General discussion


How far will the Army go?

By Aldanatech ·
I recently heard a rumor that some U.S. army recruitants are resorting to unethical and illegal methods to get more recruits, such as help drop-outs obtain fake High School diplomas and suggest drug users to take detoxification capsules and liquids to help them pass the drug test. I found that to be rather hard to believe, so I decided to search around and this is what I found:

Sadly, those rumors were confirmed. The link also includes links to the actual TV reports. It is no secret that the U.S. Army has trouble reaching its recruiting goals, but does this justify these methods of recruitment? Do you think there could be betters ways to recruit more soldiers?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Every organization

by JamesRL In reply to How far will the Army go?

because of its nature, has both ethical and unethical people in it. Some areas attract unethical people more than others, but its a generalization to say that all army recruiters are unethical, or to infer that this is common.


Collapse -

Agreed, but in Aldana tech's defense

by Oz_Media In reply to Every organization

The recruiters ARE the face of the Army, they are the representatives of America's military.

Just as Bush is the face of the Republican Party and all that goes on within it. They screw up and he's the public's fall guy, he chose to run for that opportunity and was elected the representative, therefore also assuming responsibility.

But you are right, this doesn't generalize ALL recruiters, but it does fall into the genralization of the US Army.

Collapse -


by xalorous In reply to Agreed, but in Aldana tec ...

The Army will snuff these guys' careers so bad they won't be able to get a decent job in the outside world IF they find those recruiters guilty. And if they ARE guilty, they will be found guilty.

I suspect the second recruiter was new, and just going along with what the previous one left him. Bad choice on his part.

Oh, and the accused soldiers leaders will be under suspicion here too. It sounds to me like that is where the problem lies.

Collapse -

Uh, is this the right question?

by DC_GUY In reply to How far will the Army go?

If the citizenry of a country is so unsupportive of its army's endeavors that the army can't recruit enough citizens to keep these endeavors going, isn't it time to question whether it's time to cancel the endeavors or at least curtail them?

The only "better way to recruit more soldiers" would be conscription, which is as reprehensible as the things they're already doing.

America should be putting its efforts into getting the workforce to telecommute. Just getting the majority of us off the freeways -- the majority who have no earthly reason to "go to work" because we already have a computer and a telephone at home (duh) -- would cut our oil consumption in half.

Less dependence on imported oil? Bingo! Suddenly all the smoke screens about democracy and women's rights in the Middle East would **** away and it would become politically correct to state that every sovereign nation should be free to direct its own future. Which, if you all remember, is what we used to scream at the British and French during the era of de-colonialization.

Collapse -

Well said.

by tbragsda In reply to Uh, is this the right que ...
Collapse -

To the extent of a pipe dream

by Oz_Media In reply to Well said.

As for everyone telecommuting, I do know people, including myself, who have had that opportunity. It DOES work in some/very few cases.

Too many companies would suffer tremendous loss of productivity, and efficiency. NO a home telephone does not replace a business line, unles syou only have a single line you use at the office. a second over-ringing line doesn't work either.

When I moved away from the office a few years ago, it was mainly because their larget client was on the island and it made sense for SOMEONE to be there. I also had VERY expensive lines and a OPBX installed for it to all work properly though.

So I see it failing in MOST cases for two reasons,

1) Lack of production/efficiency
2) Client equipment costs

Collapse -


by jmgarvin In reply to To the extent of a pipe d ...

You are also forgetting the people that log on and then proceed to not do work. While surfing the web and checking your stocks kills productivity at work it is 10,000 times worse with most telecommuters.

Another problem is that broadband isn't cheap enough for companies to absorb the cost. Until dark fiber drops in price, it just isn't going to financially viable for these companies to have everyone telecommuning.

Collapse -

I somewhat disagree

by Garion11 In reply to To the extent of a pipe d ...

Maybe its just me...but I work out of my house and I have never worked harder or ENJOYED it more. In fact, I will never go back to an office job if I can help it, ever. From talking to other people who have done telecommuting, they state that they do more work when working from home then they do by going into the office.

You are right it takes a certain kind of worker personality to be efficient when working from home, but I think its a majority that have this personality than a minority as you suggested (I don't think they know that).

Although it depends on the job, with current high speed access, cell phone/pager/blackberry, and a business line a company can achieve efficiency much more than you think. In fact they can save lots of money by saving on electricity, etc.

Client equipment costs: Not sure what you mean here...unless it is a specific job related issue.

I believe telecommuting would work with greater gains in productivity and efficiency while reducing costs for companies, its only a matter of time before this is implemented.

Collapse -

Equipment costs and productivity

by jdclyde In reply to I somewhat disagree

Any business with half a clue would never allow you to work from your home on your home system that the kids are using to P2P and get game hacks on. How about a firewall? Of course the business should insist on there being a hardware firewall between work system and the internet. The more coherent ones will not even allow the home systems on the same lan as the work PC because of all the trojans that can hope over a lan now.

Then there is the added expense of liability. What if you have an accident while working at home? There have already been cases where the employee can go against the employer over an environment that they can't control.

Productivity. Which will you work quicker on, a 100baseT line in the office or a 3M cable modem with all the VPN encryption overhead and internet traffic knocking that bandwidth in half for usable width?

I look back at many jobs and even in the office I see a difference in the way people work when the boss is around compaired to when they aren't. If they went to no supervision, MOST of them would be useless within a month.

I would say you are the exception, not the rule. Most people are followers, not leaders.

Yes, I drive an hour each way everyday plus traffic and weather. Then if I have to go to a remote location it goes up to three hours each way and it is just for the day.

Collapse -

Equipment costs

by Oz_Media In reply to I somewhat disagree

I have a pretty busy multiline telephone system, when the last company I worked for installed it, they paid well over $14K to have lines run up here.

I know I am pretty remote, but even some homes on the edges of Vancouver needs serious line upgrades and multi-line services that a single blackberry, or standard residential over-ringing line just won't handle.

I lucked out because I worked for a telephone company, cabling and installation is just time and materials. I HAD two PBX's at home, now have kept one for my own business. But there's no hope that I could survive on standard residential line service and a 2 or 4 line phone.

So people in busier positions will require multiline telephone systems to communicate with each other. This would then become an EXTREMELY expensive system if shared between several employees to increase efficiency as it would then all need to be networked from either smaller KSU's at people's homes or installing full systems for each.

Otherwise you lose ALL of the fatures that makes a business telephone system valuable, PROPER caller ID (not that telco shite), PROPER Voice Mail (not that Telco shite), Proper VoIP (not that bridging crappo), 4-digit extension dialling? (Good luck! for less than 40K for every couple of employees), Direct transfer, whisper paging, Conference calling etc. Would all become a HUGE and extremely expensive issue, and no, the stuff the telco offers as a line bundle isn't even in the same balpark to what I am referring to (that even the most inexpensive and commonly used Key System offers).

So equipment costs rise, maintenance of that equipment rises too. Productivity FOR SOME will increase but only short term in many cases, it's too easy to NEED to do something really important all the time. Tax breaks for offices would disappear, write offs would be abused and the whole personal income tax system starts ro crumble.

It would be next to impossible to properly manage, fire, train someone and costly when you did.

As I said, for SOME employees in specific positions, it makes sense. For MOST employees in MOST positions, it would be unmanagable, expensive as **** and simply NOT effective at all.

For someone such as yourself who probably doesn't have two or three lines ringing all day, doesn't need to conference several employees a few times a day, doesn't need to have fast extension dialling and direct call transfers, it must seem so easy to work from home, but when you add in all the others, it is no longer feasible at all.

Related Discussions

Related Forums