[CW] FCC degrades Radio Officers

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Gene,

A FCC First Class Radiotelegraph License has the requirement that the
applicant "be employed at a radio station that employes radiotelegraphy for
at least ONE year."

I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve his Second Class License - which
requires NO employment certification, but it flies in the face of everyone
who has such a 1st Class Telegraph license that he is given it without
having worked for it.

If you read the attached portions of the newsletter, what he did will become
apparent.

If not, suggest where he was employed.  Want to wager he hasn't a W-2 for
this employment?

I don't know about you, but when they haven't changed the requirements, and
someone gets something without meeting those requirements, it isn't right.

When EVERYONE I know had to apply for this license, they had to have 365
days of employment - actual working days - 8 hours a day.

If you were on ship, then times in port didn't count.

Having this license - on some ships - meant an increase of pay.

Are the people who were as qualified as this man, now entitled to sue the
FCC for back wages?  If so it might add up to hundreds of thousands of
dollars?

73

David Ring
N1EA

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb@deltasoft.com>
To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>
Cc: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] FCC degrades Radio Officers


>
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, David J. Ring, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Here is an interesting story.  I believe this man qualified for his T1
> > license on a ship with no functioning commercial radio equipment.  If
not,
> > it is highly unlikely that he was employed for 365 days as a
> > radiotelegrapher at a shore or ship station licensed for
radiotelegraphy.
> >
> > Look at the dates of his licenses.
> >
> > I wonder if people who didn't get paid for a first class license can now
sue
> > the FCC for discrimination?
> >
> > This is very insulting to those of us who actually did work and earn
this
> > license.
> >
> Where did it say he didn't work for the license?  If he got it, that means
> he satisfied the requirements set by the FCC.
>
> This mailing list has been quite an education for me up until recently.
>
> It's become the Sour Grapes Reflector.  A place where if you didn't go
> through the radio equivalent of walking to school in the snow, uphill both
> ways with rocks tied to your bare feet while wearing tattered rags, you're
> guaranteed to get slapped around by some OM that thinks he's better than
> you.
>
> What's really sad is that the people with the largest set of
> accomplishments seem to lead the pack of snarling dogs.  I guess success
> breeds contempt everywhere, even in amateur radio.
>
> I apologise to the regular list members for my off-topic rant.  To the
> rest of the Sour Grapes Gang, you're invited to See Figure #1.
>
> g.
>
>
>