Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Was watching a documentary on the carrier, USS Ronald Reagan, and was surprised to find out that there are 5000+ people on that bucket when at full deployment. Is that true?

Anyway, they covered the entire ship from the plane guys on deck to the cooks underneath and everything in between. Very good show and this liberal is very proud of the ship, despite the name , and the people serving on it.

In observing the hundreds of people associated with cooking meals and cleaning up the ship, I thought, "Hell, why can't we privatize those functions?" Some outside vendor could bring in their own cooks and cleaning personnel and join the sailors for the cruise, doing things that are not directly related to this "defense" thing. Expanding on that, we could contract out these functions on all other ships and even at Army, Navy and Marine bases all over. I know we do a measure of that now in many instances, especially on land, but is it doable?

Seems to me a good money-saving idea and it fits into the Conk platform of supporting small business.

Discuss.


"Dang, these Haliburton onions smell like oil extraction chemicals!"

Taco Bell, Burger King, and Subway on board the Reagan, I like the sound of it.

Most people involved in food prep at Air Force bases are contractors...we keep some military for deployment purposes...but even at the large bases in Iraq, contractors do the "grunt" work while military folks do quality control, menu management and very little cooking, cleaning, etc...

Col Hogan wrote:Most people involved in food prep at Air Force bases are contractors...we keep some military for deployment purposes...but even at the large bases in Iraq, contractors do the "grunt" work while military folks do quality control, menu management and very little cooking, cleaning, etc...

Have to use that term liberally here.

Wedgebuster wrote:Taco Bell, Burger King, and Subway on board the Reagan, I like the sound of it.

Yeah, but I wasn't thinking of that. The gubmint would catch hell from the food Nazis over them. More like Canteen or Sysco or some other food service company.

You start this and I bet Haliburton has a food service division in ten minutes!


"Them azzhole swabs don't like my raisin cole slaw, they can jump overboard!!!!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Taco Bell, Burger King, and Subway on board the Reagan, I like the sound of it.

Yeah, but I wasn't thinking of that. The gubmint would catch hell from the food Nazis over them. More like Canteen or Sysco or some other food service company.

You start this and I bet Haliburton has a food service division in ten minutes!


"Them azzhole swabs don't like my raisin cole slaw, they can jump overboard!!!!

Who do you think is running the big dining halls in Iraq today???

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Yeah, but I wasn't thinking of that. The gubmint would catch hell from the food Nazis over them. More like Canteen or Sysco or some other food service company.

You start this and I bet Haliburton has a food service division in ten minutes!

Who do you think is running the big dining halls in Iraq today???

That prick.

Imagine these lovelies swabbing your poop deck on the Reagan:

If you want to avoid growing the deficit, avoid profit.

You're right about the military using private contractors ashore. They make the food, swab the sh!tters, guard the gates, etc.

The problem is that when COngress cuts military spending, they do not direct the Pentagon on which portions of the military to cut. Naturally, the military defaults to going to contractors for non-combat functions. The problem comes in when the planners rank the combat infantryman somewhere several places below a new fancy fighter jet. In order to keep the fighter jet, the so called "unskilled labor" in the military gets downsized.

That leads to contractors pulling triggers, a la Iraq.

This isn't a democrat-republican thing, either. Donald Rumsfeld never groused about not having enough troops and equipment until his butt was hanging over the fire. Bush I began what culminated in Clinton's downsizing.

As for trying this on carriers, there would be problems. Not that they are insurmountable, but there are definitely a few.

First, navy ships are inherently dangerous. Even in peacetime, accidents are a huge problem in the Navy. The liability alone would be an issue.

Two, when the civilian mess cooks are off duty, they leave the base and can pretty much go do what they want to, hit the tattoo parlors, get sh!tfaced, screw their wives/husbands. Whatever. On a carrier, this isn't going to happen. They will only have a few places on the ship that they can go without being either in the way or a security risk.

Third is the whole combat thing. We will be putting civilians into potential combat situations for which they are not prepared.

Fourth, all sailors on a Navy ship are firefighters. When the ship goes to general quarters, the messcooks, barbers, ship's storemen, etc are all assigned to damage control and firefighting. With civilians you would lose this complement. You could always train them up, but then aren't they just de-facto sailors anyway? Why work for minimum wage flipping burgers on a carrier when you can make four times as much (with bennies) by just joining up?

CID1990 wrote:You're right about the military using private contractors ashore. They make the food, swab the sh!tters, guard the gates, etc.

The problem is that when COngress cuts military spending, they do not direct the Pentagon on which portions of the military to cut. Naturally, the military defaults to going to contractors for non-combat functions. The problem comes in when the planners rank the combat infantryman somewhere several places below a new fancy fighter jet. In order to keep the fighter jet, the so called "unskilled labor" in the military gets downsized.

That leads to contractors pulling triggers, a la Iraq.

This isn't a democrat-republican thing, either. Donald Rumsfeld never groused about not having enough troops and equipment until his butt was hanging over the fire. Bush I began what culminated in Clinton's downsizing.

As for trying this on carriers, there would be problems. Not that they are insurmountable, but there are definitely a few.

First, navy ships are inherently dangerous. Even in peacetime, accidents are a huge problem in the Navy. The liability alone would be an issue.

Two, when the civilian mess cooks are off duty, they leave the base and can pretty much go do what they want to, hit the tattoo parlors, get sh!tfaced, screw their wives/husbands. Whatever. On a carrier, this isn't going to happen. They will only have a few places on the ship that they can go without being either in the way or a security risk.

Third is the whole combat thing. We will be putting civilians into potential combat situations for which they are not prepared.

Fourth, all sailors on a Navy ship are firefighters. When the ship goes to general quarters, the messcooks, barbers, ship's storemen, etc are all assigned to damage control and firefighting. With civilians you would lose this complement. You could always train them up, but then aren't they just de-facto sailors anyway? Why work for minimum wage flipping burgers on a carrier when you can make four times as much (with bennies) by just joining up?

Yep. Good post, Cidley.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CID1990 wrote:You're right about the military using private contractors ashore. They make the food, swab the sh!tters, guard the gates, etc.

The problem is that when COngress cuts military spending, they do not direct the Pentagon on which portions of the military to cut. Naturally, the military defaults to going to contractors for non-combat functions. The problem comes in when the planners rank the combat infantryman somewhere several places below a new fancy fighter jet. In order to keep the fighter jet, the so called "unskilled labor" in the military gets downsized.

That leads to contractors pulling triggers, a la Iraq.

This isn't a democrat-republican thing, either. Donald Rumsfeld never groused about not having enough troops and equipment until his butt was hanging over the fire. Bush I began what culminated in Clinton's downsizing.

As for trying this on carriers, there would be problems. Not that they are insurmountable, but there are definitely a few.

First, navy ships are inherently dangerous. Even in peacetime, accidents are a huge problem in the Navy. The liability alone would be an issue.

Two, when the civilian mess cooks are off duty, they leave the base and can pretty much go do what they want to, hit the tattoo parlors, get sh!tfaced, screw their wives/husbands. Whatever. On a carrier, this isn't going to happen. They will only have a few places on the ship that they can go without being either in the way or a security risk.

Third is the whole combat thing. We will be putting civilians into potential combat situations for which they are not prepared.

Fourth, all sailors on a Navy ship are firefighters. When the ship goes to general quarters, the messcooks, barbers, ship's storemen, etc are all assigned to damage control and firefighting. With civilians you would lose this complement. You could always train them up, but then aren't they just de-facto sailors anyway? Why work for minimum wage flipping burgers on a carrier when you can make four times as much (with bennies) by just joining up?

Yep. Good post, Cidley.

CID speaks the truth...one final thought: I've not done the analysis, but my gut tells me it'd be MORE expensive to have contractors on the ships doing the cooking/cleaning/etc than just having sailors do it as either their main job or a collateral duty. Oh, and the E-1's and E-2's actually doing the cooking/cleaning are in no way/shape/form making four times as much as minimum wage.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Yep. Good post, Cidley.

CID speaks the truth...one final thought: I've not done the analysis, but my gut tells me it'd be MORE expensive to have contractors on the ships doing the cooking/cleaning/etc than just having sailors do it as either their main job or a collateral duty. Oh, and the E-1's and E-2's actually doing the cooking/cleaning are in no way/shape/form making four times as much as minimum wage.

Yeah, wondered about that. $29/ hour? Everyone would be in the military!

kalm wrote:If you want to avoid growing the deficit, avoid profit.

what?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Yep. Good post, Cidley.

CID speaks the truth...one final thought: I've not done the analysis, but my gut tells me it'd be MORE expensive to have contractors on the ships doing the cooking/cleaning/etc than just having sailors do it as either their main job or a collateral duty. Oh, and the E-1's and E-2's actually doing the cooking/cleaning are in no way/shape/form making four times as much as minimum wage.

Not by the hour, of course.

What I am referring to is the cash in hand; the whole picture. The E-1 and E-2 isn't paying for housing or a lot of things the McDonald's worker is paying for. Throw in the free medical, VHA (in the case of families) and a few other bennies, and at the end of the year the E-2's take is around 4 times that of the burger flipper at the BK Lounge.

Plus, if you haven't looked at them for a while, go take a look at the pay scales. I did a few years after getting out and it almost sucked me back in. They aren't bad for a 18 year old fresh out of high school. The average civilian contractor for the military is in his late 30s.

ming01 wrote:

kalm wrote:If you want to avoid growing the deficit, avoid profit.

what?

Even if we pay a sailor and an employee of a private contractor the same, the contractor is still making money on top of that. Hence the contractors profit costs the government more to do the same job. Kinda like healthcare - other countries have lower costs because they've eliminated the profit margin from insurance. Sometimes privatization works, but not always.

But it's ok, I forgive your ignorance.

CID1990 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
CID speaks the truth...one final thought: I've not done the analysis, but my gut tells me it'd be MORE expensive to have contractors on the ships doing the cooking/cleaning/etc than just having sailors do it as either their main job or a collateral duty. Oh, and the E-1's and E-2's actually doing the cooking/cleaning are in no way/shape/form making four times as much as minimum wage.

Not by the hour, of course.

What I am referring to is the cash in hand; the whole picture. The E-1 and E-2 isn't paying for housing or a lot of things the McDonald's worker is paying for. Throw in the free medical, VHA (in the case of families) and a few other bennies, and at the end of the year the E-2's take is around 4 times that of the burger flipper at the BK Lounge.

Plus, if you haven't looked at them for a while, go take a look at the pay scales. I did a few years after getting out and it almost sucked me back in. They aren't bad for a 18 year old fresh out of high school. The average civilian contractor for the military is in his late 30s.

I hear ya...and I'm not wanting to sidetrack the conversation....but an E-2's base pay tops out at 1622/month (and yeah, that's more than 3x what it was when I went in )...when you figure the average enlisted guy works 8-10 hours a day, then stands 5 hours of watch per day, then is on call for drills, GQ, fire team, man overboard, etc., etc., they probably aren't getting much more than minimum wage (by the hour).

Either way, it sucked THEN to get that paltry paycheck and I'm sure it sucks NOW to get that paltry paycheck.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Not by the hour, of course.

What I am referring to is the cash in hand; the whole picture. The E-1 and E-2 isn't paying for housing or a lot of things the McDonald's worker is paying for. Throw in the free medical, VHA (in the case of families) and a few other bennies, and at the end of the year the E-2's take is around 4 times that of the burger flipper at the BK Lounge.

Plus, if you haven't looked at them for a while, go take a look at the pay scales. I did a few years after getting out and it almost sucked me back in. They aren't bad for a 18 year old fresh out of high school. The average civilian contractor for the military is in his late 30s.

I hear ya...and I'm not wanting to sidetrack the conversation....but an E-2's base pay tops out at 1622/month (and yeah, that's more than 3x what it was when I went in )...when you figure the average enlisted guy works 8-10 hours a day, then stands 5 hours of watch per day, then is on call for drills, GQ, fire team, man overboard, etc., etc., they probably aren't getting much more than minimum wage (by the hour).

Either way, it sucked THEN to get that paltry paycheck and I'm sure it sucks NOW to get that paltry paycheck.

Oh, would certainly not make a strict hourly pay comparison... especially when it comes to the military. I think after all was said and done I made about .65 cents an hour when I was enlisted Navy.