Frequent contributor Bill Wells has written a post concerning generalists verse specialists within the Coast Guard, particularly in regard to BMs. You can read the post here.
Does the Coast Guard still have nothing comparable to MOS to differentiate skill sets?
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
it seems to me that this woiuld mean that some members would end up spending most of their time u/w while others would spend most of their time as sand pebes. even folks like me who preferd shipboard duty needed an occasional shore billet to recharge. the only 1 of my duty stations that i didn’t enjoy was a non-operational one. all the others gave me opportunities out side of my normal rating, (mk). wpbs and an ant team stand out. if i had stayed on big boats as an mk i would never have learned basic navigation skills, radar use, deck skills and many others things. these other things with the exception of le, made my tours more enjoyable and rewarding. i believe we can overspecialize just as easily as over generalize.
Eric,
The majority are already spending their careers, if not on it, but real close to shore. This is my point. There is nothing to say that engineers cannot learn these skills. All officers at sea, including the engineers, are required to have DWO knowledge. It is part of the chain of command. However, enlisted engineers have no real need for the knowledge other that for personal fulfillment. I do suppose that engine room automation would cause the engineer to become free for deck watches.
I do not believe to be an over specialization, but a correction in how personnel are more effectively used in an era of changing missions and culture. If you read carefully there is some sneaky history in this too.
bill,
i agree it probably was as much about my personal fulfillment. my first tour was usn where engineers were much more specialized, though still a good bit of overlap. given my druthers i’d much rather stand a mid in the engineroom then a rather boring helm watch, of course on an 82′ wasn’t much choice as you know. after ant woods hole i understood why the bms and qms were combined as they were pretty much interchangeable. i also realize that if there hadn’t been that overlap of engineers in the usn i would have had a harder time adapting to the mk rate. i think i get what your saying about the missions changing and evolving the, bm rate is going to have to do the same. just musing i guess as there seems to be a little of the old goat left in me.
It’s not just the BM rating…
Look at the IT rating. The IT rating’s world of work encompasses a minimum of 3 separate specialties in the civilian world, (4 if you count information security). In the civilian world those specialties to mix – yet in the CG we expect our ITs to be proficient across all those fields. Those who dare to become subject matter experts are in many ways a liability because of their specialization.
I have yet to meet an IT who was proficient administering a server, AND installing a network infrastructure, AND programming phone switches, AND programming networking switches, AND well versed in IT and physical security policies….
Instead of combining the TTs with anybody interested in maintaining computers to create the IT rate, it would have made better sense to leave the TTs alone and create a new IT rate that just specialized in Systems Administration.
I liked the old pole climbers. They did dirty work and had a good time doing it. They began as electrician’s. During Prohibition they carried .38 revolvers because Coast Guard meant “Reverooner” out in the country. I met a pre-WWII Army artilleryman who joined the Coast Guard at the beginning of WWII to stay out of the Army. He worked for Southern Bell and enlisted as an EM3(T). They sent him to the Franklin Institute in Boston to learn electricity and then spent the remainder of the war installing and maintaining the beach patrol communication lines and switchboards. I have a photo of the 40-foot cable layer they used to run cable across rivers and bays. They had some snappy pole trucks too. It was hard work.
I agree. It sounds as if the mergers are not working out that well.
d
The Kimball II study group may well provide some recommendations that address this issue…..mile wide and an inch deep.
Are you in favor of specialization?
I am. I think the skills dilution (across the service) has done some real harm to our core ethos….we are increasingly risk averse and bureaucratic to the extent that we are nearly impotent.
I don’t believe that increasing the number of rating specialties is compatible with our current service, except within Surf stations and DSF. ADM Papp has come to this conclusion with regard to the latter….extending tour length. The budget climate is likely to push us further down that path through tour extensions and re-tours.
In a form, some BMs have already specialized the LE part when the ME rating was created. The ratings would not be increased, but merely reprogrammed into near stand alone areas of responsibility. While hand and perhaps necessary at the time, rating mergers have not satisfied the needs of expertise or proficiency. A 2005 GAO remarked the Coast Guard is not meeting its readiness standards for a number of reasons. Perhaps retrenchment in what ratings do is an appropriate matter to consider. As for budgetary difficulties, these have been around before and the Coast Guard enlisted force is not much larger than it was in the 1960s.
I commend you on a well written and rounded piece of perspective on the topic!
I became a CG BM in 1977 (not store-bought!), and was very proud of the fact that it took the Navy 13 rates to perform what the CG BM’s did daily.
I learned my rate on the jo, earning several non-BM particular “qual codes” (Explosives Loading Supervisor, Pollution Investigator, Marine Inspector, Pollution Clean-up Supervisor),as well as becoming a Coxswain, Boarding Officer and CDO (of a Small Boat Station). I certainly feel that those “extra” skills served me well throughout my career.
Admittedly, I declined opportunities to move outside the the Small Boat/SAR Community, until required to move to a MSST. Even there, I was able to use my skills and experience to improve training and participation from a declining Reserve element.
Even today, I consider myself a Retired Boatswains Mate, and am proud of the fact that I could serve in many different roles. Boatswains Mates are the “Swiss Army Knives” of the CG Enlisted workforce, and I firmly believe that specialization would NOT serve the Coast Guard well.
BM1 Dale Carnathan, USCG(R) Retired
Dale, What about the premise of being “a mile wide and an inch deep?” Those who propose specialization use this to justify not only the narrow particulars of their specialty, but their current positions. Aviation and the “M” program are the two largest areas of specialization in the Coast Guard today and would fight to generalize any part of either program.
Are not the BMs in the MSSTs now ME?
When the BM rating was combined with the QM, BM became the only enlisted rating where “command” was an potential assignment. BM’s are OinC’s of WPB’s, Stations and AtoN Teams all across the country. The effectiveness of command, especially mulit-mission units (like Stations and WPB’s) is only enhanced by the breadth of knowledge that a non-specific career path can provide.
Bill, there are still BM’s at the MSST’s. They are reponsible for the Boats (and driving them!), and serve in OPS and CDO positions. ME’s can qualify as coxswain or crew, but their primary function and training is Law Enforcement and Port/Unit Security.
Not true Dale… The ET rate has command billets as well. Most of them disappeared when the LORSTAs closed but there are still a few of them at the COMMSTAs..
Not only that but the ESD Supervisor jobs carry much of the same responsibilities as an OIC position without the pay or the designation.
The question is why on BMs in the OIC positions (with apologies to the few ETs)? I understand that background in aids to navigation and boat driving are important areas of knowledge but these are merely learned abilities. Who is to say that others could not learn the same things? Why would not an EM be capable of running an AtoN shore facility? Why not a GM as OIC afloat? I’ve seen GMs as DWOs aboard larger cutters and the other leadership and management skills needed are identical to those of BM. I’ve seen some BMCM OICs with very limited backgrounds in the Coast Guard. After all, do they not all go to a pre-command school now?
Using the BM-rating only matter, would exclude commissioned officers from command. Most have a couple years afloat (under heavy supervision) and then are selected for commands as very junior, junior officers. They all learn what they are to supposed to do. Unfortunately, this is usually the last command most will have.
There is no reason why any one in any senior rating position could not be an OIC, either afloat or ashore.
As for the BMs at the MSSTs. Okay, but what will they do later? This is not more than a special shore billet which ties into the SAR (lifesaving) mode more than AtoN. At the beginning of WWII, the surfmen were removed from the stations to run landing craft (they were also instructors at the Navy school), however, their basic job did not change. They were still small craft operators. The Navy BMs in special warfare are with the Special Boat Units that include landing craft for the Marines. The Navy also allows other ratings to be “craft masters” of some logistics vessels that are larger than some Coast Guard cutters. The YFUs in Vietnam were run by E-7s, I met one who was an EMC.
The object here is to show that specialization is probably necessary for the future Coast Guard. The BMs could split and make the Service better. They are no longer the jack o’ all trades they once were. Just look how many are specializing today.