How would you fix the NNPP

[cincinnatinuke]

I agree with your assessment of officers. As an officer trainer, I spent many many hours pre/post shift helping problem officers get through. The attitude was/is that the ETAs weren't doing their jobs if an officer was failing. I had to prove that a student failed a watch and didn't deserve to just have me "take the watch" and give it back when I was done un-screwing his situation. Then an ETC (my lead ETA and eventual LCC) whom I highly respected, pointed out to me the fact that it does NO GOOD for an enlisted person to fail an officer student on watch. So he never did even as a Chief because they had to be failed by an officer or civilian for any real consequences to happen. So, I stopped failing them on watch too. Saved me a lot of work! So I guess I am partly guilty of being just part of the problem. But to give credit to one of my LTs, he was all about failing officers that should be failing. So if I had a problem officer, he stepped in and stood watch with him and failed him. So it worked out in the end a couple of time. Point of all of this is that contrary to the belief of some, the officer side is broke too. I tried to be part of the solution, but it became too much work and trouble for me. A cop out? Sure, but I was ROAD and didn't give a crap by that point. I still managed high marks from officer student end of courses all the way to EAOS though. That could have had something to do with post watch poker games at my house though.

My solution was to take the word of the ETAs more seriously. I didn't spend all of that time with them and stand all of those watches to have my opinion discounted in the end. We, the ETAs, know what we are talking about.

I am also guilty of pumping one guy (enlisted em) through out of spite. I apologize to anyone serving with this douche. I was chairing this young mans board one day. Before the board, I was reading his record and it was FULL of documentation stating that this kid was doing his best to fail out of the program. That made no sense to me since he passed his exams and all indicators showed that he was intelligent. But, before his board, his staff came to me and said that the kid intended to provide nothing but wrong answers because he wanted out of the program and out of the Navy. Well I decided that if I had to go to sea as a nuke, then why in heck should he get out of it? And sure enough, he provided the wrong answers to everything. You could tell he had to think of a way to answer it wrong. So when we called him back in after grading, I asked "how do you think you did?" He said "I am pretty sure I failed, right?" I said "Wrong shipmate, your a$$ is going to the fleet. congratulations." He wasn't happy. So that's my story. I don't remember his name or anything now, just the look on his face when he thought he was going to get out of the program and realized he was now a nuke headed to the fleet. Wrong, yes, and I am sorry. But I just couldn't bare the thought of letting him get away with something. Hindsight is that he is probably a pain in someones behind now and I feel bad about that. I also realize this story is off topic.

Justin

They should make a movie of this!!

That story is funny and scary at the same time.

[withroaj]

Okay...so how do we fix all these problems?

I have an idea to help on the ELT side of the house.  GC, sir, if you have a link to any big whigs, I would really like this one passed on.  We either need to send all ELT's to RCTQS (RadCon Tech Qualification School), or take 100% of the RCTQS cirriculum and implement it into ELT school.

I have a couple guys straight out of P-type in my RCTQS class right now (not SPU's, students), which is a great start (I have to admit I am extremely jealous -- I almost had to beg the detailer for it).  I think they are learning too much "new" stuff here.  They should know it already.  I admit that I didn't know some of it until my boat was in overhaul for a bit, and that's a problem.  A great deal of being in the Navy is OJT.  I know that much, but Radcon is Radcon is Radcon.  Based on that I think new ELT's should be exposed to as much of it as possible pre-fleet. 

From what I understand, NPTU offers a great deal more radcon training now than they did when I was there as student/staff.  That's good, but currently (if it hasn't changed too much in the last few years) ELT school is mostly submarine chemistry and time management (I think they added a surface chemistry finisher for applicable students).  I know it would cost a lot of money to extend ELT school or send all ELT's to a 'finishing school,' but the benefit would be worth the cost.

[JustinHEMI05]

I have an idea to help on the ELT side of the house.  GC, sir, if you have a link to any big whigs, I would really like this one passed on.  We either need to send all ELT's to RCTQS (RadCon Tech Qualification School), or take 100% of the RCTQS cirriculum and implement it into ELT school.

I have a couple guys straight out of P-type in my RCTQS class right now (not SPU's, students), which is a great start (I have to admit I am extremely jealous -- I almost had to beg the detailer for it).  I think they are learning too much "new" stuff here.  They should know it already.  I admit that I didn't know some of it until my boat was in overhaul for a bit, and that's a problem.  A great deal of being in the Navy is OJT.  I know that much, but Radcon is Radcon is Radcon.  Based on that I think new ELT's should be exposed to as much of it as possible pre-fleet. 

From what I understand, NPTU offers a great deal more radcon training now than they did when I was there as student/staff.  That's good, but currently (if it hasn't changed too much in the last few years) ELT school is mostly submarine chemistry and time management (I think they added a surface chemistry finisher for applicable students).  I know it would cost a lot of money to extend ELT school or send all ELT's to a 'finishing school,' but the benefit would be worth the cost.

That is a really good idea. They could divert them to RCTQS from ELT school on the way to the ship. I think they should also work op-waterchem in there too.

Justin

[JustinHEMI05]

Off topic and so wrong,....but tooooooooo funny,...heheheheheheheheheh

In my minds eye I can see that poor bastard changing brushes on an MG in Guam,...

In fact he may have ended up the bad attitude, poor ass bastard who always got to change the brushes,!!!!!!!! All the brushes, all the time!!!!!   too funny,....

it's kinda like the Navy was always putting the good guys over the barrel, and the slugs seemed to get all the breaks, but once in a while, every now and then, even though you loathe a small part of yourself for succumbing to the temptation, you could use the ways of the Navy to really put it to some sob who just flat out deserved it,....

thank you for that story,....

No problem.

Justin

[Preciousblue1965]

Well there are several approaches we have to consider on this issue.  Most of the are "above my paygrade(thank you BHO)". 

We have to maintain X number of qualified nukes in the program at all times.  We make up for the ones that leave by training new ones.  So in order to raise the overall quality of nukes we have to minimize losses of quality individuals and we have to raise the quality of new trainees.  As the links provided earlier stated, 1 in 4 high school graduates are qualified to serve in the military.  Now figure that is for all branches of service(we won't count Puddle Pirates at this point for argument sake).  Supposedly Navy Nukes are the top 5% of the Navy.  So now we are talking about 5% of 25%of all military candidates out of 25% of all high school graduates.  So we are handicapped from the start. 

Looking strictly at the new recruiting standpoint, we know that the truly intelligent high school graduates, for the most part, go off to college on scholarships.  We might get a few of those kids if they party too much and lose their financial aid.  So mostly our "pool" to draw from are those that made decent grades but not good enough to get a scholarship and have no other financial aid means to attend college.  Of course there are the exceptions such as family tradition to serve, wanting to serve, and all those that really don't fit into any of those categories.  Well now with all of these Lottery scholarships, easy to get college loans, and numerous other financial aids, that pool we had to draw from is getting smaller and smaller.  So my solution is pretty simple.  Get rid of a lot of these financial aid programs.  I know that is going to ruffle A LOT of feathers, but if we truly want to see our military and in particular our Nuclear Navy get some better material to work with, it is an avenue that must be considered.  It used to be that very few went to college.  Those that did were either kids of rich parents, superstar athletes, or extremely smart individuals.  Now anyone and everyone is in college and a lot of times it is for the wrong reasons(True story, heard a young lady-about 19 or so- say she wasn't in college to get a degree, she was there to find a husband to take care of her so she didn't have to work, and this was at a community college).  I mean you can go to college to be a disc jockey on the radio.  Hell you almost have to have a degree to be a disc jockey.  So if we do away with all this Government backed financial aid and free college to anyone who wants to go just for the hell of it, then those that TRUELY want to go will see the MGIB as a viable option and head over to the recruiters office.  As much as I hate to say it, but based on current events I don't think the "softer, more intelligent types" are going to be signing up in droves to be boots on the ground, which means they will steer themselves toward Navy and AF.  VIOLA` we got a lot more people to choose from and can be much more selective in our recruiting process for Nuclear and afford to go back to attrition levels of the good ole' days.  If all they give us is 6 years, well we aren't getting much more than that now but maybe, just maybe, a few might actually enjoy the job and stay on a little longer. 

And that is how nuclear power works......

[Preciousblue1965]

I keep hearing this over and over.

"It's the Instructors Fault for a students failure!"

1.  Why?
2.  What happens to the instructor for doing his job?  Pass or Fail?
3.  What can be done to eliminate this ridiculous thought process?

When I take a student for flight training I don't guarantee his/her success.  Just that I'll do my best.  The flight schools/instructors that guarantee success teach only to one examiner and don't teach the student to be a good pilot.  And, since it is a guarantee they (the student) don't make any strong efforts on the behalf of the instructor.  Because now the onus is on the Instructor. 

I thought we were told you and you alone would make this (NNPP) a success or not.  They provided what was necessary in resources and you provided the effort to make that happen.  It was your problem if you didn't succeed.  You knew it and you busted your butt.

What's wrong with blaming Students for there failure to succeed?

Jason

I would be willing to wager that, along with myself, anyone who has taught at P-type in the last 6 years or so has been told that "If a student fails, it means you didn't do enough as an instructor to prepare him/her".  This applies not only to tests, but to watches, board, hell even life itself.  I have sat through severl CMC calls in which the CMC talked about stupid things student have done.  Case in point, Student gets license revoked for speeding on his motorcycle.  Goes home for the weekend on his motorcycle.  On his way back to Charleston, decides it would be a good idea to do 90 mph on I-26.  Highway Patrol clocks him and begins to chase him down.  Kid sees HiPo, and instead of pulling over, guns it to over 120 mph.  Kid clips front end of car while weaving in and out of traffic, launches several hundred yards, almost hits tree.  CMC's paraphrased comment--> "So what can we do as staff members to prevent this from happening again." 

We have made it standard policy to go to students apartments out in town to ensure they aren't living in a cardboard box.  They even tell us to check for alcohol and other stuff.  They practically "make" the students sign the form that says they give us permission to go to their apartments(they never tell the students that they don't have to sign the form and they tell the staff advisors not to mention that they don't have to sign it.  They being OCTG).  I could go on and on about all the hand holding Staff Members are expected to do these days, but there are some older members on this forum and I don't want to be responsible for any heart attacks that might occur when they read what kind of idiotic cluster#$%^ the NNPP has become. 

To answer HoneyCombs other questions, if an instructor fails a student on a watch, he has to fill out some paperwork as to why he failed, fill out paperwork for the student telling them what they screwed up and what they need to review for the next time, and inform about 3 other people about the whole thing.  All this is done either before or after shift or if you are lucky, you are able to get it done at work IF you have enough people that you have a half off to write everything up.  If it is for a board, you have to basically defend yourself and your reasons for failing the guy.  But in the end, they either get better or they find someone else who won't fail them and send them on to the fleet.  Of course, the civilians don't worry about what kind of operators they are in the fleet.  They never have to see them again unless they come back as sea returnees.  Their bottom line is how many they have graduate. 

[JustinHEMI05]

Heck we dismissed the smartest guy in my class (3.90+ GPA in Power School) two days before COMP due to integrity issues.

No double standards when I went through.  Heck I was afraid of the CMC when I went through because of the Tough Guy talks he had with us.  What happened to the Chiefs and the Quality Control of the blue shirts?

Who started this mess is were I'm going with these questions.........?

Can of worms. Must resist.

Justin

[NukeLDO]

The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.

The stat I have heard used by the ADM is that only 17% of military age people in the US are recruitable...drugs, gangs, police records, obesity, etc.

[Gamecock]

The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.

The stat I have heard used by the ADM is that only 17% of military age people in the US are recruitable...drugs, gangs, police records, obesity, etc.

I've been waiting for you to chime in since this topic started back in May.  You probably have a better perspective and insight then all of us combined.

[NukeLDO]

I try to practice restraint of tongue and pen.   
It's been hard in this case.

I have my opinions, and I'll be happy to discuss them via PM.

[Preciousblue1965]

The term is "intrusive leadership" and it equates to coddling.

AHHH yes, I remember hearing that particular "catch phrase/buzz word" several times at the P-type.  It was thrown around by the higher ups all the time when talking about students.  It was usually used with other catch phrases/buzz words that were equally ridiculous, yet somehow became the mantric chant of the masses.  Things like "Gold Standard(the latest from what I am told)" , "Premiere Prototype", "Change we can believe in", and other things of that sort.  There usually is a new one about every 2-3 years, whatever happens to be on the ADM's hit list that year. 

[NukeLDO]

Perhaps a refresher course is in order.  Because you nailed it on the head.  It comes down to that one word...responsibility.

"Responsibility is a unique concept: it can only reside and inhere in a single individual.  You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished.  You may delegate it, but it is still with you.  You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it.  Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it.  If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else.  Unless you can point your finger at the person who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."

So, a good place to start to look when trying to answer the question posed, is to ask yourself what you are personally responsible for, and if you are fulfilling the obligation to that responsibility.  Each of us needs to do that, each and every day...students included.

[Preciousblue1965]

In answer to your first question....

Yes, we are told to "coddle" the students in the pipeline.  There are dozens upon dozens of stories on this thread and others that illustrate this point.  From the day they get off the bus at A school to the day we send them to the fleet as nukes, it is considered the Instructor's responsibility to ensure the student passes.  It is the Instructor's resposibility to ensure the student does what he is supposed to and doesn't do anything he isn't supposed to. 

As far as who's problem/responsibility it is, I don't believe their is a hard fast answer to that one.  Is it a generational problem with today's youth?  I believe that is part of it.  I also believe that a good portion of it comes from the fact that sometime in the last 10 years, ADM Bowman declared that the attrition rate(academic, non-academic, pychological, character, integrity) was way to high and to fix it.  I believe this occured roughly around the late 90s. 

I believe the single best place to start is with the quality of people we are getting in the first place.  How do we attract the intelligent ones and lure them away from college?  Once we figure that out, we have more trying to become nukes.  This way we can be a little more chosey when it comes to those we try to get into the program.  I don't know if this is the case or not, but there should be a nuke at EVERY recruiting station just to weed out ones that have the test scores but would obviously never make it.  If we start early and enforce some REAL academic and character standards, the need to coddle will go away. 

On a side note, I never thought this thread would get up to 11 pages.   

[NukeLDO]

The only answer to your questions is "Yes."
I did it too...mainly out of a sense of self preservation.  I wanted to avoid that set of orders to an oiler in the Indian Ocean that was haze grey and perpetually underway.  And believe me, I got way more than I bargained for.

[PapaBear765]

One thing is for certain, when I go through my checkout process print out of this discussion will be in hand.  Note: with 0.7-inch margins, 8 point, Times New Roman, it's 70 pages.

Reading over what everyone's wrote in the last day, I have to think that there's a balance with it all.  That is, the parts of the navy/nnpp that suck are just going to suck no matter what.  So us sailors have to stop crying and put up with it.  Likewise, it's not an instructor's fault if a student fails unless that instructor comes to work to sit on his butt until it's quitting time.  It's the strategy of "making us field day for 4 hours in order to to get an hour or so of real cleaning done" (an E-8 on my boat).  So tell us that it's our fault if the student fails, so we need to try our hardest to get him to succeed...because there are a lot of lazy instructors at NPTU.

The talk of "responsibility" is apt for some root causes to the problems mentioned here.  Blueshirts cry a lot.  We're also often very unprofessional and frequently don't do our job well.  This creates a vicious cycle of our khakis not trusting us to perform without butt tons of supervision, so we stop caring and cut corners, so we get more supervision...

Sorry if you've heard this before (I hate repeating navy catch phrases): "How often when you pull your car into the driveway do you drive through the garage door?  Never.  Because you care enough not to do that."  When it comes down to it, the mechanic that left the valve out of position or the electrician who messed up a tagout let that happen because they didn't care enough to do what was necessary to prevent an error.  In other words, mistakes don't just happen.  We let them happen.

In order for the problems to get fixed, the system and the workers have to simultaneously change.  Us "deck-platers" have to step up to do our job the way we're supposed to, and the system needs to treat us not like teenagers/janitors/blue collar grunts.

It'll all work out in the end.

[withroaj]

That is a really good idea. They could divert them to RCTQS from ELT school on the way to the ship. I think they should also work op-waterchem in there too.

Justin

Speaking of Op Water Chem, do any of the surface folks on here know if it's available for A4W ELT's?  I was signed up to go to Op Water Chem when I was on the boat, but then I went under the knife and now I'm headed to the surface.  I still want the school.  It sounds really interesting, and it sounds like a great way to beef up some in-depth competence.

[DSO]

I will tell you how to fix the NNPP--Get an Admiral with some nads (obviously not Admiral Bowen who wanted more Nukes passed through the system) to tell Congress that we cannot have the quality of Nukes of 20 years ago with what budget/operations they want the Navy to be held to.  Obviously the old corporate "lets do more with less" has been applied to the Navy and there is a huge bunch of careerists that won't speak up and let the higher-ups in the Navy know that something has to give.  There are less ships/subs and more operations with less personnel now.  Whenever a companies bottom line is more important than quality or doing the job right---quality suffers.  This isn't just obvious in the Navy--look at the Generals kissing GW's bu%% and telling him morale is high and some told him we don't even need more troops in Iraq when it was obvious we did.  Wouldn't want to mess up the old career though--so I won't rock the boat and not tell them what they want to here.  It would be nice to get the horrible state of the quality of personnel in our NNPP known by the general public and a little piece about it on 60 minutes or Dateline would do it good. The way the NNPP is being run is hypocritical at the least with all the talk that integrity is the most important attribute of being a Nuke---that must not apply when it comes to shoving through the sub-par candidates to make the Admiral happy.

[arduousartifice]

There is something I have been mulling over for a while now.  My boat is in the yards, and working up for PORSE on Monday, so those in the know, know where I am. The weird thing is how we keep saying we aren't going to do anything different for an inspection, and then we decide to do something differently.  We weren't wrong to begin with, we just want to look like we are really, really right, rather than just right.  I keep thinking about the ORSE we did before we came into the yards, and the workup, and how silly the whole idea really is.  If you know when the inspector is coming, you have plenty of time to prepare, to get everything all clean and all the normally screwed up stuff straightened out or hidden, to drill and drill and drill until you are finally "ready" for the inspection.  And then after the inspection everyone is so burned out that the boat is back to pre-inspection status in a short time.  And it cycles like that constantly, I would imagine on most boats, though I have not got multiple boat experience to draw from.  Anyway, I keep wondering if, maybe, just maybe, it would be better if boats did not know months in advance when their ORSE or TRE or BSA was going to be.  If ORSE could happen at any time, there wouldn't be standards that could be conveniently overlooked, the standards would have to be upheld at all times.  I know squadrons are supposed to police their boats, and they do, to an extent, but they do not have the same power in the mind of a boat that an NPEB has.  Just a thought, and a different idea to run with than beating the dead horse of the pipeline's problems.

After getting the fancy equipment that generated PB's gripe about Adm Donalds "dumb" questions (PB, I feel your pain, the install is a PITA, and the admirals all get goggle-eyed at the pretty colors and ask "dumb" questions, except Adm. McKee, who kept saying the RPCP looked "just like Charlie Brown said it would" (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/advisory/acrs/membership.html#brown  We looked him up after McKee left because we were confused.), which tells you when they started designing the Navy's latest and greatest I&C), I will say those fancy pants computers require just as much operator knowledge to operate, and I know far more about the new computerized stuff than I did about the analog.  Just saying.  But all that fancy stuff does for us is reduce RC Div's workload, since we were quite severely overworked to begin with, and were prone to miss many a noon tee time and have to settle for two, which barely allowed for the full 18 holes before happy hour.    Ahh, the hard life. 

[cyclicrings]

I have been reading your posts on how to fix the NNPP. I am a newly commisioned officer however I have come from industry to the navy specifically as a NR Engineer. I will be working directly for XXXXX director of RadCom. and will along with six others be performing most of the audits you all complain about. When I go  back in October I will show some of these posts to him and see what his suggestions are for some of your comments.

For others I will just say that no matter if you are in the "NAVY" or in "INDUSTRY" you will be most likely working 10-15 hour days with little time for your family depending on the job and location and above all your supervisor.

The NR Audit Engineers job is not to make you uncomfortable or feel like idiots although some of them do and are, it's their job to find things. To make sure everyone is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. In industry they are directly from EPA or FDA in the navy they are from NRL. They all are not looking to keep you in port and they are not out to get you I promise. Our job as auditors is to look at all of the books, procedures, and personnel, as a whole and to be nit picky and overly detailed because ultimately your safety relies on us. If you inadvertently do something wrong but didn't realize it, or wrote down the wrong number ect.... it could cause procedures to be modified based on those inaccurate entries and .... ok you see where I'm going with this. Auditors have the toughest job in the navy we are prescribed with the ultimate safety of the entire fleet and shipyards. 

Being that I was an auditor for both EPA and FDA I will tell you that from experience everyone hates us. Try that out as a job. Everything you do or don't do everyone is mad at you. If you find something the "company or navy personnel" are angry you don't and your boss is angry. See you are in a no win situation. Every job has two perspectives one from the guy doing it and one from his boss. Most likely they see the same thing two different ways most of the time.

However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss XXXXXX and see what he thinks. They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.

And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.


Edited to remove a name in accordance with Site Rule #7

[DDMurray]

And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.

Another example of why I try to avoid weighing in on this.  If you stay in it must be because you're mediocre.  I retire in about three months.  I will miss many aspects of being a submarine nuke.  Any bitch about things I've hated, I blamed on individuals not the program.  Sometimes it is very hard to do that when the individual is the "face of the command".  As a CPO, I believe it is my job to either fix a problem or get on board with it.  Sometimes that is tough medicine to swallow.  I wasted lots of energy as a young CPO getting wrapped around the axle about how some things got passed down.  I've learned to focus (or try to focus) on the message vice the manner in which it was delivered.

I think what pisses people off about audits is that they are inevitably graded against somebody else, vice against a hard standard.  The men in the fleet churn to respond to the latest "best practice" vice meeting the requirements.  Many steps taken recently to reduce requirements are a step in the right direction, but "leaving it up to the command" on how to document what they've done to meet requirements will inevitably force guys to train against audit and inspection reports vice the source documents.  As a member of a squadron I audit records and review training plans.  I try to do this against a standard, while at the same time trying to show ways to improve efficiency that I learned myself or have seen used effectively on other boats.  I am probably a poor auditor because I remember how hard it is to meet so many requirements while still getting the ship ready to go to sea.  I do not necessarily agree with most of the griping here; but I do respect the guys in the arena, fighting the tough fight.

With regard to audit comments, if you say, "Contrary to paragraph blah of blah, the ship failed to perform blah".  I can fix that.  If you say, "The effectivenes of the audit and surveillance program was reduced because the command never completed an overarching assessment of all the audit programs,"  I say stick it because there is no requirement for an overarching assessment.  We need men to work in accordance with a standard, not spend time drafting reports with big thoughts on how to safely do paperwork.

That's all I have to say about that (for now).

P.S.  I'm at least slightly above mediocre.  What I lack in talent, I make up for with charisma.

[deltarho]

To make sure everyone is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. In industry they are directly from EPA or FDA in the navy they are from NRL.

Our job as auditors is to look at all of the books, procedures, and personnel, as a whole and to be nit picky and overly detailed because ultimately your safety relies on us. If you inadvertently do something wrong but didn't realize it, or wrote down the wrong number ect.... it could cause procedures to be modified based on those inaccurate entries and .... ok you see where I'm going with this.

Being that I was an auditor for both EPA and FDA I will tell you that from experience everyone hates us.

Everything you do or don't do everyone is mad at you. If you find something the "company or navy personnel" are angry you don't and your boss is angry. See you are in a no win situation. Every job has two perspectives one from the guy doing it and one from his boss.

They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.

And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones.

Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.

I suggest that you get someone else to edit what you write before submitting anything to anybody that will be judging you by how well you write.  For example, ect [sic] is an abbreviation for etcetera, which is properly abbreviated as "etc."

You defend your job by saying that you and other auditors are tasked to be nit picky [sic] (should be nitpicky, which is what I'm being at this moment).  The definition for nitpicky is to be overly critical, especially on trivial matters; focused on only trivial aspects.

That is exactly what is wrong with the whole process.  You are not the saviors of trivia, but another set of eyes prone to the same mistakes that everyone else can make.  Every book I have ever read about quality basically states that there is no such thing as 100% inspection, which means that you will always miss something.  You, mister, might also miss that something.  

Your job should be to put quality into the product or process, not to inspect quality into it.  What infrastructure are you helping organizations to build to help prevent these mistakes in the first place?  This would be classified as the helpful approach.  You see, you must find something to justify your job.  You would not have a job if there is nothing to find.  Moreover, because you are not in the business of helping to prevent the "defect" from initially occurring...there will ALWAYS be something to find!

By the way,did you know that some synonyms (words that do not sound the same but could be used to mean the same thing) for nitpicky are:  Indecisive, inconsistent, changeable, capricious, vacillating, unpredictable, erratic, picky, choosy, and fussy?

Change your perspective, tell the folks how they can prevent potholes from occurring instead of pointing out a pothole they missed filling or repairing.

deltarho (on a rant--I did not take my Adderall, yet)

[Preciousblue1965]

For others I will just say that no matter if you are in the "NAVY" or in "INDUSTRY" you will be most likely working 10-15 hour days with little time for your family depending on the job and location and above all your supervisor. ....


However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss Mueller and see what he thinks. They really do care about the sailors from my experiences they just never get the whole or real stories from the Captains, Commanders, ect. on the fleet. No commander wants to tell his boss Sorry Admiral my Nukes are unhappy they are overworked and need more time off ect... So they say instead yes sir everything is fine, we have some issues to overcome but we are handling them in an effective manner.

And so out go a large portion of great sailors and we keep the mediocre ones. Sometimes it's the same way in business. You may be the smartest person in the room working for the guy who's dumb as a rock, but he's your boss and you have a job to do to make him look like he's the smartest guy in the room.

I do not believe that I have seen one post on here that has stated that nukes were unhappy because we are overworked and need more time off when that work is meaningful and mission critical.  I could be wrong.  You WILL see posts about how nukes hate being kept around "just in case" and told to work long into the night to "field day" the boat for some darn audit or ADM's inspection.  I have never heard a nuke complain about how long he has to work if they are overhauling a pump because they can't get underway without it.  I have never heard nukes complain about pulling "Port and Re-Port" watch rotations on a duty day as long as they got the next day off, if it was feasible.  I HAVE heard nukes complain about having to stay up all night painting a bulkhead because it wasn't pristine and then told they had to work until 2000 the next day also. 

If there is serious work to be done, then nukes will do the work, do it right, and won't sleep until it is done.  There will be no serious complaints about it(you might get a few comments on how crappy the coffee is).  If it is some mindless BS that is done just for the sake of being done, then yes you are going to hear about it from everyone.  To say that nukes are complaining about working too hard and needing time off is misleading and flat out wrong.  Nukes are complaining about BS work and getting liberty withheld "just in case something happens" .   

   

[War Eagle]

However some of your comments warrant more questions at the top of the chain, and that is where I can help. I will show some of them to my boss  and see what he thinks.

I would be careful about presenting this unfiltered commentary to XXXXXXXXXX, especially if you just started there.



Edited to remove a name....

Site Rule #7

7. Peoples name’s: Don’t use them, they lead to law suits. Some names are already censored because of this. Don’t use names in stories or messages that could in any way be taken wrong.

[cyclicrings]

First of all I am an engineer not an english major. Second of all I am not a mister I am a madam thank you.

The comments I made come directly from the posts within the frame work of the question asked originally. So for the guy who keeps patronizing me because I inadvertently spelled etc ect. you are going to have to do better.

 I have two doctorate degrees that I received simultaneous (at the same time,or in tandem) in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, along with a Masters in Polymer Chemistry, and a BS with Honors in Chemistry, I have worked for 13 years in industry before joining the Navy at Harris Nuclear Plant as the head chemist, Tunnell Research Institute re-designing their reactor, EPA, FDA, Exxon, Bayer, BASF, Philip Morris. So I know what I'm talking about. What's your experience again?

See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked.  So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.

Sorry about the name didn't get to rule #7 yet. Wont make that mistake again. Thanks for the knowledge. First time here as of yesterday.

[War Eagle]

See I was offering to help you guys out by actually taking to Top Command your specific grievances with the NUPOC program. But apparently you are not interested in having that opportunity. So what you are really saying is that you are unhappy but not enough to do anything about it when asked.  So then that tells me that your grievances are bogus.

Hey, I understand that you're trying to help, however, people have been much more candid on this forum than they would have been if they had known it would be presented to a section head at NR Headquarters.  Your boss and others may not receive some of the anecdotes in this thread very well.  I've been around a while and I deal with headquarters from time to time.  Its your decision to make and this is a public forum, but don't say I didn't warn you...