Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Wouldn't it be better?

If they got rid of more companies like this before the cut troop levels?

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/07/19/v-print/1198858/fort-benning-ends-property-management.html

 
BlueCollarMama

Asked by BlueCollarMama at 4:04 PM on Jul. 20, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 19 (7,298 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (8)
  • The military spent/wasted a lot less when it wasn't contracting work out to civilians. A military contract of any type has always been considered a plum of a deal by civilian companies because the oversight is light enough to allow for massive fraud. The best thing they could do would be to go back to inhouse positions and assignments but I doubt they will. Instead they will cut supplies, repairs, maintenance, and soldiers themselves rather than control the greed and mishandling ~ and it is the soldiers and their families that will suffer.

    What should be cut are entitlement and welfare programs for the able bodied civilians, and instead of cutting anything from the troops they should be pouring that money in to get our military back on track and fulfilling the promises made to the troops for decades.
    Farmlady09

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 8:11 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • I think we should get rid of compaines who commit fraud regardless of cutting troop levels.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 4:07 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/2010/07/19/v-print/1198858/fort-benning-ends-property-management.html


    I don't know why the link's coming up like it does, it's the only way I could get it to, sorry ya'll.

    BlueCollarMama

    Comment by BlueCollarMama (original poster) at 4:05 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • My point is that companies like these are rampant around the military, so why not shake them down first before making drastic cuts to the numbers of our troops during a war? Pennacle has contracts with several major bases, not just Benning, so just because Benning's ending their contract doesn't mean they're completely gone yet.
    BlueCollarMama

    Comment by BlueCollarMama (original poster) at 4:11 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • It is the management appointed to run it that was the problem. the organization itself serves an important purpose. Someone who can better forsee the property would be the solution. Getting rid of companies has the effect of taking jobs from people who really need it in addition to serving a very important purpose.
    lawmom27

    Answer by lawmom27 at 4:20 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • Bringing in these companies in the first place took jobs from soldiers and Marines that worked in the housing offices and managed the property under the various MOSes of the respective branches, just like cooks, gate gaurds on Army posts and transportation/ traffic management. They took these MOSes out of the branches in efforts to streamline the services and make it more cost efficient, but these companies are just like every other big corperation max amount of money made for the lowest quality service they can give. They cheat people out of houses so they can give it to higher ranks because higher ranks get more BAH, I've seen it, and on top of that they're being paid 4 times what it would cost to have service personnel doing the job.
    BlueCollarMama

    Comment by BlueCollarMama (original poster) at 4:32 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • I agree, these jobs belong to service personell...not the employees of private companies.
    UpSheRises

    Answer by UpSheRises at 4:35 PM on Jul. 20, 2010

  • I agree with you 110% BlueCollarMama..
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 4:44 PM on Jul. 20, 2010