US The Army is launching a sweeping overhaul of its recruiting to reverse enlistment shortfalls - While the Army will still look at increased bonuses and push the health care and education funding in the military, money is not likely to be a key driver for recruits.

1000.png


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army is launching a sweeping overhaul of its recruiting to focus more on young people who have spent time in college or are job hunting early in their careers, as it scrambles to reverse years of enlistment shortfalls.

A major part of this is the formation of a new professional force of recruiters instead of relying on soldiers randomly assigned to the task.

Army Secretary Christine Wormuth, in an interview with The Associated Press, said some of the changes will begin in the next 90 days but a wholesale transformation will take years.

“We have not been recruiting very well for many more years than one would think from just looking at the headlines in the last 18 months,” Wormuth said, adding that the Army hasn’t met its annual goal for new enlistment contracts since 2014.

Last year, the Army fell 15,000 short of its enlistment goal of 60,000 while competing with higher-paying companies in a tight job market and trying to overcome two years of the coronavirus pandemic, which shut down access to schools and public events. In the fiscal year that ended Saturday, the Army brought in a bit more than 50,000 recruits, falling short of the publicly stated “stretch goal” of 65,000.

Army officials, however, said that number still allows the service to meet its required total strength of 452,000. They said the Army also signed up an additional 4,600 recruits for future contracts, in an effort to build back the pool of delayed-entry recruits, which had eroded. Those recruits will go to basic training over the next year.

On Tuesday, Wormuth told reporters in a briefing that the Army has not yet decided what the new fiscal year’s recruiting goal will be, but said it would likely be less than 65,000. The lower number, she said, also reflects the fact that the size of the Army has been shrinking from the 485,000 level during the peaks of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

In testimony before Congress during his confirmation hearing, Gen. Randy George, who is now chief of staff of the Army, called recruiting " the No. 1 challenge that we face and the one thing that we have to be focused on.” And he said the service must better tailor its messaging and marketing.

The Navy and the Air Force also fell short of their recruitment goals for the fiscal year that ended Saturday, but leaders said both did better than predictions earlier this year. The Marine Corps and the tiny Space Force have said they would meet their enlistment targets.

Marine leaders, including Brig. Gen. Walker Field, who heads the Corps’ eastern recruiting region, have said one key to their success is choosing the right recruiters and encouraging successful ones to stay on. The Marines are also repositioning recruiting stations to areas where populations have grown.

The Army’s recruiting increase this year is considered a short-term victory made possible by a number of new and upgraded programs and benefits. But Wormuth said it will take systemic changes in how the Army approaches the labor market and sells the service as a career to turn things around.

At the same time, she said the Army must concentrate on the things it can change since there are many things it cannot, such as lack of fitness among youths and unwillingness to serve.

While recruiters have long relied heavily on high school seniors or graduates to fill the ranks, Wormuth said they need to reach beyond that pool and seek applicants on job sites like ZipRecruiter, Indeed or Glassdoor.

“The vast majority of people who are out there making employment decisions are people who have more than a high school education,” Wormuth said. “We need to figure out how to talk to that much broader labor market.”

She said that as more students go on to college, high school graduates now make up just 15% to 20% of the labor market. And the Army gets about half of its recruits from that shrinking population.

“We are not abandoning the high school market by any means,” Wormuth said, but by 2028 she wants the Army to have one-third of its recruits to have more than a high school diploma, rather than the current one-fifth,.

Part of that is showcasing the Army’s higher-tech jobs with computers, satellites and artificial intelligence to lure those who may still think of the service as just infantry troops.

The other major change, which will begin to form in the coming months, is the transition to a professional recruiting workforce. Rather than using soldiers who are “voluntold” to take on a special assignment as recruiters, the Army is establishing a new permanent and specialized enlistment workforce.

There are currently about 8,000 Army recruiters, and only a bit more than a third have recruiting as their actual job classification.

The change will mirror how private companies work and will take several years. But Wormuth said the Army will quickly start a pilot program to begin identifying and training the new force. As part of the process, the Army will use a new aptitude test designed to identify soldiers who have a higher potential for being successful recruiters.

Other changes will include planning larger Army career fairs and restructuring the command leadership, elevating the head of recruiting to a three-star job with a four-year term for more continuity.

And, while the Army will still look at increased bonuses and push the health care and education funding in the military, money is not likely to be a key driver for recruits. And recruiters will need to sell the less tangible benefits of service.

“At the end of the day, I think that what offsets what we don’t offer in terms of compensation we make up for with being part of something bigger,” Wormuth said. “Ask anyone wearing a uniform in my office. They will tell you that what keeps them re-enlisting or staying until 20 years or beyond is the people and doing something that really matters.”

Article Link

Archive
 
I will not follow orders from a man in a dress (except for maybe Jack Churchill)
I don't believe he ever wore a kilt into battle though. Did love playing the bagpipes though, not even stopping when his whole commando unit got taken out by a mortar. The Germans had to toss some grenades at him to make him stop.

Most sane Englishman right there. There's the Belgian who served under the Brits in WW1 and came back from the war in several pieces and said that frankly he rather enjoyed the war. Sadly his name escapes me because its your standard upper-crust European name and he has like seven in total.
 
"Plz join bro!"

"Quack!"

Also I've seen like twenty of these articles this week. War with Russia or China is absolutely happening. It's probably Biden's distraction from how shit the country is
"We offered him a job and 35,000 a year and he told us to fuck off."

Yeah no shit, I make more than that sitting in an air conditioned office for 8 hours a day.
 
"Plz join bro!"

"Quack!"

Also I've seen like twenty of these articles this week. War with Russia or China is absolutely happening. It's probably Biden's distraction from how shit the country is
They have been pushing a war with China for the past couple of years, they're talking about 2025 or around then. I feel the US would just feeding decades old weapons and money into Ukraine like what European NATO is doing even though they're clearly fighting a losing battle. Only a tiny handful of presidential candidates here in the States are against escalation in Ukraine; by the time any of the warmongering uniparty clowns get in, it'll be 2025. That seems to be their target year for anything to pop off in a shooting war capacity between the US and pick your favorite BRICS superpower wannabe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anustart76
They have been pushing a war with China for the past couple of years, they're talking about 2025 or around then. I feel the US would just feeding decades old weapons and money into Ukraine like what European NATO is doing even though they're clearly fighting a losing battle. Only a tiny handful of presidential candidates here in the States are against escalation in Ukraine; by the time any of the warmongering uniparty clowns get in, it'll be 2025. That seems to be their target year for anything to pop off in a shooting war capacity between the US and pick your favorite BRICS superpower wannabe.
Can Oceania hold its own against the might of both Eurasia and Eastasia at the same time?

Find out on next week's episode of Dragon Ball Z!
 
Half the crop of current recruits has a HS degree, but right now only 1/5 has more than a HS degree? Do they really let HS dropouts in?
I think the article is just poorly written as the figure I came up with from google is this:


2023-10-05 (1).png


I imagine they're lamenting that people with just a high school degree aren't feeling the need to join so badly now and they can't get those with a college degree to want to join (and seriously why would they?).

Feel like this really is all due to poor people having an easier time getting a shitty job than they used to. The army has often depended on those that don't feel they have any other options. There's nothing respectable about the army anymore, especially among young right wing white people who stereotypically would've joined in the past. You instead just find one story after another of how the higherups will despise you, you'll live in subhuman conditions, risk your life for those that hate you, and come out with zero skills.

You're better off being a Doordash driver or working in an Amazon warehouse pissing in bottles.
 
They have been pushing a war with China for the past couple of years, they're talking about 2025 or around then. I feel the US would just feeding decades old weapons and money into Ukraine like what European NATO is doing even though they're clearly fighting a losing battle. Only a tiny handful of presidential candidates here in the States are against escalation in Ukraine; by the time any of the warmongering uniparty clowns get in, it'll be 2025. That seems to be their target year for anything to pop off in a shooting war capacity between the US and pick your favorite BRICS superpower wannabe.
The US would completely fail a war in the Pacific. First, everything on a ship is advanced technology, so you need people with 105 IQ to even use US Navy equipment. Second US manufacturing has been hollowed out for decades, so we can't macro ship or munition building as the Ukraine war is showing now. Third, if their plan is to use Taiwanese and Japanese soldiers as cannon fodder, it's not going to work. It is straight-up illegal for the JSDF to fight an offensive war that isn't about defending their territory and Taiwan essentially has to use the same defense strategy as Japan due to the nature of their island; fortify it so invasion is always a bad idea for China, which is why TSCM is so important. Trying to invade the Chinese mainland is a pointless endeavor even if the initial beachheads are established as the population can't be infiltrated by US spies; you literally have to be some kind of Asian to function as one. Every city gets turned into Baghdad. Cutting off the Straight of Malacca no longer works because of Russian gas. Finally, and most importantly, the US still can't come up with reasons for why it must fight a Pacific war.
 
Wanna get your enlistment plans to be fullfilled?
Three simple steps:
1. GTFO from all the other countries.
2. Expurge lgbtpnz+++ pests from army completely
3. Guaranteed housing and arms licence for posession of any gun a person want to have.

There. Simple as.
Why could the American people not defend our nation from foreigners? We give up part of our liberty so that the federal government may wage war for us. The way we currently have it the state only uses its armed forces to prevent such popular violence.
 
I'm in my late 30s and obsessively exercised since I was ten. As of this post I'm even suffering from needing to rest my ankle after overextending myself in a run. And dollars to donuts, I bet you I could still outrun all of those fat faggots in the article's pic, right here and right now, even if I end up actually hobbling or something.

Vidya and social media really did a number on Da Yoof's physical as well as mental health, huh?
 
I'm in my late 30s and obsessively exercised since I was ten. As of this post I'm even suffering from needing to rest my ankle after overextending myself in a run. And dollars to donuts, I bet you I could still outrun all of those fat faggots in the article's pic, right here and right now, even if I end up actually hobbling or something.

Vidya and social media really did a number on Da Yoof's physical as well as mental health, huh?
I figure we would truly going to war in a few years if the FDA banned HFCS and other goyslop crap.

Call it a "Wartime Restriction" that only soldiers get.
 
They should consider making an American Foreign Legion instead
Wouldn't work. The French make theirs work by demanding they learn French and assimilate French culture. Americans don't insist on learning English or liking American culture. Plenty of Americans hate American culture as it is.
 
When it comes to recruiting, whoever's sitting behind the desk at the local mall's Army recruitment center is not going to matter. Everyone knows that they're bullshitting to sell you something, except the "new" version is going to be some leech who has no actual training, no idea of the organization, and is a guaranteed subhuman in every way you can imagine.
 
This is why they're preparing to bring back the draft. If they absolutely can't get people to voluntarily join they will have no choice but to conscript.
Some people still think it's impossible for them to attempt to bring back the draft.

A fucking draft is less absurd than covid lockdowns and forced mRNA jabs. It also has more precedent, historically.
 
Back