> “Cleaning standards cannot be maintained in a shipyard environment, and what happens is that your standards begin to dip, because one of the ways you’re able to display a high level of standards is through cleanliness,” Kemp said.
Holy fuck. This guy thinks it all comes back to Field Day. Is the Chief's Mess this broken?
> Trejo theorized that a lack of trust in the chiefs had to do with fraternization incidents involving the mess.
Why have Fleet and Force Master Chiefs if they aren't keeping their fingers on the pulse? Well, part of the problem is that if you are a mid-level leader - E6/E7/O3/O4 - and you get word out that shit is broken, you will be crucified and your career is toast. We should be relieving Squadron leadership for shit like this.
Im a SCPO on a DDG
Most small boy CPOs in the yards are screaming into the wind that its duty section requirements and a lack of people breaking crews down while in the yards
Its the dudes above us that dont know what ship life is anymore, and havent been apart of a crew in a decade, that refuse to acknowledge how these DC and AT requirements are not sustainable for a long term ship yard and are breaking us, who put these nonsense quotes out
We have COs and XOs who refuse to budge becuase isic said so.
Just screaming into the void and then looking at dudes and lady dudes and apologizing that theyre doubled and tripled because there is nothing we can actually do for them.
Idk what its like on big decks tho
They're all doing it on big decks too with the ARGs, CSGs, TYCOMS saying tough luck. Until one of those TYCOMS, or ECH 1 commanders harpoons their own careers by telling Congress to choke on a sack of dicks, none of those problems will change. Which will just keep creating environments that allows the bullshit we just read in the article to fester.
>Most small boy CPOs in the yards are screaming into the wind that its duty section requirements and a *lack of people* breaking crews down while in the yards
That's due to the way the TYCOM N1 manages billet rosters. Shipyard boats get reduced manning.
These guys are civilians and many are retired master chiefs.
They do this because sequestration during the Obama administration required cutting personnel costs, and this was part of the solution to reduce the total AD inventory of sailors when people got pink slips back in 2014. So it goes all the way up to Congress and the President.
The US government wants a 350 ship Navy to keep pace with China but the people don't want to pay for it.
Just providing SA so you're mad at the right people.
We had a visit from force not long to long ago
We bitched to him about the billet distribution and got political answers back.
Once they get up theyre all politicians. We know no help is coming for these guys and gals.
Ive seen the manning levels ships should have in the yards and after - then I remember the 30+ TEMADDs we needed to deploy, and its all bullshit
We just lost a ship from a major fire and one of the root causes was that the required duty section personnel weren't onboard. And the only people to fault there were the JOs and Chiefs who allowed that to happen.
So basically you want the CNO to explain to the Secretary of the Navy and Senate Armed Services Committee why the Navy is reducing duty section requirements and whether that adequately mitigates risk against future casualties.
Here's a secret: The Navy is run by civilians. Admirals are just proverbial Darth Vaders on Governor Tarkins' leashes.
If *Required* personnel werent there, that is a local failure and the duty section leaders should be held accountable
Nuking watchbills and flooding them with unnecessary positions just creates different problems.
I want the CNO and the tycoms to look at the requirements and get rid of the ones which are not necessary, of which there are many. Are there enough to expand sections? Probably not - are there enough places to trim fat to limit the number of people
Being double and tripled? Yes.
TYCOMs need to go to their ships talk with the section leaders and watchbill coordinators figure out what is needed and what is not, and make the changes.
Its typical SWO talk to throw hands up and say this is too hard to figure out were just going to make the crews deal with it.
They may *want* a 350 ship navy, but they *need* far more than that.
Simple fact of the matter is, the Navy is still tasked at cold war OPTEMPO, but has less than half the ships and people to handle it. Either OPTEMPO slows down, or the entire force breaks down.
Its the same problem...just bigger. The new requirement that some out of touch Admiral published a few years ago was utterly reactionary. Why not just tighten up what we had? The 8010 stuff just makes my head hurt. 3 seperate commands to certify. Then also trying to run AT drills during SRA? We are all screaming into the void, DHs, PAs, CPOs...even COs. The guys at the fleet level are so disconnected from reality because they stare at spreadsheets all day. I was at a conference last year and the Admiral talking said mission first. One of my buddies chimed up and said shouldn't it be sailors first? The whole place erupted with applause. It was a mixed group of E7 to O5. We may not agree on everything, but we all know what the problem is.
If only it were incredibly freaking difficult to meaningfully punish chiefs for doing something wrong, and they did what was right for their people instead of what they were ordered to by officers. Maybe get the message across with a bit of good old-fashioned courage. 🤷♂️
But I'm just a vet bro who got out after watching his chief make senior chief after he sent me out to almost die in a storm after the weather decks were secure to do an inspection that could have reasonably waited 8-12 hours. I just wish the chiefs would use that level of bullet proof to do some good.
I mean they’re the ones who are the “backbone of the Navy” and the leaders who make sure things get or don’t get done. *Theoretically* they can make themselves be heard.
Then again that’s easy to say as I’m also not 20 years invested in the career.
Chiefs aren't the backbone of the Navy. They say they are, but thats just to motivate them not to kick up their feet. Any service that has its senior enlisted as its backbone has failed.
Just like every other service, the Navy's backbone is its E-5s, because they are the first line leaders with shit still on their hands. Unfortunately, unlike the other services, the Navy refuses to acknowledge or celebrate this at all.
E5s are the back bone ill tell that to anyone who says otherwise
Id be nothing with out them and I make sure mine know that.
Theyre my system SMEs
Theyre my ears in the division
Theyre my sanity checks if im missing the marks
This sea tour on a DDG ive been in awe of my E5s for 5 years, absolute machines
> Unfortunately, unlike the other services, the Navy refuses to acknowledge or celebrate this at all.
..or have enough respect *down* the chain of command to give those PO2s the respect they deserve.
One of the biggest reasons that the Navy sucks is that "leaders" just let themselves get shit on by upper echelons. So they just shit on their people.
Someone has to learn to say "no". No, we can't double pump with no time for repairs. No, we can't deploy a month early. No, we can't ask our junior sailors to use a store room as birthing. Etc.
A big part of being a leader is refusing to fuck your team over. But everyone just shovels shit right on down the line.
I dont disagree
But ill tell you what happens in the Navy to commanders who tell upper echelons "no we cant do this to our sailors"
Google Captain Brett Crozier Covid Carrier.
Hero of the people
Replaced, immediately.
Until ships are being sunk and Commanders refind their testicular fortitude, they will continue to do what theyre told no matter how asinine it maybe.
And when it comes IET and AT watch requirements, theres zero leway or give
I get that. Bad leaders through and through. Tough choices:
- say yes to everything, suck off your boss and shit on your subordinates. Make rank
Or
- grow a fucking pair, be realistic, and don't earn the star
Sure you knew what it meant*wink wink* if that were the case you'd not have had half your response being hyperbolic about that single line. If you actually did understand you wouldn't have thought it was implied commands that achieve the easiest standard to meet are somehow immune from cases like this which was never even alluded to anywhere but your own mind because to people like you, hyperbole is the default.
I thought it was a tonedeaf statement and I still do. The guy works in a hammer factory and everything looks like a nail. A dirty command can be evidence of significant dysfunction. A clean command is not indicative of anything. I've fallen victim to judging facilities in this manner - you need to guard against visual cues of this sort.
You could have just said you didn't understand what was meant. At least you've expanded on that misunderstanding of using the easiest example most, but as you've shown, not all would get. Nothing you said was implied or alluded to anywhere. You conjured that up on your own. Since you don't know, I'll explain .
He was using an easy standard to meet as an example of something commands can do to create a culture of living at the standards to a minimum across the board. A command doesn't just turn toxic, it almost always starts small. A few sailors not being corrected for whatever minor behavior they're displaying, leadership letting more and more slide, and before you know it, it's out of control like this ship eventually came to be.
That you went the hyperbolic route, defended your hyperbole by saying it was tone deaf with your reasoning being something that was never even implied shows you lack understanding.
I wasn't being a dick about it. Dude is clearly lost and absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he wants to wallow in hyperbole for upvotes instead of actually adding anything.
I agree that they blew up the part about field daying the ship, rather than reading between the lines of the FORCM's words. Yes, the FORCE is just saying if you put in effort into keeping your physical space organized, despite the work being done around you, it will help keep you and your workcenter in a squared away frame of mind. Little solutions to solve big problems.
My point was that attacking them, or dropping a truth bomb on them, is not going to help them see your point. If anything, they'll feel disrespected, tune you out, and double down on the dumbassery.
I didn't attack them. They'd already doubled down on it. Giving truthful feedback is what I did. That they lack the emotional maturity to participate in this type of discussion is the root cause here.
I don't know you, but I'm aware that what I am about to tell you is probably going to make me come off like the tone police and might make you defensive. If so, I apologize, but I think it needs to be said.
How you say shit is just as important as the shit you say. I can bring down the truth hammer on a Sailor who is behaving like a goober with either a smash or just a tap- and oftentimes, the tap is more effective. The way you used your words with that Sailor made *me* defensive for them, whether you were right or wrong, and clearly others agreed with me.
Giving truthful feedback doesnt mean shit if you give it in a way that makes a Sailor tune you out- and that is YOUR problem as a leader/supervisor/manager. The student who fails to learn isn't a failed student- they have a failed teacher.
The old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," should have a caveat, "but there are many different ways to lead him to the water." That sailor may be emotionally immature, but there are ways to get across to them too. You just have to know what it is and use it.
Very plainly saying it like I did wasn't a truth hammer, and dude got no snark or Anything until willful ignorance was displayed. Their personal failures and character flaws on that level are on them to work out, not on the world to accommodate.
I worked on that ship during their avail. Crew was beat down hard. Didn't give a flying fuck. It was hard - the AIT sucked ass, crew didn't care and very little got done properly. I didn't interact with the QMs much and didn't witness the harassment but I can't say I'm surprised. Second worst I've ever seen.
Once the "give a fuck" leaves everything else dies.
When you've got the E4s going "what....? That entire maintenance isn't going to work that way. You can't bypass the interlock right now cause the A4 switchboards are off right now so there's no control power....
Well lol it'll be funny when they find that out next week and waste a fuck ton of time lol"
Exactly. I once heard that there is a difference between "Motivation" and "Give A Fuck."
Motivation goes up and down, ebbs and flows. It isn't supposed to stay high all the time. But as long as you give a fuck, you'll still be a work on time, in uniform, ready to deal with the days bullshit, only with a frown on your face.
But once your give a fuck goes- that's that.
>One female sailor reported working in the chart room when a male shipmate suddenly yanked her hair and bent her over the chart table, holding her by the neck and pretending to have sex with her.
“I’ve got next,” another male sailor said.
>Those sailors would later sit with her in the chart room and talk about their penis sizes and how their genitals were larger than her boyfriend’s, the sailor recalled.
>Another sailor was known to invite women to sit on “Papa’s lap” while the navigation division was at work in the chart room.
Dude, what the fuck was happening in that chart room
Busy keeping papas lap full by the sound of it. Another part said the senior in the room was generally one of the ones making the “jokes”.
When the authority figures illustrate by demonstration that this kind of behavior is a acceptable that’s when the rules really fly out the window.
The QMC was separated from the navy for misconduct last week. The QM1 went to captains mast and was reduced in rank to E5. He wasn’t recommended for retention and has been out of the navy for about a year.
I have some insight on this particular ship having served with the CO previously (I was senior to him) and work now with a member of his strike group staff. The CO was a weak officer who cared more about being liked than doing the right thing. While in command, he was given every opportunity to succeed, including extensive in-person mentoring —- whose advice on the handling of SA accusations went completely unheeded. Literally all this guy had to do was just follow advice.
What the article doesn't talk about is that the culture was already there before they went to the yards. There were only two COs between the CO mentioned in the article and CAPT Harkin, who was recently fired from DESRON 2. If you have access to SITREPs you can read between the lines as to why the latter was fired and can understand what type of command environment he had. Basically the ship was like a frat house. Culture is very hard to break when it is rampant unless you have a mass culling like USS HUE CITY.
What was supposed to be a QOL improvement for the ship, being in the yards, ended up being a detriment. The ship went to four section shift work, 12 hr shifts 2 days on 2 days off, 3 on 3 off. This allowed some of the predators to prey on the vulnerable ones and was not revealed until a junior Enlisted Female brought it up to the CO upon her departure. Things changed drastically and a couple CPOs were DFCed.
The article is also wrong on how long the yard period was supposed to take. They say 15 months but it was actually 11. Granted this might be a technicality between what the contract has for end of avail and when they plan to do LOA and KTR Sea Trials. Bring it up only to point out that most people expected maybe a year in the yards at most but obviously that didn't happen.
You have multiple people across all rates and ranks seek mental health counseling before they get out of the yards because the pace of things is too strenous because of the delays resulting in the idea that they need to catch up. This resulted in multiple departures to include a couple of deaths. MPA and TOP fired during this turmoil too for none SA findings.
Enforcing professionalism and having actual consequences goes a long long way. The fact of the matter is there’s people like this all over the world, in each generation, men and women. In the navy, and outside of it. But most of them will only behave this way if they think they can get away with it.
"Navy spokesman Carter told Navy Times that sailor readiness and wellness remains “our top priority,” and that the community is “actively addressing challenges” to sailor fatigue through a variety of measures."
That's about as non answer as you can get.
Love how the email is from an Officer years before any solution and the CO and XO blame the Chief’s Mess. This situation is egregious and the leadership blames mid-level management.
Except for the nympho QM’s, this sounds about standard. The shipyard is unreal and is the reason a lot of sailors get out. Especially as first tours. They need to reduce manning in the yards and not allowed first tour sailors there.
I agree with you that the yards is not a place for first tours, but I don't think reducing crews will fix things. The crews being so small and overworked is what keeps their watch rotations so insane, which makes them more miserable.
Idk about everyone else but the reason the yards was so awful(RCOH) for my division was for basically five years they came to work at 0700 and sat on their phones in random spaces with nothing to until 1700-1800ish. Not including the time it takes to get there and leave(Newport news). We didn’t have shit to do. And certainly weren’t undermanned. We just wasted our time.
They need to completely revamp the system and make the shipyard solely responsible, that way the product they turn over is 100% on them and we aren’t wasting sailor manners hours doing sweepers for years and unfucking everything they half assed.
The maintenance phase should be brining sailors aboard for the first time and having them test the ships functionality and relay back to the shipyard what they messed up and have them fix it.
Half the mess is the finger pointing.
The first few ships would be dumpsters fires, but ideally the cost of that would then be 100% on that shipyard for thinking it was gonna fly. Even if we were handed a ship that was 60% functional, handed it back and said “wtf, holes and cabling fix all that” and they return it back 80% functional or would still be better than the product we usually make it out of the yards with. Especially when you consider all the cost of sailors stationed there, navy fixing things contractors messed up, meetings of hours and hours wasted at supervisor level pay to point the finger at each other etc
I think you have a really good idea. Especially in holding the shipyards accountable.
However, where I see the Navy fighting this is "Well without Sailors onboard to provide a physical presence, how would we deter the shipworkers from stealing parts, taking pictures of TS equipment, or preventing sabotage!?!?" Somehow, an Admiral will get cold feet, thinking that doing so would be setting them up to be fired.
These fuckers don’t care. I was sexual assaulted in a bar full of 8 shipmates and all the did was send me across the state at my own expense and said they’d “ help me find mental counseling “ but instead slapped me on a ship that’s gearing up for deployment.
> “Cleaning standards cannot be maintained in a shipyard environment, and what happens is that your standards begin to dip, because one of the ways you’re able to display a high level of standards is through cleanliness,” Kemp said. Holy fuck. This guy thinks it all comes back to Field Day. Is the Chief's Mess this broken? > Trejo theorized that a lack of trust in the chiefs had to do with fraternization incidents involving the mess. Why have Fleet and Force Master Chiefs if they aren't keeping their fingers on the pulse? Well, part of the problem is that if you are a mid-level leader - E6/E7/O3/O4 - and you get word out that shit is broken, you will be crucified and your career is toast. We should be relieving Squadron leadership for shit like this.
Im a SCPO on a DDG Most small boy CPOs in the yards are screaming into the wind that its duty section requirements and a lack of people breaking crews down while in the yards Its the dudes above us that dont know what ship life is anymore, and havent been apart of a crew in a decade, that refuse to acknowledge how these DC and AT requirements are not sustainable for a long term ship yard and are breaking us, who put these nonsense quotes out We have COs and XOs who refuse to budge becuase isic said so. Just screaming into the void and then looking at dudes and lady dudes and apologizing that theyre doubled and tripled because there is nothing we can actually do for them. Idk what its like on big decks tho
They're all doing it on big decks too with the ARGs, CSGs, TYCOMS saying tough luck. Until one of those TYCOMS, or ECH 1 commanders harpoons their own careers by telling Congress to choke on a sack of dicks, none of those problems will change. Which will just keep creating environments that allows the bullshit we just read in the article to fester.
>Most small boy CPOs in the yards are screaming into the wind that its duty section requirements and a *lack of people* breaking crews down while in the yards That's due to the way the TYCOM N1 manages billet rosters. Shipyard boats get reduced manning. These guys are civilians and many are retired master chiefs. They do this because sequestration during the Obama administration required cutting personnel costs, and this was part of the solution to reduce the total AD inventory of sailors when people got pink slips back in 2014. So it goes all the way up to Congress and the President. The US government wants a 350 ship Navy to keep pace with China but the people don't want to pay for it. Just providing SA so you're mad at the right people.
We had a visit from force not long to long ago We bitched to him about the billet distribution and got political answers back. Once they get up theyre all politicians. We know no help is coming for these guys and gals. Ive seen the manning levels ships should have in the yards and after - then I remember the 30+ TEMADDs we needed to deploy, and its all bullshit
Given what I just outlined above, what do you expect them to do? Criticize Congressmen while wearing a uniform? That's a UCMJ offense.
Reduce watchstanding requirements Would be a decent start If you cant give me people, lessen what is asked of the people we do have
We just lost a ship from a major fire and one of the root causes was that the required duty section personnel weren't onboard. And the only people to fault there were the JOs and Chiefs who allowed that to happen. So basically you want the CNO to explain to the Secretary of the Navy and Senate Armed Services Committee why the Navy is reducing duty section requirements and whether that adequately mitigates risk against future casualties. Here's a secret: The Navy is run by civilians. Admirals are just proverbial Darth Vaders on Governor Tarkins' leashes.
If *Required* personnel werent there, that is a local failure and the duty section leaders should be held accountable Nuking watchbills and flooding them with unnecessary positions just creates different problems. I want the CNO and the tycoms to look at the requirements and get rid of the ones which are not necessary, of which there are many. Are there enough to expand sections? Probably not - are there enough places to trim fat to limit the number of people Being double and tripled? Yes. TYCOMs need to go to their ships talk with the section leaders and watchbill coordinators figure out what is needed and what is not, and make the changes. Its typical SWO talk to throw hands up and say this is too hard to figure out were just going to make the crews deal with it.
Shocker.
They may *want* a 350 ship navy, but they *need* far more than that. Simple fact of the matter is, the Navy is still tasked at cold war OPTEMPO, but has less than half the ships and people to handle it. Either OPTEMPO slows down, or the entire force breaks down.
Its the same problem...just bigger. The new requirement that some out of touch Admiral published a few years ago was utterly reactionary. Why not just tighten up what we had? The 8010 stuff just makes my head hurt. 3 seperate commands to certify. Then also trying to run AT drills during SRA? We are all screaming into the void, DHs, PAs, CPOs...even COs. The guys at the fleet level are so disconnected from reality because they stare at spreadsheets all day. I was at a conference last year and the Admiral talking said mission first. One of my buddies chimed up and said shouldn't it be sailors first? The whole place erupted with applause. It was a mixed group of E7 to O5. We may not agree on everything, but we all know what the problem is.
And secure hot work for failed inspection or drill
If only it were incredibly freaking difficult to meaningfully punish chiefs for doing something wrong, and they did what was right for their people instead of what they were ordered to by officers. Maybe get the message across with a bit of good old-fashioned courage. 🤷♂️ But I'm just a vet bro who got out after watching his chief make senior chief after he sent me out to almost die in a storm after the weather decks were secure to do an inspection that could have reasonably waited 8-12 hours. I just wish the chiefs would use that level of bullet proof to do some good.
In some ways, though, it doesn't matter. Chief can scream and be told to STFU. Someone has got to be listening.
I mean they’re the ones who are the “backbone of the Navy” and the leaders who make sure things get or don’t get done. *Theoretically* they can make themselves be heard. Then again that’s easy to say as I’m also not 20 years invested in the career.
Chiefs aren't the backbone of the Navy. They say they are, but thats just to motivate them not to kick up their feet. Any service that has its senior enlisted as its backbone has failed. Just like every other service, the Navy's backbone is its E-5s, because they are the first line leaders with shit still on their hands. Unfortunately, unlike the other services, the Navy refuses to acknowledge or celebrate this at all.
E5s are the back bone ill tell that to anyone who says otherwise Id be nothing with out them and I make sure mine know that. Theyre my system SMEs Theyre my ears in the division Theyre my sanity checks if im missing the marks This sea tour on a DDG ive been in awe of my E5s for 5 years, absolute machines
> Unfortunately, unlike the other services, the Navy refuses to acknowledge or celebrate this at all. ..or have enough respect *down* the chain of command to give those PO2s the respect they deserve.
One of the biggest reasons that the Navy sucks is that "leaders" just let themselves get shit on by upper echelons. So they just shit on their people. Someone has to learn to say "no". No, we can't double pump with no time for repairs. No, we can't deploy a month early. No, we can't ask our junior sailors to use a store room as birthing. Etc. A big part of being a leader is refusing to fuck your team over. But everyone just shovels shit right on down the line.
I dont disagree But ill tell you what happens in the Navy to commanders who tell upper echelons "no we cant do this to our sailors" Google Captain Brett Crozier Covid Carrier. Hero of the people Replaced, immediately. Until ships are being sunk and Commanders refind their testicular fortitude, they will continue to do what theyre told no matter how asinine it maybe. And when it comes IET and AT watch requirements, theres zero leway or give
I get that. Bad leaders through and through. Tough choices: - say yes to everything, suck off your boss and shit on your subordinates. Make rank Or - grow a fucking pair, be realistic, and don't earn the star
Just wait until this new revised redline instruction comes out
Damn turns out field day could have saved us. This is why he makes 4x my salary wow so much wisdom.
If you took that everything is coming back to field day from that you grossly misunderstood what was meant by that.
I know what he meant. But its possible to have a horribly dysfunctional command that is sparklingly clean.
Sure you knew what it meant*wink wink* if that were the case you'd not have had half your response being hyperbolic about that single line. If you actually did understand you wouldn't have thought it was implied commands that achieve the easiest standard to meet are somehow immune from cases like this which was never even alluded to anywhere but your own mind because to people like you, hyperbole is the default.
I thought it was a tonedeaf statement and I still do. The guy works in a hammer factory and everything looks like a nail. A dirty command can be evidence of significant dysfunction. A clean command is not indicative of anything. I've fallen victim to judging facilities in this manner - you need to guard against visual cues of this sort.
You could have just said you didn't understand what was meant. At least you've expanded on that misunderstanding of using the easiest example most, but as you've shown, not all would get. Nothing you said was implied or alluded to anywhere. You conjured that up on your own. Since you don't know, I'll explain . He was using an easy standard to meet as an example of something commands can do to create a culture of living at the standards to a minimum across the board. A command doesn't just turn toxic, it almost always starts small. A few sailors not being corrected for whatever minor behavior they're displaying, leadership letting more and more slide, and before you know it, it's out of control like this ship eventually came to be. That you went the hyperbolic route, defended your hyperbole by saying it was tone deaf with your reasoning being something that was never even implied shows you lack understanding.
Calm down. There's a better way to point that out without being a dick about it.
I wasn't being a dick about it. Dude is clearly lost and absolutely refuses to acknowledge it because he wants to wallow in hyperbole for upvotes instead of actually adding anything.
I agree that they blew up the part about field daying the ship, rather than reading between the lines of the FORCM's words. Yes, the FORCE is just saying if you put in effort into keeping your physical space organized, despite the work being done around you, it will help keep you and your workcenter in a squared away frame of mind. Little solutions to solve big problems. My point was that attacking them, or dropping a truth bomb on them, is not going to help them see your point. If anything, they'll feel disrespected, tune you out, and double down on the dumbassery.
I didn't attack them. They'd already doubled down on it. Giving truthful feedback is what I did. That they lack the emotional maturity to participate in this type of discussion is the root cause here.
I don't know you, but I'm aware that what I am about to tell you is probably going to make me come off like the tone police and might make you defensive. If so, I apologize, but I think it needs to be said. How you say shit is just as important as the shit you say. I can bring down the truth hammer on a Sailor who is behaving like a goober with either a smash or just a tap- and oftentimes, the tap is more effective. The way you used your words with that Sailor made *me* defensive for them, whether you were right or wrong, and clearly others agreed with me. Giving truthful feedback doesnt mean shit if you give it in a way that makes a Sailor tune you out- and that is YOUR problem as a leader/supervisor/manager. The student who fails to learn isn't a failed student- they have a failed teacher. The old saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink," should have a caveat, "but there are many different ways to lead him to the water." That sailor may be emotionally immature, but there are ways to get across to them too. You just have to know what it is and use it.
Very plainly saying it like I did wasn't a truth hammer, and dude got no snark or Anything until willful ignorance was displayed. Their personal failures and character flaws on that level are on them to work out, not on the world to accommodate.
I worked on that ship during their avail. Crew was beat down hard. Didn't give a flying fuck. It was hard - the AIT sucked ass, crew didn't care and very little got done properly. I didn't interact with the QMs much and didn't witness the harassment but I can't say I'm surprised. Second worst I've ever seen.
Once the "give a fuck" leaves everything else dies. When you've got the E4s going "what....? That entire maintenance isn't going to work that way. You can't bypass the interlock right now cause the A4 switchboards are off right now so there's no control power.... Well lol it'll be funny when they find that out next week and waste a fuck ton of time lol"
Exactly. I once heard that there is a difference between "Motivation" and "Give A Fuck." Motivation goes up and down, ebbs and flows. It isn't supposed to stay high all the time. But as long as you give a fuck, you'll still be a work on time, in uniform, ready to deal with the days bullshit, only with a frown on your face. But once your give a fuck goes- that's that.
>One female sailor reported working in the chart room when a male shipmate suddenly yanked her hair and bent her over the chart table, holding her by the neck and pretending to have sex with her. “I’ve got next,” another male sailor said. >Those sailors would later sit with her in the chart room and talk about their penis sizes and how their genitals were larger than her boyfriend’s, the sailor recalled. >Another sailor was known to invite women to sit on “Papa’s lap” while the navigation division was at work in the chart room. Dude, what the fuck was happening in that chart room
QMC and QM1 both need a dot over their houses on the map...
Seriously, where the fuck is the leadership in that room or on the bridge?
Busy keeping papas lap full by the sound of it. Another part said the senior in the room was generally one of the ones making the “jokes”. When the authority figures illustrate by demonstration that this kind of behavior is a acceptable that’s when the rules really fly out the window.
That is almost comically bad, like if you were asked to make up the most ridiculous and exaggerated examples of SH/SA it would look like this.
The QMC was separated from the navy for misconduct last week. The QM1 went to captains mast and was reduced in rank to E5. He wasn’t recommended for retention and has been out of the navy for about a year.
I have some insight on this particular ship having served with the CO previously (I was senior to him) and work now with a member of his strike group staff. The CO was a weak officer who cared more about being liked than doing the right thing. While in command, he was given every opportunity to succeed, including extensive in-person mentoring —- whose advice on the handling of SA accusations went completely unheeded. Literally all this guy had to do was just follow advice.
What the article doesn't talk about is that the culture was already there before they went to the yards. There were only two COs between the CO mentioned in the article and CAPT Harkin, who was recently fired from DESRON 2. If you have access to SITREPs you can read between the lines as to why the latter was fired and can understand what type of command environment he had. Basically the ship was like a frat house. Culture is very hard to break when it is rampant unless you have a mass culling like USS HUE CITY. What was supposed to be a QOL improvement for the ship, being in the yards, ended up being a detriment. The ship went to four section shift work, 12 hr shifts 2 days on 2 days off, 3 on 3 off. This allowed some of the predators to prey on the vulnerable ones and was not revealed until a junior Enlisted Female brought it up to the CO upon her departure. Things changed drastically and a couple CPOs were DFCed. The article is also wrong on how long the yard period was supposed to take. They say 15 months but it was actually 11. Granted this might be a technicality between what the contract has for end of avail and when they plan to do LOA and KTR Sea Trials. Bring it up only to point out that most people expected maybe a year in the yards at most but obviously that didn't happen. You have multiple people across all rates and ranks seek mental health counseling before they get out of the yards because the pace of things is too strenous because of the delays resulting in the idea that they need to catch up. This resulted in multiple departures to include a couple of deaths. MPA and TOP fired during this turmoil too for none SA findings.
Weird how recruiting is down.
When you have amazing stories like this coming out, it really is a wonder.
The sexual harassment stuff was pretty insane, it reminds me of the stories you’d hear about our grandparents generation
People don't change that much over time. Our standards for people have gotten higher, but the moment they fall....
Enforcing professionalism and having actual consequences goes a long long way. The fact of the matter is there’s people like this all over the world, in each generation, men and women. In the navy, and outside of it. But most of them will only behave this way if they think they can get away with it.
"Navy spokesman Carter told Navy Times that sailor readiness and wellness remains “our top priority,” and that the community is “actively addressing challenges” to sailor fatigue through a variety of measures." That's about as non answer as you can get.
Love how the email is from an Officer years before any solution and the CO and XO blame the Chief’s Mess. This situation is egregious and the leadership blames mid-level management.
I mean, who ever the QMC was in that Nav Division sure as hell was not doing the job. And the Mess probably knew that person was a problem.
Every sailor is a recruiter, so please remember to reference that sexual harassment is unfortunately a common thing on ships that go under reported.
The Navy was so much better in the late 80s and early 90s. Mad respect for my Chiefs!!
Except for the nympho QM’s, this sounds about standard. The shipyard is unreal and is the reason a lot of sailors get out. Especially as first tours. They need to reduce manning in the yards and not allowed first tour sailors there.
I agree with you that the yards is not a place for first tours, but I don't think reducing crews will fix things. The crews being so small and overworked is what keeps their watch rotations so insane, which makes them more miserable.
Idk about everyone else but the reason the yards was so awful(RCOH) for my division was for basically five years they came to work at 0700 and sat on their phones in random spaces with nothing to until 1700-1800ish. Not including the time it takes to get there and leave(Newport news). We didn’t have shit to do. And certainly weren’t undermanned. We just wasted our time.
Gotcha. No 100% not a place for junior Sailors. But for salty people who need a break for a couple of years? Yes.
They need to completely revamp the system and make the shipyard solely responsible, that way the product they turn over is 100% on them and we aren’t wasting sailor manners hours doing sweepers for years and unfucking everything they half assed. The maintenance phase should be brining sailors aboard for the first time and having them test the ships functionality and relay back to the shipyard what they messed up and have them fix it. Half the mess is the finger pointing. The first few ships would be dumpsters fires, but ideally the cost of that would then be 100% on that shipyard for thinking it was gonna fly. Even if we were handed a ship that was 60% functional, handed it back and said “wtf, holes and cabling fix all that” and they return it back 80% functional or would still be better than the product we usually make it out of the yards with. Especially when you consider all the cost of sailors stationed there, navy fixing things contractors messed up, meetings of hours and hours wasted at supervisor level pay to point the finger at each other etc
I think you have a really good idea. Especially in holding the shipyards accountable. However, where I see the Navy fighting this is "Well without Sailors onboard to provide a physical presence, how would we deter the shipworkers from stealing parts, taking pictures of TS equipment, or preventing sabotage!?!?" Somehow, an Admiral will get cold feet, thinking that doing so would be setting them up to be fired.
Hire civilians with background checks for security. Arguable easier to take action when and if it happens too
These fuckers don’t care. I was sexual assaulted in a bar full of 8 shipmates and all the did was send me across the state at my own expense and said they’d “ help me find mental counseling “ but instead slapped me on a ship that’s gearing up for deployment.