English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/05/AR2006090501508_2.html

2006-09-06 09:20:59 · 4 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government Military

bottom of first page:

"The two Virginia-based firms have more than 400 recruiters assigned across the country, and have signed up more than 15,000 soldiers. They are paid about $5,700 per recruit."

2006-09-06 10:10:06 · update #1

4 answers

I was in Recruiting Command during the mid to late 80's. They had used civil service civilians to recruit for the Army Reserve. It didn't work in most areas, and they slowly phased out these civil servants, and replaced them with AGR Recruiters.

The reason is this: Why would I join something that the recruiter doesn't actually belong to? It is a valid point. I am surprised that the Army is even considering it, since it wasn't productive before.

2006-09-06 10:12:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Personally, I think it is a stupid idea. Civilian recruiters are more likely to lie to the potential recruits and mislead them into something they dont want. Especially if they get 5700 per person, which I have not seen anywhere, including that page.

2006-09-06 16:42:14 · answer #2 · answered by Curt 4 · 1 0

It beats the Draft.

2006-09-06 16:29:29 · answer #3 · answered by David 3 · 0 1

if it get peoples to join yes

2006-09-06 16:23:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers