- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Long time lurker here, looking for guidance. Here is the scenario:
- last spring, member receives high ready PER after one year in new rank. (Yes, I know previous PER's have no bearing on future evaluations, but it's additional information showing member is not a slouch)
- member posted last summer to new position for which member lacks formal, specialized training.
- member points out to gaining unit upon arrival that member lacks necessary skills, and requests training.
- member repeatedly denied requests for local training, lack of funding cited. Existing OSQ course would satisfy requirement, but member is not nominated for some reason
- member told to attempt to learn job from peers (who are also new to position), and by Googling (no, I'm not kidding)
- member displays difficulty with self-teach method (jobs take much longer than they should, and errors abound), and seeks alternate employment within members' existing skill set.
- member told to keep trying with existing learning methods, again denied formal training.
- member given PER which reflects lack of initiative, lacklustre performance, and normal potential.
Was member wronged? If so, how?
(Random thoughts from my head on the topic---- Can a member be held responsible for performance shortcomings when necessary training is not provided? Is performing the job despite lack of training a possible positive attribute?)
- last spring, member receives high ready PER after one year in new rank. (Yes, I know previous PER's have no bearing on future evaluations, but it's additional information showing member is not a slouch)
- member posted last summer to new position for which member lacks formal, specialized training.
- member points out to gaining unit upon arrival that member lacks necessary skills, and requests training.
- member repeatedly denied requests for local training, lack of funding cited. Existing OSQ course would satisfy requirement, but member is not nominated for some reason
- member told to attempt to learn job from peers (who are also new to position), and by Googling (no, I'm not kidding)
- member displays difficulty with self-teach method (jobs take much longer than they should, and errors abound), and seeks alternate employment within members' existing skill set.
- member told to keep trying with existing learning methods, again denied formal training.
- member given PER which reflects lack of initiative, lacklustre performance, and normal potential.
Was member wronged? If so, how?
(Random thoughts from my head on the topic---- Can a member be held responsible for performance shortcomings when necessary training is not provided? Is performing the job despite lack of training a possible positive attribute?)
