11-18-2010, 09:48 PM
I can't believe I am hearing people say they are "disappointed" that a certain person declined to participate in the PAT test. Anyone who agrees with that is a blundering idiot.
That person is one of the few people who are still willing to take a stand for the benefit of EVERYONE and not just do whatever he thinks will get him promoted (see recent and very near future promotions as examples). What you don't realize is that he understood that our department is quietly trying to implement mandatory PAT exams which will eventually involve discipline for those who don't pass. All done under the guise of "self evaluation" and "voluntary participation" as a start. He understands that whenever something like that is implemented, it almost never can be stopped and it slowly turns into more and more strict rules.
I agree that we should all be physically fit, should want to be fit for our own safety and well being, and should strive to be the best we can for everyone we deal with (both internally and externally). However, just consider what happens when you get a minor condition that prevents you from perfroming to their standards?
+Like an ankle that needs multiple surgeries over several years. One that you can function with on the job, but if you were required to run any lengthy distance might cause it to fail and end your career- sound familiar Lt?
+How about a guy whose knee goes bad but tries to work full duty as long as possile in hopes that he can manage to retire before major surgery (sound familiar IA sgt. - oh wait - you lost that rank cpl.?)
+How about a guy who might have a long term condition that does not need urgent care but the extra (and unnecessary) straining of a PAT might cause it to become a more serious condition (like a minor hernia as an example - you know who you are).
With the future mandatory rules, guys in those positions will be in danger of losing their careers. Of course, I fully expect the example subjects to have the same double standard as the recently retired DC did, conveniently forgetting all the things they did that they now seek out to discipline others for doing.
You guys don't understand that what you think is "a good rule" to apply to "that guy" can just as quickly be used against you in the future when circumstances change or they need a sacraficial lamb to save their own skin.
The person who opted out of the PAT recognized the potential future and the problems associated with it. He recognized that the "voluntary participation" was just a front for an eventual mandatory and disciplinary process. He opted out to prove a point. And guess what has happened? He was 100% correct. If you want details, speak with him and ask how the rules have already changed.
Be very, very cautious of the motivations of anyone who consistently pushes for whatever "changes" that the current administration wants. It is all very reminiscient of a recent underhanded union back stabber turned corporal.....now it wasn't him that made comments about the opt out was it?!? Think about it and stop being a bunch of forgetful lemmings.
That person is one of the few people who are still willing to take a stand for the benefit of EVERYONE and not just do whatever he thinks will get him promoted (see recent and very near future promotions as examples). What you don't realize is that he understood that our department is quietly trying to implement mandatory PAT exams which will eventually involve discipline for those who don't pass. All done under the guise of "self evaluation" and "voluntary participation" as a start. He understands that whenever something like that is implemented, it almost never can be stopped and it slowly turns into more and more strict rules.
I agree that we should all be physically fit, should want to be fit for our own safety and well being, and should strive to be the best we can for everyone we deal with (both internally and externally). However, just consider what happens when you get a minor condition that prevents you from perfroming to their standards?
+Like an ankle that needs multiple surgeries over several years. One that you can function with on the job, but if you were required to run any lengthy distance might cause it to fail and end your career- sound familiar Lt?
+How about a guy whose knee goes bad but tries to work full duty as long as possile in hopes that he can manage to retire before major surgery (sound familiar IA sgt. - oh wait - you lost that rank cpl.?)
+How about a guy who might have a long term condition that does not need urgent care but the extra (and unnecessary) straining of a PAT might cause it to become a more serious condition (like a minor hernia as an example - you know who you are).
With the future mandatory rules, guys in those positions will be in danger of losing their careers. Of course, I fully expect the example subjects to have the same double standard as the recently retired DC did, conveniently forgetting all the things they did that they now seek out to discipline others for doing.
You guys don't understand that what you think is "a good rule" to apply to "that guy" can just as quickly be used against you in the future when circumstances change or they need a sacraficial lamb to save their own skin.
The person who opted out of the PAT recognized the potential future and the problems associated with it. He recognized that the "voluntary participation" was just a front for an eventual mandatory and disciplinary process. He opted out to prove a point. And guess what has happened? He was 100% correct. If you want details, speak with him and ask how the rules have already changed.
Be very, very cautious of the motivations of anyone who consistently pushes for whatever "changes" that the current administration wants. It is all very reminiscient of a recent underhanded union back stabber turned corporal.....now it wasn't him that made comments about the opt out was it?!? Think about it and stop being a bunch of forgetful lemmings.