# NDHQ Dress Code



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2009)

So I go to NDHQ for an appointment the other day when two clerks react in abject horror. I spin around thinking a greater demon is behind me, but nothings there.
"Umm, we can't serve you, there is a dress code here"
I panic for a second thinking I wandered into a high class bar and look around (like the dreams you have as a kid going to school naked) but no, people wearing green cadpat uniforms and combat boots are all over.

In a polite tone (giving me an are you an idiot can't you read? look) it's pointed out to me that there are TWO giant signs describing the dress code.

No jeans!, tshirts, sports gear, sandles, running shoes etc...
I'm wearing brand new running/hiking shoes, khakie pants and a clean plain white t shirt.

The two clerks are discussing what to do, if they let me in they may get in shit, yet one feels sorry for me because I'm out of town.

They can probably tell by the steely look in my eyes that I'm not going going to leave quietly so after 10 minutes or so a concession is made. I'm allowed to proceed but I have to take my hat off....
I sit down for a few minutes and then taken and seen etc.. and leave.

What burned me was that 3  of the people working in the office were _wearing jeans_...

I was going to ask about that when I was leaving but figured it best just to get out of the building as fast as possible.


----------



## Occam (14 May 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> What burned me was that 3  of the people working in the office were _wearing jeans_...
> 
> I was going to ask about that when I was leaving but figured it best just to get out of the building as fast as possible.



Yep, they're undoubtably civilian employees.  It's perfectly acceptable for a civilian DND employee wearing jeans in the NDHQ Orderly Room or Clothing Stores to refuse you service because you're wearing jeans.

On Fridays, military personnel are allowed to wear civilian clothing IAW the dress code that you saw.  Unless it's during the GCWCC fund-raising period, though - in which case military personnel can pay a few bucks to be allowed the privilege of wearing jeans and be indistinguishable from the aforementioned jean-wearing civvies.   :


----------



## Monsoon (14 May 2009)

Reminds me of the time the Base DComd jacked me up in the wardroom cafeteria in Esquimalt for wearing "running shoes". After explaining that the "running shoes" ($120 suede sneakers definitely _not_ made for running) were the only shoes I had brought on my three-day TD to the other side of the country, he relented and let me eat. But not before giving me a steely glare and saying:

           "You're lowering the standard of my mess."

Sure. But if I'd shown up in Bermuda shorts hiked up to my armpits with long black socks pulled up to my knees - hey, no problem! Looking like a tool is completely fine - recommended, really.


----------



## Strike (14 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Sure. But if I'd shown up in Bermuda shorts hiked up to my armpits with long black socks pulled up to my knees - hey, no problem! Looking like a tool is completely fine - recommended, really.



Noe that I'd love to see.  Make sure to post pics when you carry this out!   ;D


----------



## chris_log (14 May 2009)

The CF is still firmly stuck in the 1950's when it comes to civilian dress codes. Officer's messes are the worst, you get stared at by the 'more senior' (in age, not necessarily rank) members if you show up for a beer wearing something less then a suit and tie. Forget jeans, sneakers, t-shirts and anything else comfortable (unless you decide on the afore-mentioned bermuda shorts hiked up to your nipples). And then mess committees wonder why people have to be dragged into the mess as opposed to coming voluntarily.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (14 May 2009)

The 1950s comment is contrary to what I see - 

NDHQ DRESS CODE http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/so-op/soc-opc-03-eng.asp#soc-opc-3.02

see para 13-14 for Friday wear

The break through came from the troops vs the officers which was long over due

In short - the Grey Man who blends in and looks like he's about to caddy for the RSM or the Colonel - or explain the latest 4 wheel death dealing contraption for the Governor General will get the nod every time

Stay off the pin heads radar - dark golf shirt, beige slacks, brown shoes - now you have the initiative as they will call you SIR every time


----------



## chris_log (14 May 2009)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> The 1950s comment is contrary to what I see -
> 
> NDHQ DRESS CODE http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/so-op/soc-opc-03-eng.asp#soc-opc-3.02
> 
> ...



I'm confused. The links you provided state quite clearly that acceptable civilian dress includes slacks (what my grandpa wears), blazers, ties and suits. Unacceptable dress includes denim, t-shirts etc. What are you trying to say?


----------



## 54/102 CEF (14 May 2009)

CF isn't stuck in the 1950s ref dress is all I'm saying - at the same time, if you need to go in and get service at the main location the person should be served.


----------



## medicineman (14 May 2009)

Funny thing about signs - I've found that about 95% of people don't truly read them, and the 5% that do are actually illiterate, as they do the opposite anyway.

However, it could be worse - Jimmy Cox could be hiding behind a small plant there and jump out from behind it and "dress" you down, to your socks  ;D,.

MM


----------



## Haggis (14 May 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> So I go to NDHQ for an appointment.



And why were you not in uniform?  You can never go wrong if you're in uniform!


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> And why were you not in uniform?  You can never go wrong if you're in uniform!



Sorry Flawed,

I have to agree with Haggis on this one.

I would understand if you were going down to the local armouries to pick up some paperwork, but you are going to a place that is affectionately coined the "Puzzle Palace".

I would have kicked you in the junk, for showing up that way, if I was one of those clerks; And I am not a big one for "dress codes".

You want to dress like a civilian employee, join the public service to do your duty to our nation.  We are even unionized, and have wicked health benefits, not to mention our neat dress codes.


dileas

tess


----------



## chris_log (14 May 2009)

I've been to NDHQ in civvies before. I'm going to assume that Flawed Design had a reason to be in civvies (i.e. on leave, after his duty hours etc). If I'm on leave or outside duty hours and I decide I need to go to the base for something (admin, stores, medical appointment, whatever) then I'm coming in in civvies (unless ordered to come in in uniform, i.e. a call-out). 

I think it is unfair of him to put those clerks in a position where they are breaking the rules by not enforcing the dress code (he won't get jacked up, they will) but on the other hand, many CF units/bases have archaic civvie dress regs. There's nothing sloppy about a clean pair of jeans, t-shirt and clean sneakers (not PT shoes, there's a difference) if worn properly. I think its dumb to force people to dress in business casual when they are dropping in for an admin appointment, stores etc. Heck, JR messes allow jeans, t-shirts, sneakers etc. Try getting into the Borden officer's mess, for example, in jeans or a t-shirt (and depending on the duty officer, you'll catch heat for wearing sneakers although they usually leave you alone when you point out the mess dress rules).


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2009)

What is wrong with dressing decently?

And I do not care how clean or hole-free a T-shirt or pair of jeans is, neither are suitable dress for a major headquarters or an Officers' Mess.


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is wrong with dressing decently?
> 
> And I do not care how clean or hole-free a T-shirt or pair of jeans is, neither are suitable dress for a major headquarters or an Officers' Mess.



If I can get into rediculously expensive restaurants and nightclubs wearing jeans and a t-shirt (not your old pair of wranglers and "Big Bob's Fish Hut" t-shirt mind you) then why does an officer's mess have to be so....severe. There's a reason young officers avoid the officer's mess, we don't like having to get dressed up to go have a casual beer or dinner (formal events aside). Now, I don't have a problem with putting on a dress shirt/polo to go into the 'drinking' side of the mess to spruce up a pair of jeans...but on the other hand putting on what is essentially business casual to go have breakfast/lunch/dinner is rediculous. 

The JR's and Sgt's/WO's messes allow more casual wear but the officer's mess (and NDHQ...all other bases I have been on allow jeans, t-shirts etc when conducting buisiness in civvies) seems firmly stuck in the days of pipes, double-breasted suits and 'jolly goods'.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> If I can get into rediculously expensive restaurants and nightclubs wearing jeans and a t-shirt (not your old pair of wranglers and "Big Bob's Fish Hut" t-shirt mind you) then why does an officer's mess have to be so....severe. There's a reason young officers avoid the officer's mess, we don't like having to get dressed up to go have a casual beer or dinner (formal events aside). Now, I don't have a problem with putting on a dress shirt/polo to go into the 'drinking' side of the mess to spruce up a pair of jeans...but on the other hand putting on what is essentially business casual to go have breakfast/lunch/dinner is rediculous.
> 
> The JR's and Sgt's/WO's messes allow more casual wear but the officer's mess (and NDHQ...all other bases I have been on allow jeans, t-shirts etc when conducting buisiness in civvies) seems firmly stuck in the days of pipes, double-breasted suits and 'jolly goods'.



I guess that's why you guys get the big bucks.


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I guess that's why you guys get the big bucks.



How does one requisition said big bucks? I sure didn't get any.  

(Minus the free education, etc)


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> but on the other hand putting on what is essentially business casual to go have breakfast/lunch/dinner is rediculous.



Take it up with the Base / Wing Commander if it bothers you that much but in the end, orders are orders.

If you think some of our rules are antiquated or ridiculous....try going to an RAF mess.


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Take it up with the Base / Wing Commander if it bothers you that much but in the end, orders are orders.



It isn't my place, I'll save my boat rocking for something that really matters. The only times I visit the officer's mess these days I'm in dress of the day anyways. 



> If you think some of our rules are antiquated or ridiculous....try going to an RAF mess.



I've heard horror stories.


----------



## frostvelun (15 May 2009)

As a Junior Officer in an Infantry regiment, I rather prefer the strict dress code. Despite the fact that we don't allow jeans, khakis or whatever else, we still have no issues with Junior or Senior Officers coming up for drinks or socializing.

This may be our specific unit or because we are Reservists however.

Also, I'm not sure how many upper-end restaurants look fondly on people coming in with jeans (at least here in Montreal, from my experiences). Sure, you may be allowed in but only grudgingly. The Officer's Mess just takes it another step further and says "Nope".


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 May 2009)

Most Bars in Canada, and many places around the world, have dress codes.

No Hats, no Jeans, no Running shoes etc....


For Phuck sakes, if you expected otherwise from the actual National Headquarters for our Military, as I said before, you deserve a kick in the junk.

Jeebus, is it that hard to figure out?  We don't all live in freaking sheds in the backwoods....

Flawed Design's adventure at NDHQ

dileas

tess


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Most Bars in Canada, and many places around the world, have dress codes.
> 
> No Hats, no Jeans, no Running shoes etc....



Uhhh. What?

I have never been to a bar, anywhere, that didn't allow jeans. And I've been in alot of bars. It's all in how you dress it up. Most allow sneakers, again, all depends on what they are and how you wear it.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Uhhh. What?
> 
> I have never been to a bar, anywhere, that didn't allow jeans. And I've been in alot of bars. It's all in how you dress it up. Most allow sneakers, again, all depends on what they are and how you wear it.



Come to Toronto, and do a bar hop.  Not that far from where you live, and see if you can get in with a ball cap, or sneakers, or jeans in some of the joints.

dileas

tess


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Come to Toronto, and do a bar hop.  Not that far from where you live, and see if you can get in with a ball cap, or sneakers, or jeans in some of the joints.
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Been there, done that. Darn near had a heart attack when the girl, quite seriously, told us it was 40$ cover. Each. And I was in jeans (no hat though, that's always a no-no in nice places). I'm not a huge fan of Toronto clubbing, I always found it too expensive and underwhealming. I don't fit well into the popped-collar crowd anyways.  

As an aside, holy tangent.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> If I can get into rediculously expensive restaurants and nightclubs wearing jeans and a t-shirt (not your old pair of wranglers and "Big Bob's Fish Hut" t-shirt mind you) then why does an officer's mess have to be so....severe. There's a reason young officers avoid the officer's mess, we don't like having to get dressed up to go have a casual beer or dinner (formal events aside).



Isn't it funny, I remember those same arguments being made 20-25 years ago, and now those young officers are the Colonels and Generals still enforcing rules being described as archaic.

Of course, those were the closing days on the period when officers weren't expected to even let it be known that they owned jeans . . .  

_"If you are working on your auto and need to go down to Canadian Tire for parts or tools, you should clean up, and put on a jacket and tie to be suitably dressed to be out in public to make your purchases.  Your jeans can be put back on after you are back in the privacy of your garage ...."

Uh, yeah, okay Adjt._    :

I also remember an occasion where my boss and I (a Capt & a Maj) were asked to remove ourselves from the front steps of the Wardroom in Halifax.  We were in CF Greens (that's equivalent to DEU for you young whippersnappers) with sweaters over shirts and ties.  That, apparently, was not of an appropriate standard for us to be in sight when the Admiral was on his way over for lunch.

By comparison, most messes are getting pretty relaxed these days.


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

In all fairness, when compared to the standards of yesteryear today's messes seem far more lax. Keep in mind though, in many places a pair of (designer) jeans with a shirt, tie, blazer and shoes is considered business attire these days. Maybe I'm more nit-picky because I dress 'modern', hence my displeasure with what I deem to be archaic dress regs.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> If I can get into rediculously expensive restaurants and nightclubs wearing jeans and a t-shirt



If I go to a "ridiculously expensive restaurant or night club" I do not want to see people sloppily dressed. Jeans and T-shirt, of any sort, do not cut it. It shows a lack of personal pride, poor manners, and it looks out of place.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> why does an officer's mess have to be so....severe.



A shirt with buttons on the front and a collar and trousers made of something other than denim is "severe"? Get real. Seriously.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> putting on what is essentially business casual to go have breakfast/lunch/dinner is rediculous.



Why?

And the correct spelling is "ridiculous", by the way.

You're an officer? Then dress like one when entering a military establishment, especially a Mess or a higher headquarters. It doesn't cost any more, and it's no less comfortable. Look somewhat professional, and set an example.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> In all fairness, when compared to the standards of yesteryear today's messes seem far more lax. Keep in mind though, in many places a pair of (designer) jeans with a shirt, tie, blazer and shoes is considered business attire these days. Maybe I'm more nit-picky because I dress 'modern', hence my displeasure with what I deem to be archaic dress regs.



Keep in mind that any Mess dress regulations can dictate basic styles, but they can't dictate fashion.  That's why requirements for "jacket and tie" results in the occasional Herb Tarlek.  Similarly, allowed "jeans" opens the door to the eternal fight over what is and isn't acceptable under that description, and who draws the line on borderline cases.  What's the critical determining factor? Would it be cost, style, appearance?  There are too many factors for any simple answer.  

Just because you might claim that you would know what would be acceptable doesn't mean someone else won't push that new limit and the struggle and frustration for all involved continues.  Do you think that "old" Colonel, Major or Captain that takes it upon him or herself to mention to those who are inappropriately dressed that they need to leave really wants to have to do that?


----------



## Sig_Des (15 May 2009)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> CF isn't stuck in the 1950s ref dress is all I'm saying



This kind of makes me giggle. I remember working at ADM (Mat) at LStL, and of course, we had civvy Fridays.

Our team on the floor of course being the hip young Cpls & MCpls surrounded by a sea of MWOs, civvies, and Officer types, our dress was observed and debated by all.

While it was decided that our khakis (and even jeans if we paid for united way) were acceptable, some of our golf shirts were too frayed (how they came out of the store), and we were disgraceful because we weren't tucking them into our pants.

Enter the following friday. 2 of our more senior team members showed up, having decided to follow the spirit of the dress rules, and fresh from a trip to value village, where they had picked up their smashing outfits. Which included:

Plaid wool slacks, Tight-white button up-shirts, uber-skinny ties, heavy- big-button up wool sweater for one, sleeveless sweater-vest for the other, hornrimmed glasses for both, and their hair gelled flat and parted to one side.

Basically, they looked exactly like how you would picture a 1950's accountant.

This dress was readilly accepted, and they were actually complemented on how they were dressed by some.


----------



## COBRA-6 (15 May 2009)

This thread is ridiculous!

We're not talking about mess appropriate dress here, or dining dress, but dress to file a travel claim or draw a new set of CADPAT from CFSU(O) when not wearing the dress of the day (i.e. you're on leave or off duty). The regs in this case are out completely out to lunch. I have personally seen a full Colonel go down to clothing stores and jack up a bin-rat for refusing to serve someone because she was wearing jeans (perfectly acceptable by her employer's dress regs, but not clothing stores!?!). If the standard of dress for CF mbrs while out of uniform in the NCR is such an issue then it is up to the CoC to address/enforce, not a poor Pvt/Cpl in a sea of Sgts Major and Senior Officers.  

You want to talk looking professional? Lets talk about all the CADPAT fatties walking around the NCR before we worry about Cpl Bloggins' sneaker style.

For Fuck Sake!  :


----------



## Monsoon (15 May 2009)

I starting to notice a trend here, and am beginning to suspect that a prerequisite for promotion to a senior NCO or senior officer is the signing of a declaration that states that you truly believe that a $15 golf shirt tucked into $25 khakis is "dressing nice".


----------



## NL_engineer (15 May 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is wrong with dressing decently?
> 
> And I do not care how clean or hole-free a T-shirt or pair of jeans is, neither are suitable dress for a major headquarters or an Officers' Mess.



And this coming from a guy who worn a Tux in KAF on New Years Eve.


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I starting to notice a trend here, and am beginning to suspect that a prerequisite for promotion to a senior NCO or senior officer is the signing of a declaration that states that you truly believe that a $15 golf shirt tucked into $25 khakis is "dressing nice".


What would be the alternative? Stipulate that each item of clothing cost a certain amount? The result will be the same, you'll just have people wearing expensive ugly clothing. Dress regulations like this dictate a minimum standard, and if people chose only to meet the minimum standard, for reasons of cost, comfort, or whatever, they're still not in the wrong. 

Anyways, time for me to go put on my $25 khakis and my $15 golf shirt and go to work.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 May 2009)

+1 on what Cobra said.  

Once we stop wearing pyjamas at NDHQ and start looking presentable (DEUs) then I think we can complain about someone's civvy dress.

I have 15 years in, I remember the Garrison dress and Tan DEUs and still find they looked 10 times more professional at the HQ level than CADPAT.  In fact now that I am working in an HQ and seeing who we deal with, I will be asking the RSM about dress.  3b short sleeve has never killed anyone and with the points program from Logistik Unicorps you can have an outfit for every day of the week.

And before someone goes on a tangent about having to pay to dry clean said pants, there is no obligation to.  They can be put in the washer and dryer IF you read the label and follow instructions correctly.


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2009)

The option of wearing civvies on Friday in NDHQ is, in my opinion, idiotic.  NDHQ is the national HQ of the CF, not a venue for a weekly fashion competition.  Even when dressed strictly in accordance with Standing Orders, there is still latitude for judgement on the part of the chain of command, peers and subordinates as to whether a certain piece of apparel is suitable or, worse, trendy enogh for casual wear in today's society.

Ottawa, although not top of the heap, is an expensive place to live.  We need not now "require" our members to purchase civvies in order to "meet the satndard of dress at NDHQ".  A uniform does that very well, thank you, and at the Queen's expense.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> And this coming from a guy who worn a Tux in KAF on New Years Eve.



Evening dress for evening wear.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is wrong with dressing decently?
> 
> And I do not care how clean or hole-free a T-shirt or pair of jeans is, neither are suitable dress for a major headquarters or an Officers' Mess.



I've never understood how tatty, baggy pyjamas on tatty, unkept, overweight staff sends a professional image.  But, it's what the dot COMs and Land Staff seem to want...


----------



## ltmaverick25 (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> If I can get into rediculously expensive restaurants and nightclubs wearing jeans and a t-shirt (not your old pair of wranglers and "Big Bob's Fish Hut" t-shirt mind you) then why does an officer's mess have to be so....severe. There's a reason young officers avoid the officer's mess, we don't like having to get dressed up to go have a casual beer or dinner (formal events aside). Now, I don't have a problem with putting on a dress shirt/polo to go into the 'drinking' side of the mess to spruce up a pair of jeans...but on the other hand putting on what is essentially business casual to go have breakfast/lunch/dinner is rediculous.
> 
> The JR's and Sgt's/WO's messes allow more casual wear but the officer's mess (and NDHQ...all other bases I have been on allow jeans, t-shirts etc when conducting buisiness in civvies) seems firmly stuck in the days of pipes, double-breasted suits and 'jolly goods'.



I wholeheartedly disagree with this.  I dont care what you wear to expensive restaurents or night clubs.  Just because pop culture social venues allow certain forms of dress does not mean that the CF has to follow suit.  I am an officer, used to be an NCM, and I beleive 100 percent that if we are going to be on base, in a mess or doing admin that we should adhere to a standard of dress that is higher on the scale then jeans and running shoes.  It comes down to professionalism.  If you are dressing the part of a nightclubbing guru great, go do it in a nightclub.  But when your on base, your not a nightclubbing guru, your an officer and there is a big difference.  I remember years back as an NCM when younger officers would afford themselves the luxury of dressing down, or wearing the same types of jeans and tshirts that us NCMs were wearing.  The result was people stopped taking them seriously.  Others mistakenly assumed they were privates or corporals and spoke to them accordingly and that didnt go over very well either.

Junior officers often comlain, with merit, that nobody takes them seriously.  It is a hurdle that has to be overcome and its pretty hard to do that without the optics.  Obviously being the best dressed person isnt going to help your cause if you are still a useless bag of hammers, but it is my firm beleif that you take away from your own professionalism (assuming you are switched on) by not maintaining a higher standard of dress.

Yes yes yes, in a perfect world it should not matter what you wear.  I get it, really I do, but that world doesnt exist.  Until it does, dress the part.  God forbid you have to wear a golf shirt to have a beer, oh the pain....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The option of wearing civvies on Friday in NDHQ is, in my opinion, idiotic.  NDHQ is the national HQ of the CF, not a venue for a weekly fashion competition.  Even when dressed strictly in accordance with Standing Orders, there is still latitude for judgement on the part of the chain of command, peers and subordinates as to whether a certain piece of apparel is suitable or, worse, trendy enogh for casual wear in today's society.
> 
> Ottawa, although not top of the heap, is an expensive place to live.  We need not now "require" our members to purchase civvies in order to "meet the satndard of dress at NDHQ".  A uniform does that very well, thank you, and at the Queen's expense.




The *custom* of wearing ciilian dress in Ottawa is a fairly old one: going back more than a half century. At one time staff at NDHQ wore uniforms only once a week - even less often, in some cases.

The *custom* was/is not restricted to Ottawa. It applied, equally, in London and Wellington (NZ) and, I think, in Canberra and, maybe, New Delhi, too.

It may be a bad idea but it is a well established one.

-------------------------

I'm with Cobra 6, too: *fatties in CADPAT* are offensive and I think some reasonable, _neat_, fairly casual/comfortable "garrison dress" would be much better.


----------



## Journeyman (15 May 2009)

> *fatties in CADPAT are offensive *


Hello! I'm in the room. I can hear you.  

 ;D


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've never understood how tatty, baggy pyjamas on tatty, unkept, overweight staff sends a professional image.  But, it's what the dot COMs and Land Staff seem to want...



I can understand the idea of wishing to keep a operational mindset, and thus wearing an operational uniform. I do question why Naval personnel aren't then ordered to wear _their_ operational uniform, but that's probably an issue for another thread. Most people's issue with regard to the wearing of CADPAT in the NCR doesn't really seem to be with the CADPAT itself, but with members letting themselves go. An out of shape soldier is out of shape, whether they are in DEUs or combats.

As for the comments regarding clothing that would get you into a nightclub but wouldn't be acceptable at work, that is a complete freakin' red herring. Nightclubs are about booze and getting laid. So no, I don't really care whatsoever if your fancy t-shirt would get you into the club, it's still not bloody acceptable in a professional environment. Why anyone would really think the two situations are comparable is beyond me.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (15 May 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> You want to talk looking professional? Lets talk about all the CADPAT fatties walking around the NCR before we worry about Cpl Bloggins' sneaker style.



You make a good point here.  While I am in favor of the dress code; all the proper dress in the world isnt going to help make you look like a professional soldier, sailer or aircrew if your tugging a massive beer belly.


----------



## NL_engineer (15 May 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The *custom* of wearing ciilian dress in Ottawa is a fairly old one: going back more than a half century. At one time staff at NDHQ wore uniforms only once a week - even less often, in some cases.



Well I would have said high end Business Suits, but that would require a clothing allowance for all the worn out knees.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well I would have said high end Business Suits ...




That was the standard. Clerks and storesmen wore jacket and tie.

You know the definition of high quality, Saville Row, tailoring, right? *"It looks like it was made twenty years ago for somebody else."*




			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ... that would require a clothing allowance for all the worn out knees.




Sad to say that careerism was, and almost certainly still is, rampant in Ottawa; your point is well taken.


----------



## Haggis (15 May 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The *custom* of wearing ciilian dress in Ottawa is a fairly old one: going back more than a half century. At one time staff at NDHQ wore uniforms only once a week - even less often, in some cases.



From the standard at which many maintain their DEU, I can see this as a palatable "custom" in such circles.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The *custom* was/is not restricted to Ottawa. It applied, equally, in London and Wellington (NZ) and, I think, in Canberra and, maybe, New Delhi, too.



So, what?  Institutionally, we seem to shun the adoption/maintenance of American "customs", but we cling stubbornly to British ones.  Why?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It may be a bad idea but it is a well established one.



Doesn't mean I have to like it... and I don't!

-------------------------



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm with Cobra 6, too: *fatties in CADPAT* are offensive and I think some reasonable, _neat_, fairly casual/comfortable "garrison dress" would be much better.



*Tangent Begins.*

Why should we accept "fatties" at NDHQ in garrison dress rather than CADPAT?  Why not just get them fit?  If people at NDHQ spent as much time doing PT as the spent in finding was to avoid it, we wouldn't have this problem.

*Tangent ends.* 

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> ...
> Why should we accept "fatties" at NDHQ in garrison dress rather than CADPAT?  *Why not just get them fit?  If people at NDHQ spent as much time doing PT as the spent in finding was to avoid it, we wouldn't have this problem.*
> ...




That - *acceptable levels of fitness/deportment* - is, of course, both the real problem and the real solution involves getting people trim and fit, or getting them out of the military, not just letting them out of close fitting uniforms.

I still have an objection to operational dress in offices, but it is related to cost. When we had the old combat uniforms I knew, because I saw the cost data as part of my job, that the only uniforms that cost more were mess kit and full dress. I suspect the same is true today. Clerks working in the pay office or mid-ranked staff officers slaving away on the next generation TACVEST in DLR do not need to wear CADPAT.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I starting to notice a trend here, and am beginning to suspect that a prerequisite for promotion to a senior NCO or senior officer is the signing of a declaration that states that you truly believe that a $15 golf shirt tucked into $25 khakis is "dressing nice".



Well, this Senior NCO has signed no such thing and will be more than happy to stop enforcing such rules as soon as they are removed. Until then, i will enforce orders as i am expected to.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2009)

DEU is still much cheaper than CADPAT, but it requires personal efort to maintain, so CADPAT remains the dress of the day.  I'd posit that once a week for ruck marches in the HQ, to keep people fit would be fine.  But, if you're on a chit for no PT, DEUs for you.  (Any shortages of CADPAT nowdays?  Anyone think that getting the HQ properly attired might mitigate that, in part?)

Here's an ATI request: for the Land Staff, by rank group, the completion rates for the BFT...

The "Operational mindset" canard is bunk.  My unscientific survey of the land staff has seen no one speak about that; it's only ever been an easier standard of dress.


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2009)

I would like to clarify that when I brought up the "operational mindset" point, I was referring specifically to the dot coms. Land staff is another issue.


----------



## Snakedoc (15 May 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Clerks working in the pay office or mid-ranked staff officers slaving away on the next generation TACVEST in DLR do not need to wear CADPAT.



I agree, office dress for office work!


----------



## vonGarvin (15 May 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> You want to talk looking professional? Lets talk about all the CADPAT fatties walking around the NCR before we worry about Cpl Bloggins' sneaker style.


Well said!


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I would like to clarify that when I brought up the "operational mindset" point, I was referring specifically to the dot coms. Land staff is another issue.



Dot coms operational?  In that hotbed of operational reality, Startop?


They're static domestic HQs that plan operations.  If wearing the wrong set of pants makes them less operationally focussed, we've got the wrong people there.  " I was going to co-ordinate the handover from 3-08 to 1-09, but then I realized I was wearing DEUs."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108598/


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2009)

If you don't think that what people are wearing can make a difference, then why exactly would we bother with this whole dress and deportment thing at all? Make the new dress of the day your bathrobes? I'm not saying that it's going to be the single determining factor, but it can change not only how a group interacts amongst themselves, but how others interact with them.


----------



## dapaterson (15 May 2009)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> If you don't think that what people are wearing can make a difference, then why exactly would we bother with this whole dress and deportment thing at all? Make the new dress of the day your bathrobes? I'm not saying that it's going to be the single determining factor, but it can change not only how a group interacts amongst themselves, but how others interact with them.



The military has norms and standards for dress and deportment - true.  The dot COMs decision to dress in operational dress was purely an ego-driven thing - "Look at us - *We're* operational."

Putting on DEUs requires you to take time, do preparations, and ensure you meet a standard for professionalism.  CADPAT lets you roll out of bed in your uniform.  I've worked in HQs with both.  If you're in KAF or working on pre-deployment, CADPAT is fine.  Otherwise, it should be DEU.

Sidebar issue: most of the static HQs spend too much time emailing and "HQ-ing"; they should be out ensuring maintenance of their soldier skills (for the Army) on a more regular basis.  Say a day a month or so - to avoid the embarassing situation that still happens, where a long-in-the-tooth major visits the range and announces that he's not familiar with the "new" rifle - that's been in service for 20 years now...


Back on topic, I said it before, and I'll say it again:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> If wearing the wrong set of pants makes them less operationally focussed, we've got the wrong people there.


----------



## gcclarke (15 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Sidebar issue: most of the static HQs spend too much time emailing and "HQ-ing"; they should be out ensuring maintenance of their soldier skills (for the Army) on a more regular basis.  Say a day a month or so - to avoid the embarassing situation that still happens, where a long-in-the-tooth major visits the range and announces that he's not familiar with the "new" rifle - that's been in service for 20 years now...



Most of the complaints in this thread have really been personnel complaints, not dress complaints. If the problem is that someone is lazy, hasn't fired a weapon, taken a first aid course, or seen their feet for a decade, then it doesn't bloody well matter what order of dress they wear to the office on a daily basis.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 May 2009)

IMO, what someone wears to the mess, or anywhere for that matter doesn't make that person.  His attitude and his actions speak much more of him.  If someone is a jackass, he won't get more respect from me because he's dressed nicely in the mess.

I find we focus way to much on how we look when there are much more important things to take care of.


----------



## 40below (15 May 2009)

Just to take this on a tangent, I got back from two days of grad/commissioning at RMC, and aside from the people in DEUs (I won't talk about the number of officers with a front ass, although there were a few), I was the only one wearing a tie and jacket. The clothes I wear to change the oil in the car were better than most people wore to the graduation or commissioning. I wouldn't even think about wearing cut-offs, a short with a witty message like "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" and a beer hat, but that's what the stands were full of, pretty much, and not for the first time. Looked kind of sad when they posed with a cadet in 1As.

I spoke to my wife about this, whose brother went through RMC in the 90s, and she remembers having to take two pressed dresses to commissioning - one to wear and a second in case the first one got rained on, as often happens in May in Kingston.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 May 2009)

Wow what a thread.
For the life of me the last time I was at NDHQ to finalize an end of tour claim I don't remember there being a dress code. I'm sure the gigantic signs were there and the dress code was in place but I missed it.  I'm sure I wore a T-shirt and jeans back then, no one said anything.
  
I don't own a pair of dress shoes, I don't really have a need for them. I'm not cheap mind you, I've put a few hundred into a chest rig. I've bought a few pairs of my own desert boots for use overseas (unlike some of the types who want sexy boots and find ways for he CF to pay for em) I've put a lot of money into kit that I got a lot of use out of. Buying a set of clothes for a 15 minute meeting thats gonna likely leave me wanting to choke myself with my own white cotton sports socks? Pass.

I however *DO* remember last tour going to NDHQ and being jerked around having to *wait 8 or 9 months *for them to give me my claims and such. That's after being passed around to a few people landing with some civilian prick who _jacked up _my wife for bugging him (by that time I was on course and asked her for help trying to get a hold of buddy who never answers the phone or returns his calls like a lot of other people in the building).

"What the hell is wrong with you guys, you just got off tour you should have money in the bank you should have thought ahead and not counted on this money, it's not my fault you can't budget"
It was finally sorted out after (much by chance) it was brought to the attention of a JAG Major or Colonel in Ottawa who called the prick civilians boss and had words with him. 

I think the idea of a dress code at frigging_ clothing stores_ or CFSU Ottawa is stupid.  Me dressing up to have someone in an ugly cadpat uniform give me a canteen? Ya okay.

In my lowly opinion if NDHQ wants to enforce a dress code then enforce one.  DEUs for military pers. Dressy clothes for civilian employees.  The fact that off duty military personal are held to a dress code yet civilians working there aren't is a dumb double standard, full stop.

Cadpat uniforms aren't 'dressy'.
When you go to a fancy restaurant with a dress code in place your waiters aren't wearing coveralls are they?


----------



## ltmaverick25 (15 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> IMO, what someone wears to the mess, or anywhere for that matter doesn't make that person.  His attitude and his actions speak much more of him.  If someone is a jackass, he won't get more respect from me because he's dressed nicely in the mess.
> 
> I find we focus way to much on how we look when there are much more important things to take care of.



I think that in the military optics are important.  Of course, optics can never be a substitute for substance and competency, but it is a necessary piece of the pie.

On a different note, I do think that if there is a dress code in effect for military personnel who are not in uniform, then that same dress code should be enforced within the civilian employee cadre.  I can just imagine a CF member wearing jeans being told by one of the civies who is also wearing jeans, that they cannot be served because of the jeans!


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 May 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> I think that in the military optics are important.  Of course, optics can never be a substitute for substance and competency, but it is a necessary piece of the pie.



Can you explain why optics are so important?  What benefit does it bring to the organization?


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

This has actually turned into a hilarious read, at least for me. People COMPLAINING about NOT having to spend time maintaining their uniform? What? 

I'd rather spend my evenings doing what I want, not spit shining and ironing my DEU's so someone, somewhere can feel we look 'professional'. I like wearing CADPAT to work, I wore it in an office in Ottawa and I wear it now. It's simple, comfortable and functional. Who cares if you're maintaining trucks, playing cards (cough certain infantry battalion cough) or sitting in a cubicle. I actually think CADPAT looks more 'military' then our bus driver-style DEU's. 

As for the other comments re: civvies (forgot to copy/paste them before I started typing), it's really a matter of personal taste. I can walk in my closet and walk out wearing jeans, casual shirt and a pair of dressy shoes (maybe even a blazer, if I had one) and dress sharper then most other people wandering around base in their unit-logo crested golf shirts, double pleated hants hiked up to their nipples and 40 year old loafers. Alas, changing mess dress regs is like trying to move a mountain. I know the RMC guys had a heckuva time trying to get sneakers allowed in to the cafeteria so they didn't have to dress up to go eat (did that ever work out?). 

I also noticed a comment about how civvie dress reflects on the type of officer one is. I don't know where that poster works, but thankfully where I am people won't lower their opinion of my leadership skills because they saw me in the mall wearing shorts, t-shirt and flip flops. It's all about dressing for the occasions. Mess dinner = mess dress, less formal mess dinner (like a family dinner etc) = suit and tie or blazer and khakis, having a beer or a bit of dinner should = casual clothes like jeans.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (15 May 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That - *acceptable levels of fitness/deportment* - is, of course, both the real problem and the real solution involves getting people trim and fit, or getting them out of the military, not just letting them out of close fitting uniforms.



First off the systems should stop making uniforms (CADPAT or DEU) that allow the morbidly obese to fit in them (eg ridiculously short pant legs but massive waist - I was issued a pair of windpants once that were like this and was told to "grow into them" by the QM staff when asked about the crazy size (and I am tall and skinny). Sure, the size variance in uniforms has to account for the short and the tall, but when waist sizes are in the 40s/50s, then we have a problem. Equally crazy is that Arid CADPAT uniforms come in these same sizes that would only fit properly someone who clearly would not be able to pass any PT test acceptable for deployment status. Call be biased, but where do we draw the line?


----------



## ltmaverick25 (15 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Can you explain why optics are so important?  What benefit does it bring to the organization?



To be honest, I dont think I can explain why in a breif forum post but I will give it shot by telling a story from my GMT once upon a time...

This was back in 93 and we were doing our training up in Aldershot, NS.  After several weeks of being cut off from civilization they bussed out the entire course to Kentville (I think its Kentville anyway, my memory could be failing me) so that people could get some banking done, buy some necessary ods and ends and just look after general admin that couldnt be done from the base.  We were all in our combat uniforms at the time.  So a small town now had an influx of soldiers walking around trying to get too much done in too little time.

As it turns out, the few girls that were on the course were as happy as could be to finally be off the base.  So happy in fact that while crossing the street they were hopping and skipping along and even singing, literraly.  Soldiers, who are trained to fight wars, hoping along like complese baffoons in uniform.  It LOOKED terrible.  The civilans walking about were looking at these people in disgust as if to say, "these are the people defending us"?.  Those girls ended up getting rheamed out severely afterwards and optics was the central theme.  To be fair, those girls were good soldiers, and did their jobs well.  But when they were out and about they did not LOOK like soldiers are supposed to, or expected to look like and it became problematic.  That they were fantastic soldiers did not matter at that point, the only thing that did matter is that they looked stupid.

When you are a soldier and you look like a bag of shit you do not instill confidence from the public, nor do you represent yourself well do your peers, subordinates and superiors.

Optics is also important because it is an extension of attitude.  If you have a good attitude you are likely not going to look like a sack of shit on the job.  Obviously there are people with very bad attitudes that still manage to wear their uniforms with pride or dress nicely so optics cannot exist as an important facet in a vaccum all by itself, but it is an important component.

If optics did not matter in the military, we wouldnt have uniforms.  Uniforms serve no other purpose then optics.  Granted there are spinoff benefits as well, but I would argue that they are all directly linked to optics.

If you look like crap, and you carry yourself like crap then you will not instill confidence in yourself from others.  That may not be who it SHOULD be, but it in my opinion that is the way it is in reality.  Like it or not, optics matters.  When in uniform, wearing it well and maintaining it to a high standard is important.  When out of uniform and around your peers or even civilians it is equally important to carry yourself well.  However, following along that line of thinking, if you look like a punk, it wont matter how well you carry yourself because people will be fixated on the appearence of punk.  Again, that may not be how it should be, but it is how it is.

Please note, when I use the word punk I am using it simply to make a point, I am in no way trying to connect the wearing of jeans to being a punk!

Hopefully this makes some sence.


----------



## RubberTree (15 May 2009)

I agree Piper...appropriate dress for appropriate circumstances. I go for a mess dinner, I wear a mess kit, makes sense to me. I visit the national headquarters of the Canadian Armed Forces, I'm not going to show up in jeans and a t-shirt, no matter how good I think I look in them, or how the civis are dressed.
 I'm proud of what I do and I have no problem spending the extra 10 minutes getting dressed and ironing my 3Bs to make sure others are aware of that. 
Maybe its vanity (I do look good in DEUs), maybe its pride. Probably both.


----------



## Loachman (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I also noticed a comment about how civvie dress reflects on the type of officer one is.



That was probably me.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> I don't know where that poster works,



It's in my profile.



			
				Piper said:
			
		

> but thankfully where I am people won't lower their opinion of my leadership skills because they saw me in the mall wearing shorts, t-shirt and flip flops.



I don't particularly care what you wear there either - although a few years ago you would have been expected to dress a bit better than that. I do care what people wear in a work environment however. Dress sloppily there and my opinion will conform to the visual presentation.


----------



## chris_log (15 May 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't particularly care what you wear there either - although a few years ago you would have been expected to dress a bit better than that. I do care what people wear in a work environment however. Dress sloppily there and my opinion will conform to the visual presentation.



And you consider the mess to be a work environment? Especially the eating area, used daily by living in members?

I don't.


----------



## aesop081 (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I don't.



There's your problem.


----------



## Occam (15 May 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> When you are a soldier and you look like a bag of shit you do not instill confidence from the public, nor do you represent yourself well do your peers, subordinates and superiors.
> 
> Optics is also important because it is an extension of attitude.  If you have a good attitude you are likely not going to look like a sack of shit on the job.  Obviously there are people with very bad attitudes that still manage to wear their uniforms with pride or dress nicely so optics cannot exist as an important facet in a vaccum all by itself, but it is an important component.
> 
> ...



That's all well and good, but there's still one question which remains...

If you're wearing the same jeans, red "Support our Troops" golf shirt and neat pair of sneakers that a Public Service employee is wearing on a Friday at 101 Colonel By, how does optics play into it?  

John Q. Public at the Rideau Centre can't tell whether one is a CS-02 or a Major.    ???


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> , playing cards (cough certain infantry battalion cough)



I'm starting to agree with some of my DS compatriots about you. 

I'm 100% sure Civi U guy has not earned the right to throw fish around yet.


----------



## the 48th regulator (15 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There's your problem.




I second that.

The rebel without a clue, that persuades all that he is for the cause.

A fella shows up to the nations HQ, for our Military, and he is shocked that there is a dress code.

People defend this by attacking "Archaic" dress codes, knowing full well that they joined the military.  A part of society that has bread uniformity, and a difference or dress from the general "Plebes" since we men bit that apple, however,  we now have finally seen the forward thinkers that challenge this view.

All hail the new crusaders, I can rejoice and head back tot he recruiting centre, so that I may wear jeans and a T-Shirt whenever I feel!

dileas

tess


----------



## a78jumper (16 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the time the Base DComd jacked me up in the wardroom cafeteria in Esquimalt for wearing "running shoes". After explaining that the "running shoes" ($120 suede sneakers definitely _not_ made for running) were the only shoes I had brought on my three-day TD to the other side of the country, he relented and let me eat. But not before giving me a steely glare and saying:
> 
> "You're lowering the standard of my mess."
> 
> Sure. But if I'd shown up in Bermuda shorts hiked up to my armpits with long black socks pulled up to my knees - hey, no problem! Looking like a tool is completely fine - recommended, really.



Someone in civies tried to throw me out of the lower bar/lunch room of the St Hubert Officers Mess in 1989 for wearing what was prescribed as my dress of day for the Airshow ( I was with the Skyhawks). Never did introduce himself, so I told him to call my CO and in any event he was embaressing my kunch Heinous crime was wearing a golf shirt, long cottom rugby pants and a pair of running shoes, which I had worn on a service aircraft when I arrived that morning. He went away and that was the last I heard of that.

As for NDHQ, a cesspool of dress varieties. "Someone" in DGLFD took offense to the fact I arrived at work in PT strip daily and then went for a shower once I collected my uniform. I usually put on jeans to leave in the afternoon to avoid trailing salt all up the back of my uniform pants esp in winter. Sicced the Colonels Staff Offr/ AO on me, so I told him to tell someone to come see me directly about the problem which they never did. Some NCO redressed similar circumstances a few years back and won. 

What was really surprising is that the Navy in Esquimalt catgorically did not want you to wear what was then caled "work dress" uniforms on the city busses, and in Pet in the early 80s you were not allowed downtown Pet or Pembroke in anything but CFs


----------



## RubberTree (16 May 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> That's all well and good, but there's still one question which remains...
> 
> If you're wearing the same jeans, red "Support our Troops" golf shirt and neat pair of sneakers that a Public Service employee is wearing on a Friday at 101 Colonel By, how does optics play into it?
> 
> John Q. Public at the Rideau Centre can't tell whether one is a CS-02 or a Major.    ???



This sounds like a "she got more ice cream then I did" kitchen fight. You aren't a civi, you don't play by the same rules. We have a standard, hold yourself to it, if you don't like it there are always options.


----------



## chris_log (16 May 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm starting to agree with some of my DS compatriots about you.
> 
> I'm 100% sure Civi U guy has not earned the right to throw fish around yet.



It was tongue in cheek, I've got friends at said infantry battalion who serenade me with tales of card games, endless timmies trips and sports days. They also tell me their Afghanistan war stories, which aren't as funny. I get enough slag tossed my way for being in the job I am (even on this site "It's fun to read about log PT" is the description of a certain sub-forum), so I get to toss some at others too (all in good fun of course). I'm well aware of what they do. Don't take everything I say so literally Bruce (and everyone else). 



> I second that.
> 
> The rebel without a clue, that persuades all that he is for the cause.
> 
> ...



I'm not shocked there is a dress code, just that it is one designed around days past when it comes to fashion sense. That's all I was saying. I like the rebel without a clue comment though, really funny. I'm sure you'll apply the same label next time someone complains about not being allowed to wear their Danners or Oakleys, or how they can't wear their whiz-bang spec ops rig on a weekend exercise. 

Oh wait.


----------



## chris_log (16 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There's your problem.



So a living-in member going to get lunch on a Saturday is going to work? Brilliant. 

I'm well aware of the social and networking aspects of the mess. But it's not work. That's the whole point of the mess and why you're not supposed to discuss 'work' when you're in there. Someone with your 'time-in' should know that.


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of the social and networking aspects of the mess. But it's not work. That's the whole point of the mess and why you're not supposed to discuss 'work' when you're in there. Someone with your 'time-in' should know that.



Actually, there's more leeway than your limited experience may lead you to think, and has been for quite some time:

Customs of the Service
(Advice to those newly commissioned.) (1939)



> Although one of the oldest traditions prohibits the discussion of "Shop" in Mess, it may be convenient to settle some Service matter in Mess, but such discussions should be limited as far as possible. Officers who have nothing to discuss except their daily routine become intolerable bores. Changed conditions have allowed a certain amount of latitude to creep in and interesting problems of the day connected with Service matters of general interest to all are permissible subjects for discussion in most Messes.


----------



## Occam (16 May 2009)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> This sounds like a "she got more ice cream then I did" kitchen fight. You aren't a civi, you don't play by the same rules. We have a standard, hold yourself to it, if you don't like it there are always options.



I think that after nearly a quarter century I know what the standard is, but thanks for dodging my question.

If the concern is optics, ie. the presentation of a professional force to the public, then why is the matter of dress on a Friday an issue when a member wearing jeans would blend into and be completely indistinguishable from the myriad of Public Servants coming and going from the puzzle palace?  

If it were truly a matter of the Forces looking unprofessional for wearing jeans on Casual Friday, then why wouldn't it be written into the collective agreements of the various PS tables that they have a dress code too?  After all, a denim-wearing civvie entering or leaving Pearkes could very well be mistaken for a slovenly military member, and bring the CF into disrepute.

If denim and sneakers are that unprofessional looking, then why - for the paltry sum of $1 per Friday - are military members permitted to relax their dress even beyond the "Dress With a Difference" regulations, and be permitted to wear jeans and sneakers during the GCWCC campaign in the fall?  Is that not saying "Wearing jeans projects an unprofessional appearance of the CF, but we're willing to look unprofessional if you're community-minded and donate to charity"?


----------



## Loachman (16 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm not shocked there is a dress code, just that it is one designed around days past when it comes to fashion sense.



What's the problem? A few shirt buttons too hard to do up?

Nobody's asking for much - a shirt with collar and proper trousers. It wasn't that long ago when suit and tie was required for dinner. Yes, some people bitched then, too, and used pretty much the same words as I'm hearing now.

Set a standard, and there are always one or two claiming that it's too high, or "archaic", or doesn't make "fashion sense".

So let's drop it to the level that some want: Jeans and T-shirt.

Wait a couple of months and somebody will whine that requiring sleeves is "archaic", and blather on about how tasteful, clean, and free-of-holes his wife-beater is.

It's a Mess, not the food court at the mall.

As for "work environment": poor choice of words, and vague. The intended meaning was "military environment".



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> If denim and sneakers are that unprofessional looking, then why - for the paltry sum of $1 per Friday - are military members permitted to relax their dress even beyond the "Dress With a Difference" regulations, and be permitted to wear jeans and sneakers during the GCWCC campaign in the fall?  Is that not saying "Wearing jeans projects an unprofessional appearance of the CF, but we're willing to look unprofessional if you're community-minded and donate to charity"?



I never bought into that civvy-dress-on-Friday thing in the first place, and have/will always worn uniform.

I can still support the cause of my choice.


----------



## Journeyman (16 May 2009)

OK, tangent....

Many posts here hark upon "optics" and "perceptions." 
While rank is irrelevant, many respondents _seem_ to be OCdt - Capt.

May I _humbly_ (as I tend to) suggest.....




 *USE THE SPELL CHECK -- IT'S FREE!!! * 

It's all about optics and perceptions, you know


----------



## aesop081 (16 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> Someone with your 'time-in' should know that.



If you are on a DND establishment where your conduct is bound by CF regulations where the CF can apply its powers of punishment if you should do something against those same regulations, yes you are indeed at work.

I dont need a lesson from you on what i should know, i have lived it for much longer and seem to grasp it much better than you.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I'm not shocked there is a dress code, just that it is one designed around days past when it comes to fashion sense. That's all I was saying. I like the rebel without a clue comment though, really funny. I'm sure you'll apply the same label next time someone complains about not being allowed to wear their Danners or Oakleys, or how they can't wear their whiz-bang spec ops rig on a weekend exercise.
> 
> Oh wait.



Since I am out, and being the fine young leader that you are, do tell me what it is like these days out in the field with the Danners, Oakleys, or the whiz-bang spec ops rig.  

We never had them fancy fan dangle things in my day, so we bowed to the mighty man in charge.  How do you handle people under your command who go against the grain and wear that on a weekend exercise? Oh wait....

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern (16 May 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> On a different note, I do think that if there is a dress code in effect for military personnel who are not in uniform, then that same dress code should be enforced within the civilian employee cadre.  I can just imagine a CF member wearing jeans being told by one of the civies who is also wearing jeans, that they cannot be served because of the jeans!



On a truer note, the CF doesn't employ (or pay) any civilian employees. The CF employs (and pays) soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.

DND employs (and pays) civilians. We, in the CF, comprise a small part of DND, but civvies comprise no part of the CF - not even a 'cadre'. Different employer - different rules. If we had the same employer, you'd have a Union rep that you could go whine to.


----------



## armyvern (16 May 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> So a living-in member going to get lunch on a Saturday is going to work? Brilliant.
> 
> I'm well aware of the social and networking aspects of the mess. But it's not work. That's the whole point of the mess and why you're not supposed to discuss 'work' when you're in there. Someone with your 'time-in' should know that.



Well,

You complained earlier and told everyone to "try that in Borden".

Word up - You too can eat in the Officer's Dining Room in Borden in jeans just like I did. From 1600hrs Friday night until 1830hrs Sunday night. During the week though, this lowly Warrant Officer (who *gasp* was ordered to attend that Mess for meals etc) wore casual business attire just like the rules said. I'm surprised that I've actually survived to tell you about it given the 'end-of-the-world' status that a requirement to comply with that regulation seems to infer.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (16 May 2009)

Occam said:
			
		

> I think that after nearly a quarter century I know what the standard is, but thanks for dodging my question.
> 
> If the concern is optics, ie. the presentation of a professional force to the public, then why is the matter of dress on a Friday an issue when a member wearing jeans would blend into and be completely indistinguishable from the myriad of Public Servants coming and going from the puzzle palace?
> 
> ...



Just to clarify, as ive stated before, I think that optics matter and that dress codes play an important role.  However, with that said, I also have a big problem with a member being denied service at NDHQ because he was wearing jeans.  The truth is, we have many dress codes across the CF.  Each mess is different, bases are different, RSM's are different ect...  Its all well and good to have a sign on your door, but what good does that sign do for someone walking in the building for the first time who is out of town?  I support the dress codes wholeheartedly but I also support some flexibility when the situation warrants it.

As for your question about dress down Fridays...  In my opinion we should not have such things.  I dont think its appropriate for a military to be coming into work in civies like that.  I do beleive that it is unprofessional.  Its nice that they want to support charity, and I think doing so is a good idea, but there are other ways to do it.

As I mentioned previously, a military force needs to project a certain type of optics.  Its part of our culture and ethos to wear uniforms to a high standard and NOT COMPLAIN about having to do so.  If going to a mess on a weekend to eat entails wearing a golf shirt and khakis instead of jeans and a tshirt then so be it.  DO IT, and dont complain about fashion sence.  

I am not directing this at you specifically, or anyone else on this site for that matter, but after 15 years in, it gets a little tiring having to endure the complaints from the newer member who insist that "I am too cool for this dress code".  I am glad that someone thinks that jeans, a tshirt and sneakers are fashionable and golf shirts or buttoned shirts are not...  But again, who cares?  We have over 60,000 members in the CF.  Surely not everyone is going to share the same sence of fashion and style.  No dress code can ever make everyone happy, but dress codes and higher standards of dress do play an important role in military culture.  

And NO, the dress code absolutely does NOT represent a style of dress that is outdated.  Jeans and tshirts may very well be the form of dress preferred by most when not at work, myself included.  But in a professional working environment, this is usually (yes of course not always) the norm.

I used to work for TD Waterhouse a few years back.  There was no such thing as wearing jeans to work.  Why?  Because optics matter.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (16 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> On a truer note, the CF doesn't employ (or pay) any civilian employees. The CF employs (and pays) soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen.
> 
> DND employs (and pays) civilians. We, in the CF, comprise a small part of DND, but civvies comprise no part of the CF - not even a 'cadre'. Different employer - different rules. If we had the same employer, you'd have a Union rep that you could go whine to.



Your point is well taken, but I still think that DND civilian employees should have a certain dress code in place where appropriate.


----------



## exgunnertdo (16 May 2009)

What I find odd is that a lot of the resistance to a civvi clothing dress code seems to be that it's more work to "dress up."

Really?  Are khakis or casual dress pant harder to put on than jeans?  Are dress shoes harder to tie than runners?  And how can you consider yourself an adult and not own a pair of dress pants and dress shoes?  My 8-year-old has both in his closet. 

I may be pushing 40, but I still think it is possible to adhere to the dress code and be stylish.  I don't think I look like something out of the 50s when I go to work on Fridays in the NCR.  (And I do wear 3Bs the other 4 days).


----------



## PMedMoe (16 May 2009)

I wear CADPAT (due to rank) four days out of the week in Ottawa.  IMHO, I look _much_ better on Friday in my civilian *dress* clothes.  I don't know why they call it "dress down" Fridays because CADPAT is a heck of a lot more comfortable and easier to put on.  However, it is nice to see people in something other than a uniform.  Also, on the few Fridays a year that we are allowed to wear jeans, they cannot be overly faded, no holes, rips, etc, etc.

I personally see nothing wrong with the dress code in Ottawa and keep in mind, they aren't the only ones who have it.  Going to the (former) BOR in Petawawa in civilians used to be the same.


----------



## NL_engineer (16 May 2009)

Pier, I still don't see how putting on a pair of khaki pants and a polo shirt is harder then jeans and t shirt.  I frequently wear khaki pants and a polo, and it takes me no longer to get dressed then when i wear jeans and t-shirt.

Well if the shirt has to be tucked in, then we should fight for change  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (16 May 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Well if the shirt has to be tucked in, then we should fight for change  ;D



Yes we should because some people have lost the "right" to tuck their shirts in.  Me included.


----------



## Monsoon (16 May 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There's your problem.


An organization that doesn't reflect the values of the people it wants to employ (including their sense of what constitutes appropriately dressy attire) will have difficulty recruiting and retaining them. That's not a personal problem, it's a CF problem.

Those of us who have stayed in for more than a few years may have grown accustomed to "sucking it up", but we can't forget that the majority of people in Canada don't like dressing oddly for the simple reason that dress regulations won't permit supervisors to exercise reasonable discretion. Maybe the argument can be made that people who object to being told that they can't wear expensive, fashionable and well-maintained jeans shouldn't join the CF - but maybe that attitude is part of the reason that we consistently fail to meet our recruiting targets. So who's problem is that?


----------



## Haggis (16 May 2009)

Oh, for the love of.....!!!!

Going back six pages to Flawed Design's original post, it's hard to believe we've killed so many electrons over what is really a simple issue.

He went to the NDHQ for an appointment, clearly arranged in advance.  That mean's he's on duty.  That means that he should be appropriately attired in the dress of the day.  So?

Yes, yes, I know he's on redeployment leave but, c'mon people, this APPOINTMENT is DUTY TIME!!!!!  Nobody in NDHQ knew or cared that he was on leave.  But they did care that he attended an appointment in a HQ Orderly Room in inappropriate attire.  AND THEY SHOULD CARE ABOUT THAT.

And what's so friggin' wrong about wearing a uniform while on duty?  Grow up!

I don't play the "casual/dress down" Friday game at NDHQ.  I show up in uniform.  Nobody EVER dares to question or criticize my dress.   If they did, I'd eat them alive, right there on the spot.

DND civilian employees, while they do not have a "dress code", are subject to certain expectations regarding dress.  In short, the higher your classification and level, the more businesslike you are expected to dress.

Lastly, DND civilian employees have been corrected for attire which is inappropriate for the workplace.  I've seen it done.  I've done it.  I'll do it again.

Can we go to the Mess now?


----------



## Michael OLeary (16 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Can we go to the Mess now?



That depends.  Is everyone appropriately dressed?


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That depends.  Is everyone appropriately dressed?



LOL
touche

Regardless of what I think, I should have called ahead to see if there were dress regs or just wore a uniform. 
No excuse for that, I'm at fault. Maybe a couple of years ago they were less strict on it? Maybe maybe not.
The dress code for military messes probably deserves it's own thread, seems like theres a lot of issues with it.
Forgve a grunt for venting eh  

Perhaps a bit of a thread drift but Tess you work in recruiting? During interviews and such how much emphasis is placed on someones dress a appearance when it comes to the interview portion? 

I've seen a few recruits that can barely write their own name. One literally _can't _sign his own name.  I guess what was upsetting me is that some traditions/standards which I struggle with (dress code for clothing stores) remain but intellectual and physical standards to join this high class and well dressed military seem to be dropping.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I've seen a few recruits that can barely write their own name. One literally _can't _sign his own name.  I guess what was upsetting me is that some traditions/standards which I struggle with (dress code for clothing stores) remain but intellectual and physical standards to join this high class and well dressed military seem to be dropping.



I think a lot of things, dress and recruiting standards among them, come down to a sliding scale of perceptions and realities.

We can get used to the expected standards of dress on one base without realizing that things are differently regulated, or differently enforced on other bases.  But we never get briefings on those little details when we're heading off to a new location.  Over-dressing is always the safe approach in unknown territory (_Here be dragons, wearing coats of arms._)  But that's not always a realistic expectations when traveling. I do remember the days when going on major exercises out of one's home province meant that officers packed a jacket and tie, _just in case_.

For such things as recruiting standards, the general standards have risen, but perhaps not as much as both the average capability of applicants and, especially, the average expectations we now put on recruits and young soldiers/sailors/airmen (airpeople?).  This leaves us in a situation where today's marginal candidate, who may be head and shoulders above his/her peers of 30 years ago, is still further behind the power curve on learning and skill development than that peer was "way back when."


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

For me, if I'm working, I'll wear the uniform.  If I'm not working, I'll wear whatever I want, to the mess or on base.  So far, noboby told me my jeans were innapropriate.

Oh and I normally don't shave on days off.  Never got in trouble for showing up at work on a day off unshaved.


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I've seen a few recruits that can barely write their own name. One literally _can't _sign his own name.  I guess what was upsetting me is that some traditions/standards which I struggle with (dress code for clothing stores) remain but intellectual and physical standards to join this high class and well dressed military seem to be dropping.



Work in recruiting?  Naw, I help another type of military member, far removed from the recruiting days of their lives.  

From people who have no concept of what a military is about.

You yourself admit, that by going tot he HQ of our Military, in the Nations capital, a little forethought was required.  I mean we can sit here and challenge every tradition that is archaic, however, showing up in a way you know will attract attention to yourself, is not going promote change within the system.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For me, if I'm working, I'll wear the uniform.  If I'm not working, I'll wear whatever I want, to the mess or on base.  So far, noboby told me my jeans were innapropriate.
> 
> Oh and I normally don't shave on days off.  Never got in trouble for showing up at work on a day off unshaved.




Good on you, now with the original theme of the thread, would you show up at NDHQ dressed that way?

dileas

tess


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Good on you, now with the original theme of the thread, would you show up at NDHQ dressed that way?
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



On a day off?  You bet.


----------



## Haggis (17 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Good on you, now with the original theme of the thread, would you show up at NDHQ dressed that way?





			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On a day off?  You bet.



Clearly, you need to find more productive ways to spend your days off, Max.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Clearly, you need to find more productive ways to spend your days off, Max.



Day off as in "oh, we need you to come in on your day off to sign that claim", which happened a few times.  I don't mind it, but I won't change to go there.  I don't go to work for the sake of going to work on a day off!


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2009)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Clearly, you need to find more productive ways to spend your days off, Max.




Bwahahaha,

Cheers Haggis, that was better than I could ever come up with, and thank you for making me laugh.

Max, 

What can I say,  do what you wish, but you going to NDHQ on any kind of duty, you wouldn't.  Admit it.  And why would you hand in a claim with out it being signed??

Man you are a person full of rebellious tendencies.  Next thing is you will state that on your day off, you even eat your desert first, bud in line, and use a spoon for everything that you eat.

Man, this new military is cutting edge.

dileas

tess


----------



## ltmaverick25 (17 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> On a day off?  You bet.



The sad reality is, you might even get away with it.  The same cannot be said for NCMs though.  I remember heading into the armories on a day off to meet up with a friend, the intent was to spend no more then 5 minutes on DND property and then off we would go to whatever our plans were.  I had not shaved and was severely jacked up over it (was an NCM at the time).  After taking a commission, I have seen other junior officers guilty of far greater offenses related to dress and deportment and nobody says a word to them, other then me that is...


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> And why would you hand in a claim with out it being signed??



Tess, i dont know about Max's unit but in mine, we used to pre-sign our claims when handing them in for finalization. Now we have to hand them in on our return and the clerk does his/her thing with it. We then get an email telling us it is done and we have to go in a sign it before a deposit/recovery is done.


----------



## aesop081 (17 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Oh and I normally don't shave on days off.  Never got in trouble for showing up at work on a day off unshaved.



Max, some bases have clearly indicated policies that personel reporting to the base for administrative buisness will do so clean shaven. When i was in Gagetown, this was not only policy but was clearly enforced. Any person who gave the Base OR staff any greif for being refused service would be sent to the BCWO's office for a chat........


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> What can I say,  do what you wish, but you going to NDHQ on any kind of duty, you wouldn't.  Admit it.  And why would you hand in a claim with out it being signed??



If you, or anyone, want to consider that as "duty", then I'll request to get that leave/off day back.  I'll gladly put on my uniform, shave and show up to work.  Otherwise, that's a day off and go at my workplace for 5 minutes, most of the time to make life easier for someone.

As for the claims to be signed, we hand out our Travel Forms, the claim is made up, then we have to sign it.  That's the way we do it here anyways.

I'm not rebelious.  Saying that of me is really knowing me very little.  I try to apply common sense when I can.  For me, going to the workplace for 5 minutes to pick up something or sign something isn't duty.  You want to burn out your pers and making them hate their job?  IMO, forcing them to do stuff they don't want to ON TIME OFF (which we have very little) is a good way to start.  Fortunately, all the supervisors I had so far seemed to apply the same common sense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 May 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Perhaps a bit of a thread drift but Tess you work in recruiting? During interviews and such how much emphasis is placed on someones dress a appearance when it comes to the interview portion?



It used to, probably still does. When I was getting back in, I got a call at work asking if I could drop by thge RC on the way home. Proceeded to the RC after work to find out they wanted to do my interview. Years later while perusing my pers file, I came across the Officer's interview notes. He'd made many comments on the condition I had shown up for the interview and the inappropriate clothes I was wearing. He was the one that had called my work and asked me to stop by, ffs. Now I always ask someone why they want to see me. Even if it pisses them off.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 May 2009)

The answer is pretty simple.  If you don't want to follow a dress reg, ensure all your BOR or any other business is conducted on company time, wearing company clothes.  If it's important enough to you to go in on your off time, it's important enough to show up looking like you understand the regs.  Otherwise, it must not be that important to you.  Oh, and I tried that leave recovery request once as young Cpl.  It was granted, then every duty I got for the next year "happened" to fall on a weekend.  And spending all those weekends in Germany on duty REALLLLY sucked.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

I don't normally go to work on an off day on my own will.  I do it, normally, at someone else's request, because they need something done and I'm on leave, or off.  If that same person gives me grief for not being shaved, I'll just leave and do it on the next working day.


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If you, or anyone, want to consider that as "duty", then I'll request to get that leave/off day back.  I'll gladly put on my uniform, shave and show up to work.  Otherwise, that's a day off and go at my workplace for 5 minutes, most of the time to make life easier for someone.
> 
> As for the claims to be signed, we hand out our Travel Forms, the claim is made up, then we have to sign it.  That's the way we do it here anyways.
> 
> I'm not rebelious.  Saying that of me is really knowing me very little.  I try to apply common sense when I can.  For me, going to the workplace for 5 minutes to pick up something or sign something isn't duty.  You want to burn out your pers and making them hate their job?  IMO, forcing them to do stuff they don't want to ON TIME OFF (which we have very little) is a good way to start.  Fortunately, all the supervisors I had so far seemed to apply the same common sense.




Whatever,


You seem to forget that this is a forum made up of people, who have, are and will serve.

Your actions are not standard, and are because you have found ways to circumvent the system.  You going in to sign leave passes, is because someone from a clerical side is helping you you with your claim.  You going in to sign it, is not official, because someone is doing your work for you.

That is not a standard, but an acknowledged privilege on both of your parts.  Don't make that out to be a standard that you have pushed, and is accepted.

Again, stop playing the forward thinking member, and say that you can go in with pajamas and unshaven, when you feel like it, when in actuality someone is doing your work for you, and damn well will not complain about you showing up looking like Sonny Crockett.  Your examples are one offs, and in no way reflect a standard that is happening, other that within your circle of work.

I call BS on the fact that you would show up at NDHQ dressed like that.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 May 2009)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't normally go to work on an off day on my own will.  I do it, normally, at someone else's request, because they need something done and I'm on leave, or off.  If that same person gives me grief for not being shaved, I'll just leave and do it on the next working day.



And then that person will place your claim or whatever on the bottom of the pile, and will get around to it when they feel up to it, sometime around the neverteenth of Sucktember.  Then you'll get pissy when you get a claim advance recovery on your pay.  Why is it so hard to just play the game?  You're not the first rebel without a clue to tilt at the military windmill, and you won't be the last.  Ask CDN Aviator how much I used to try to buck the system, and my won/lost record.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Your actions are not standard, and are because you have found ways to circumvent the system.  You going in to sign leave passes, is because someone from a clerical side is helping you you with your claim.  You going in to sign it, is not official, because someone is doing your work for you.



No one is doing the work for me.  I have no access to Claim X and I have no clue how to create a claim, it was always my belief that it was the clerk's job.  It certainly is the case at the Units I have worked for.  When someone asks me "I'm going on leave for the next 2 weeks and I need to have these claims done today, can you come by and sign it" is me doing them a favor.  



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is not a standard, but an acknowledged privilege on both of your parts.  Don't make that out to be a standard that you have pushed, and is accepted.



Is there a standard on how one should be dressed while on leave?  I have never pushed any standards, just showed up the way I was when I was asked to show up.  If I'm walking outside with my spouse and my dog and I receive that call, I will not go home, shave, change then go.  I'll go right away. I don't see what's so bad about it.  Again, there should be common sense applied.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Again, stop playing the forward thinking member, and say that you can go in with pajamas and unshaven, when you feel like it, when in actuality someone is doing your work for you, and damn well will not complain about you showing up looking like Sonny Crockett.  Your examples are one offs, and in no way reflect a standard that is happening, other that within your circle of work.



I thought that forward thinking/common sense was something good in our military...  
No one did my work. 
If you consider my circle of work the last 5 units I've been employed at, then I guess that was at my circle of work.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> I call BS on the fact that you would show up at NDHQ dressed like that.



Call BS all you want, I would.


Kat:  I tend to make myself appreciated at work by other things than how I look when I'm on leave and I go to work...  

The problem is not playing the game.  If you can explain 1 benefit for eighter the organization or myself for going home, changing, shaving, going to work, sign the claim, change again and carry on with my day (basically waste 15-30 minutes for no reason), vice going to work, sign the claim, carry on with my day, I'll be glad to play the game. To me, that's common sense. In the mean time, I'll keep doing what I do, and many others do.

Again, I'm not rebel, and saying that of me is not knowing me.  I apply common sense to situations, instead of blindly following a "standard".  Now, if I was showing up to work on a day off on my own will, to complete something, then yes, I would probably pay a little more attention to what I wear.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 May 2009)

Seriously, how long have you been in  that you think common sense has the slightest thing to do with dress regs and base/unit policies?  Ever hear the expression "are you sure this is the hill you want to die on?"  I'm glad you've made yourself indispensable at your unit, truly, and that you've been lucky enough not to run in to the kind of Sgt Maj or Chief that can put second degree scream burns on your inner ear.  Be aware, he is out there.  However, this is starting to appear like I care, and I really don't, but I as a lowly lifer Corporal managed to show up where I was supposed to be looking more or less like I was supposed to.  I guess an important officer is exempt.  Do What Thou Will.


----------



## Monsoon (17 May 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Seriously, how long have you been in  that you think common sense has the slightest thing to do with dress regs and base/unit policies?



To quote your own signature block: "If a million people do a stupid thing, it's STILL a stupid thing."

Sorry - couldn't resist.  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

This horse is going to need a defibrillator before the next round of beatings.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 May 2009)

Undoubtedly, most regs are stupid things, but they're still regs.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 May 2009)

Duty day, day off, day whatever....on a DND establishment, be properly turned out.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 May 2009)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Duty day, day off, day whatever....on a DND establishment, be properly turned out.



Then by that logic I should alway be properly turned out since I live in the Qs.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 May 2009)

We're done here.  There are obviously no sensible lines of inquiry left on this topic.

MIlnet.ca Staff


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion "Civilian Fridays" should be banned outright.



Opinions vary,



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I wear CADPAT (due to rank) four days out of the week in Ottawa.  IMHO, I look _much_ better on Friday in my civilian *dress* clothes.



There seems to be some tradition on the subject,



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The *custom* of wearing ciilian dress in Ottawa is a fairly old one: going back more than a half century. At one time staff at NDHQ wore uniforms only once a week - even less often, in some cases.



For reference to "civilian Friday's" see also from 2009,

Dress code at NDHQ, whaaaat?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/86108.75.html
5 pages.
LOCKED.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This.
> 
> IMHO.... If you are at 'Army' work, you need to be dressed to do 'Army' things up to and including 'closing with and destroying the enemy'. When superior Officers/ NCMs try to give orders to their subordinates while wearing LuLu Lemon slacks and loafers, I observe a mental flex to the movie 'Office Space', with the commensurate level of seriousness and respect.
> 
> Social occasions? Totally different IMHO...



Depends where you are at; not much chance of 'closing with and destroying the enemy' if you are pushing the (somewhat Sisyphaen) ball around NDHQ keeping projects creaking along or doing some of the other necessary evils to keep shelves stocked and equipment operational. Also, if you are working with other departments a lot, or somewhere like ADM(Mat) with lots of civvies, it is nice to blend in a bit on a Friday, and second that it's much better if you are meeting folks for lunch, or grabbing a pint after work.  Normally wear civvies in on public transit and change at work, so not a big deal to swap out for something if I want to, but it's nice to wear quality dress clothes that fit properly to work on occasion.


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> If you are at 'Army' work, you need to be dressed to do 'Army' things up to and including 'closing with and destroying the enemy'.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2019)

That. Is. Awesome.  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (24 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That. Is. Awesome.  :nod:



Was that a picture of you at the office?

 [


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Was that a picture of you at the office?
> 
> [



That's the decoy... I'm in the ceiling


----------

