Feral Jundi

Monday, September 15, 2008

Industry Talk: Mission Critical Psychological Services

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 10:45 AM

     For the most part, I am all for these kinds of services. Although I do have some reservations on how these services might be used, and that it would be very easy for a company to just get rid of employees if they had to thin out their contracts do to budget problems.  Instead, a company should remain committed to helping that employee through thick and thin.  And PTSD remains long after the contract, so will a company use these services for that reality of security contracting? 

    I am all for companies providing mental health services for it’s employees, and this is a great step forward to making that happen. We’ll see if the companies use these types of services ethically and for all the right reasons, and I hope to keep them honest here at FJ.  –Head Jundi 

——————————————————————

About Us

Mission CriticalMission Critical Psychological Services (MCPS) is the leading provider of comprehensive psychological support programs for companies employing people in war-torn countries. For over a decade, the psychologists at MCPS have provided support to thousands of civilians working in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Liberia, East Timor, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Israel, Columbia, and Haiti. MCPS psychologists have backgrounds in law enforcement, security, and the U.S. military, and they have lived and worked in hostile environments: they understand the unique challenges of dangerous assignments. All have been trained and mentored in MCPS methodology.

Paul Brand, Ph.D.

Chief Executive Officer

Dr. Brand founded MCPS to build on his decade of experience developing and managing psychological screening and services for people working in war-torn areas. As the President of Medina & Thompson, Inc., he developed psychological fitness programs to support police officers sent to Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Israel, Liberia and East Timor as part of peacekeeping initiatives. Under his direction as the Senior Vice President of Human Resources for DynCorp International, the Department of State’s largest contractor, DynCorp became the first company with comprehensive psychological support for its employees serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Brand holds his Ph.D. in Psychology from the Illinois Institute of Technology and has lived and worked in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the United States.

(more…)

Sunday, September 7, 2008

Industry Talk: The Truman Commission Repeats Itself–Who is Looking Out For the Little Guy?

Filed under: Industry Talk,Washington DC — Tags: , , — Matt @ 12:37 PM

     In this post, I wanted to hit on a little bit of history in regards to contracting.  I think it is important that today’s US tax payers get what they pay for and I do not find fault with this kind of ‘accounting’ scrutiny.  I also salute what Truman did back in the day in regards to cutting wasteful spending with contracting companies, and it certainly saved this country a lot of money.  And with that said, I do think that today’s Commission on Wartime Contracting Establishment(S.1825) is important–but with a few stipulation.

     Invariably these things are more political than just pure business.  It’s Capital Hill, and that is what makes the machine move.  So I am happy that this proposed Commission is bi-partisan.  If this commission can be more like Truman’s, and remain as objective as possible, then I would be happy and I applaud that effort. I will be saddened if this process turns more into a With Hunt, stacked with personal agendas.  Honest scrutiny and debate is what the country deserves about this subject, and the end product should be the result of objective hard work.  My smart monkey instincts says that this commission will be more ‘politics as usual’. 

    The other thing that worries me about this Commission, is who will set the pay scales as to what is the proper payment for a contracted security specialist overseas? The government, the companies, who?  It has always been a mystery to me, as to what the standard is and most of the companies I have worked for were all over the place with pay and benefits.  And that is why I am hoping that this commission will be honest in their assessment of what security contractors are truly worth, and in evaluating what the true cost of doing business in today’s wars is.  If the companies are punished in some kind of politically motivated ‘Witch Hunt’, then what will the trickle down effect be for the guys overseas doing the protecting and dying for US government clients?  And most importantly, how will this impact the war effort and the security of these US government clients?  

    And seeing how security contractors really have no union representation on the Hill, then I could totally see how our voice would be just a murmur in this debate. I am sure the big companies have plenty of lobbyists on the Hill fighting for them, and that is great.  But for the little guy, I have not seen anything that has impressed me as far as a voice in this field of giants.  

      I have seen a few unions pop up, with some attempt to organize, but overall there really isn’t much out there.  The two unions I have seen are the Pipe Hitters Union and SEIU .  I am sure there are others, but I really haven’t heard of any kind of voice for the guys overseas.  I could be wrong, and if the readers know of any other unions or associations that are fighting for overseas security contractors specifically, I would love to hear about them.  (With SEIU, they are more of a domestic union that is fighting for guards here in the US.)  

     Now one thing everyone can do, is send letters to your local politicians and to the members of the commission.  The letters should be respectful and to the point.  The members of this commission are:

Clark Kent Ervin, Grant Green, Linda Gustitus, Dean Popps, Michael Thibault, Charles Tiefer, Dov Zakheim and of course you could also contact Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill(these two came up with the commission) 

     Below I have posted the details about this latest move in DC, and the history of the Truman Commission.  I hope I have come across as objective as possible in this article, and I have no intention of offending anyone.  My only intent is to make sure everyone out there knows what is going on. –Head Jundi 

——————————————————————

The Buck Stops Here

Commission on Wartime Contracting Establishment Act S.1825

    * Introduced: July 18, 2007

    * Status: Introduced

    * Next step: Voted on by Senate

    * Latest action: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

    * Sponsor: Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA] 

—————————————————————— 

Truman Committee

Truman gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the “Truman Committee”) investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. The Roosevelt administration had initially feared the Committee would hurt war morale, and Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson wrote to the president declaring it was “in the public interest” to suspend the committee. Truman wrote a letter to the president saying that the committee was “100 percent behind the administration” and that it had no intention of criticizing the military conduct of the war. The committee was considered a success and is reported to have saved at least $15 billion. Truman’s advocacy of common-sense cost-saving measures for the military attracted much attention. In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of Time. He would eventually appear on nine Time covers and be named the magazine’s Man of the Year for 1945 and 1948. After years as a marginal figure in the Senate, Truman was cast into the national spotlight after the success of the Truman Committee.

 Wikipedia Link

Monday, August 18, 2008

News: The Congressional Budget Office Releases Report on Contractors in Iraq

Filed under: Iraq,News — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 5:40 PM

   Hey, this is an interesting little deal about security contractors.  This came from the director’s blog from the Congressional Budget Office.  Be sure to click on the link below, if you want to read a copy of the report that is posted through a link on the blog.  Be sure to read the last finding, which to me indicates exactly why security contractors are such a good deal for the government.  –Head Jundi 

 

——————————————————————

 

Contractors in Iraq

 

Contractors play a substantial role in supporting the United States’ current military, reconstruction, and diplomatic operations in Iraq, accounting for a significant portion of the manpower and spending for those activities.

 

CBO released a study today, conducted at the request of the Senate Committee on the Budget, on the use of contractors in the Iraq theater to support U.S. activities in Iraq. The webcast of the press briefing is available here.

 

CBO found:

 

    * From 2003 through 2007, and converting the funding into 2008 dollars, U.S. agencies awarded $85 billion in contracts for work to be principally performed in the Iraq theater, accounting for almost 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq. Including funding for 2008 itself, the U.S. has likely awarded $100 billion or more for contractors in the Iraq theater.

 

(more…)

Friday, July 25, 2008

Industry Talk: Revised Rules for Battlefield Contractors

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 10:30 AM

   Interesting stuff.  You almost need a lawyer these days, just so you can understand your rights and what you can or cannot do out there.  Steady as she goes, steady as she goes…-Head Jundi 

 ——————————————————————

Revised Rules for Battlefield Contractors

By John Stafford and David Goodwin

The expansion of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (MEJA) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has complicated the legal environment for U.S. contractors co-located with military forces abroad.

Contractor employees and subcontractors at all levels may now be subject to host nation laws, U.S. federal criminal law through MEJA and the UCMJ. In addition to this new jurisdiction over individual employees, contractors must now adhere to MEJA and UCMJ employee notification requirements.

Recently approved clauses in the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement require contractors to notify employees before deployment that MEJA and UCMJ potentially apply to them. FAR 52.225-19, which is titled “Contractor personnel in a designated operational area or supporting a diplomatic or consular mission outside the United States,” requires contractors supporting the Defense Department abroad to give employees MEJA notifications. DFARS 252.225-7040, titled “Contractor personnel authorized to accompany U.S. armed forces deployed outside the United States,” requires contractors to give employees both MEJA and UCMJ notifications. These clauses both contain subcontract flow-down provisions.

(more…)

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Industry Talk: Contractors Oppose Move to End Immunity from Iraqi Law

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 11:30 AM

 

   This is just a follow up to the story I posted earlier about lifting the immunity of security contractors from Iraqi law.  I have been following the security industry forums out there, and there seems to be two schools of thought forming on this issue.  

    The first school of thought is ‘deal with it’.  That security contractors have been operating in countries all over the world, and working under the laws of other countries for a long time now and Iraq is no different. Big boy rules they say. blah blah blah (I hate the term ‘big boy rules’- that is ‘manager speak’ for I could care less what you think and deal with it)

    The other school of thought is ‘no way’.  That Iraq is still a weakened state, and really does not have the capacity to deal with this issue.  That their legal system is not insulated from corruption and the infiltrations of the enemy.  And because there are so many questions that have not been answered with this latest move, that guys are really not interested in being the guinea pig for these new set of operational rules.   

    My personal belief on this is that security contractors are already covered by UCMJ, and that we should be off limits to Iraqi law until the war is over and Iraq has a fully functioning government and legal system.  I also think that it is extremely hypocritical for the DOD and DOS to expect security contractors to fall under Iraqi law, but not put their own military/government personnel under Iraqi law?    

    And in my observations on the forums, it seems that most are not too happy with this at all. –Head Jundi 

——————————————————————

Contractors oppose move to end immunity from Iraqi law

By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Saturday, July 5, 2008

Contractors working for the U.S. military in Iraq say a move to end their immunity from Iraqi law would make many leave their jobs instead of face a justice system they do not trust.

Earlier this week, the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said the immunity issue was one of the American concessions made in ongoing negotiations over a long-term security agreement. Since the announcement, contractors — both current and former workers in Iraq — have been buzzing about its implications. There are an estimated 180,000 foreign contractors working in Iraq, more than there are U.S. troops in the country. More than 1,000 have been killed.

“Having worked for two years and two months in Iraq, I can tell you without a doubt, I would in no way work if I fell under Iraqi Law,” a deputy sheriff who trains Iraqi police said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. “Are you kidding? You wouldn’t be able to get but the most desperate people to work if they fell under their ridiculous laws.”

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress