PDA

View Full Version : Unisex uniforms will mean changes to covers and crackerjacks



BURAWSKI
11-12-2013, 08:48 PM
Uniforms are changing more than ever. I don't understand the need for unisex uniforms; women have been serving in the Navy for a while and now all of a sudden the Navy is saying there is a need for this:








Unisex uniforms will mean changes to covers and crackerjackshttp://cmsimg.navytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20131112&Category=NEWS07&ArtNo=311120001&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Unisex-uniforms-will-mean-changes-covers-crackerjacks

Female mids at the Naval Academy wear the male combination covers as part of their uniform. Wear-testers said the covers are ill-fitting, bulky and headache-inducing. (U.S. Naval academy)



By Sam Fellman (sfellman@navytimes.com)
Staff report


Female band members have wear-tested 'Dixie cups' and blue crackerjacks, and uniform officials say the feedback was largely positive. (Navy)
http://cmsimg.navytimes.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=M6&Date=20131112&Category=NEWS07&ArtNo=311120001&Ref=V2&MaxW=300&Border=0&Unisex-uniforms-will-mean-changes-covers-crackerjacks Zoom (javascript:void(null);)

If approved, it appears likely women would wear the same Dixie cups worn by men, with some minor modifications to help with fit. (MC2 Alysia Hernandez / Navy)



The advancing push for unisex uniforms comes straight from the top.





The advancing push for unisex uniforms comes straight from the top.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who has made gender equity one of his signature issues, thinks the days of women looking different from their shipmates is over.
“One of the things that I think we ought to do, is that when we look out, we shouldn’t see male sailors or female sailors,” Mabus told Navy Times. “We ought to see sailors. United States sailors.”
Intended as a move to reduce discrimination against women, this effort will revamp female sailors’ seabags to give them uniforms that better match their shipmates’. Here are the options officials are seriously weighing:

■ Blue crackerjacks. Female sailors would don the dark iconic sailor suit. With a few tailoring changes, these could easily be made to conform to a woman’s body.
■ Combo covers. Chiefs and officers would wear male-style combination covers instead of “the bucket” hat currently worn. Options include designing a new cover (the most likely option) or simply giving them the male cover (which women hated in a recent wear test).
■ ‘Dixie cups.’ Female sailors will sport the white sailor hat, ditching the bucket hat they now wear, similar in shape to that worn by chiefs and officers. It may be modified to be proportional to women’s head sizes.
While senior officials have yet to decide the next step, Navy personnel sources said that the wear test is building momentum and change is imminent.

Price, however, could be a significant hurdle. Redesigning covers and uniforms, testing them and then issuing them to all female officers and enlisted could be a luxury at a time the Navy istrying to justify keeping 11 aircraft carriers. Just fielding hats for the Navy’s 55,459 women likely would cost more than $1.3 million.
Officials must tread carefully. The Marine Corps’ parallel effort spawned a “girly hat” fiasco (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131027/NEWS07/310270008/). Mockery by the media, including Fox News, “The Colbert Report (http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2013/10/25/stephen-colbert-joins-unisex-cover-debate-marine-corps-times-story/)” and The New York Post, compelled the Marine Corps to end the possibility of male Marines wearing female-style hats.

As with the Navy, the option for women to wear male-style covers is still on the table.
Plus, the only concrete step in the effort — the combination cover wear test — yielded negative results.
More than 900 female midshipmen donned male combination covers as part of the wear test conducted at the Naval Academy. They hated it. Eight in 10 reported it didn’t fit or flopped around on their heads. More than half complained it gave them a headache.
“The current one really doesn’t work for females for several reasons,” said Chief Musician Dawn Henry, a clarinet player with the Naval Academy Band who’s worn the male cover during concerts for more than a year. The main complaints, Henry said, are that the male cover is too big, it “wobbles on the head,” and that “we’re oftentimes mistaken as males, especially those with short haircuts.”
Indeed, the Navy’s uniform lab “recommends that due to overwhelming dissatisfaction with the combination cover, its use for females not be pursued,” concluded the May 2013 report by the Navy Clothing and Textile Research Facility in Natick, Mass.; Navy Times obtained a copy of the report.

Still, the effort is not back to square one. These findings and the much more limited tests of the Dixie cup and jumper have persuaded uniform officials the best option is to modify the female covers and jumpers and retest them in the next year, with the result aligning with Mabus’ vision.
Mabus endorsed the idea of creating a new cover while discussing the initiative with Navy Times — specifically to address complaints the men’s hat fits women improperly.
“I think, if the covers change ... it’s going to be shaped to fit a woman’s head, because they’re different than the jarheads we men have,” Mabus told Navy Times on Nov. 6 while making a public appearance.
Dress blues and 'Dixie cups'For Mabus, the idea comes down to having shipmates look alike. Women have had different uniform items and designs for a century, since the women first joined the Nurse Corps or enlisted to be yeoman before World War I.
More conformity is called for today to ensure that female sailors are treated like everybody else, Mabus says, and not like in decades past when women were limited to fields such as nursing and weren’t permitted to fly planes or drive ships.
“We don’t ask any other group to wear a different uniform,” Mabus said. “So, let’s take it through the process, see what happens.”
The sailor uniform proposals may be the least controversial, in part because they would require only small modifications.
So far, wear tests have been limited to the score of female musicians in the Fleet Forces Command and Pacific Fleet bands, as well as women assigned to the Navy Ceremonial Guard in Washington, D.C.
The easiest alterations would be to the service dress blue jumper. Female sailors already wear the white crackerjacks and officials could model the blues after them. In addition, the new blues have a side zipper that makes it easier to slip on the jumper. The cheapest option is to have women wear off-the-rack male jumpers, but that’s unlikely.
“You could put anybody in the male uniform,” said Capt. Jeffrey Krusling, the officer plans and policy branch head at the chief of naval personnel’s headquarters in Arlington, Va. “I think that fit would have to be closely looked at. There is a significant difference obviously between the male and female and the fit, I don’t think it’d be ideal in the male uniform. Most likely [we’d] have to do some sort of modifications to that.”
Krusling, who oversees the Uniform Matters office, sketched out the options that are expected to be presented to the uniform board and then the Navy’s leadership in the coming weeks or months. However, he was reluctant to discuss his staff’s favored options for fear of hemming in the top officials who will make the final call, including Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.
The Dixie cup was popular with wearers and would likely need little or no alteration, aside from offering it in sizes that fit women’s heads and hairstyles, he said.
“I think size does have to be considered and that’s one of the items that we are looking at, to be honest,” Krusling said. “If this decision were made, whether it would have to have a modified cover or not, that’s not 100 percent clear at this point.”
“In a perfect world you’d have a cover that is made exclusively [for women],” he added. “But it wasn’t a showstopper.”
'It flops around'The officer and chief headgear is more contentious.
About 930 female mids at Annapolis were given two sets of male combo covers and told to start wearing them. Many seem to have been given hats that were too small. Male mids and professors also disliked them, and the test went downhill.
But despite the negative findings, and the fact the wear test wrapped in February, female mids continue to wear them.
In a survey, female mids rated their hats as “less feminine” and “disproportional,” complaining that they were “heavy” and “would not stay in position.” Fully 82 percent said they were unhappy with the fit.
“It’s big, it’s bulky, it flops around,” said one female officer, who interacted with mids involved in the test.
The current female cover has an oval shape and frame that rests on the wearer’s crown and accommodates women who wear their hair in a bun. By contrast, the male combo cover has a circular brim that sits snug around the wearer’s head. Women with long hair must wear it in a bun and that makes it especially awkward for the male cover. The bun pushes the cover up on the back of the head and makes it wobble. And the rigid frame can leave a red mark on your forehead, as many mids in ill-fitting hats discovered.
The report recommended against adopting the male combo cover as-is.
“From this limited test, results indicate that to improve satisfaction, the overall design of the cover would need to be modified to improve the fit and appearance,” a Natick expert wrote in the report. “Therefore, no changes should be made to the current female combination covers and uniform regulations should be maintained as is.”
If the effort is to go forward, the report added, officials should design a better fitting female cover with the round shape of the male cover but that is more proportional to a woman’s size. It recommends testing this design with focus groups and then conducting a more representative wear test sample that goes beyond mids and musicians.
Female officers must purchase their own hats and note that switching covers is an expensive proposition: The current one costs $103. They also worry that Mabus’ “gender neutral initiative” may eliminate other female items, like the optional black beret or the popular khaki overblouse.
Henry, the chief musician who still wears the male combo cover with the band, is no fan and believes the Navy needs to go back to the drawing board to develop a better common cover design.
“If the Navy decides to move forward to try to design something new and something different, I think it would be very important to obviously wear test it again,” Henry told Navy Times in a Nov. 8 phone interview. “Really take the time and make sure it works and not rush just to get something just so that we look more uniform.”
A few even worry that Mabus is steamrolling a process better led by women in the service. One expert close to the effort said the uniform board rejected the initiative this summer based on opposition from women and questioned why it was coming forward again.
“Women don’t know this has been proposed and [it’s] already at the SECNAV level,” said this active-duty expert, who asked to remain anonymous out of concern for his career. “The talk was that they didn’t want to tell SECNAV that he had a really bad idea, and they are trying to wait him out, but it’s now growing legs.”
Personnel officials said they know there’s issues with the cover’s comfort, which arose in the wear test they commissioned, and are committed to modifying it. Their goal is to produce a “hybrid” hat that combines the round shape of the male cover with an oval-shaped frame that fits a woman’s head and hair. One personnel official said he believes that they’ll make “significant progress” on this in 2014 and cautioned the effort was still early.
“Sailors should be prepared that the Navy is moving toward this one cover, and they should feel good that the uniform board and the Uniform Matters office are looking closely at the fit and functionality,” observed one personnel official, who asked for anonymity to discuss progress before Navy leadership has decided. “The fit and comfort are important.”




Staff writer Meghann Myers contributed to this report.

Chief Bosun
11-14-2013, 12:19 PM
Thanks Ski - this was something that I wanted to see but couldn't as it was premium content.

I question myself the reason for this given budgets and all, but don't know what color of money is being used to work this issue.

My two cents:

What is the issue here outside of getting the ladies into the same style uniform as the men? Is it morale or simply someone trying to defeminize the ladies?

Perhaps they should ditch all the uniforms for males and females from the newest Seaman Recruit all the way to Admiral, and simply contact the wardrobe department at Paramount Studios regarding securing the license to produce and issue uniforms like the ones used in "Star Trek The Next Generation".

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2013, 12:41 PM
Thanks Ski - this was something that I wanted to see but couldn't as it was premium content.

I question myself the reason for this given budgets and all, but don't know what color of money is being used to work this issue.

My two cents:

What is the issue here outside of getting the ladies into the same style uniform as the men? Is it morale or simply someone trying to defeminize the ladies?

Perhaps they should ditch all the uniforms for males and females from the newest Seaman Recruit all the way to Admiral, and simply contact the wardrobe department at Paramount Studios regarding securing the license to produce and issue uniforms like the ones used in "Star Trek The Next Generation".

LOL!

I don't think we'd want to see how most sailors would look in a skin tight leotard! You guys would have to eliminate serving dessert in the galley and entire year before doing that.

However, the Air Force could probably pull off that look if the leotards came equipped with a space-aged girdle.

Rusty Jones
11-14-2013, 01:12 PM
I don't think that they mean putting both sexes in the same uniform, in the sense that a male and a female Sailor can borrow each other's uniform items, provided they have the same size number.

I think it means, for example, that E6 and below females would stop wearing the female version of the Zumwalt Era dress blues, and actually wear crackerjacks like the males... but the crackerjacks would be made specifically for females.

Makes sense to me. If E6 and below males aren't considered adult enough to wear a suit and tie, then why are the females? The Navy should have kept and improved on the Zumwalt Era blues anyway. People can argue "tradition" all they want; but when the Navy switched to that... the Coast Guard wore the SAME uniforms as the Navy (distinguished by a shield on the sleeve wrists), and then switched to their current uniforms. I'm pretty sure people argued tradition just the same, but the Coast Guard stuck to its guns; and you don't see people in the Coast Guard arguing now to go back to wearing the same dress uniforms as the Navy.

Chief Bosun
11-14-2013, 01:49 PM
I don't think that they mean putting both sexes in the same uniform, in the sense that a male and a female Sailor can borrow each other's uniform items, provided they have the same size number.

I think it means, for example, that E6 and below females would stop wearing the female version of the Zumwalt Era dress blues, and actually wear crackerjacks like the males... but the crackerjacks would be made specifically for females.

Makes sense to me. If E6 and below males aren't considered adult enough to wear a suit and tie, then why are the females? The Navy should have kept and improved on the Zumwalt Era blues anyway. People can argue "tradition" all they want; but when the Navy switched to that... the Coast Guard wore the SAME uniforms as the Navy (distinguished by a shield on the sleeve wrists), and then switched to their current uniforms. I'm pretty sure people argued tradition just the same, but the Coast Guard stuck to its guns; and you don't see people in the Coast Guard arguing now to go back to wearing the same dress uniforms as the Navy.

Agree, they would have to adapt the uniforms to deal with the differences in anatomy - that is only common sense. The only constant would be the style. But then, the military is slow to adapt to changing situations. After all, it took quite a while before some of the services realized they needed to field equipment adapted to the female anatomy so they could do their jobs properly.

Since the ladies went to a female version of the Service Dress White uniform years ago for E-6 and below, they should have taken the opportunity then to design a white hat for their noggins vice allowing then to wear the combination covers they currently wear.

Like a lot of folks, I went through the era you talk about. I don't know about Coast Guard, I just know from what I saw that those uniforms weren't really suited for guys on sea duty. But then, the biggest complaints I heard came primarily from the CPO Mess, who had a problem with E-6 and below being dressed in the same basic service dress uniform they had.

As far as I'm concerned, unless there is a safety or functional reason for reviewing and designing uniforms, the Navy needs to quit squandering money on these non-issues and instead worrry about a) making sure the funding is there to maintain and upgrade the fleet to meet their commitments and b) that the Sailors are taken care of so they can do their jobs in the fleet.

But what do I know - I'm just an old knuckle-dragger.

Greg
11-14-2013, 02:20 PM
In a limiting ship board environment, and specifically a berthing space, the jumper was an excellent uniform to have. Turned inside-out, flattened, tri-folded, and stowed under the mattress, one would not have to worry about having to use valuable locker space where foul weather gear could be stored.

I couldn't stand the combination hat, jacket, and tie. I was not an officer, nor was I a corporate exect.

The jumper was low maintenance. Hand washed, hung to dry, and then ironed. Simple, no dry cleaning.

Stalwart
11-14-2013, 03:08 PM
I think it means, for example, that E6 and below females would stop wearing the female version of the Zumwalt Era dress blues, and actually wear crackerjacks like the males... but the crackerjacks would be made specifically for females.

That is exactly what I have read & heard. The uniforms will be similar in design but tailored differently to accommodate changes in female build.

Absinthe Anecdote
11-14-2013, 03:56 PM
I could have sworn I've seen female midshipmen at Annapolis wearing crackerjacks before.

I know that's different than the regular Navy, but it has been done before, right?

spirit_eyes
11-14-2013, 04:04 PM
Ok, who's getting all the money, etc for yet another uniform change. I noticed this crap starting to happen before I got out. I never knew what I should be wearing, how to wear it, etc. every time I turned around, I had to spend money for a waste of money change. Coveralls? Meant for dirty jobs, or so we thought. Crawl into an engine compartment in coveralls that cost over $20 to get correct? How about the old fashion baggy, filthy, meant for a dirty job pair. Loved the ones I wore for a short time.

Chief Bosun
11-14-2013, 04:40 PM
Ok, who's getting all the money, etc for yet another uniform change. I noticed this crap starting to happen before I got out. I never knew what I should be wearing, how to wear it, etc. every time I turned around, I had to spend money for a waste of money change. Coveralls? Meant for dirty jobs, or so we thought. Crawl into an engine compartment in coveralls that cost over $20 to get correct? How about the old fashion baggy, filthy, meant for a dirty job pair. Loved the ones I wore for a short time.

You got me on that one. Since I joined in 1978 (and bear in mind dates are not necessarily exact):

1. Issued a seabag with two Service Dress Blue uniforms (summer and winter weight), utilities, Summer Whites, Winter Blues, and Summer Blues. Headgear was the combination cover. Utilities had a plain grey cover issued with them. Kinda reminded me of a washing machine repairman uniform.

2. Around 1980 Navy ditched the utilities, went back to dungarees. Yes they were comfortable, but about as durable as a threadbare sheet.

3. Around 1982 give or take the Navy ditched the issue Service Dress Blue uniform for E-6 and below, and brought back the current Service Dress Blue and Service Dress White uniform for E-6 and below currently in use. About a year before that the Navy started pushing the wear of white hats vice the ball cap or combination cover with working or service uniforms.

4. Late 1980's the Navy ditched the Summer Blue uniform.

5. 1990's saw the advent and then disposal of flame-retardent dungarees, and the advent of nametapes vice stencils for uniforms. At the same time someone decided to saddle the Sailor with maintaining coveralls in their seabag vice leaving it as organizational attire.

6. Going into the current century, we went from dungarees to utilities, and then tossed them as well as working khaki into the dumpster in favor of the current working uniform. I have my opinions on the current working uniform, all I will say is it is a mixed opinion. At the same time we decided that like the other services we had to have our own special pattern for organizational working uniforms (the Type II and Type III uniforms). The Type II in my opinion looks like a Marine Uniform mated with an Army Uniform, and the child inherited the worst of both. Additionally, Summer Whites and Winter Blues were retired in favor of the current service uniform, which is one of the few changes that actually made sense for E-6 and below, and finally a standard PT uniform was fielded so we looked more like a military service vice a bunch of guys at a civilian boot camp PT class.

I wish I had one percent of the money spent since 1978 researching, designing, fielding, and retiring uniforms. Invested properly, I could retire, and my kids, grandkids, and great grandkids would probably never have to deal with earning a paycheck.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 04:48 PM
I have to wonder how many sailors careers have been sacrificed during PTS, and ships went undermanned because our defense budget got reallocated to uniform changes over the last four decades, anyone have any insights towards that?

Chief Bosun
11-14-2013, 05:50 PM
I have to wonder how many sailors careers have been sacrificed during PTS, and ships went undermanned because our defense budget got reallocated to uniform changes over the last four decades, anyone have any insights towards that?

I'm sure a lot of other folks may be wondering the same things.

PTS - that was before my time so I am not sure how it worked. Sounds like you had to meet certain minimum standards to stay in, which I see nothing wrong with so long as they were applied uniformly. Also sounds like it was the next logical step after you had HYT getting rid of a lot of deadwood in the enlisted ranks. I have seen where standards were tightened when you had more personnel than billets, and then loosened when you needed warm bodies with a pulse and (hopefully) a functioning brain that they did not use for a seat.

Manning - yes, money was a factor in some cases as you could do better on the outside, but there are other issues as well. For one thing, the biggest hurdle may be to simply find folks with no issues (legal, financial, etc.), that want to come in. Then you have to find a slot they are qualified for and want. Then you have to hope someone doesn't offer them a better carrot to not go in. I recall at one point hearing (an old WSJ article comes to mind from the mid-1990's) that guys in my age bracket were the biggest hurdle for a recuiter to overcome - we grew up during Vietnam and in many cases being convinced that military service was for the other guy, and our kids had to be persuaded at all costs not to sign up to be cannon fodder. At the same time in the Post-Vietnam period we were being persuaded to avoid service once the draft died away (unless you turned and ran when your number came up). After all, a lot of folks saw people going in as losers that could not survive on the outside.

Stalwart
11-14-2013, 06:01 PM
I have to wonder how many sailors careers have been sacrificed during PTS, and ships went undermanned because our defense budget got reallocated to uniform changes over the last four decades, anyone have any insights towards that?

I kind of do (last 5 years mostly), and the budget lines within O&M that cover those items are pretty divergent and reallocated (shifted) funds went away from fluff things like uniform matters and into operations vice the other way.

I will dig around for it later, it is in the budget books on the DoD Budget site but am pressing on another issue at work.

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 06:08 PM
I kind of do (last 5 years mostly), and the budget lines within O&M that cover those items are pretty divergent and reallocated (shifted) funds when away from uniform matters and into operations vice the other way.

I will dig around for it later, it is in the budget books on the DoD Budget site but am pressing on another issue at work.

Completely understand that, I would be interested to see when you do happen to find it. In all honesty it may not be all that much based on the simple fact that employing human beings is pretty expensive.

BURAWSKI
11-14-2013, 06:20 PM
Completely understand that, I would be interested to see when you do happen to find it. In all honesty it may not be all that much based on the simple fact that employing human beings is pretty expensive.


It shouldn't cost that much for personnel, but it does (unnecessarily a lot of times). Remember, there are a lot of people making money off the backs of hard working Sailors. This change is unnecessary given the present state of the budget and the cuts the Pentagon is facing. Actually, it is a crime but I can't really even begin to vent my frustration, since this is only a bulletin board!

AJBIGJ
11-14-2013, 06:25 PM
It shouldn't cost that much for personnel, but it does (unnecessarily a lot of times). Remember, there are a lot of people making money off the backs of hard working Sailors. This change is unnecessary given the present state of the budget and the cuts the Pentagon is facing. Actually, it is a crime but I can't really even begin to vent my frustration, since this is only a bulletin board!

Well, frankly it kind of does cost quite a bit regardless, Salary plus Benefits (free medical!), Tax free, etc. we're looking at around $50K for just one low-ranking sailor for one year. That being said, considering the amount of total investment into uniform changes over time it definitely brings budgeting priorities into question.

Chief Bosun
11-14-2013, 07:11 PM
Well, frankly it kind of does cost quite a bit regardless, Salary plus Benefits (free medical!), Tax free, etc. we're looking at around $50K for just one low-ranking sailor for one year. That being said, considering the amount of total investment into uniform changes over time it definitely brings budgeting priorities into question.

The figure makes for a nice guesstimate. Every single thing involving a Sailor be they an E-1 or an O-10 has a cost to the government.

You gotta figure:

Training (initial as well as ongoing). For the one-time needed to get the Sailor up to speed, you recoup that over the life of their initial contract.

Upkeep. You need the facilities and logistics to feed, clothe, and house the Sailor, as well as the personnel on standby (read medical) for routine maintainence any emergent requirements for treatment. Add to that the cost to maintain housing and support services for the family (as applicable), as well as recreation facilities. A lot of this involves labor costs for the personnel to make all this work, both military and civilian.

Then you have the costs associated with (hopefully) getting the right Sailor to the right place at the right time. I'm not talking about simply getting the guy to morning quarters, but the travel costs associated with PCS orders, which include the labor for the clerk that cuts the orders. Even "no-cost" orders have a cost to the government simply for the labor charges to process the orders.

Add to that the salary paid to the Sailor as well as the non-pay items he/she recieves, and the figures probably add up to more than I made last year before taxes (and I barely hit a six-figure salary with OT).

Stalwart
11-14-2013, 07:26 PM
... employing human beings is pretty expensive.

Long term, the service member is the single most expensive weapon system we have: Pay, benefits, medical, dental, 30 days of paid vacation from induction, non-operational support/service member items (CDC's, rec centers etc), housing, pensions and the VA.

I do have numbers on this, will take me a bit to find them but will PM them to you.

Rainmaker
11-14-2013, 08:48 PM
Long term, the service member is the single most expensive weapon system we have: Pay, benefits, medical, dental, 30 days of paid vacation from induction, non-operational support/service member items (CDC's, rec centers etc), housing, pensions and the VA.

I do have numbers on this, will take me a bit to find them but will PM them to you.

Truth #1: Humans are more important than Hardware.

Rainmaker
11-14-2013, 09:03 PM
The figure makes for a nice guesstimate. Every single thing involving a Sailor be they an E-1 or an O-10 has a cost to the government.

You gotta figure:

Training (initial as well as ongoing). For the one-time needed to get the Sailor up to speed, you recoup that over the life of their initial contract.

Upkeep. You need the facilities and logistics to feed, clothe, and house the Sailor, as well as the personnel on standby (read medical) for routine maintainence any emergent requirements for treatment. Add to that the cost to maintain housing and support services for the family (as applicable), as well as recreation facilities. A lot of this involves labor costs for the personnel to make all this work, both military and civilian.

Then you have the costs associated with (hopefully) getting the right Sailor to the right place at the right time. I'm not talking about simply getting the guy to morning quarters, but the travel costs associated with PCS orders, which include the labor for the clerk that cuts the orders. Even "no-cost" orders have a cost to the government simply for the labor charges to process the orders.

Add to that the salary paid to the Sailor as well as the non-pay items he/she recieves, and the figures probably add up to more than I made last year before taxes (and I barely hit a six-figure salary with OT).

The fully burdened labor rate used to estimate a staff augmentation contractor (mid-level All source Analyst E6/O3 equivalent) for a year in Afghanistan is $420K. Of course the only training ground for these people is the military. so, in most cases the taxpayer has already paid for the initial training.
Rainmaker have a few questions: How many FY 13 O&M funded staff augmentation contractors reported to duty at CONUS govt agencies on 1 Oct 2013? The same day 800K Federal employees went home from the same agencies. What percentage of these staff augmentation contractors are considered mission essential? How many of them will still be on the books when 100K+ service members get kicked to the curb? and What do the beltway bandit Joint Chiefs of Staff and their handlers have to say about this discrepancy?

Chief Bosun
11-15-2013, 11:44 AM
The fully burdened labor rate used to estimate a staff augmentation contractor (mid-level All source Analyst E6/O3 equivalent) for a year in Afghanistan is $420K. Of course the only training ground for these people is the military. so, in most cases the taxpayer has already paid for the initial training.
Rainmaker have a few questions: How many FY 13 O&M funded staff augmentation contractors reported to duty at CONUS govt agencies on 1 Oct 2013? The same day 800K Federal employees went home from the same agencies. What percentage of these staff augmentation contractors are considered mission essential? How many of them will still be on the books when 100K+ service members get kicked to the curb? and What do the beltway bandit Joint Chiefs of Staff and their handlers have to say about this discrepancy?

Excellent question, and one I don't have an answer for. All I can say on that one is a lot depends on the color of the money you are using. If their contract was already funded, OK. If not, problem.

In my case I am at what is called a Working Capital Fund site. That means we get our funding from various customers to do work.

When the shutdown took effect, we did not have to deal with being sent home because of where our funds came from. We stayed on the job and got paid on time. Of course, as time went along and the pot ran low, the issue of being sent home without pay would have been revisited.

And no, I don't either lord it over the folks that went home or had to work without pay - there but for the grace of God went I.