|
Mr. Nice! posted:Then you have an issue of the wardroom getting better food than the rest of the ship. There's already enough issue in some places of elitism without tossing that in as well. In the wood and sail days the Captain would pay for provisions and the nobles would feast on fancy meals while everyone else ate hardtack and some kind of meat with a poo poo ton of salt mixed with flour. That said, when the Captain's stores ran out the nobles ate the same poo poo the commoners did so there's that. Also, at least they got a ration of grog/rum/some kind of alcohol whereas today's Navy still has the elitism but much less liquor.
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Separate dining facilities does accomplish some things. It's much more difficult to effectively lead people when you're best friends with them rather than subordinate/superior. This is nothing to do with any type of elitism. It's just human nature. Camaraderie and esprit de corps are invaluable to morale, but keeping senior/subordinate separate for dining/mess makes sense.  On another note we are the only branch that elevates a rocker wearing enlisted to wear a different uniform, get separate berthing and dining are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There are absolutely senior enlisted messes and officer messes in the other branches. Never contested separate messes for nobles. E9s and some E8s may eat separately but at Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton the E6s (SSGT aka rocker) were dining with E2s-E5s. Lackland AFB, E9s were sitting next to, eating, and talking with E1s on up. The Navy is the only branch where this enlisted pay grade elitism is taken to a new level of stupid with goat locker/chief's mess/khaki uniform/entirely different dress uniform. That doesn't make a good leader by separating folks and saying "hey, now that you're X pay grade, you're a super special snow flake". Additionally, any ranking individual believing that eating a meal (at work) with someone junior will lead to fraternization and the inability of the subordinate to execute orders simply shouldn't be a leader.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:You can make anything sound ridiculous by oversimplifying it (although you have a decent argument wrt the Chief's mess). I'm with MML, this is much worse than LCS chat. You honor me with your words, m'lord. Just a couple of last minute straw man arguments- I think you're in aviation? From my understanding the O to E relationship there is pretty relaxed and unlike most commands in the Navy the nobles are nice to the serfs and generally speaking the serfs are nice to the nobles. I have a buddy in the Army who flies Kiowas who says the same thing- he gets high fives instead of salutes. Point is, if we did this draconian military style of you will only speak when spoken to; eat and socialize separately while at work then where would the motivation be for the mechanic to do his best to keep a pilot alive? I'm not knocking mechanics and saying that they won't do their best even if they didn't know the pilot, but Army guys says he gets priority when something is wrong with his helo, among other things. He'll also buy his dudes a pizza and they chill in the hangar eating slices. I know thousands of years of warfare has generally seen separation between O and E even during dining, but imagine then the best warriors history has ever seen- yep I'm pulling it- Team guys. They're a pretty lean, mean fighting machine. They actually go into harms way versus 95% of the Navy and from the junior guy on his first push to the saltiest frog there rarely is the kind of separation the fleet harps on its people. Officers and enlisted are on a first name basis with each other- some dudes from T3 called their LTJG "the lieutenant of the most junior grade XXXXXXX," and some Marine almost had a heart attack until the LTJG calmed him down. Point is, they do things together that would make regular Navy poo poo a brick but they still manage to get the job done and are a professional fighting force. I guess you could point to selection is much harder or perhaps point to the shared adversity they go through in BUD/s and such but it is one of the only training pipelines across all branches that puts officers and enlisted together. Anyway what do I know, I'm just an E5 who is reupping for another 3 against my better judgement because my next set of orders will set me up on the outside. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dicks posted:Do my job? No sorry I have a bake sale to attend then I'm volunteering so I can't stand watch this weekend. I'm also going to school and have a test so I can't work past 5 I already cleared it with our department head. I remember hearing about a time in the Navy when collaterals were for useless folks who had been banished from their department and needed something to put on their eval . Nowadays collaterals are like chest candy- I heard they're gonna be giving you points on advancement for them too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:For E4-E6 sure, but based on every chief package training I've ever sat through (formal and informal) having more than one collateral is normally seen as a negative because how can you be leading sailors and doing your job as a collateral whore? A buddy of mine showed me an older instruction and collateral duties was the last bullet point for consideration to make Chief. However those bullets aren't listed in precedence of importance I guess. Nostalgia4Dicks posted:When things were still popping that's what Army IAs were for. The command would sugar coat the gently caress out of it and maybe throw them a NAM when they got back but it was really to just have said person be someone else's problem for 6-12 months I tried to do an IA but I guess I was too valuable a person to let go?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I was gonna look up how it worked but since I re-upped recently I put it off in regards to Roth TSP. After someone gets out, is it better to just let it sit in and accrue interest or can you transfer the money to your civilian Roth account? Since I technically paid the tax up front by paying in to it, I shouldn't get taxed if/when I transfer, right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:47 |
|
|
Fart Sandwiches posted:TSP deposits are actually pre-tax IIRC. If you transfer it there is no tax either. It's only upon withdrawal that you are taxed. I did the retard thing and withdrew mine instead of rolling it into my 401k and took a decent tax hit but then again I have nice new floors. It was about 2-3 years ago they started offering Roth TSP in addition to traditional TSP. Roth contributions get taxed at what you put in but everything you make over the life of the account is tax free- or so the liberals say, things may change when I reach retirement age. Also, not sure if this has been covered but they named a LCS after Gabby Giffords and it's due to hit the water soon. Anyone else see the irony in naming a warship after someone who is anti-gun and part of a party that is generally anti-DOD spending?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 03:15
|
|