CANX of CTM Merger

CANX of CTM Merger

Postby Twidget » Fri Aug 15, 2008 2:48 am

Good news from RADM Deets

All, request widest dissemination,

Yesterday afternoon I signed a letter to the Executive Secretary, Navy
Enlisted Occupational Classification Board officially ending all action
associated with disestablishing the CTM rating. I've attached the
signed letter. The Secretary acknowledged receipt this morning.

The language in my letter is quite clear and I need you to be familiar
with it so that you can discuss it with your Sailors. Simply stated,
while the business model remains sound, it is not executable. This
could not be determined without an in-depth, formally tasked review by
all stakeholders. That is now complete.

A partial quote of the letter follows:

"To date, forty-three critical comments have been received from
associated stakeholders and out of 19 voting members, only nine
concurred outright. The primary area of concern is the state of
Electronic Technician (ET) manning in the Fleet, which is particularly
pronounced in the ET(SS) volunteer ranks. This issue is not correctable
in the short term. The other major concern is the Navy's continuing
challenge with properly tracking and filling Q-coded billets in the YN
and IT ratings following the merger with CTA and CTO. Without
resolution, the same problem will likely occur in the assignment of ET's
to CT maintenance functions."

Most importantly, the last line reads, "There is no intent to revisit
disestablishment of CTM."

No other rating construct can provide the level of system and
maintenance readiness we need as we face the growing challenges in our
Cyber, IO and SIGINT missions.

We need to move out. I have already initiated action to execute a long
term sustainment plan for CTM. The primary objectives are delivering
the finest maintenance professionals to the Fleet, and reestablishing a
competitive and rewarding career path. Ongoing work includes validating
our current training processes and curriculum, and an extensive billet
review that balances sea and shore duty in a predictable manner.

Our Sailors deserve a speedy resolution. I'll keep you apprised and
engaged as we quickly mature the plan. If you have any questions, bring
them directly to me, my EA (CDR Dave Bondura), or LCDR Brian Harding in
our N1 shop. I value your thoughts and ideas.

All the best, EHD
  • 0

Brought to you by the Paranoia Protection Counsel..."We're watching you 24/7 to make sure you're not being followed."
User avatar
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:40 pm
Location: OCONUS
Reputation: 26

Postby yoshi » Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:18 am

thank god! having spent some time as a subsurface DSO, i am extremely happy to see this. i wasn't able to understand how we were going to be able to continue to maintain our specialized equipment on this particular platform (or any other platform, really). I guess some others weren't able to figure out how, either.
  • 0

Experienced Member
Posts: 429
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 19

Postby webmaster » Fri Aug 15, 2008 7:04 pm

I personally think we've done more harm than good with many of the mergers
  • 0

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.

I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
Mahatma Gandhi
User avatar
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:17 am
Location: God's Country
Reputation: 51

Postby Sparkplug » Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:33 am

The big damage here is those committed to service who were CTMs and changed ratings because they though their jobs were being recoded. I had a fantastic CTM2 who worked for me who cross-rated to CTT because he thought that was his only option. Additionally, I worked with a highly skilled CTMC who is now an ITCS because he was told to convert or get out. Anyway, I have to question how many good people have we lost as dedicated members of our community because of the previous decision.
  • 0

User avatar
Experienced Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 12:44 pm
Location: Montgomery, AL
Reputation: 0

Postby Sum1 » Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:14 am

That's a great question. I didn't even begin to think about how just the prospect of a merger could have serious negative side effects. Perhaps that's something the upper leadership need to consider more if this situation arises again in the future. What I mean is, making sure the information concerning the merger/disestablishment are communicated extremely explicitly and often to the entire workforce to quench the RUMINT'ers who seem to sometimes drum up more fire and brimstone than necessary.
  • 0

Experienced Member
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 15

Postby gregwarnerkp » Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:45 am

Wish they would have done the same for CTA rate merger
  • 0

Registered Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:21 am
Reputation: 0

Return to CT Ratings

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest