As long as you clearly stipulate that it is the easiest SINGLE advancement, I wont argue. You are right. In most cases, no performance quals, no test, etc.
Originally posted by Isawthelight: Lets be honest, I believe the CG is using the weight standards policy as a RIF..because it sure isn't about living a healthier lifestyle.
The CG is happy to keep smokers boozers and non-performers gainfully employed given they are within weight standards.
Living an unhealthy lifestyle regardless of the method is still an unhealthy lifestyle.
The CG is happy to keep smokers boozers and non-performers gainfully employed given they are within weight standards.
How much of a persons personal life do you think the CG should control? How about the number of times you sex weekly? Does the CG discharge those that don't go to church on Sundays? You have to keep it real.
The key once again is enforcement.. As for poor performers, if their "poor performance" is documented by their marks they will or should not be gainfully employed by the CG for long.
Those that drink moderately have no problems.. if the drinking affects your performance, once again all that need to take place is proper documentation.
When I entered the CG we had physical fitness tests.. There wasn't much too them but they were in place. Perhaps the CG needs to adapt some sort of mandatory PT... with records kept. Actually, I believe all services should have the same weight standards, and physical fitness tests.. Would that make it easy.
When I entered the CG we had physical fitness tests.. There wasn't much too them but they were in place.
I remember those. And the pain involved when they did them one day ahead of schedule and I had to do a million sit ups with a screamimg hangover!
I think the tests are agood idea, but feel it is the members responsibility to be able to pass those tests. My son is in law enforcement and does his exercising on his own time.
Some will say "Well, the Army/Marines have mandatory PT so we should too." I disagree. The jobs are quite a bit different and the physical requirements for marching X miles with an extremely heavy pack are not the same kind of things the CG does.
That's because the MAW policy isn't, as Wray asked, enforced uniformly.
I would bet MY RETIRMENT fund that someone over their MAW will slip through the cracks because sometimes, even though people deny, deny, deny, it IS about who you know.
(Edited for grammatical error)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JekelKat13,
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've known some that could not pass the "fat" test that could outperform those that worke out regularly, Fat guy that can reach over the side and snatch a person from the water is not a bad thing to have. If you are on a ship the farthest you will have to run is about 400 feet.
Focus on performance, not looks. Test for ability. All will be well......
Four out of the five services have mandatory PT. Guess which one of the five has the lowest rate of booting people under fatboy program?
When I see a platoon of Coasties/Guardians running across the South Capitol Street Bridge, or in front of 8th and I Streets, THEN, I'll believe that the Coast Guard is serious about PT for Everyone, every pay-grade.
All this has very little about physical fitness, but all about appearance, It's been that way since the 70's.
I wonder how much time lost and money was spent over the years for REHAB for sport jocks who got injured, and their shipmates had to pick up the additional work load?
Jack, Yes, sports related injuries tops the list of lost work time of all other catagories. Now, anyone could spin those numbers to suit their opinion. The injuries could be said to be caused by lack of working out, or by working out too much. Probably no way of knowing. Interesting side point, a couple of other Chief's and I reviewed almost two years of Class A Mishaps about a year ago. We found out that if we set aside all Motorcycle accidents where the operator was in commision of a crime, we actually lost twice as many people on CG Basketball Courts as we did on two wheels!
Damn those athletes!! We should just let everyone be fat and blubbery and out-of-breath to prevent an ankle sprain. Give everyone handicapped permits to lessen their exertion when they go into the shopping center to buy 5 gallons of ice cream, ho-ho's, and 8 bags of chips! Have at least one fat guy on board so he can pick up Oscar!
I know guys/gals that aren't fat that can do that as well. Once adrenaline kicks in... watch out.
Look - IMO - if someone is 5 lbs overweight? WHO CARES! Really... FIVE lbs? No one can deny that the obesity rate of the US has risen DRASTICALLY over the last 10 years. In fact your children/grand-children are the FATTEST HUMANS EVER.
Is it about appearance? Sure. To a point it is.
Picture this: a 110' overseas.... zoom in... there's the CO - 50 lbs overweight. There's the XO - 20 lbs overweight. The rest of the crew? 10-40 lbs overweight themselves. Is that the image that the CG wants to portray? If there WASN'T a MAW I guarantee there would be A LOT more individuals that 'let themselves go'.
Look - IMO - if someone is 5 lbs overweight? WHO CARES! Really...
Technically, I would agree with you 100%. So will CG Leadership. As a matter of fact, anyone who is 5 lbs over weight has no issue at weight in. They are probably 10, 15 or 20 lbs under MAW!
Oh weight, I mean wait, you were probably thinking 5 lbs over MAW. That easy, I suppose we could just increase everybodies MAW by 5 lbs. But then, what if a person is 5 lbs over that? Do we increase it again? Then again, and again? Face it folks, the MAW chart is not that restrictive! And we give you 7 months and a week to loose that 5 lbs! Does anyone consider that being hard-ass?
Honestly, you're preaching to the choir. I'm not saying that there should be ANY increase. None. See, where my frustration lies is that the policy (just as Wray mentioned) IS NOT enforced uniformly. I knew a guy, he's was about 6'3" and solid. Not an ounce of fat on him, but of course he was over his MAW. All you had to do was use common sense (ut-oh!) and your eye balls and know he wasn't unfit. (I'm going to use unfit vice over-weight). OK - so he was measured. Why? He's OBVIOUSLY not over-weight NOR out-of-shape (and I can understand the aruguement of UNDER-weight and OUT-of-shape)
Then, there's someone who is not only obviously over their MAW but OUT-OF-SHAPE yet they "slipped through the cracks" to be kind about it
Like I'm mentioned before. The weigh-ins come around twice a year every year and to make it even easier it's always the same months. To me, unless there is a LEGIT medical reason for your inability to lose weight (pregnant, thyroid) then there is NO EXCUSE to be over your MAW, which you've pointed out is usually about 12LBS (on average) OVER your "IDEAL" weight.
I digress. These posts belong on the Weight Standards post over on the OS board.
There's really no need to attempt to try and dumb it down for me, MC. I get it. I really do. I know how it works. I know why he was measured, that was a rhetorical question. It was just leading into the fact that the policy is not enforced across the board.
I can't say I'd be surprised if the CG used the Weight Standard Policy for RIF. (To get back on track )
Jo - you aren't the only one reading my response. Of all folks, you know how to tell when I get very direct to one person!
Although there is a small possibility that some sort of RIF may be able to be avoided due to an abundant supply of donuts, we will never see the fatboy program used specifically to target X number of extra people.
..and back on the subject of RIF, I don't see it happening if you use that term in it's narrow sense. Some sort of HYT may be turned on, some sort of CFTRR program may be turned on, early retirement authorizations may be turned on, accessions may be slowed, but the RIF program is a long way down the list of tools that we would choose to use.
Well, HYT, in the sense you might apply it to Officers, and always has been in place. For that matter, what we would call "RIF" is too. It might not be a big stretch, but as an Officer you already need to stay out of the basement performance wise, or you get the boot. That is where we are 'lucky' right now on the E side. Technically, you can make E-5 with three years in and spend the next 17 years in without improving what you do. A LTjg gets two tries to make LT. If they don't make it, they are gone.
But yes, I am sure if we have to look at loosing billets, all billets below O-9 will be looked at.
But yes, I am sure if we have to look at loosing billets, all billets below O-9 will be looked at
I doubt that.. the CG has been increasing the officer numbers for years... I doubt very seriously they will turn that around...
As for the enlisted.. HYT is already a written policy.. it is just not enforced.. or at least not uniformly. Between the OCT weigh in, and the HYT policy that would take care of any RIF if there should be.. personally I don't think it will happen.. I also don't think the weight program will be uniformly enforced... but then again, it really doesn't matter to me. I've just seen this wheel go round an round over the last 40 years.
)
