Canadian Tire orders inventory early, charters cargo ships to keep shelves stocked

[Halifax Tar]

Indeed, people confuse bad and regulation breaking orders with manifestly unlawful ones. Granted there may nuances as someone may think something is manifestly unlawful when it isn't but in general people have a hard time wrapping their brain around command prerogative.

So at a former unit I had a member request to take a C8, bolt and Mag home to practice their TOETs in preparation for CANSOFCOM try outs.

I denied this request. This member fought me all the way at to the CO, gaining support and approval for his request at every step in the CoC. Thankfully the CO denied it.

What if the CO had approved it ? What if the CO had offered a written approval accepting all responsibility ?

Regulations aren't in place so we can be picky and choosy about when and where to follow them. In fact I would argue the reason we're in the position we're in right now is because we've let people be picky and choosy about following regulations.

If our regulations aren't working let's change them and adapt them. Breaking them repeatedly as we do with procurement is helping nothing.

 

[ModlrMike]

That is probably the dumbest thing I have read in a very long time. Not your stance, rather the "let's allow a member to take home a fully functional service weapon" part.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That is probably the dumbest thing I have read in a very long time. Not your stance, rather the "let's allow a member to take home a fully functional service weapon" part.

During that posting I dealt with an amazing plethora or expectations and requests.

From a Cox'n trying to tell me to stop an MLR process, to a Chief trying to get me to buy the unit toiletries to being ordered to procure unit PT kit and shoes. I can fill up a couple nights of campfires with stuff from that place.

Coincidentally that was the only unit ball cap I didn't keep. That one along with its unit crests went into the fire.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So at a former unit I had a member request to take a C8, bolt and Mag home to practice their TOETs in preparation for CANSOFCOM try outs.

I denied this request. This member fought me all the way at to the CO, gaining support and approval for his request at every step in the CoC. Thankfully the CO denied it.

What if the CO had approved it ? What if the CO had offered a written approval accepting all responsibility ?

Regulations aren't in place so we can be picky and choosy about when and where to follow them. In fact I would argue the reason we're in the position we're in right now is because we've let people be picky and choosy about following regulations.

If our regulations aren't working let's change them and adapt them. Breaking them repeatedly as we do with procurement is helping nothing.

Here's an idea:

Write down the name of the member, and the names of every member of the CoC that approved their request up to the CO.

Keep in touch with the unit and, as the years go by, tick off each person on that list as they self-immolate in some way.

Smile in a self-congratulatory way as you make each 'tick'.

I've had the opportunity to do this at least a couple of times, in a more informal fashion.

Call it the 'Cheerful Cassandra Coincidences', or something like that

 

[Halifax Tar]

Here's an idea:

Write down the name of the member, and the names of every member of the CoC that approved their request up to the CO.

Keep in touch with the unit and, as the years go by, tick off each person on that list as they self-immolate in some way.

Smile in a self-congratulatory way as you make each 'tick'.

I've had the opportunity to do this at least a couple of times, in a more informal fashion.

Call it the 'Cheerful Cassandra Coincidences', or something like that

Hahaha I mean that is an option.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I don't have much to add to this discussion except that I was trained to be a ship's engineering officer. There were two primary documents that guided operation of the ship's engineering department: one was fleet-wide (Naval Engineering Manual) and the other was ship-specific (Engineering Officer's Technical Instructions - EOTI). The engineering department was obligated to comply with both.

Procurement and installation of ship-board equipment not in accordance with approved procurement and installation methods was strictly forbidden. So, no, someone could not just buy some refrigerators and plug them in somewhere. That may have issues related to overloading circuits, access to something else, fire safety, etc. Configuration management is (or is supposed to be) a big thing. Ad-hoc shipboard modifications are not permitted. They happen, but they are not supposed to.

That was back when configuration management was enforced; now people just shrug and say 'Command assumes the risk' which would be fair if they actually did it knowing what the risks are.

Are you supposed to put a (literal) tonne of wood on a ship? No. Should you replace 'high voltage matting' with shitty flooring from Lowes in an electrical compartment? Probably not. And yet, here we are, with no actions taken to revert to the approved configuration or fix the problem by applying the existing RCN rules.

If we went by commercial rules, the ships would have their certificates pulled until it was fixed. Boggles my mind that warships don't even meet lower commercial standards but Quality of Life somehow wins. Personally, I'd prefer to not make my life worse if you are taking fire and occupied spaces are full of unnecessary hazards, but I guess I just have an aversion to wooden shrapnel, fire and toxic smoke.

 

[Halifax Tar]

That was back when configuration management was enforced; now people just shrug and say 'Command assumes the risk' which would be fair if they actually did it knowing what the risks are.

Are you supposed to put a (literal) tonne of wood on a ship? No. Should you replace 'high voltage matting' with shitty flooring from Lowes in an electrical compartment? Probably not. And yet, here we are, with no actions taken to revert to the approved configuration or fix the problem by applying the existing RCN rules.

If we went by commercial rules, the ships would have their certificates pulled until it was fixed. Boggles my mind that warships don't even meet lower commercial standards but Quality of Life somehow wins. Personally, I'd prefer to not make my life worse if you are taking fire and occupied spaces are full of unnecessary hazards, but I guess I just have an aversion to wooden shrapnel, fire and toxic smoke.

FTA has been a big help in the past for us in procurement. Mattress toppers anyone ?

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Halifax Tar The worst part about it, is that if the ship finds an alternative to the configuration managed item that meets/exceeds the same standards, and wants to go about getting it, they can actually formally track the deviation in DRMIS fairly easily.

Getting a mattress topper that conforms to the commercial regulations (primarly the IMO Fire Testing protocol), chucking in a deviation and letting people know is completely above board, and even though it's a deviation from the mil-spec material standards the mattresses meet, it's a reasonable and completely allowed thing to do.

Buying random cheap foam mattress toppers on a credit card, not telling anyone and just carrying on is what actually causes problems, and creates a massive amount of churn when it's eventually found out.

Lots of flexibility built into the system if you do a bit of paperwork, but people just lying about it drives me crazy, especially when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

Telling people 18 months out that the replacement furniture will have a six month lead time so order it ahead of time seemed reasonable, but somehow surprised when to find out nobody bothered pulling the trigger and it's now a crisis.... Argh!