IntenseDebate - SparkyWD

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Moving toward a learni... · 1 reply · +1 points

Peter,

Have heard if the advanced education managers are on board with this? They are the best POCs for access to yearly capstone / thesis papers on a variety of topics that are, or could be, of interest to others in the CG.

17 years ago @ gCaptain.com — A... - Major Constitutional D... · 0 replies · +1 points

Having read the opinion of the court, it clarified some things for me. 1) that 40.67.b had been updated recently to ~require~ employers to conduct direct observation return-to-duty and follow-up tests, and THAT was what was being challenged. 2) that there are some whiny people out there. If you test positive for drugs, it's not unreasonable on first glance that there should be some hoops you have to jump through, and if one of those is direct observation because of the possibility of a cheating prosthetic, then so be it. You got caught and now the government has an interest in making sure you've turned a corner in your drug use. Don't like direct observation? Get a job elsewhere, not in the transportation industry.

17 years ago @ gCaptain.com — A... - Major Constitutional D... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well, it'll be the same amount of privacy I had before - nothing has changed, a reg has been upheld. Also, remember that this is a return-to-duty or follow on test - purely voluntary. For the random test, there must be reason for suspicion of some cheating going on - abnormal temperature ranges, tampered specimen, negative dilute with indicators of cheating, etc.

IF, big if, the statute is expanded then perhaps there will be less privacy, but that will be done by legislation and unions etc will have opportunity to comment to their representatives, so in the end I doubt it would change.

17 years ago @ gCaptain.com — A... - Major Constitutional D... · 2 replies · +1 points

Since the USCG uses the DOT drug testing requirements for marine employers (46 CFR 16.113) if it applies to rail employees then it applies to maritime employees. That said, having not read the decision itself - just the summary above, it sounds like an affirmation of 49 CFR 40.67 which lays out when direct observation must & may be conducted. Specifically it sounds like it applies to 46.b which states, "As an employer, you may direct a collection under direct observation of an employee if the drug test is a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test."

So I don't know that anything has changed - correct me if I'm wrong - just that an existing reg has been challenged and upheld.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Now Mandatory: USCG PH... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not sure if it's a MUST, but anyone who doesn't see the writing on the wall (future PT test) needs to get their eyes checked.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - The Coast Guard Academ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Worthy? Perhaps. But it won't happen because of the posting policy of this blog - no pseudonymous blog posts allowed. From the Policies wiki, "...all contributors to AN UNOFFICIAL COAST GUARD BLOG will post with full attribution, using their real, given, name."

Since that's not a step I want to take, it'll have to remain unposted. I'll check with my friend and see if he has a copy I can send you via email.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - The Coast Guard Academ... · 1 reply · +1 points

To each their own, but I'm in a similar situation yet don't feel particularly bad about it. It's the risk I took when going to grad school and in the end I anticipate no long term regrets with my decision.

Does the CG, by the nature of our assignment process, restrict what jobs you can do? Yes. But. A friend of mine at HQ has crunched the numbers and there is NO correlation between job type & sequence (staff vs field) and attaining the next rank (up to O6 if I remember what he told me correctly). You won't be stuck at O4 unless you want to. It's all about doing a good job in the billet you get - that's what gets you up the chain. You might not get a specialized job at a fancy specialized unit, but you won't be rank limited.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - The Coast Guard Academ... · 0 replies · +1 points

I'll have to challenge the whole - degree isn't squat on the outside - thing too. Perhaps it depends on the degree? I too got into a top ranked school (in my field) for post-graduate work with my CGA degree.

On the other hand, I think the CG does a poor job at having CGA graduates use their degrees once in the field, but it's also a tough nut to crack with no clean solutions. Just think how the Marine Safety side of the house would be enhanced by letting Marine Science majors go strait to a Sector or same for an Engineering grad.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - It COSTS to know how m... · 0 replies · +1 points

Here's what the Army came up with, WRT e-LES: Saves $2.6million annually

http://www.wvang.ang.af.mil/hro/DCPS%2008-27A.pdf

I don't know why we couldn't do it too.

17 years ago @ CGBlog.org :: An Unoff... - Navy halts transfer of... · 1 reply · +1 points

FYI, it's just a delay and looks to me like an attempt to push the money spent on transfers to the next fiscal year in October.

Ryan, I don't think you're seeing the bigger picture here. Stopping transfers for a period of time creates backups and jams that will have impacts 10 years down the road (WAG). If 1/3 of the workforce doesn't transfer, then you have more people working in billets below their paygrade. If they don't move, then the people jr to them can't fill those billets and those jr people are stuck, and so on. Then, how do you adjust from that? Do you move 2/3 the workforce in one year, with unusually staggered billet lengths (i.e. 2 yrs instead of 3, 4 years instead of 3, etc.) in order to get back on a 1/3 per year rotation? Something like that would crush our ability to do our missions and cost some serious dollars. If instead of a 2/3 massive transfer you just did the usual 1/3 transfer with staggered billet lengths, you push the time to get back into a 'normal' equilibrium by many years - perhaps as many as ten. Is the short term money saved worth the disruption in person-to-billet match and a certain amount of stability in tour lengths? I don't think so, at least not without a pretty good report of the costs and benefits of such a move and of the alternatives.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with SparkyWD

People I'm following

SparkyWD