# Attitude from the supply staff again.



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

Edit: Thank you for your advice on this matter.


----------



## 40below (6 May 2010)

I was halfway through that post reading it as male 'parts' when it occurred to me that I need more sleep.


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

LOL. 

Thank you. You made me smile at least.


----------



## dapaterson (6 May 2010)

It should be: NDHQ / ADM(Mat) / DGLEPM / DSSPM

(Or, in English, national Defence Headquarters, Assistant Deputy Minister Materiel, Director General Land Equipment Program Management, Director Soldier Systems Program Management)


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> Back in Borden and the QM staff refused to help me yet again.
> 
> I went in to have my documents changed so I could order the male pants on logistics. (I'm female). There are two girls in my unit who wear male pants and had no issue having their documents changed to have male pants. I walked in, went up to the desk and just asked if I could have my pants changed, they said no, they (Male civilian) told me that because I am female I HAVE to wear the female pants no matter what and if I wanted to wear the male pants I had write a memo to Ottawa.
> 
> ...



I am sure Vern or one of our resident Supply Tech will be along shortly but.......

Did you ask to speak to the I/C of Clothing after you where told no?


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

No, I didn't ask to speak to the I/C. 

But someone a few minutes ago just game me an email to contact about the pants at logistik Unicorp. I called up to double check and they told me it was no problem they could arrange to have male pants sent to me, because women get them ALL THE TIME. And I don't have to contact Ottawa at all. But my documents still wouldn't be changed, so in the future if I needed a new pair, I would still have to call Logistik Unicorp and have them sent. 

So in short, civilian guy at the QM gave me attitude and lied to me.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> No, I didn't ask to speak to the I/C.
> 
> But someone a few minutes ago just game me an email to contact about the pants at logistik Unicorp. I called up to double check and they told me it was no problem they could arrange to have male pants sent to me, because women get them ALL THE TIME. And I don't have to contact Ottawa at all. But my documents still wouldn't be changed, so in the future if I needed a new pair, I would still have to call Logistik Unicorp and have them sent.
> 
> So in short, civilian guy at the QM gave me attitude and lied to me.



Hence why it is a good idea to inform the I/C of clothing that you received wrong information (potentially) from the counter staff, and have them annotate your clothing docs.. (_but I would suggest you wait until Vern et al sees this thread as I am outside my lane wrt matters of supply)_


----------



## danchapps (6 May 2010)

To start with, it is not the QM, the QM is a Logistics officer in charge of supply. I highly doubt that you dealt with him/her. You would be reffering to clothing stores. 

Secondly, I have to ask if you are a student, or a member of a PAT platoon/PRETC. If this is the case, then chances of getting certain items becomes greatly decreased. They like to make sure you are trades qualified first, just in case you don't make it through the course. Having worked at clothing stores in Borden that seemed to be the policy.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 May 2010)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> To start with, it is not the QM, the QM is a Logistics officer in charge of supply.



Not in my unit Chappey, he happens to be a WO Engr.....

 ;D


EDITED FOR GRAMMAR


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> No, I didn't ask to speak to the I/C.
> 
> But someone a few minutes ago just game me an email to contact about the pants at logistik Unicorp. I called up to double check and they told me it was no problem they could arrange to have male pants sent to me, because women get them ALL THE TIME. And I don't have to contact Ottawa at all. But my documents still wouldn't be changed, so in the future if I needed a new pair, I would still have to call Logistik Unicorp and have them sent.
> 
> So in short, civilian guy at the QM gave me attitude and lied to me.



No, he did not. I expect that your apology to him will occur tomorrow?  :

Sup techs (or civ storesman) can do SFA to change Logistik Computer system. It's a civilian computer system that belongs to Logistik, a civilian company, and they effect changes to it.

It pulls it's info from peoplesoft. So, you have to contact _them_ to have your info there changed - so that it downloads/updates properly to Logistik.

And, a QM is *NOT* part of Base Supply, nor is it a clothing stores. Not even close. Two entirely different places with different functions and capabilities in life.
________________________________________


Mods, can we just start a huge "megathread" for all the "clothing gave me attitude and lied to me threads"?? Or do we really need a new one each complaint (or alleged complaint)?? I could see if this thread's title was actually named after the specific problem encountered, but it's not.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No, he didn't - not really.
> 
> Sup techs (or civ storesman) can do SFA to change Logistik Computer system. It's a civilian computer system that belongs to Logistik, a civilian company, and they effect changes to it.
> 
> ...



I knew you would be around sooner or later.....







 ;D


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Not in my unit Chappey, he happens to be a WO Engr.....
> 
> ;D
> 
> ...



That's 'cause your Unit is special. Is he at least QM qualified (ie taken the Quarter Master course) at CFSAL. The QM is a postion, not a place - but you, at least, knew that already.  ;D


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

So I got the terminology wrong? in St. Jean the clothing stores are referred to as "going to the QM" it just carried on from there.

He was still rude to me and lied to me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 May 2010)

Everyone calls it QM. It's a niggly and useless point to get hung up on.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> So I got the terminology wrong? in St. Jean the clothing stores are referred to as "going to the QM" it just carried on from there.
> 
> He was still rude to me and lied to me.



Apparently you can NOT read.

Clothing Stores can NOT change the Logistik Computer system. ONLY Logistik employees can do that. 

Nor can clothing stores (or ANY Sup Tech) change your data that is transferred to Logistik's system. THAT is a peoplesoft process - and ergo why YOU have to go to Ottawa.

Clear enough?

Again, I'm sure he can expect your apology tomorrow?? What time will you be in?? --- so I can be there to watch it happen.

And, yep - now I too am giving you "attitude". You want to bitch about the staff here, then the very least you can do is get your "facts" straight.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone calls it QM. It's a niggly and useless point to get hung up on.



Well, it sure isn't a niggly and useless point to all those students who are told by their instructors to "go to the QM and get issued your mags" etc who then march 2 kms across the base to a 2nd Line Clothing Stores only to find out that the QM is an indivdual and the section that their instructors called the "QM" is actually located back at their start point 2kms ago in their very own 1st line Unit.

It happens at least once per week in Gagetown. Sure as heck isn't an insignificant error - especially so for courses undergoing training with all the lost training time and man hours that "niggly error" caused.


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

I did not say he lied to me about changing my docs. 

I said he lied to me. Period. What he lied to me about is about me being allowed to have male pants and him giving me attitude about it. He said, I could not have them. period. He said that because I am female, I HAD to wear the female pants and I was not allowed to have male pants at all, unless I went up the chain through to Ottawa. That was the lie. I did not have to go through to Ottawa, and I am entitled to wear male pants if I want them. If he had said "I'm sorry I can't change your docs, but you can call Logistik Unicorp and get the pants that way" that would be one thing I could accept. But he flatly told me it could not do it AT ALL unless I sent a memo to Ottawa, and he said I was not allowed to wear male pants at all, I HAD to wear the female pants. Which is a lie.


----------



## Greymatters (6 May 2010)

Its a niggly point, but if this person had limited experience on the job, he/she was likely parroting what they had been told, or quoting directly from QM regs, not neccesarily lying to you.  Just because they are unaware of how to get around the rules doesnt make them liars. 

Now, if you go back and the person denies saying what they said to you before, then  they're a liar...


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

That's something I could accept if they had limited experience. But it would have been nice without the "suck it up" tone I got.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> I did not say he lied to me about changing my docs.
> 
> I said he lied to me. Period. What he lied to me about is about me being allowed to have male pants and him giving me attitude about it. He said, I could not have them. period. He said that because I am female, I HAD to wear the female pants and I was not allowed to have male pants at all, *unless I went up the chain through to Ottawa*. That was the lie. (Uhmmm, no it was EXACTLY the truth). I did not have to go through to Ottawa, and I am entitled to wear male pants if I want them (AFTER you go through Ottawa!!). If he had said "I'm sorry I can't change your docs, but you can call Logistik Unicorp and get the pants that way" that would be one thing I could accept. But he flatly told me it could not do it AT ALL unless I sent a memo to Ottawa, and he said I was not allowed to wear male pants at all, I HAD to wear the female pants. (<--- you forgot to add the bit "unless you went through Ottawa her bit that he also told you) Which is a lie.



He did NOT lie to you. period. You are a female. IAW your scale of entitlement you are entitled ONLY to female pants. Period. 

If YOU want to wear male pants instead, YOU must go to Ottawa via your CoC to have them deem you "entitled" and to enter that into peoplesoft so that it downloads to Logistik. EXACTLY as he told you. This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process ... what part of THAT do you not understand?? <--- THAT is the process IAW CF policy.

Of course, you could circumvent "CF policy" and go to Logistik directly (as you are now aware), but circumventing the policy does NOT fix your entitlement in the long term as you are also aware.

And, that is why he gave you the PROPER CF policy to follow to FIX the problem for the LONG TERM. Good on him. I never advocate my staff advising people to do things that are NOT IAW CF policy; you know why, 'becasue doing that wouldn't have fixed your problem. He did his job. He did it properly. He advised you of the CF policy you needed to follow to "solve" your problem. 

There's also message direction on that policy out there in DWAN land of what you have to do for all you women who "choose" to get male pants vice the female pants that you are entitled to. 

End of story.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> That's something I could accept if they had limited experience. But it would have been nice without the "suck it up" tone I got.



No. He gave you the policy and you didn't like it. You think he's a liar because he didn't give you hints at how to shortcut around following the OFFICIAL CF policy on the subject.

Guess what?? Good on him, because if I EVER found one of my staff advocating or advising someone "how to circumvent the official CF policy" ... I'd charge their ass.


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

_This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process _
I never said I didn't understand that, I thought it was clear when said I would accept him saying he couldn't change the docs, which I am okay with base supply no being able to do. Are you even reading what I am saying? Or are you just trying to pick what I am saying apart because I criticized one of your workers?

I just realized that's a picture of your behind in tight undies and you're an senior NCO?


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> _This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process _
> I never said I didn't understand that, I thought it was clear when said I would accept him saying he couldn't change the docs, which I am okay with base supply no being able to do. Are you even reading what I am saying? Or are you just trying to pick what I am saying apart because I criticized one of your workers?
> 
> I just realized that's a picture of your behind in tight undies and you're an senior NCO?



Nope. I ABSOLUTELY am NOT a Snr NCO - my profile states so. Search this site for definition of Snr NCO because I'm not going to explain that to you too when there's already umpteen million posts on who Snr NCOs are.

Oh, I'm reading what you are saying all right. He's not "one of my staff" ... my current location is also in my profile.  

It is NOT his job to tell you how to circumvent policy. It IS his job to advise you as to what you have to do IAW CF policy.

He did that. Yes or No? You still bitching because he did his job? Now, what time can I meet your at the counter tomorrow?



			
				tovasshi said:
			
		

> _This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process _



Ironicly then, you do understand that he could very well have said "not my job, got nothing to do with clothing or supply" ... but he didn't. Too fucking funny. Be thankful he knew the policy that has "ZERO" to do with his job to tell you!!


PS: Who gives a heck about my chaps anyway? Last time I checked ... bikinis were legal. Don't come round my house while I'm mowing the lawn either ... topless is legal here. <--- a point which is as relevant to the topic at hand as the revelation via your posting history that you like to bitch about a lot of things.  :

Perhaps you're resorting to pulling that personal "underwear" comment out of your ass because you got called on your bullshit and erroneous accusations against a civilian employee?


----------



## OldSolduer (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> _This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process _
> I never said I didn't understand that, I thought it was clear when said I would accept him saying he couldn't change the docs, which I am okay with base supply no being able to do. Are you even reading what I am saying? Or are you just trying to pick what I am saying apart because I criticized one of your workers?
> 
> I just realized that's a picture of your behind in tight undies and you're an senior NCO?


And who are you to be questioning an MWO?


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

I know being topless is legal in Ontario... but you're a MWO and you have a picture of your bum hanging out on a public military forum...
You're trying to chew me out, but your butt is staring at me.

I am very confused by this.


----------



## QORvanweert (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> That's something I could accept if they had limited experience. But it would have been nice without the "suck it up" tone I got.



Quite frankly, you should 'suck it up'. You are just venting because you met someone who didn't behave as you expected them to. Welcome to real life.


----------



## riggermade (6 May 2010)

Do you go around with the attitude you show here?  Because if you gave me that attitude at clothing stores I would not have been as polite as the individual you dealt with


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

Maybe I am venting, but when you have two people of high rank telling you two completely conflicting things. You would get frustrated too.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> I know being topless is legal in Ontario... but you're a MWO and you have a picture of your bum hanging out on a public military forum...
> You're trying to chew me out, but your butt is staring at me.
> 
> I am very confused by this.



Word up. Wearing bikinis isn't illegal ... even though I am an MWO. Get over it. Time to put on your big girl undies and quit the whining.

If you don't like avtars, you have the option of changing your site settings in your profile to "hide" users pics etc.  :


----------



## QORvanweert (6 May 2010)

All they are saying is that you have to go through the proper chain of command if you want to get this issue resolved in your favour. Regardless of what your buddies, Cpls, etc told you, unless they have gold braid on their sleeve that clerk isn't going to do anything other than point you in the right direction. You should really be angry at whomever told you it was a walk in the park for your forms to be changed.


----------



## riggermade (6 May 2010)

Who are the two?  I see a MWO supply tech telling you the policy and how to go about getting your info changed.  Where is the second high ranking individual?


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> Maybe I am venting, but when you have two people of high rank telling you two completely conflicting things. You would get frustrated too.



Good. Tomorrow at the school, pull yourself up the message that I referred to earlier. See it for yourself in black and white. because, apparently, I may not know after spending 3 years as the Clothing Stores supervisor - nor a further 2 years as their MPO what I was talking about. 

Now, I'll just set you to [/ignore].


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

riggermade said:
			
		

> Who are the two?  I see a MWO supply tech telling you the policy and how to go about getting your info changed.  Where is the second high ranking individual?



Well, I'm hoping that one isn't her coursemate Chris C who spent a few months working in clothing stores as a first year Pte ... well before Logitik Unicorp even began supplying our DEUs.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> Maybe I am venting, but when you have two people of high rank telling you two completely conflicting things. You would get frustrated too.


Who are these high ranking individuals?

Some words of advice here:

1. Your buddies are guardhouse lawyers. Every military formation from section to division has a few. They aren't as clever as they think they are.

2. Seek advice from you chain of command. They are the ones responsible for your well being: That includes your DEU.


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

I am getting the Base Supply MWO here, chewing me out, and a WO (off this forum), telling me something else.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> I am getting the Base Supply MWO here, chewing me out, and a WO (off this forum), telling me something else.


Personally I'd go with the MWO here. As we don't know what your WO's trade is, he/she maybe firing out of their arcs.


----------



## riggermade (6 May 2010)

You beat me to it Silverback, just what I was going to say


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> I am getting the Base Supply MWO here, chewing me out, and a WO (off this forum), telling me something else.



Wow. You don't read do you? I already told you that where I worked here was available info in my profile. Does that look like Base Supply to you?

Again, get your facts together. Which *WO Supply tech * here? The other Chris? Cause if so, he hasn't worked clothing in a decade or so ... also well before Logistik began supplying our DEU. ALL my time there was "in the new system", 5 out of the past 7 years ... clothing. But of course - that probably won't be worth shit to you.

 :


----------



## OldSolduer (6 May 2010)

riggermade said:
			
		

> You beat me to it Silverback, just what I was going to say



That's cuz I'm about to graduate from CQ course....LOL


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

I would like to thank those who are giving me real advice. Your guidance and professionalism is well appreciated.


----------



## QORvanweert (6 May 2010)

Well, that was a 180.


If you really need male pants in a pinch, I am pretty sure you can scavenge some up from the several thousand pairs issued to everyone else at base.

Good luck    


 :yellow:


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> I would like to thank those who are giving me real advice. Your guidance and professionalism is well appreciated.



No worries, your professionalism in publicly slamming on an "internet military website" (was _that_ what you called it earlier??) an individual who did his job IAW policy has also been duley noted.


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

I really do appreciate the real advice from certain people. I also found a few sources that were offering to help.


----------



## Loachman (6 May 2010)

I do not know you. I've never met you and, even though we're on the same base, probably never will.

My only impression of you is that formed by reading your posts, and I've just reviewed them all.

My impression may not be accurate. It may be totally out to lunch. It is, however, what it is, and, frankly, based upon the available evidence, it is not terribly favourable.

Here's an observation from many years of experience: whether they realize it or not, many people cause their own problems.

Hundreds of people just like you pass through Clothing Stores in Borden every year. The vast majority do so without recurring problems. If you are the exception that you appear to be, a little honest self-appraisal may be in order.

You refer to some of the staff there as having "attitude" and "lying". Perhaps there is something in _*your*_ attitude to which they are reacting. You claim that you are not responsible, but that is your word against my own experiences at Borden Clothing Stores. Accusing somebody of lying is also something that causes me concern. Lying involves intentional deceit. That is serious, and a serious accusation. You bandy it about a little too easily, methinks.

I've been at Borden now for fourteen years, and have always had first-rate service at Clothing Stores. Granted, my rank, flying suit, dashing good looks, and charm may have something to do with that however I always treat them civilly and respectfully and, yes, that _*can*_ make a difference.

They are not perfect, and sometimes make mistakes. That happens to me upon occasion, but then I use kit with which they are not very familiar (or are even completely unfamiliar) so I can accept a lack of knowledge there. One can always talk to a Clothing Stores supervisor and politely and patiently explain one's problem, or take it up with one's own supervisor. Just because a Corporal cannot see that a flying helmet is unserviceable whereas I plainly can does not make them a liar or incompetent.

Life isn't always easy as a junior Private. I know that - I've been one - but you have a fair amount of influence over how others respond to you, and you have supervisors who are responsible for your well-being.

You also have a tremendous resource here, including some very experienced people who will bend over backwards to get you correct information at no cost or effort to you, as has been done, but read my last sentence above again: "you have a fair amount of influence over how others respond to you".

In the case of this Site, however, you have _*complete*_ influence. And you can talk directly to an MWO, Captain, or much senior Officer just as easily as you can talk to a fellow Private and profit from their experience and knowledge.

A little diplomacy, tact, and respect for others would do you well. Keep that in mind, because, for the time being, you are going to be getting far more benefit from being here than you are going to be returning to those helping you. Beak off at people, and you won't be getting much help in future. That would be your loss, not that of any of the rest of us.

Again, I do not know you, and I may be completely wrong, but you should think hard, very hard, about this.


----------



## danchapps (6 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, a QM is *NOT* part of Base Supply, nor is it a clothing stores. Not even close. Two entirely different places with different functions and capabilities in life.



Sorry Vern, my bad, I thought there was a QM(the position) located at Base Sup. (Note, I didn't say it was base supply, as I was trying to correct that. I should have gone with my initial thought in that it was a regimental/battalion based position)

I'll also take a second to restate what I mentioned earlier, that due to the amount of students on base, unless you are a non-student your entitlements are drastically reduced. No Gucci kit (unless it is required kit for your 3's course). The staff has a hard enough time dealing with students, they don't need people coming in telling them what they are entitled to (we can find that out before you even know what we are doing on the computer), or arguing about why they feel they should get it when they aren't entitled. We're not trying to be the big meanie, just doing our jobs.

Oh, and had you gone to his supervisor, he would have given you the same answer.


Edited to add: Well said Loachman, you posted that as I was writing my own little novel. You hit the nail on the head, treat the counter staff with courtesy and respect, and we'll be more than happy to return the favour!


----------



## aesop081 (6 May 2010)

I'm going to guess that the original response of " no you cant have male pants" was met with some attitude of your own........


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

Actually there wasn't much arguing. I'm too shy to argue with someone in person. I said: "I was told I could, also many girls I work with have them..." with a massively confused look on my face. That's about as confrontational as I could be.


----------



## aesop081 (6 May 2010)

If you say so........

Anyways, if you feel you were unjustly treated, i suggest you ask to see that person's supervisor or speak to your own chain of command. If your complaint is legitimate, theres no reason why you wouldnt want to do that is there ?


----------



## Deleted member 30710 (6 May 2010)

Because I'm too shy to do that LOL. I feel awkward in those situations. Something I have to work on. :/ I always just walk away and vent later.


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

tovasshi said:
			
		

> Actually there wasn't much arguing. I'm too shy to argue with someone in person. I said: "I was told I could, also many girls I work with have them..." with a massively confused look on my face. *That's about as confrontational as I could be.*



Yes, that was clearly demonstrated here:



			
				tovasshi said:
			
		

> _This process is NOT a Base Supply or Clothing Stores process _
> I never said I didn't understand that, I thought it was clear when said I would accept him saying he couldn't change the docs, which I am okay with base supply no being able to do. Are you even reading what I am saying? Or are you just trying to pick what I am saying apart because I criticized one of your workers?
> 
> *I just realized that's a picture of your behind in tight undies and you're an senior NCO?*



and here:



			
				tovasshi said:
			
		

> I know being topless is legal in Ontario... but you're a MWO and you have a picture of your bum hanging out on a public military forum......



So, were/are you somehow "making an accusation of alleged misconduct or conduct not in good order with discipline" by me??

Or were you just throwing those points in there to be non-confrontational??


----------



## armyvern (6 May 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> If you say so........
> 
> Anyways, if you feel you were unjustly treated, i suggest you ask to see that person's supervisor or speak to your own chain of command. If your complaint is legitimate, theres no reason why you wouldnt want to do that is there ?



She'll get referred by the supervisor to the same message outling the policy that I mentioned earlier. That message will state the same policy and actions required by her that the employee advised her on during her initial visit to clothing stores (as she herself has already posted earlier when she "outlined" what he told her.).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 May 2010)

I think all that can be gleaned from this thread has been.

If someone has something useful they can add then PM a Mod.
Bruce


----------

