gdp's Comments

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Moving toward a learning organization

Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:16:51 +0000

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

gCaptain.com — A Blog About Ships : Major Constitutional Decision Affecting the Transportation Industry

Wed, 20 May 2009 20:03:38 +0000

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

gCaptain.com — A Blog About Ships : Major Constitutional Decision Affecting the Transportation Industry

Wed, 20 May 2009 10:17:42 +0000

Well, it'll be the same amount of privacy I had before - nothing has changed, a reg has been upheld. Also, remember that this is a return-to-duty or follow on test - purely voluntary. For the random test, there must be reason for suspicion of some cheating going on - abnormal temperature ranges, tampered specimen, negative dilute with indicators of cheating, etc. IF, big if, the statute is expanded then perhaps there will be less privacy, but that will be done by legislation and unions etc will have opportunity to comment to their representatives, so in the end I doubt it would change.

gCaptain.com — A Blog About Ships : Major Constitutional Decision Affecting the Transportation Industry

Wed, 20 May 2009 01:07:23 +0000

Since the USCG uses the DOT drug testing requirements for marine employers (46 CFR 16.113) if it applies to rail employees then it applies to maritime employees. That said, having not read the decision itself - just the summary above, it sounds like an affirmation of 49 CFR 40.67 which lays out when direct observation must & may be conducted. Specifically it sounds like it applies to 46.b which states, "As an employer, you may direct a collection under direct observation of an employee if the drug test is a return-to-duty test or a follow-up test." So I don't know that anything has changed - correct me if I'm wrong - just that an existing reg has been challenged and upheld.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Now Mandatory: USCG PHYSICAL FITNESS CLOTHING

Tue, 12 May 2009 17:48:32 +0000

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

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Academy: Keep it or Dump it?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:44:03 +0000

Worthy? Perhaps. But it won't happen because of the posting policy of this blog - no pseudonymous blog posts allowed. From the Policies wiki, "...all contributors to AN UNOFFICIAL COAST GUARD BLOG will post with full attribution, using their real, given, name." Since that's not a step I want to take, it'll have to remain unposted. I'll check with my friend and see if he has a copy I can send you via email.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Academy: Keep it or Dump it?

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:26:18 +0000

To each their own, but I'm in a similar situation yet don't feel particularly bad about it. It's the risk I took when going to grad school and in the end I anticipate no long term regrets with my decision. Does the CG, by the nature of our assignment process, restrict what jobs you can do? Yes. But. A friend of mine at HQ has crunched the numbers and there is NO correlation between job type & sequence (staff vs field) and attaining the next rank (up to O6 if I remember what he told me correctly). You won't be stuck at O4 unless you want to. It's all about doing a good job in the billet you get - that's what gets you up the chain. You might not get a specialized job at a fancy specialized unit, but you won't be rank limited.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : The Coast Guard Academy: Keep it or Dump it?

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:50:22 +0000

I'll have to challenge the whole - degree isn't squat on the outside - thing too. Perhaps it depends on the degree? I too got into a top ranked school (in my field) for post-graduate work with my CGA degree. On the other hand, I think the CG does a poor job at having CGA graduates use their degrees once in the field, but it's also a tough nut to crack with no clean solutions. Just think how the Marine Safety side of the house would be enhanced by letting Marine Science majors go strait to a Sector or same for an Engineering grad.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : It COSTS to know how much you make in the Coast Guard

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:46:01 +0000

Here's what the Army came up with, WRT e-LES: Saves $2.6million annually http://www.wvang.ang.af.mil/hro/DCPS%2008-27A.pdf I don't know why we couldn't do it too.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Navy halts transfer of 14k sailors to cut costs... Who's next?

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:21:03 +0000

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

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog Policies

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:28:52 +0000

Simple question, complicated answer. Generally it's not recognized as a marriage (by most states) unless the Master is also a minister or justice of the peace BUT there is legal precedent confirming that marriages performed OUTSIDE US waters can be recognized (Fisher vs Fisher) as common-law. There's a long discussion here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/546/are-... that may or may not be 100% accurate. FYI the law they talk about with respect to logging marriages performed on board is 46 USC 11301 (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/46C113.txt). However that applies to ALL marriages and doesn't shed light on whether the ceremony was performed by the Master or an on-board Minister. So, OUPV Inland wouldn't fall under Fisher since they can't take passengers outside inland waters under authority of their license. They can take friends for recreation, but then the OUPV License is inactive and they can't / shouldn't invoke it. IMO I think anyone considering having an OUPV licensed individual perform a marriage ceremony should also get the marriage recognized through normal means.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Spotlight on Leadership: Using measures

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:10:05 +0000

Not having much luck generating comments with this series of posts, huh? If I may make a suggestion, I think your topics are too broad. You're not likely to get many people wanting to post replies to thesis-level questions on how "your organization" does anything. Perhaps if it were "your unit" or "your division" you'd get more responses.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 29, 2009

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:13:32 +0000

Not sure if it's still being worked on, but the RSS feed for the posts seems to be working fine. However the RSS feed for comments isn't working for me.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Navy SEAL's and Acquisitions... Yep, this is the Coast Guard

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:06 +0000

My apologies for the mix-up.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Navy SEAL's and Acquisitions... Yep, this is the Coast Guard

Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:03:17 +0000

Peter, I really don't think the whole pseudonym thing is pertinent. Let's face it, it's rational to love an organization but not trust all the people in it. I too find Webster Smith's presence as a contributor of this blog unfortunate and not in keeping with the usually high standards of your other contributors. Luckily he doesn't post much, so it's not something that rubs me the wrong way often. Besides, you should be haranguing PJO more than Mr. TJ since at least Mr. TJ has an intense debate account.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : A thank you from Twitter to the United States Coast Guard

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:17:43 +0000

Did you guys know that as of the 25 Mar 2009: "Agencies can now engage with citizens through popular media technologies such as video-sharing service YouTube, using pre-negotiated service agreements that comply with federal terms and conditions. After nine months of negotiations, the General Services Administration signed agreements with four video-sharing and social networking sites: Flickr, Vimeo, blip.tv and YouTube. GSA also is negotiating with the social networking sites Facebook and MySpace. ... GSA did not make an agreement with the online messaging service Twitter because the agency determined the provider's standard terms and conditions aligned with federal requirements." http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20090325_5490.p... Looks like .gov is making some forward motion on the transparency front.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : USCG TRANSFER WOES

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:06:56 +0000

You mention something at the beginning of this post, yet never explicitly come out and take a stand against it. Namely, that the transfer season exists for the benefit of the members. I'd quibble that, contrary to benefiting married members only, that it helps all members - especially those with school-age children. Regardless of your marital status, finding housing in the summer is much easier than in the winter. However, if the transfer season exists for the benefit of those changing billets, then you haven't made a strong case that those benefits are outweighed by the costs to operational commanders. It's unlikely anyone would disagree the summer/early fall months are the busiest and that units have the smallest set of qualified personnel to perform the missions, but...I don't see those facts negatively impacting mission performance. You claim it's unacceptable, but without factual support. If you have the numbers, spill them. If not, then it comes down to whether making commanders happy or making members happy should be a higher priority. I lean toward giving the most benefit to the largest number of people.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Follow Up Answer from ADM Allen's State of the CG Address

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:56:28 +0000

I liked it. I hope it's a signal of the way the CG will continue communicating. I expected more links - at least one per response - but it's a good beginning.

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 8, 2009

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:17:03 +0000

This the one you're thinking about? It's about a small boat mishap. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/coastguard_...

CGBlog.org :: An Unofficial Coast Guard Blog : Open Discussion for the week of March 8, 2009

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:15:19 +0000

I hope there aren't any examples since that's not the CG's business. If someone is fired for reporting illegal activity related to illegal sewage dumpage (see the Clean Water Act) they are granted whistleblower protections by OSHA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act#Empl...