All ELT's, please do not be offended, for I am only seeking to be informed.

[playswithairplanes]

I'm not interested in CPO bashing discussions.  I will say two things:

1. Leadership problems exist everywhere, including civilian nuclear power.
2.  I noticed that two of the posters who brought up poor Chiefs served on tenders.  It was my experience in the navy that 2 types of people went to tender duty:  (A) Those who wanted to be in a geographical area, or (B) They couldn't make it through instructor screening and they wanted off their boat. 

On point 1, no doubt. That isn't just limited to nuclear power. Where I work we have had and still do have some pretty massive leadership problems which play out on the world stage for all to see. Our failures are writ large and cost 10s of Billions of dollars. Recovery is slow and agonizing, except for those responsible, who oddly enough haven't lost their jobs. Nepotism is a BIIIG problem. I'll leave it at that.

On point 2, I was for sure in the A category. I wanted to go to Europe, going to the tender was the only way it was going to happen from the West Coast. I wouldn't say that we had poor quality nukes. Sure some were, but not all the Chiefs were. One of the "good" Chiefs and one of the Good officers that I would work for again any time any where were on those Tenders. In fact the absolute WORST CO I ever had was on my last boat. He's certainly in the wouldn't go out of my way to piss on even if he were on fire category... but I might throw a can of gas on him. Just horrible. Was a ladder climber, and let it be known. His style was "the beatings will continue until morale improves". Literally threatened the Bull Nuke with "bad things" if we didn't do Outstanding on ORSE. I couldn't wait to get out of there. 

[metalman40]

Back in the old days one didn't need to be in the top 50% of his nuke school class to be a chief just good in rate knowledge and good evals. However you couldn't be an instructor without it.

Tender duty had it's advantages in pay and sea time clock.

I had good CPO's and officers in R-5.

[spekkio]

I wasn't chief bashing by the way, just saying the PATH to leadership in the Navy seemed to involve alot of butt-kissing and boot licking and good-old-boy type stuff.   Could you make it on hard work too, yep.  But that didn't seem to be the norm from what I saw.  Plus with alot of the cream getting out to make more money elsewhere, there wasn't as big a pile too choose from, obviously.

This is not unique to the Navy.

I worked in private businesses for 3 years prior to joining the Navy. The truest advice anyone ever gave me was an ex gf's uncle who was a millionaire lawyer with his own firm. You'd think this guy went to Harvard, but nope...state school all the way.

His advice went something like this: "You can work hard your entire life, get good grades, etc., but if that's all you do at the end of the day you'll only be a worker bee. I make more money than Harvard guys clamoring for jobs at corporate law firms because I found a good partner and we have good business sense..."

Another successful businessman commented this about layoffs: "If you're in your 40's and you still remain expendable to your organization, then you failed at life."

The point is, hard work by itself isn't enough to get ahead in this world. You can work your ass off for 80 hours a week flipping burgers at McDonald's, but at the end of all that you'll still be a 'cook' making $10/hour. If you think that the Navy promotes just based off of a "good old boys" system, wait until you try to compete for a corporate management position. Building good working relationships with people, whether it's your boss, a client, or people you supervise is a cornerstone to a successful career in almost every field. There's nothing you can do about this to change it...you either recognize it and succeed, or enjoy your self-imposed glass ceiling.

Usually the people who complain about "the system" and how their hard work goes unrecognized are sub-par performers anyway, and don't work nearly as hard as they claim they do.

[JustinHEMI05]

Another successful businessman commented this about layoffs: "If you're in your 40's and you still remain expendable to your organization, then you failed at life."

Oh I could so parlay this into a poly sci debate about unions and job stagnation, but I will resist.

Nice post, I really liked it.

Justin

[OldHP]

Another successful businessman commented this about layoffs: "If you're in your 40's and you still remain expendable to your organization, then you failed at life."

And if you think, no matter what age, you are un-expendadable, (no matter what your position) - Think Again!  Everyone can be replaced!!   

Sometimes it is hard, sometimes it is easy!  My philosophy was always, and still is, if you don't train someone else as your replacement, you can't move to the next rung.

[hamsamich]

"Plus with alot of the cream getting out to make more money elsewhere, there wasn't as big a pile too choose from, obviously."

You would have a hard time convincing me this part isn't unique in the navy.  Many people look at the Navy as a starting/jumping off point.  I did.

The other part was just part of a response to another post that said the navy was all about hard work, and just like every other organization, just not true.  Not understanding how my post says I was making a point that was unique in the Navy.  Gotta read the rest of the earlier posts unless I missed something.

[spekkio]

People decide to leave the military for all sorts of reasons. Not everyone does it because they think they're better than the military or because they just want to make more money, and not everyone joins the Navy just for college money or a jumping off point. I guarantee that if you were to ask everyone who leaves this year "where are you today" 5 years later, you'd find quite a diverse range of employment and salaries.

If you work long enough in any job, you'll come across a boss who will make you say "how the hell did this guy get hired for his job?!?" You'll also come across plenty of people who skate by doing the minimum required to avoid getting fired. If you find that to be your experience with all of your bosses and how they get promoted, the problem might be you.

[modex]

@OP: Talk to ELTs who are in now.

You can qualify secondary chemists if you want but the regulations are clear as to the circumstances under which you can qualify them. Those with the confidential books can look it up when you are bored. Also if your squadron CRA doesn't like it, he might tell your ENG it's a bad idea, and thus ship's policy is made.

LOL at the collateral duty comment. I guess that's why there is a unique primary NEC. Many boats now have Chief LELT's and you best believe those ELT's are not owned by M-Div.

[Already Gone]

His advice went something like this: "You can work hard your entire life, get good grades, etc., but if that's all you do at the end of the day you'll only be a worker bee. I make more money than Harvard guys clamoring for jobs at corporate law firms because I found a good partner and we have good business sense..."

Another successful businessman commented this about layoffs: "If you're in your 40's and you still remain expendable to your organization, then you failed at life."

Ahem.  Hmmmmhmhm.  (Just clearing my throat so you can hear me loud and clear.)  BULL$H!T!!!

Making more money is not an indicator of a successful life.  Saving money will get you rich faster than making it more times than not.  A hard worker who is good at saving will retire.  A lazy spendthrift with a six figure salary can die in poverty.

Second, If you are not expendable to your organization you are just blowing smoke up your own a$$.  I am 49 years old.  I have had at least ten jobs in my life, maybe more.  I have never quit a job.  What does that say?  Sure, I might make a little bit of money, but that can go as quickly as it came.

There is only one organization to which I am not expendable.  The members of that organization call me "Daddy".  Get that figured out and you have certainly not failed at life.

Love what you do, and you will have a successful career also.  Bobby Flay flips burgers for a living.  The difference?  Passion for life.  Care deeply about something other than yourself.  It's as simple as that.

[Gamecock]

LOL at the collateral duty comment. I guess that's why there is a unique primary NEC. Many boats now have Chief LELT's and you best believe those ELT's are not owned by M-Div.

And his guys will end up being the 19 year E-6 wanking about why he can't make chief.

[spekkio]

Making more money is not an indicator of a successful life.  Saving money will get you rich faster than making it more times than not.  A hard worker who is good at saving will retire.  A lazy spendthrift with a six figure salary can die in poverty.

It depends on what you want out of life, but in general, earning potential is largely associated with success. There are exceptions -- is a man who sacrifices his home life to make $200k more successful than someone who makes $80k but spends a lot of time with his children?

However, I disagree that saving is the panacea for getting rich. Saving liquid assets will actually cost you money in the long run. The average savings account today is in the 2% apy realm. That was barely enough to beat inflation last year and is losing to inflation this year. And if you're planning to live off of a 2% Return on Investment (ROI), you'd need enough money where you wouldn't need the interest for substinance, anyway. To actually make money -- enough to make you 'rich' at least -- you have to invest it into something that can make money for you and will continue to do it after you retire. That usually requires a lot of work on the front end, since your profit margin won't be high enough to hire people to do all that management work. Yes, there are various IRA plans and 401k plans, but the higher ROI's are riskier and not always guaranteed, while the lower, sure thing ROI's are still in the 1-3% realm. The rub is that unlike an asset that you create, you have absolutely no control over how the riskier investments behave. You just play craps with your retirement money and hope that you come out richer at the back end.

Second, If you are not expendable to your organization you are just blowing smoke up your own a$$.  I am 49 years old.  I have had at least ten jobs in my life, maybe more.  I have never quit a job.  What does that say?  Sure, I might make a little bit of money, but that can go as quickly as it came.

There is only one organization to which I am not expendable.  The members of that organization call me "Daddy".  Get that figured out and you have certainly not failed at life.

The man who said this had his own law firm, an asset that could either continue to make him money after he retired or could be sold for enough money to allow him to live his retired years in comfort. Also, as the principle investor of capital, overall manager, and someone who had built a relationship with various clients, he wasn't exactly expendable to it.

His point was not to settle for being a 9-5'er who collects a paycheck and goes home. If you work your way to an exec position who can claim that he is directly reponsibile for a high profit margin, then your job is relatively safe. If you're not producing, your job is on the chopping block. No one grows up saying that they want to work in a cubicle for 40 hours a week typing away on a computer and making phone calls, but somehow the majority of Americans end up there.

Love what you do, and you will have a successful career also.  Bobby Flay flips burgers for a living.  The difference?  Passion for life.  Care deeply about something other than yourself.  It's as simple as that.

Agree there

If you're in your 40's and your organization is not expendable for you, you need to get hot with your life planning,...

Touche!

[spekkio]

@OP: Talk to ELTs who are in now.

You can qualify secondary chemists if you want but the regulations are clear as to the circumstances under which you can qualify them. Those with the confidential books can look it up when you are bored. Also if your squadron CRA doesn't like it, he might tell your ENG it's a bad idea, and thus ship's policy is made.

LOL at the collateral duty comment. I guess that's why there is a unique primary NEC. Many boats now have Chief LELT's and you best believe those ELT's are not owned by M-Div.

Gamecock is 100% correct.

The natural career progression for a newly minted MMC (nuke ELT type) in the submarine force is to become the MLCPO. The only unique billets for a MMC ELT's are for shore duty jobs like SQELT or jobs at NRMD.

If you don't have something on your evals that demonstrates that you can handle the job of MLCPO, they most likely won't make you a nuke MMC. It's also worth noting that refusing to venture outside the realm of ERF watch, chemistry samples, and slapping a probe on pipes is going to make it difficult to qual EWS, a pre-req for CPO in the nuke Navy.

In my admittedly short career on subs, the only MMC (ELT type) of RL division we had was a washout MLCPO who was 6 months from retirement. He was fired from MLCPO after a huge incident of blasing a retest for a major maintenance item. Once he retired, we didn't get a replacement MMC for RL division. According to my ENG and guys on other boats, it's not a normal billet for a submarine to have an RLLCPO, and the MLCPO is responsible for midterm counseling and evals for RL division.

[Already Gone]

spekkio, you are young, and it is admirable that you understand the mechanics of investing.  Also admirable is your ambition to make an important place for yourself in your business endeavors.

But please realize a few things.

One, the headlines are full every day of "successful", rich lawyers who are: going to jail, in jail, found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head (sometimes with a house full of dead children and a spouse as well).
They all have their own law firms too.  Bernie Madoff was the picture of economic success in this country.
So was Ken Lay.
Donald Trump lives a pretty opulent lifestyle, but Warren buffet could buy Trump's entire holdings with the change in his sofa.  He drives a Ford and buys his suits off the rack.
Which of these is more successful?  Is either? Or, is it a tie?  Who can say?

Two, I wasn't talking about saving your pennies in a passbook account.  When I said "saving" I meant not spending your money an a lot of useless crap that won't comfort you in your old age.

Three, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a 9 to 5er who collects his check and goes home and never moves into an executive position.  If it gets you what you need and asks no more than you are willing to give in return, it's a pretty good deal.

Four, don't kid yourself into thinking that being productive will save your ass.  Many jobs are taken from productive intelligent people, because "down-sizing" them will save the jobs of their lazy, short-sighted, greedy bosses.  Being a moneymaker for your employer will not always keep you safe.  Being an un-productive drag on their profit margin won't necessarily endanger you either.  This is the real world we're talking about.

You ARE NOT what YOU DO.
You ARE NOT what YOU OWN.
You ARE NOT what OTHERS THINK of you.

You ARE what YOU LOVE in this world. 
Money and employment are simply a means to attaining and sustaining your true passions.

If you are a Cubs fan, be a great Cubs fan.
If you are a father and husband, be great at that.
If you just get off on selling real estate, or used cars, or mutual funds, then do it with all you have.  But the guy next to you is not less of a success simply because his priorities are elsewhere.

It is the rare individual who finds a job that fills his life with joy.  You don't know whether to envy them or pity them.  In a way, they are the luckiest, because they enjoy their jobs.  It makes you wonder though if they have any other joy in their lives.

I guess it is all about balance.  If you know your priorities (which isn't all that common, sadly) and you keep your life arranged in that order, you'll be a success.

[spekkio]

spekkio, you are young, and it is admirable that you understand the mechanics of investing.  Also admirable is your ambition to make an important place for yourself in your business endeavors.

Don't have business endeavors -- not yet, anyway -- still in the Navy.

One, the headlines are full every day of "successful", rich lawyers who are: going to jail, in jail, found with a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head (sometimes with a house full of dead children and a spouse as well).
They all have their own law firms too.

Irrelevant. There are plenty of suicidal and deranged poor people, too. The possession of money does not cause you to be these things, so I'm not sure where you're going with this other than to falsely imply there's some kind of correlation between wealth and social derangement.

News of a poor person killing someone just doesn't sell as well as a celebrity killing someone, so naturally the headlines (at least the one you'll notice) are going to be skewed toward the latter.

Two, I wasn't talking about saving your pennies in a passbook account.  When I said "saving" I meant not spending your money an a lot of useless crap that won't comfort you in your old age.

That's a vague statement. There are a lot of things you can do with your money when you 'save' it. Most people, when they refer to 'saving', are talking about CD's, savings accounts, 401k's, etc. All of these methods largely equate to 'pennies in passbook account' in the scheme of earning potential. All it really does is allow people, like myself, to put excess money in an account that won't lose value over the next 20-40 years, so when I retire I can supplement my social security/pension/whatever with my savings from my younger years adjusted for inflation.

I'm sorry that I made a wrongful assumption if you were talking about something else, but at least do me the favor of defining what you're actually talking about.

Three, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a 9 to 5er who collects his check and goes home and never moves into an executive position.  If it gets you what you need and asks no more than you are willing to give in return, it's a pretty good deal.

I didn't say there was something wrong with it. I said it makes you more expendable. There are a bigger supply of workers who can do your job effectively.

Four, don't kid yourself into thinking that being productive will save your ass.  Many jobs are taken from productive intelligent people, because "down-sizing" them will save the jobs of their lazy, short-sighted, greedy bosses.  Being a moneymaker for your employer will not always keep you safe.  Being an un-productive drag on their profit margin won't necessarily endanger you either.  This is the real world we're talking about.

I said nothing about productive and intelligent people, I said people who seriously contribute to the profit margin of the company. The janitor at a large company is both productive and might be very intelligent, but laying him off and replacing him with a less experienced janitor at 75% pay is going to increase the profit margin. The VP who has doubled earnings since taking the job, on the other hand, is a bit less expendable. He might have a bigger salary, but laying him off and hiring someone on the cheap could seriously dent the bottom-line.

[Llama]

And if you think, no matter what age, you are un-expendadable, (no matter what your position) - Think Again!  Everyone can be replaced!!  

Sometimes it is hard, sometimes it is easy!  My philosophy was always, and still is, if you don't train someone else as your replacement, you can't move to the next rung.

Hopefully not to get too far off topic. A caveat to the first part is to find a niche in the indusrty where there is no substitute for experience. While this doesn't guarantee that you are expendable it does limit the selection process by which your employer can replace you. It would be difficult to replace someone who the Regulators trust and call by name.  

Very sound advice on the second part. You may become too indispensable in your current position insofar as your employer would find it to their advantage not to advance you and lose your skillset.

[Cycoticpenguin]

sounds like you gentlemen need a gold member account so you can discuss this further in the poly sci section

[Higgs]

What does panacea mean?

And if someone says google it, I am smiting them.

Justin

[spekkio]

I dunno, what DOES panacea mean? 

[Higgs]

Thanks. You smart people and your fancy words.... 

[Already Gone]

Maybe a moderator can split this topic into a new one.

Spekkio,
I am not going to quibble with you over the meanings of words and the definition of success.  For no one person can define success for another.  Your lawyer friend may seem successful to you, but a disappointment to himself.  Who can say?

I'll leave you with the advice of a much wiser man.

9 Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun.

10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.

11 I returned and saw under the sun that—

      The race is not to the swift,
      Nor the battle to the strong,
      Nor bread to the wise,
      Nor riches to men of understanding,
      Nor favor to men of skill;
      But time and chance happen to them all.
       12 For man also does not know his time:
      Like fish taken in a cruel net,
      Like birds caught in a snare,
      So the sons of men are snared in an evil time,
      When it falls suddenly upon them.

[MacGyver]

No need to split now that the thread is compliant with BZNWGenOp01;
To wit;

ELT's are known to be as wise as Solomon, powerful as Chuck Norris and as charming as Matthew McConaughey, or some combination of all three,....

All of which answers the OP;

And there you have it,....back on-topic,....

still keep forgetting,....

Just keep'in it real ... 






Hehehehehehehehe ...

[730SMAG]

ELT's are known to be as wise as Solomon, powerful as Chuck Norris and as charming as Matthew McConaughey, or some combination of all three,....

At least that's what we document.   

[Fermi2]

LOL I just got it!

[Cycoticpenguin]

LOL I just got it!

haha and here I am thinking youre some kind of super intelligent person... sheesh mike, what are you doin us...

[fiveeleven]

Finally ! After a somewhat lengthy mean free path through a labyrinthine quagmire of seemingly off-topic banter, the legend and mystique lives on. You have your mates - electrician and machinist, your technicians - electronic, instrumentation/control and last but impossibly least, engineering laboratory. Never in the history of Propulsion, Navy Nuclear, 1 each; not since the third entity of the nuclear tri-une swilled his first shot of coolant, has there been a more storied group of swabbies as they who in a single bound, can leap amidships over the Prise. May the legend live on. MM2/ELT USS NIMITZ CVN-68 80-84.  BOHICA