McCain: Military personnel's 100-hour work weeks must stop

[rangerrebew]

McCain: Military personnel's 100-hour work weeks must stop
By: Karen Jowers   12 hours ago


Senators made it clear to Defense Department nominees at a nomination hearing Tuesday that they expect action to address problems with military personnel readiness.

“I look you in the eye and tell you a 100-hour work week is too long for a young member of our armed forces,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “They are working 100-hour weeks. It has to stop. Otherwise you’ll see more tragedies such as took place with recent collisions.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2017/11/14/mccain-military-personnels-100-hour-work-weeks-must-stop/

[Night Hides Not]

My first two years in Germany, I routinely "worked" 100 hour weeks. That included Staff Duty Officer averaging twice a week.

As a Systems Maintenance Officer (a thankless job if ever there was one), I was with my mechanics on site for roughly 70+ hours a week. On Friday afternoons, the Group Commander liked to visit our tac site (and motor pool) about once every two months. Naturally, I was usually the only officer on site, so I got to escort him around.

I didn't mind it, he saw my soldiers busting their tails, though he chastised me for wearing coveralls...officers weren't supposed to get their hands dirty. I could see the gleam in his eyes, which said to me "keep up the good work LT, I'm a colonel now, and I have to perform the role."  lol

During tac evals on our base (Hahn AB - we were Army Air Defense tasked with short range air defense), I was in the Wing CP (as the Army Liasion Officer) for the entirety of the eval...all four days. I didn't mind, the only other officer who had the necessary security clearance was the Battery Commander. I was able to nap a bit after midnight, and I brought several sets of fatigues with me.

I'm not saying that continuous 100 hour work weeks are optimum, just a necessary part of the mission from time to time.

[driftdiver]

My first two years in Germany, I routinely "worked" 100 hour weeks. That included Staff Duty Officer averaging twice a week.

As a Systems Maintenance Officer (a thankless job if ever there was one), I was with my mechanics on site for roughly 70+ hours a week. On Friday afternoons, the Group Commander liked to visit our tac site (and motor pool) about once every two months. Naturally, I was usually the only officer on site, so I got to escort him around.

I didn't mind it, he saw my soldiers busting their tails, though he chastised me for wearing coveralls...officers weren't supposed to get their hands dirty. I could see the gleam in his eyes, which said to me "keep up the good work LT, I'm a colonel now, and I have to perform the role."  lol

During tac evals on our base (Hahn AB - we were Army Air Defense tasked with short range air defense), I was in the Wing CP (as the Army Liasion Officer) for the entirety of the eval...all four days. I didn't mind, the only other officer who had the necessary security clearance was the Battery Commander. I was able to nap a bit after midnight, and I brought several sets of fatigues with me.

I'm not saying that continuous 100 hour work weeks are optimum, just a necessary part of the mission from time to time.

Its only necessary on occasion, if you're doing it continuously its a sign of poor leadership and inadequate staffing.   It leads to burned out people, poor maintenance, accidents and a high attrition rate.

[Fishrrman]

Agree with driftdiver.

Granted, there may be times when 90-100 hour weeks might be necessary, but they should not be the norm.

This is why (at least on the railroads) it was necessary to institute an "Hours of Service" law back in the first half of the 20th century -- to cut down on the number of accidents caused by employee fatigue...