Veterans Military Skills Bill S2239 Proposed in the Senate:)
Last week we told you about HR4155- a bill that would require the federal government to require the federal government to treat relevant military training and experience to satisfy training requirement for federally issued licenses and certifications. On Tuesday a similar bill, S2239 was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Furthermore, he has 3 original co-sponsors to his bill: Senators Blumenthal (D-CT), Snowe (R-ME) and Klobucher (D-MN).
This is the next step forward TREA (The Retired Enlisted Association) is working hard to help all veterans find good jobs and careers. Please contact your Congressional members and ask them to support this bill. This is a bill that should cost nothing and be of real help. TREA will continue to keep you informed about this issue.
What a sensible way to reward the time invested by veterans!
But, on a different note how can Uncle Sams Confused Group ‘allow’ this when they don’t even take their own training as equal?
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;66235]Veterans Military Skills Bill S2239 Proposed in the Senate:)
Last week we told you about HR4155- a bill that would require the federal government to require the federal government to treat relevant military training and experience to satisfy training requirement for federally issued licenses and certifications. On Tuesday a similar bill, S2239 was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Furthermore, he has 3 original co-sponsors to his bill: Senators Blumenthal (D-CT), Snowe (R-ME) and Klobucher (D-MN).
This is the next step forward TREA (The Retired Enlisted Association) is working hard to help all veterans find good jobs and careers. Please contact your Congressional members and ask them to support this bill. This is a bill that should cost nothing and be of real help. TREA will continue to keep you informed about this issue.[/QUOTE]
Unless this prompts the military services to provide their training curricula to be evaluated to determine if what it is equivalent to, not much can change. The issue has not been willingness to recognize equivalent training, it’s seeing the curricula to make the decision what to accept, and what to accept it for. Not much military training has been submitted for review, and in most cases, when it has it’s been accepted.
Because Congress can force them. Just like they can force that universal health care down our throats and not balance the budget.
I believe Mr. Cavo’s point is valid even if this law passes. How does the NMC know what the military training is equivalent to unless the military allows the NMC to review their curricula?
This is similar to the internacine bickering evident at the beginning of WW2, Vietnam. At least the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force figured it out and adopted similar standards, and don’t bitch between themselves like the CG does. This petty ‘I’m in charge’ crap is rediculous! This is another instance of why the USCG as a military/governmental agency should NOT be in charge of a civilian industry. However, congress is too stupid to figure out how to fund itself, so I sincerely doubt they would be able to fathom this issue either.
Normally I would agree but this doesn’t apply here. It’s not a matter of military training being accepted between the branches but as STCW training. The NMC can’t just say, “you know, you are such good guys we will assume that your training schools are up to STCW standards simply because you say so.” It’s not about who is in charge but about what is taught at the military schools.
I like this idea. Even if it doesnt come to light till after im out of the service, i would be great to see that at least SOME military training can be accepted towards a license.
The actual wording of the bill is vague. It provides the “who” but I guess the specifics on the “how”, (and “how much”), will come later.
112th Congress
2nd Session
S.2239
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. NELSON of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
A BILL
To direct the head of each agency to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for Federal licenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veteran Skills to Jobs Act of 2012’’.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RELEVANT MILITARY TRAINING AS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY TRAINING OR CER TIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL LICENSES.
The head of each agency (as defined under section 551 of title 5, United States Code) shall deem an applicant for a license issued by the agency who has received relevant training while serving as a member of the Armed Forces, as determined by the head of the agency, to have satisfied any training or certification requirements for the license, unless the head of the agency determines that the training received by the applicant is substantially different from the training or certification required for the license.
Well its a step in the right direction!
Even if it passes nothing will change unless the military sends their courses to the NMC for review. The bill is even worded in a way that allows that to happen.
That is my point. Does the CG send its gunnery training syllabus to the army for approval? Do they send their fixed wing training syllabus to the air force for vetting? Do they send rotary wing training manuals to the marines? No, this is about control of one branch of the military exercising its ‘import’ over others. Come on… The CG until homeland security has NEVER been in charge of anything other than buoys! Even 30 years ago there was talk of removing the licensing from bluesuit oversight. Too bad it has never happened. Now with DHS it will never happen.
I see a difference between military training acceptance between branches and acceptance as stcw training. If you don’t, I won’t be able to convince you to change your mind.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;66258]Normally I would agree but this doesn’t apply here. It’s not a matter of military training being accepted between the branches but as STCW training. The NMC can’t just say, “you know, you are such good guys we will assume that your training schools are up to STCW standards simply because you say so.” It’s not about who is in charge but about what is taught at the military schools.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does apply and no the NMC is not just going to sign off on it. They will have to monitor just like any other program because of the liability issues. Where do you think they get their training syllabuses, thin air? Have you been through any the schools? This bill is more for the enlisted guys and gals because the officers are exempt from having to take the STCW training if they attended their respective academy. That is already mandated in the CFR’s. It is to level the playing field when you spend your whole career afloat like we do and not going back and forth between shore and afloat billets. That is why I retired, because they wanted to send me ashore and I thought that was a stupid idea. Now I am here bugging you guys, and no I had nothing to do with this bill. It does not affect me because I am already out. It is for future service members.
It is not just the military schools, it is what happens afterward. The training, at least on the bridges I was affiliated with during my career and especially when they were “my” bridges, was above and beyond the STCW standard and we documented training hours it even though it was not required. I would send my young QMOW’s and junior officers out to the ride with pilots, tugs and ferries wherever we were and forced them to write trip reports on their field trips for presentation to the rest of the watchstanders for discussion later.
Yes I am blowing my own horn, which is I don’t have to leave the house often when I am off. That and a great wife. I took my job of training very seriously and always impressed upon my people the skill sets professional mariners had boat handling were better than us in most cases but our knowledge helped us be good at our jobs in different ways.
I am sure not all bridges were like mine but there are still guys and gals like me out there taking their jobs seriously enough to keep their heads in the books and maintain a high level of expectations on their subordinates. The new towing vessel program for cadets at the USCG Academy implemented by RADM Stosz, the first female commandant of a military academy, is partially modeled after mine because she was my CO on USCG RELIANCE. She and my XO’s, CAPT J. Munro and CAPT W. Lawrence trusted me and my commercial experience and gave me the opportunities and resources to implement our training programs to their fullest extent. She saw the success we had on REL and brought it with her to the academy. Incidentally, she was one the best CO’s and they were top 4 XO’s I ever sailed with but that is another story…
That being said, there are schools out there providing the ability to pass the test and nothing else and others that teach so you retain the knowledge and become a real professional mariner; military vessels are no different. I taught my people so they had the skills, maybe not to become a professional mariner but the basics (i.e. classroom training) where if they made the extra effort; and I had some both enlisted and officers, to pass the tests and ascend to the levels that we do after volunteering to serve their country.
[QUOTE=BMCSRetired;66302]… the officers are exempt from having to take the STCW training if they attended their respective academy. That is already mandated in the CFR’s. I.[/QUOTE]
Not for STCW. The provisions in the CFR only extend to the license as 3rd Mate and 3rd AE, not to STCW. Also, it only benefits the minrity of officers who went to the USNA or USCGA. Most didn’t.
[ QUOTE=“BMCSRetired”]
Yes it does apply and no the NMC is not just going to sign off on it. They will have to monitor just like any other program because of the liability issues. Where do you think they get their training syllabuses, thin air?[/QUOTE]
I think there is some confusion here. I said the bill doesn’t apply here because it would change nothing. The NMC does not refuse to accept military training because they don’t want to accept it, they don’t accept military training because the military branches don’t want to submit their courses for approval and audit.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;66367]Not for STCW. The provisions in the CFR only extend to the license as 3rd Mate and 3rd AE, not to STCW. Also, it only benefits the minrity of officers who went to the USNA or USCGA. Most didn’t.[/QUOTE]
Touche’. It is still a double standard as far as I am concerned and needs to be dealt with.
Captain Phoenix, it appears we are on the same side, I read your post wrong.
EXAMPLE–It would be nice not to have to repeat training fire fighting training I received while in the Navy in San Diego. The training I could pay for right now is given by the MSC at the same facility I trained at, by the same instructors. So it is approved. Why can’t this get some type of waiver to save me the hassle of taking a week off work and paying for course and lodging?
Interesting thought. So the guys who drive army (or navy, or marines) tugs, boats, and craft of any sort don’t have to take any equivalent water safety, survival safety, firefighting, medical, or social responsibility training?
Of course they do… And I dare say it isn’t some namby pamby 5 day bullshit (but USCG approved) course!
My point is that the CG has WAY too high an inflated opinion of itself, and its ability to police this industry. On the one hand, some one has to do it. Industry has proven they would rather cut corners than do the right thing. So there needs to be some oversight. This seems to be IMHO akin to cops who get too heady with power. Just because someone has a gun (is in charge) does not make them competent OR especially capable to be judge, jury and executoner.
In our industry, the CG is all three, with VERY little oversight and NO outside input to control it. Have any here actually gotten to write letters to their politicians concerning ANY issues? Did you have any satisfaction? Probably not, Huh?
In my opinion, as active duty CG, the NMC has nothing to do with the “actual” US Coast Guard. Until i walk into an REC and see their personel wearing the same uniform as me, ill still think of it that way. Its frustrating to hear mariners criticize some of our training as if its “inferior” to civillian and even more frustrating that the so-called “USCG/NMC” wont accept ITS OWN training.