- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who is Vindman and what did he do?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:16 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:16 am to AggieHank86
quote:
In a purely military hierarchy, must every issue go directly to the commanding officer? Are there not issues that should be taken up with the XO, or the personnel officer, or the supply officer, etc.?
Of course you can talk to other staff officers about day to day business. However if you have an issue or concern about impropriety or anything of negative connotations that directly impacts your office, you go to your direct supervisor, whoever that is.
ETA: And if you are below the staff level, it is expected that you clear it with your supervisor before you talk to the XO, personnel, supply, etc. You don't just go walk in their door.
quote:
In a blended military/civilian environment, are there not issues on which a military officer would be required to follow the protocol of the civilian hierarchy? For instance, if a military officer has a problem with a civilian secretary, is he required to take that to his direct (civilian) supervisor, rather than approaching the human resources director?
He approaches his direct supervisor. In your example, the supervisor will more than likely direct him to HR. If the supervisor blows him off, he informs the supervisor he is going to the next higher supervisor and/or HR.
In the situation we are discussing, there is absolutely no reason, I repeat no reason, to not inform your supervisor before you do anything else, or if they are not immediately available, you let them know ASAP. Even if your supervisor is the problem.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:19 am
0
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:17 am to AggieHank86
quote:
In a purely military hierarchy, must every issue go directly to the commanding officer?
Immediate supervisor first. If he can’t solve the problem, it goes to the next level. Hence the term chain of command.
quote:
In a blended military/civilian environment, are their not issues on which a military officer would be required to follow the protocol of the civilian hierarchy? For instance, if a military officer has a problem with a civilian secretary, is he required to take that to his direct (civilian) supervisor, rather than approaching the human resources director?
He would still go to his immediate supervisor first and follow his recommendation.
Look, it’s pretty clear what you’re trying to do here, but there’s really no getting around what this guy did.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:20 am to SOSFAN
quote:OK. You are Vindman. You got assigned a crappy secretary by the NSC. You would like to see about changing that. NSC protocol says you simply call the HR director.
That is absolutely incorrect. There is no balancing. If you are active military you follow the military chain of command 100%. Your supervisor will instruct you what you are to do with civilians.
As a military officer are you required to ignore that protocol and instead contact your CO over in the Pentagon (probably a general officer with much bigger concerns) in order to get permission to talk to civilian HR about changing secretaries? Or does military protocol require you to ignore the civilian protocols and bother your civilian boss with a piddly personnel issue that he DOES NOT care about and thinks should be handled by HR?
This may sound sarcastic, but that contention is so utterly ridiculous in my mind that I cannot prevent myself from phrasing it the way I phrased it.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:22 am to AggieHank86
Thats not how chain of command works. You go to your supervisor not the Commander nor the xo and your direct supervisor makes the call in going further up the chain of command. yes every issue that need direction or approval goes to chain of command.
. There is absolutely no excuse or reason for Vindman not to have followed chain of command . He is in violation and should be subject to the Military Code of Justice.
. There is absolutely no excuse or reason for Vindman not to have followed chain of command . He is in violation and should be subject to the Military Code of Justice.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
As a military officer are you required to ignore that protocol and instead contact your CO over in the Pentagon (probably a general officer with much bigger concerns) in order to get permission to talk to civilian HR about changing secretaries?
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:
OK. You are Vindman. You got assigned a crappy secretary by the NSC. You would like to see about changing that. NSC protocol says you simply call the HR director.
As a military officer are you required to ignore that protocol and instead contact your CO over in the Pentagon (probably a general officer with much bigger concerns) in order to get permission to talk to civilian HR about changing secretaries? Or does military protocol require you to ignore the civilian protocols and bother your civilian boss with a piddly personnel issue that he DOES NOT care about and thinks should be handled by HR?
I think you’re just being willfully obtuse now. This has all been explained to you.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
As a military officer are you required to ignore that protocol and instead contact your CO over in the Pentagon (probably a general officer with much bigger concerns) in order to get permission to talk to civilian HR about changing secretaries?
Vindman doesn't have a CO in the pentagon. He is assigned to the NSC post and his supervisor is Morrison.
When I worked for a civilian, I had no military CO. My "CO" was my civilian boss.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:39 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:25 am to AggieHank86
Why would you use such an asinine comparison? Getting a new secretary has nothing to do with what Vindman dealt with. The fact is he 100% should have gone directly to his immediate supervisor and absolutely no one else. He is 100% in violation of not following the chain of command no if, and nor buts.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:25 am to Centinel
LibbyHank is playing games.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:28 am to Jbird
quote:
LibbyHank is playing games.
Claims to have a law degree, yet can’t grasp a simple concept that’s taught to every E-1 in basic.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:29 am to Godfather1
Its drilled into E-1 starting from day 1 of boot camp.
So aggiehank next post needs to be " According to chain of command Vindman violated and should be charged".
So aggiehank next post needs to be " According to chain of command Vindman violated and should be charged".
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:32 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:30 am to Godfather1
quote:Like I said playing games to protect Vindman.
Claims to have a law degree, yet can’t grasp a simple concept that’s taught to every E-1 in basic.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:30 am to Centinel
quote:OK, that makes sense ... sort of. I cannot imagine that he does not have a military officer to whom he is somehow responsible on a hierarchy chart somewhere, but the practicality makes sense.
Vindman doesn't have a CO in the pentagon. He is assigned to the NSC post and his supervisor is Miller.
When I worked for a civilian, I had no military CO. My "CO" was my civilian boss.
So, let’s stay with the same hypo. Let’s say you are assigned at Raytheon or something. Raytheon policy manual says that you go directly to HR with problems re secretaries.
Are you seriously telling me that you (and you alone in his department as the only military person) would be required to bother your civilian boss with an issue that his own personnel manual tells him should not be wasting his time?
That may indeed be the case, but it sounds completely inefficient to the point of near insanity.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:31 am to AggieHank86
quote:Not reading thru 7pages, so SIAP, but Hope Hicks was no longer employed by the Executive Branch at the time she was subpoenaed. There was no separation of powers issue at hand. Trump could have cited executive privilege in limiting her testimony, and may have done so, but I don't recall one way or the other. Vindman OTOH could have been ordered by the EB to ignore a subpoena and STFU.
Simple question — Did POTUS directly order Vindman to defy the Congressional subpoena? (I note in passing that Hope Hicks also complied in part with Congressional subpoenas, in DIRECT defiance of instructions from POTUS). I have not seen that POTUS issued any such order to Vindman.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:33 am to SOSFAN
quote:Because I am examining the assertion that EVERY issue must be first addressed with a direct supervisor.
Why would you use such an asinine comparison? Getting a new secretary has nothing to do with what Vindman dealt with.
Either that “rule” is absolute, or it is not.
If it is absolute, so be it. If it is not absolute. then we start to examine more-analogous scenarios.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:34 am to Centinel
quote:I keep seeing Morrison in the reporting. Who is actually his supervisor?
Vindman doesn't have a CO in the pentagon. He is assigned to the NSC post and his supervisor is Miller.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:34 am to AggieHank86
You are continuing, and embarrassing for you, trying to skirt the issue. Vindman clearly viloated direct orders by not following chain of command. There is no, but what about this, senerio to get him out of direct orders.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:35 am to NC_Tigah
quote:EB = executive branch?
Vindman OTOH could have been ordered by the EB to ignore a subpoena and STFU.
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:37 am to SOSFAN
quote:There is nothing embarrassing about a logical analysis, starting from the general and working toward the specific.
You are continuing, and embarrassing for you, trying to skirt the issue. Vindman clearly viloated direct orders by not following chain of command. There is no, but what about this, senerio to get him out of direct orders.
As such, it seems to me that it is YOU who is skirting the issue. Is this “rule” absolute, or is it not? The secretarial hypo strikes me as a near-perfect example of a situation in which this “rule” would be ridiculous to apply.
But what “direct order?”. I asked that question in the OP, and it has yet to be answered.
This post was edited on 11/20/19 at 10:41 am
Posted on 11/20/19 at 10:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I cannot imagine that he does not have a military officer to whom he is somehow responsible on a hierarchy chart somewhere, but the practicality makes sense.
He doesn't. It happens all the time. It's part of the whole "civilian run military" thing. My department had maybe 10 of us that were in uniform, the rest was civilian...about 300 folks. All of us worked for civilians.
quote:
Are you seriously telling me that you (and you alone in his department as the only military person) would be required to bother your civilian boss with an issue that his own personnel manual tells him should not be wasting his time?
We're not talking a simply HR request to have your name changed. The issue at hand is much more serious than your example, and you damn well know it.
And to follow, are you really advocating that if you find an issue in your department or company with how things are being handled, that you're just going to go talk to whoever and not let your boss know?
quote:
That may indeed be the case, but it sounds completely inefficient to the point of near insanity.
Again, when discussing the subject we are today, it's required for an officer, and you should be doing it anyway as a civilian. Are you seriously advocating starting shite of this level and NOT telling your boss about it, even as a civilian?
Just drop it with the "simple HR question" bullshite. It's disingenuous and why people have their opinion of you that they do here.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News