpdesk or the janitors, those are long-term contracts.

Lots of short-term contracts were simply not issued. All the contractors I know were planning to hire, but instead they shuffled people around to keep them employed. And they're getting very concerned about FY2014.

[jeff47]

37. You'd have a good idea if unemployment wasn't extremely high right now. (nt)

[tabasco]

46. So, you think the Defense Department is a jobs program

I don't.

The money we would save if we paid lower taxes would skyrocket the economy and provide jobs.

[jeff47]

47. So you're a Republican then?

Tax cuts are terrible stimulus. How do I know? We just tried it two years ago. And 6 years before that. And 8 years before that. And so on, and so on.

Defense spending is the only stimulus spending that can get through Congress. I'd prefer other forms of stimulus spending, such as infrastructure projects, but that isn't the choice we have.

[NutmegYankee]

48. I don't buy into supply side BS.

Keynes was right. Putting several million people out of a job won't grow our economy.

[sofa king]

45. My impression was different.

I worked with and around DOD for awhile, but never for them. Beginning in the Clinton years, the Pentagon began a massive non-hiring program, using temps and contractors to take over a huge proportion of its administrative work.

Most of those 46000 temp employees are probably filling positions that the Pentagon could no longer afford to fill, but could not do without. DOD actually pays the temp companies much more per person than they would pay an actual employee in wages; the problem is that they don't want to offer benefits to those employees.

The next step will be to out-source those jobs, at three to ten times the price instead of two to three times the wages, with a fraction of the work output, a much higher rate of errors and do-overs, and completely unreliable security.

The parts of Defense that already do this are the parts that don't work at all.

[jeff47]

56. Turning them into more expensive contractors doesn't solve their budget problem

It's a budget problem. You can't solve it by spending more on contractors doing the same problem - they're paid out of the same budget.

[think]

33. How about closing some overseas bases instead........

[jeff47]

39. You'd do that if you had time to decide which ones to close

The sequester and the handling of it mean there isn't time for the DoD to figure out which bases to close. It's not as simple as one would think - for example it can have major diplomatic effects.

So they're doing the quick-n-easy thing and firing civilians.

[NutmegYankee]

43. The budget doesn't work like that.

Congress has mandated that money go to each program/activity in a certain amount. Now they need to hack out 9% but can't shut down any programs or bases without action from Congress. That leaves only 1 solution - Scrimp on Operations and Maintenance. So they furlough employees and delay maintenance on ships, planes, and buildings. And just like most things, delaying maintenance now could cost us a lot more later.

Congress has failed to act by passing a budget making the appropriate cuts, mainly because the Republicans can't accept that the US budget isn't filled with fat. We just don't collect the taxes needed.

[Brigid]

61. Maybe it would help if . . .

The Pentagon could straighten out their records so that they could be audited, find that $2 trillion Rumsfeld testified was missing (on 09/10/2001, no less), and find the billions in cash that went missing in Iraq (sending truckloads of cash into a war zone--now there's brilliant idea). Who manages the Pentagon's finances anyway: The Three Stooges?

[shanti]

64. furloughs

the new austerity measure for all. i suffered thru furloughs with the state of california for over 2 years. it really hurt. now my son, who is a civilian employee for DOD will have to as well.

[AnnieBW]

68. It's easier to cut temp workers and contractors

than to discontinue huge contracts for weapons, etc. It's all on how the money is arranged. Money for temps and contractors comes out of Operations and Maintenance money. Programs come out of R&D money, which is locked in.

[DCBob]

72. The next round of contracts would be affected.

no one will escape this if it happens.