# Clothing stores complaints



## dapaterson (24 Jun 2019)

Clothing stores only stocks two sizes: Too big, and too small.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jun 2019)

Incorrect, DP.

All clothing stores have three sizes on hand: "Too big", "too small" and "Oops! We made a mistake: This one fits".

They don't let you keep anything in that last size, however.


----------



## 211RadOp (24 Jun 2019)

"Too big", "too small" and "not in stock" are the three sizes.  :nod:

With apologies to my Sup Tech friends


----------



## Lumber (24 Jun 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In defence of the clothing stores folks at Esquimalt, I've always found them very helpful.



Me: "Hi I'm here to get a set of the new NCDs. I'm going on exchange with the USN for a month and my CO and Coxn directed that they wanted me in the new NCDs."
Civi at the front desk: "What? Who said what now? You're not entitled to the new NCDs! You can't have those!" <turns around> "Master Seaman, this guy's saying his Coxn wants him the new NCDs".
Master Seaman sitting at his desk: "Makes sense to me. Let 'em have 'em."
Civi at the front desk: <visibly irate>
Me: <smirking>

(this WAS in Esquimalt back in 2010 just to be clear)


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Me: "Hi I'm here to get a set of the new NCDs. I'm going on exchange with the USN for a month and my CO and Coxn directed that they wanted me in the new NCDs."
> Civi at the front desk: "What? Who said what now? You're not entitled to the new NCDs! You can't have those!" <turns around> "Master Seaman, this guy's saying his Coxn wants him the new NCDs".
> Master Seaman sitting at his desk: "Makes sense to me. Let 'em have 'em."
> Civi at the front desk: <visibly irate>
> Me: <smirking>



Where I'm at, that's considered "helpful".  Most places wouldn't have that MS applying "common sense" to the problem.

So are you getting the "new CADPAT but in black" ones?  They seem pretty sweet.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Jun 2019)

Unless there's a plan to replace all old NCDs with the new ones, then the civilian was correct.  As long as your current uniform is serviceable, there is no entitlement for replacement.

"But I want the jammy new ones" would be rejected if a five year old said it.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "But I want the jammy new ones" would be rejected if a five year old said it.



Yes, but a five year old would normally be cared for by a responsible adult not another five year old.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Clothing stores only stocks two sizes: Too big, and too small.



It’s the same in jail😈


----------



## Lumber (24 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unless there's a plan to replace all old NCDs with the new ones, then the civilian was correct.  As long as your current uniform is serviceable, there is no entitlement for replacement.
> 
> "But I want the jammy new ones" would be rejected if a five year old said it.



This was in 2010 as we were transitioning from the NCDs without tons of pockets to the NCDs WITH tons of pockets.

And as I said, i was going on a month-long exchange with the USN, so my CoC (CO and Coxn) wanted me to wear the newest version of the NCDs.

I get that "if you're current uniform is serviceable, there is no entitlement for replacement" bit, but does that trump PR considerations for an international exchange?


----------



## gcclarke (24 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This was in 2010 as we were transitioning from the NCDs without tons of pockets to the NCDs WITH tons of pockets.
> 
> And as I said, i was going on a month-long exchange with the USN, so my CoC (CO and Coxn) wanted me to wear the newest version of the NCDs.
> 
> I get that "if you're current uniform is serviceable, there is no entitlement for replacement" bit, but does that trump PR considerations for an international exchange?



Well, I would say no. And your CoC's opinions on the matter are especially irrelevant. 

I don't think the "PR" considerations arguments holds any water. Like Anyone in the USN really gives a hoot about how many pockets your NCDs have. No one's going to notice, let alone care. 

This to me seems like the Civilian was applying the policies that he was directed to apply, as laid out by his superiors, while the Master Seaman decided to just ignore what he was supposed to do because you had a "good enough" excuse. Meanwhile, I'm sure that most people here would be pissed as hell if their subordinates decided to just ignore the policies and orders that they have been directed to follow.


----------



## kratz (24 Jun 2019)

Internationally, Navies tend to "show the flag", rub shoulders and other PR functions wherever they are. With this in mind, I understand the CoC desire for Lumber being directed to be turned out in the newest kit. Agreed, normally the request would have been rejected.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unless there's a plan to replace all old NCDs with the new ones, then the civilian was correct.  As long as your current uniform is serviceable, there is no entitlement for replacement.
> 
> "But I want the jammy new ones" would be rejected if a five year old said it.



Dapaterson is 100%.


----------



## gcclarke (24 Jun 2019)

kratz said:
			
		

> Internationally, Navies tend to "show the flag", rub shoulders and other PR functions wherever they are. With this in mind, I understand the CoC desire for Lumber being directed to be turned out in the newest kit. Agreed, normally the request would have been rejected.



I can understand the CO wanting that, but I would expect there to be a massive difference between some CO somewhere wanting something to happen, and that thing actually happening because it's been approved by an appropriate authority. 

I don't see how an exchange is sufficient reason to justify deviation from the normal operating procedures and guidelines passed on down by said appropriate authority. But if it is indeed that important, the appropriate way of doing that is by the CO contacting their counterpart in BLog to request deviation from someone who actually has the authority to authorize such deviations from the policy.


----------



## Lumber (24 Jun 2019)

Alright then...

What about NCD collars that have become frayed? You know, where it starts showing "white" at the peak of the collar?

If the NCD shrts are otherwise in good condition, would they be considered still "serviceable" and therefore ineligible for replacement?


----------



## gcclarke (24 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Alright then...
> 
> What about NCD collars that have become frayed? You know, where it starts showing "white" at the peak of the collar?
> 
> If the NCD shrts are otherwise in good condition, would they be considered still "serviceable" and therefore ineligible for replacement?



I don't know of any definition of "serviceable" for which said fraying would render it otherwise.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Alright then...
> 
> What about NCD collars that have become frayed? You know, where it starts showing "white" at the peak of the collar?
> 
> If the NCD shrts are otherwise in good condition, would they be considered still "serviceable" and therefore ineligible for replacement?



If the uniforms are worn out they should be replaced via a 1 for 1 exchange.  

If they are simply mid life they should not be exchanged. 

But as said above the appropriate way for this to have played out would have been for the two commands to chat and see if allowances can be made in your circumstances.

H


----------



## SupersonicMax (24 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't know of any definition of "serviceable" for which said fraying would render it otherwise.



Do you know of any definition of “serviceable” for which said fraying would not render it otherwise?


----------



## gcclarke (25 Jun 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you know of any definition of “serviceable” for which said fraying would not render it otherwise?



Fraying at the collar is nothing more than a cosmetic issue. The item is still perfectly good at doing what it's designed to do.


----------



## dimsum (25 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Fraying at the collar is nothing more than a cosmetic issue. The item is still perfectly good at doing what it's designed to do.



And to think that people used to purposely do that to show they had "time in".

http://www.ivy-style.com/the-old-money-look-princeton-boys-and-the-sandpapered-shirt-collar.html


----------



## Lumber (25 Jun 2019)

I would love to see a Cdr/Capt(N)/Commodore on TV in NCDs with a frayed collar, and when asked why his uniform didn't look like it was in good, professional order, he responds with "Well, the supply team said that, other than frayed collars, all my shirts were still serviceable, and were therefore not eligible for replacement, so, here I am!"

Oh wait, that wouldn't never actually happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Fraying at the collar is nothing more than a cosmetic issue. The item is still perfectly good at doing what it's designed to do.



Is it your interpretation or is it policy?


----------



## gcclarke (25 Jun 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I would love to see a Cdr/Capt(N)/Commodore on TV in NCDs with a frayed collar, and when asked why his uniform didn't look like it was in good, professional order, he responds with "Well, the supply team said that, other than frayed collars, all my shirts were still serviceable, and were therefore not eligible for replacement, so, here I am!"
> 
> Oh wait, that wouldn't never actually happen.



I doubt that they would respond in such an unprofessional manner. And even more so, I highly doubt anyone would notice or care enough to ask. 

This is inside baseball. The only people who give a hoot about frayed collars are other people in the CAF. The public doesn't care about a bit of white showing at the collars; they've got more important things to worry about, like /]the cost of ships when we're throwing money at the Irvings[/url], or the ongoing sexual harassment problems in the CAF, white supremacists,[/url] racists and other bigots in the CAF, our ability to respond to worsening disasters due the effects of climate change, etc etc. That's of course assuming that they care about anything related to us. 

It's an error to assume that every member of the public has the same priorities as the Cox'n. Honestly I find that the CAF as a whole is really bad about this. We need to focus our efforts more on the things that Canadians care about, and less on the things that only we give a crap about. Too much time and effort is wasted on stuff that doesn't actually matter at all. 



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Is it your interpretation or is it policy?



Policy; at least the last time I overheard someone trying to make a replacement for that reason it was. Minor wear or staining doesn't do anything to prevent you from using the NCDs. Similar to how you can't exchange CADPAT just because it's started to fade a bit. 

Link removed per site guidelines. - mm
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Jun 2019)

I don't see a problem with an NCD shirt being exchanged for a frayed collar.  I don't think its unreasonable that our people be kitted with clothing that is up to par; and a frayed collar falls outside side of that and as such should be exchanged.  We are expected to upkeep a standard of dress and deportment.  

Having said that, a CoC does not decide that "used but serviceable" clothing will be exchanged for brand new.  As well I may have miss understood Lumber as meaning exchanging old styled NCDs for the new styled NCDs, in which you would only be getting if you are part of a trial program. 

Either way, you would be surprised how much you can get when people talk and work out details instead of simply showing up at a counter and demanding something.  Plead your case, we are well aware the Supply don't and cant cover every scenario, we can bend things when it makes sense.


----------



## Lumber (25 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I doubt that they would respond in such an unprofessional manner. And even more so, I highly doubt anyone would notice or care enough to ask.
> 
> This is inside baseball. The only people who give a hoot about frayed collars are other people in the CAF. The public doesn't care about a bit of white showing at the collars; they've got more important things to worry about, like [url[/url], or the ongoing sexual harassment problems in the CAF, white supremacists,[/url] racists and other bigots in the CAF, our ability to respond to worsening disasters due the effects of climate change, etc etc. That's of course assuming that they care about anything related to us.
> 
> It's an error to assume that every member of the public has the same priorities as the Cox'n. Honestly I find that the CAF as a whole is really bad about this. We need to focus our efforts more on the things that Canadians care about, and less on the things that only we give a crap about. Too much time and effort is wasted on stuff that doesn't actually matter at all.



Oh right, I forgot about the racists and bigots! And here I was about to polish my shoes for the parade this Friday, but now that you mention climate change and irving I guess I'll just hold off. I'm sure the Parade Chief will understand why I decided to wear the shirt that has a hole in it. I mean, I'm not posted to a ship, so fire retardantness really isn't a factor anyway.

So, I guess we'll have to disagree. If I had a member of my unit who was going to be interviewed on local television in NCDs (for example), I would be extremely unhappy if he was wearing a a uniform that was not in good repair. Forget frayed collars, what if it was simply stained? Do we really want sailors walking around in public in dirty and disheveled uniforms? 

I can get behind the idea that it would be too expensive to replace every uniform for every stain or frayed collar, and I'm not advocating for that. But when it comes to activities like media interviews (both ad hoc and official), "sailor of night" hockey games, foreign exchanges, hosting foreign dignitaries etc, I think it's fully appropriate to expect that our uniforms be in top shape, both in terms of appearance and serviceability. 

I agree with those who have said a phone call or an email chain between the CO and base supply to lay-out the requirements would be the best and most appropriate route; however, I disagree with the insinuation that all requests should be turned down simply because we have more important things to worry about than how our uniforms look to the public.

Link removed from quote per site guideline.
https://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2019)

If someone is to appear in public... if only we had uniforms intended for wear in public.  We could even make them distinctive for each environment, and not confuse them with uniforms we wear for greasy, dirty work.


----------



## Lumber (25 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If someone is to appear in public... if only we had uniforms intended for wear in public.  We could even make them distinctive for each environment, and not confuse them with uniforms we wear for greasy, dirty work.


\

Well, bring that up with the higher-ups that have us doing everything in combats/NCDs/flight suits.

Also, what has been said above applies whether we are talking about combats or DEUs.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I doubt that they would respond in such an unprofessional manner. And even more so, I highly doubt anyone would notice or care enough to ask.
> 
> This is inside baseball. The only people who give a hoot about frayed collars are other people in the CAF. The public doesn't care about a bit of white showing at the collars; they've got more important things to worry about, like /]the cost of ships when we're throwing money at the Irvings[/url], or the ongoing sexual harassment problems in the CAF, white supremacists,[/url] racists and other bigots in the CAF, our ability to respond to worsening disasters due the effects of climate change, etc etc. That's of course assuming that they care about anything related to us.
> 
> ...



Clothing Stores at fighter bases has been ordered to exchange flight suits that are faded or with “minor” wear and tear for several reasons one the more important one being appearances.  So much that NATO-style flight suits had to be procured and issued to fighter pilots while the logistics caught up to the demand.  

Looking professional in the eyes of our allies is important.  Just like when a CWO hates seeing someone with dirty boots.


----------



## gcclarke (25 Jun 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Clothing Stores at fighter bases has been ordered to exchange flight suits that are faded or with “minor” wear and tear for several reasons one the more important one being appearances.  So much that NATO-style flight suits had to be procured and issued to fighter pilots while the logistics caught up to the demand.
> 
> Looking professional in the eyes of our allies is important.  Just like when a CWO hates seeing someone with dirty boots.



Again, I strongly believe that this is an example of CAF members focusing on things that only other CAF members consider to be important. The public doesn't care and it doesn't affect our operational capability, so why are we getting worked up about it? 

It's operational dress, people are generally going to expect them to look like you've actually been doing things in them. Some oil stains, some paint, a bit of fraying or some fading, that's ok. It's not unprofessional to look like you've been working in your work dress. Hell, I'd say the opposite is more true. Literally nothing bad will happen if we just collectively decide to pull the stick out of our bums and stop focusing so much on looking pretty in the uniforms we're wearing when we do actual work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Again, I strongly believe that this is an example of CAF members focusing on things that only other CAF members consider to be important. The public doesn't care and it doesn't affect our operational capability, so why are we getting worked up about it?
> 
> It's operational dress, people are generally going to expect them to look like you've actually been doing things in them. Some oil stains, some paint, a bit of fraying or some fading, that's ok. It's not unprofessional to look like you've been working in your work dress. Hell, I'd say the opposite is more true. Literally nothing bad will happen if we just collectively decide to pull the stick out of our bums and stop focusing so much on looking pretty in the uniforms we're wearing when we do actual work.



Oil, grease, etc are of concern if the item is expected to act as a protection layer in a fire, isn't it?

Sometimes, some of us want our operational dress replaced because, in my case, it is actually part of my dual-layer ALSE (Aviation Life Support Equipment), if if I have to fight a fire I don't really want any POL 'stains' to be burning thru my ALSE while I'm doing the holy-shyte shuffle.

Aren't NCDs also part of a fire resistant protection layer?

I agree with SSM;  when you show up at a multi-nation event and you're the only bunch wearing stained and frayed uniforms, you're likely going to stand out in a bad way.  

I know some people don't like CAF publications but....from 265.



> A-DH-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Armed Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authorityof the Chief of Defence Staff.
> 
> High standards of dress, deportment, and grooming are universally recognized as marks of a well-trained, disciplined and professional force. Commanders shall maintain the standards at all times to reinforce these characteristics for peace or war.
> 
> A military force’s uniform is an outward symbol of its commitment, identity and ethos. Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the most powerful visual expression of pride by the individual service member, and is the primary means by which the public image of the CAF is fashioned.



Don't agree with the above?  Make a suggestion for change!   ;D



> Suggestions for revision shall be forwarded through the chain of command to the Chief of the Defence Staff, Attention: Director History and Heritage



It's odd to me for Navy folks to be saying "there should be no special treatment or such made for COs", etc when a CO wants one of his Jr Officers to be well turned-out when doing an exchange, considering the RCN Comd and CP01 have been walking around sporting Gucci kit that folks conducting operations don't have access to, like in pictures like this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Again, I strongly believe that this is an example of CAF members focusing on things that only other CAF members consider to be important. The public doesn't care and it doesn't affect our operational capability, so why are we getting worked up about it?
> 
> It's operational dress, people are generally going to expect them to look like you've actually been doing things in them. Some oil stains, some paint, a bit of fraying or some fading, that's ok. It's not unprofessional to look like you've been working in your work dress. Hell, I'd say the opposite is more true. Literally nothing bad will happen if we just collectively decide to pull the stick out of our bums and stop focusing so much on looking pretty in the uniforms we're wearing when we do actual work.



Just like the '50 mission cap' from the US 8th Air Force, right? 

"Downie explained to Steve Newton in 1992 that he liked a different angle to the story: "In World War Two, when you were a new pilot, you'd be given a new hat. Of course, you'd work it in to look like a fifty mission cap so as to appear that you had more experience than you really did." http://www.hipmuseum.com/fifty.html


----------



## mariomike (26 Jun 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Just like the '50 mission cap' from the US 8th Air Force, right?



A better look than pant seats worn out from being "chair-borne".


----------



## gcclarke (26 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know some people don't like CAF publications but....from 265.
> 
> Don't agree with the above?  Make a suggestion for change!   ;D



The crux of my argument is that we should be focusing upon two factors: whether or not if affects operational capability, or whether or not the public (being our bosses and all) care. And that we should stop focusing time and effort on things that only people in the CAF care about. 

The fact that we have a publication that issues a whole lot of regulations about a particular topic only proves that it's something that the CAF cares about; it doesn't prove it's part of the former group of stuff that we should be caring about.  

As for making a suggestion for change, if I'm ever in a position whence I could effect such change I'll certainly do so. Until then, arguing about it on the internet will have to suffice. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's odd to me for Navy folks to be saying "there should be no special treatment or such made for COs", etc when a CO wants one of his Jr Officers to be well turned-out when doing an exchange, considering the RCN Comd and CP01 have been walking around sporting Gucci kit that folks conducting operations don't have access to, like in pictures like this.



I mean, I think it should be pretty clear that I'm arguing against the status quo of the way we do things. I think the CAF's priorities with regards to focus upon appearance over substance are broadly wrong, and I would prefer it if a cultural change were to take place to change those priorities. The Kraken walking around in brand new work dress that has never been worked long before they're rolled out to everyone else who would actually use said new uniform in is just a symptom of those currently existing priorities. 

Style over substance is not a virtue I endorse.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I mean, I think it should be pretty clear that I'm arguing against the status quo of the way we do things. I think the CAF's priorities with regards to focus upon appearance over substance are broadly wrong, and I would prefer it if a cultural change were to take place to change those priorities. The Kraken walking around in brand new work dress that has never been worked long before they're rolled out to everyone else who would actually use said new uniform in is just a symptom of those currently existing priorities.
> 
> Style over substance is not a virtue I endorse.



As long as Snr leadership 'sets the example', that example will be followed?

This isn't limited to the RCN;  it really irks me to know that co-workers can't get a flight suit, then I see pictures of groups of Sqn HCol's getting a tour of a Wing...some of them in brand-spanking new flight suits.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Jun 2019)

I'm reasonably sure that we can manage to get operations done while not looking like ragged, oil splattered soup sandwhiches; they aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Everywhere I've worked has had dress codes, but only the CAF has actually provided a clear, easy to follow directions.  Go work in a professional setting, and be prepared to spend a few thousand a year on clothes. I've never actually had a problem trading in worn out NCDs in three different locations, and yes, even when they were just a frayed collar and ripped pocket. Try working in a standard office in business dress everyday for a while and you will really appreciate how easy (and cheap) it was to pull on the uniform and go.

Anyone who has deployed has been told that they are ambassadors for Canada, and after giving god knows how many tours of the ship (alongside or at sea) to NATO allies from OS up to three stars, as well as ambassadors, heads of business, and civilians from all walks of life, was pretty obvious that we are part of the diplomatic arm when we're showing the flag. Sending people on exchange without kit in good repair is terrible for their morale, as they start on the back foot with everyone looking down on them.

Some QMs are miserable human beings, but a lot of the times the customers are huge douchebags. I've never had an issue (except the size not being available) and find it's as simple as being polite and treating them with respect. If you explain what you are doing, usually not a problem. 

As an aside, there are guidelines for contamination of the uniform where it becomes hazmat and should be exchanged.  For example, if there is a fuel spill and someone gets covered, their NCDs should be bagged and exchanged for new. Similarly, if you get a whack of paint on you, your just ruined the fire protection, so they should be exchanged as well.  This is where common sense for the supervisors should apply, and either give people coveralls, or let them wear old gym clothes etc while painting.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Everywhere I've worked has had dress codes, but only the CAF has actually provided a clear, easy to follow directions.



The SOP where I worked was pretty clear and easy to follow,

"Uniforms must be clean, pressed, and neat in appearance. Only the top button of the shirt may be left unbuttoned.
The black issued safety boots/shoes must be kept clean and polished black."

Because they were sending you into people's homes, you had to look presentable.

Due to the nature of the business, frequent uniform changes were necessary. The City paid for all cleaning. Always had a fresh supply in your locker.

Dress uniform in a suit bag at home.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Some QMs are miserable human beings, but a lot of the times the customers are huge douchebags.



And here is part of the issue, IMO; the 'customer' idea.  If I am in Clothing Stores, I'm not there 'buying things from a business'.  I had a discussion once with the Clothing Stores Sgt over an issue...during our talk he said at one point "I have the authority to direct a Col to leave my building if he is being hard on my supply techs".

He said it like he believed it.  I said "why don't I go get my CO and SCWO...you can try that out on them".  

Sometimes, there isn't enough "military" left in our military these days.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2019)

You mean like the CO and SCWO not obeying the supply orders that the Sup Techs are enforcing?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

Not in the situation I'm talking about.   ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And here is part of the issue, IMO; the 'customer' idea.  If I am in Clothing Stores, I'm not there 'buying things from a business'.  I had a discussion once with the Clothing Stores Sgt over an issue...during our talk he said at one point "I have the authority to direct a Col to leave my building if he is being hard on my supply techs".
> 
> He said it like he believed it.  I said "why don't I go get my CO and SCWO...you can try that out on them".
> 
> Sometimes, there not enough "military" left in our military these days.



Your Stores Sgt defiantly does not have the authority to order a LCol or CWO out of a building, thats ridiculous. 

But he does have a professional obligation to follow and enforce the rules and regulations governing the control and accounting of Material in the CAF, this includes clothing. 

Having almost 21 years as a Sup Tech and more than haircut spent working a Clothing counter the abuse that is sometimes dished out is completely inappropriate.  I suspect any service trade in the CAF has to deal with this (HRA/FSA ect ect).  I blame our (The Supply Trade's) leadership for allowing this to happen.  Accountability is a wonderful thing. 

I have told other POs and Chiefs that certain LS are no longer welcome at the stores office door before, outside of the most extreme circumstances. 

So to sum up, order them out ? No.  Decline their request, if no entitled exists, yes.


----------



## mariomike (27 Jun 2019)

When I was in a PRes service battalion, our Supply Techs had a simple saying, "Don't f*&^ with Stores."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Your Stores Sgt defiantly does not have the authority to order a LCol or CWO out of a building, thats ridiculous.
> 
> But he does have a professional obligation to follow and enforce the rules and regulations governing the control and accounting of Material in the CAF, this includes clothing.
> 
> ...



Good post and points.  The door can swing both ways, and sometimes I'm sure the front counter folks have to deal with some arseholes.

On the other side of the coin, I've had to convince people that the item I need is part of my SOI, and it doesn't matter if it's July, yes I need my LPO CWWBs replaced, airplanes can fly north, I'm on the high ready crew and am expected to be able to go where I'm needed when I'm needed...and sometimes that is north (this is the conversation that ended up with the Sup Sgt and me having a chat in his office).

For the most part though, I've had nothing but positive visits to Clothing, personally and dealing with ALSE issues as part of my Sec duties.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> When I was in a PRes service battalion, our Supply Techs had a simple saying, "Don't f*&^ with Stores."



It's always good to keep the RQ/SQ and Chief Clerk on the "Christmas Card" list.   ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Good post and points.  The door can swing both ways, and sometimes I'm sure the front counter folks have to deal with some arseholes.
> 
> On the other side of the coin, I've had to convince people that the item I need is part of my SOI, and it doesn't matter if it's July, yes I need my LPO CWWBs replaced, airplanes can fly north, I'm on the high ready crew and am expected to be able to go where I'm needed when I'm needed...and sometimes that is north (this is the conversation that ended up with the Sup Sgt and me having a chat in his office).
> 
> For the most part though, I've had nothing but positive visits to Clothing, personally and dealing with ALSE issues as part of my Sec duties.



Don't take this the wrong way EITS, but there is nothing wrong with you having to prove you are entitled to something on your SOI.  SOI's are't owned or managed by Sup Techs.  For the most part they are owned and managed by occupations or environments, and there are probably close to 100 SOI's, and thats not including all the other MA Docs (Material Authorization Documents) like CFFETs, MAST ect ect ect. 

We cant know every SOI its impossible.  And if you get the new OS/Pte or newly posted in person they might be very unfamiliar with the regions dominating SOI. 

The other problem with SOIs, currently, is people love to bitch about them but no one (or few anyways) want to produce the staff work it takes to change them.  I have seen an SOI changed in 30 mins.  I just took a little conversation. 

My time at FDU(A) was highly animated over the the couple of SOIs the divers are entitled too, and the poor management of them by *drum roll* divers...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

???

If it's on my SOI...doesn't that = entitlement to the kit? What else would a scale of issue indicate?  The item manager decides who is entitled and what SOIs the item applies to.  Seems pretty simple.

*boots like TWB and CWWB apply to all pers posted to RCAF units (2 pr each).  They aren't on my platform/fleet specific SOI.

Item Managers...some of them are daft too.  The IM for the PRT (Pocket Rescue Tool) aka 'survival knife' we are issued didn't see why our Wing needed to hold spares and why couldn't people going flying borrow them from people not flying that day. :facepalm:


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> If it's on my SOI...doesn't that = entitlement to the kit? What else would a scale of issue indicate?  The item manager decides who is entitled and what SOIs the item applies to.  Seems pretty simple.
> 
> ...



I think you misunderstood me. The Sup Tech doesn't/might not or doesn't know your SOI.  So you having to show that its on your SOI is not a bad thing.  If someone came to me right now looking for a field kitting I would have to pull the SOI and do some research as I have no idea whats on there anymore.  Or if soldier X demanded something that he claimed was on his SOI and I was in doubt, well he/she can prove it or we can look it up together. 

The old Web Query Tool made searching SOIs very easy... Alas one of DRMIS downfalls is its clothing application and its ability to produce things like an SOI.  Its a complicated TCODE that I need the power point for when I have to run it for my ships MAST. 

Also Item Managers don't own SOIs.  Occupations and Environments do (For the most part).  Item/Supply managers exist to manage stock and replenish the stock in the CFSS.  IM/SMs def have a role to play in SOI but they are really only able to advise on stock availability.  

The time I watched an SOI change in 30 mins was to get All CLDVRs entitled to rucksacks.  Happened in 30 mins and was completed by a CPO1 (or 2 maybe) CLDVR with a few key strokes.  Was that the right way to do it ?  Nope.  Did he consult with the SM for Rucks ?  I doubt it, especially as all those outside the Army were being pull back at that point, but I digress... It can be that simple.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Jun 2019)

Ah, okay I'm on track with what you're saying.

Computers and new programs;  didn't they make everything 'easier'?  8)


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ah, okay I'm on track with what you're saying.
> 
> Computers and new programs;  didn't they make everything 'easier'?  8)



lol they sure did! lol


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jun 2019)

I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...


----------



## gcclarke (29 Jun 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...



I worked briefly on the DRMIS project (thankfully not doing any actual implementation), and I suspect the same bloody thing happened with Phoenix that happened with DRMIS: the government set up a contract, gave the contractor a set of requirements which they set about fulfilling... and then change the requirements, and then changed the requirements, and then changed the requirements, etc etc. 

Hitting a moving target is difficult enough when we're talking ballistics. When we're talking programming, it's damned near impossible for things to turn out well.


----------



## Navy_Pete (29 Jun 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I worked briefly on the DRMIS project (thankfully not doing any actual implementation), and I suspect the same bloody thing happened with Phoenix that happened with DRMIS: the government set up a contract, gave the contractor a set of requirements which they set about fulfilling... and then change the requirements, and then changed the requirements, and then changed the requirements, etc etc.
> 
> Hitting a moving target is difficult enough when we're talking ballistics. When we're talking programming, it's damned near impossible for things to turn out well.



That's not what happened at all.  See the OAG report; they cut key pay processes, didn't test it, and generally dropped the ball on basic PM to make sure the project was 'on time and under budget'.  This was a case of people who don't know what they are doing managing a project ignoring the SMEs and delivering a broken project that ruined lives.

Totally different from DRMIS, which does what it's supposed to do, but we try and make it the all singing and dancing monkey and slap a bunch of custom front end on what's a pretty user unfriendly system.

Completely off topic though.



> Managing the development of Phoenix
> Overall message
> 
> 1.21 Overall, we found that Public Services and Procurement Canada failed to properly manage the Phoenix project. Because of the Department’s poor management, Phoenix was implemented
> ...



http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201805_01_e_43033.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jul 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...



And I wonder if anyone was actually managing them, from the client side, or did the client just assume that the big, strong, handsome consulting company could just sweep them of their feet and take away all their process sorrows, without any oversight?


----------



## cld617 (1 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstood me. The Sup Tech doesn't/might not or doesn't know your SOI.  So you having to show that its on your SOI is not a bad thing.  If someone came to me right now looking for a field kitting I would have to pull the SOI and do some research as I have no idea whats on there anymore.  Or if soldier X demanded something that he claimed was on his SOI and I was in doubt, well he/she can prove it or we can look it up together.



I don't know too many supply techs on Wings who are unaware of the 2 temperate and 2 winter boots for aircrew and techs. It's funny though, cause they sure know all the things they CAN'T give out off the top of their heads. Point being, individuals at the counter are applying what they consider to be their good judgement to navigate a situation when they should be in fact following policy. It doesn't matter if it's July, no one should have to justify why they need cold weather gear during that time frame if they're entitled to it. Sort of like when I had to cause a stink to get LPO'd summer boots in fall because the Sgt at clothing stores felt that I should be wearing cold weathers despite it being 10 degrees and an office worker.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Jul 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I don't know too many supply techs on Wings who are unaware of the 2 temperate and 2 winter boots for aircrew and techs. It's funny though, cause they sure know all the things they CAN'T give out off the top of their heads.



I think you are proving yourself wrong here and providing support for my position.  Obviously the Sup Tech was wrong and didn't know your entitlements, which you received, correct ?  So whats the problem here, that you had to prove that you were entitled to something ?  As well do you really think the Sup Techs are out to stop people from getting what is on their entitlement documents ?   



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> Point being, individuals at the counter are applying what they consider to be their good judgement to navigate a situation when they should be in fact following policy.



Are you a Sup Tech working the counter at clothing stores ?  How do you know this ?  If your Stores section is playing by their own rules it wouldn't be long before the leadership of that section was slapped back into line.[/quote]



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter if it's July, no one should have to justify why they need cold weather gear during that time frame if they're entitled to it. Sort of like when I had to cause a stink to get LPO'd summer boots in fall because the Sgt at clothing stores felt that I should be wearing cold weathers despite it being 10 degrees and an office worker.



I don't disagree with you.  The problem arises when very limited stock is available and you have to kit people out to go to a certain climate first.  They are the priority over those who just want to max out their SOI.  Look at the recent recall of rucks and sleeping bags.  If you aren't using it, we need it back because there are people who need them and cant get them.

As for LPO'ing footwear, its contracting and the expenditure of public funds.  There are checks and balances and purchasing clothing items is a big no no outside of certain circumstance, lack of stock and medical chits.  The Stores system making sure they are correct in going forward isn't wrong for doing its job.  What experience do you have with contracting I wonder ?  

Clothing stores isn't a buffet for members to come in an pillage.  We have a finite amount of money which in turn equals a finite amount of stores.  And that needs to me managed so that those who need the kit get it before those who don't, we could argue about this process but its not Supply who decides who gets what, when, surprise its your elements that deem what is the pecking order priority.   Congrats you had to prove you actually needed the kit, whats the problem ?  That Supply didn't take Cpl cld617's word at face value ?  The horror! 

Its funny you bring up LPO because this has become a real problem in our supply system.  We have addicted too it and its just on time method of doing material management.  We need to move away from using our mastercard's for stores and get back into the business of stockpiling stores.  I now have LCMMs, Supply Managers and TAs telling me just to go out and buy parts that are supposed to be purchased and stocked by them at ADM(MAT).  If you don't know how bad that is then you don't understand how our logistical chain is designed and supposed to work. 

Kind of derailed a little bit at the end. My bad.


----------



## cld617 (2 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think you are proving yourself wrong here and providing support for my position.  Obviously the Sup Tech was wrong and didn't know your entitlements, which you received, correct ?  So whats the problem here, that you had to prove that you were entitled to something ?  As well do you really think the Sup Techs are out to stop people from getting what is on their entitlement documents ?



The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Jul 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.



Well if your story is correct, and I have no empirical reason to believe its not, you ran into a bad Sup Tech or a Sup Tech on a bad day.  

I do disagree with you though, we should be kitting people to 100% of their SOI.  We should have stock on shelves and a good material distribution system that will ensure shortfalls are rectified quickly.  Lots of reasons why not, and all of them are out of the control of our Sup Techs.


----------



## BDTyre (2 Jul 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.



And I had the opposite problem where the person behind the counter insisted I take the snow coveralls in August, two months before deploying, even when I told them I'm coming back in the spring and it doesn't get cold enough in Vancouver to need them.

And I still have them...worn zero times.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jul 2019)

Now, if you'd of needed them...you wouldn't have been able to get any.   ;D


----------



## BDTyre (3 Jul 2019)

Funny you say that, because I did need them...six months prior when it was -35 out! It took them that long to get them to me, and they never did get me a parka...only the pants!


----------

