I ran across an article speaking about a pay increase, or was it about a pay freeze? Actually, it was both. As our country is rather economically unsure at the moment, it seems to be a toss up on whether there will be the 1.6% proposed pay increase (less than in previous years) for military personnel (as asked for in the recent budget request) or whether, instead, there will be a pay freeze (at the 2011 rate) for 2012. The reasoning behind the quandary is that many civilian employees are actually making less than their military counterparts (when all of the pay and benefits are accounted for). However, as the Congressional Budget Office mentioned, how can you compare civilian and military employees? There are some civilian employees who face dangers and stresses comparable to military members, but these are fairly few and far between.
- relocations (frequently)
- greater responsibility in early career
- hazardous working conditions
- oncall at all hours (unlimited)
are not common work experiences for many civilian employees, making civilian and military pay especially difficult to compare. Does the hard work and long hours, stresses, and harms faced (however large or small) worth the percentage increase, even as low as it is? As Washington argues it out, what will be most important, and where will the military fall in that?
I’m thankful that my hubby is in the National Guard. Military pay does not have as great an affect us (though what he is paid is a blessing) as it does have for Active duty servicemembers and their families.
Times are hard for many and I wonder sometimes, if more people were willing to sacrifice, if our country would not be in the predicament it is in now. However, I guess the question that our politicians are grappeling with now, is who will sacrifice.