# RCN to introduce new Conduct Policy and new Alcohol Policy



## Pat in Halifax

We all saw this coming and it sure as hell was NOT just someone on the WHITEHORSE at fault:


http://globalnews.ca/news/1723809/royal-canadian-navy-bans-alcohol-at-sea/


----------



## MeanJean

Not a surprise.  Unfortunately.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1723809/royal-canadian-navy-bans-alcohol-at-sea/




[Edited in accordance to our rules reference the publishing of a certain person's articles]


----------



## Michael OLeary

What, it's not the restoration of the traditional pre-Unification daily tot of rum? But the Royal Canadian Navy of the First World War and the Second World War won their honours with that daily tot.


----------



## McG

> A review, released Friday by the fleet’s top commander, recommends the navy develop a strictly enforced code of conduct in addition to increasing the shipboard price of alcohol and consider banning any consumption while ships are at sea, unless there are special events.


http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/12/canada-is-making-it-harder-and-more-expensive-for-its-sailors-to-get-drunk/

How low is the price of alcohol that it contributes to the problem?  Are all drinks duty free at sea?


----------



## GK .Dundas

Jeebus ! Overreact much? I'm surprised they don't just handcuff people to their bunks while in port .


----------



## Occam

Bunks will be the next target.  Back to hammocks.


----------



## Occam

MCG said:
			
		

> How low is the price of alcohol that it contributes to the problem?  Are all drinks duty free at sea?



They were duty-free at all times, including in home port.  Not anymore.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Info machine version:


> Today, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) announced the key findings and recommendations of the internal review on personal conduct within the institution. The vast majority of sailors conduct themselves appropriately and while the RCN is already well-supported by policies and procedures, there is a need for more exacting guidance from leadership, the internal review has found.
> 
> The review, led by Commodore Craig Baines, Commander Canadian Fleet Atlantic, was tasked to assess whether the RCN has the appropriate mechanisms in place and to ensure that clear expectations and direction regarding personal conduct are understood and enforced. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, Commander RCN and Convening Authority for the Internal Review, has approved the review’s findings and recommendations.
> 
> Quick Facts
> Further to the main findings, the review also concluded that “deck-plate leadership” throughout the RCN must continue to actively communicate, educate, mentor, and serve as models of proper conduct. This is the first and most important step to show sailors what “right looks like.”
> The report acknowledges that the RCN, as a national institution, enjoys a tremendous reputation for excellence at sea and it is clear that the vast majority of its officers and sailors know and understand how to represent their country, service and ships.
> To address the shortcomings identified by the report, the RCN is actively developing additional measures to better inform its personnel and communicate expectations linked to acceptable behaviour and conduct.
> The RCN recognizes that, ultimately, the subject of conduct is a leadership issue that must be tackled at all levels of the RCN chain of command. RCN leaders must continue to actively encourage personnel under their supervision to pursue and adopt a more healthy and balanced lifestyle. These measures will be supported through enhanced training, education and counselling. Existing course modules and training plans regarding personal conduct will be further developed and taught at all levels of training, and to all ranks throughout the course of one’s career.
> In addition to the measures outlined above, the RCN will also modernize its alcohol policy and bring further limitations to an existing set of strict rules regarding alcohol consumption on board Canadian warships.
> The RCN encourages and promotes a healthy, addiction-free lifestyle and working environment. RCN personnel must strive to adopt this healthy lifestyle and to conduct itself in a way that, at all times, supports the RCN’s core value of being ready for service, and of serving Canada before self, which is defined by the “Ready Aye Ready” attitude ....


"Executive Summary: Internal Review of Personal Conduct" accessible here


----------



## Eye In The Sky

So, overall there was a leadership failure on ships (or there would not have been a problem, right?).

So, instead of handling it as a leadership failure, remove the beer machines.

Still leaves the same weak leadership in place doesn't it?  Doesn't say much for the RCNs faith in ships Captains and Coxswains.  IMO.


----------



## cupper

I guess that the higher ups figured this is why the Navy can't have nice things.

I'm surprised that with the push to make all the old things new again, they didn't bring back the old system of punishments like keel hauling, or a taste of the cat.


----------



## PuckChaser

The Navy is in a sad state of affairs if alcohol consumption aboard ships underway is the only thing holding it together.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stacked said:
			
		

> The Navy is over.



Its funny you say that, my FB and twitter feeds are filled with fellow matelots decrying the move and saying they are done, time to VR. 

It will be interesting see if, in 6 months time from now, it actually had an effect on retention or if it was just a knee-jerk reaction in response to a knee-jerk reaction.

I wonder if soup at 10 and free lunch is going to disappear too ?


----------



## Stoker

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Navy is in a sad state of affairs if alcohol consumption aboard ships underway is the only thing holding it together.



No but just one more thing to be pissed off at. I generally don't drink at sea and but I would like the option to have a beer with my meal if I so choose. I can't see what raising bar prices alongside is going to do to curb consumption, people will pay the money and lots of profits will be made.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its funny you say that, my FB and twitter feeds are filled with fellow matelots decrying the move and saying they are done, time to VR.
> 
> It will be interesting see if, in 6 months time from now, it actually had an effect on retention or if it was just a knee-jerk reaction in response to a knee-jerk reaction.
> 
> I wonder if soup at 10 and free lunch is going to disappear too ?



No but free meals at lunch is being looked at.


----------



## Stoker

Anyone have access to the navgen?


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No but just one more thing to be pissed off at. I generally don't drink at sea and but I would like the option to have a beer with my meal if I so choose. I can't see what raising bar prices alongside is going to do to curb consumption, people will pay the money and lots of profits will be made.



The Army did away with beer with meals in the mid '70's.  Would this indicate that the Navy is five decades behind/ ?


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Army did away with beer with meals in the mid '70's.  Would this indicate that the Navy is five decades behind/



George not with all meals, just with my steak and lobster on Thursday's. ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No but just one more thing to be pissed off at. I generally don't drink at sea and but I would like the option to have a beer with my meal if I so choose. I can't see what raising bar prices alongside is going to do to curb consumption, people will pay the money and lots of profits will be made.


Maybe, maybe not.  There might be some unintended consequences in foreign ports where sailors who might have stayed on board to drink for the prices and safety etc will instead perhaps go ashore and get into who knows what as the Yanks find whenever they hit port.  Or who knows what else might crop up to take the place of a wet or two?  The Brass might rue this day down the road somewhere.


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> George not with all meals, just with my steak and lobster on Thursday's. ;D



That's OK.   ;D

Not too many here remember the beer machines we used to have in the Mess Halls, so you won't hear many complaints from the Army side.  The Rum Ration is such a rarity these days, many haven't seen it either (Just those crusty old Sgt Majors  > ).   

I have seen more problems (alcohol abuse) crop up with the restricting of alcohol, than when regulations held personnel responsible for their actions and did not treat them like little children.


----------



## Stoker

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That's OK.   ;D
> 
> Not too many here remember the beer machines we used to have in the Mess Halls, so you won't hear many complaints from the Army side.  The Rum Ration is such a rarity these days, many haven't seen it either (Just those crusty old Sgt Majors  > ).
> 
> I have seen more problems (alcohol abuse) crop up with the restricting of alcohol, than when regulations held personnel responsible for their actions and did not treat them like little children.



Honestly George, I think the total ban at sea will increase instances of binge drinking as seen in other dry navies. The problem here is the lack of leadership and looking after ones winger to keep him out of the sh*t. I think we lost that and this is the result.


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly George, I think the total ban at sea will increase instances of binge drinking as seen in other dry navies. The problem here is the lack of leadership and looking after ones winger to keep him out of the sh*t. I think we lost that and this is the result.



I agree.  I have already seen that in the Army as far back as the '80's, with ALL ranks.  Once you start treating the troops, of all ranks, like children, they start to behave like children when the strings are loosened.  

Two things come to mind:
1.  The alcoholic will always find a way to find their booze.  There are programs and regulations in place to treat this problem.  
2.  When you treat all the troops like children, and then give them down time; a long weekend on an Army Exercise or a port call in the Navy, you will see them behave like children in a candy store.


----------



## Monsoon

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly George, I think the total ban at sea will increase instances of binge drinking as seen in other dry navies. The problem here is the lack of leadership and looking after ones winger to keep him out of the ****. I think we lost that and this is the result.


It's just window dressing; virtually no one was drinking at sea to begin with, except at banyans already approved by the COs. Certainly none of the incidents cited as prompting this review had anything to do with drinking at sea (WHITEHORSE or any of the many more egregious cases).

The real substantive change was alluded to only briefly in the summary - a so-called "First Night Protocol". There's no explanation of what that means, but at first glance it would seem to suggest some sort of plan to deal with first nights alongside in foreign ports (i.e. confine everyone onboard, give them a beer, a movie and a solid night's sleep before letting them hit the town the next day). If that's the case, it'll be interesting to see if the "protocol" will involve extending foreign ports on deployment by a day to make up for the lost liberty time. Somehow, I suspect not.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> No but just one more thing to be pissed off at.


  

And that, is something the organization doesn't need at this time either.  They keep twisting tails and the bleed will turn into a bleed out with people they can't afford at either end of the scale.  Lots of kids getting fed up as well as those of us who are 10/30.  They seem to be hell bent on extracting every ounce of enjoyment that was to be found in the Navy these past few years.  I've had a belly full of the cut here and there.  They don't seem to give a shyte anyhow, at least from where I view things.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interesting developments, and some interesting discussion on the ship about it today.

Concern over the 'first night in' when visiting foreign ports, discussion about pricing, the 'what next' factor, the inevitable discussions about straw and camels.

I have my doubts that this will result in a cascade of release or CT's.   Folks will get up in arms, grumble, and then realize that we're actually paid pretty well for what we do.  Think back to when smokes went from duty-free prices to regular prices....and when smoking was banned inside the ship....did some people pull pin and get out?  For sure.   Not a lot, and I suspect that's what we'll see here.

When I was interviewed for the Formation MS position in 2007, a point similar to this came up, so this has been in the wings for a long time, perhaps the Whitehorse incident was the trigger, but the gun was already loaded.

NS


----------



## NavalMoose

They're still wankers for doing it


----------



## Navy_Pete

So if beer/liquor is the same price on board as ashore, why socialize in the sausage party messes at all?  I can see more people running ashore the first night and doing stupid sh*t then just having a few beers and getting confined to the ship due to the combination of exhaustion/alcohol.

This won't be the single factor, but one more 'cut' contributing to overall dissatisfaction in being in the navy for those close to the line already.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Seems like drinking is a pretty big deal in the Navy.   Does the navy set up an environment where drinking every day is the norm?


----------



## Infanteer

There Army moved away from freely available alcohol in the field (save special occasions like a smoker) over a decade ago.  We survived.  So will the Navy.


----------



## devil39

Infanteer said:
			
		

> There Army moved away from freely available alcohol in the field (save special occasions like a smoker) over a decade ago.  We survived.  So will the Navy.



Yup....but anyone who thinks that the Army is as much fun today as it was in the '80s or '90s (or 60's or 70s?) would be lying.....or maybe they weren't around then....


----------



## jollyjacktar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> There Army moved away from freely available alcohol in the field (save special occasions like a smoker) over a decade ago.  We survived.  So will the Navy.


Yes, and we'll have some of the same problems the Army does too when they get around booze.  I was with 1CMBG before beer went away and I was in Wainwright for Maple Guardian etc in 09 for Roto 7 to the end and saw the effects of a sudden access drinks.  Cutting it off can only make it worse for some when they get their mitts on it.  We see it with the USN all the time.  The Army doesn't have all the answers, nor does the RCN for that matter.  We'll survive, yes, but there will be some headaches that come with it.


----------



## Infanteer

devil39 said:
			
		

> Yup....but anyone who thinks that the Army is as much fun today as it was in the '80s or '90s (or 60's or 70s?) would be lying.....or maybe they weren't around then....



I dunno, I'm having fun.  So are my troops.  Things change, and you don't necessarily need to be buzzing to have fun.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, and we'll have some of the same problems the Army does too when they get around booze.  I was with 1CMBG before beer went away and I was in Wainwright for Maple Guardian etc in 09 for Roto 7 to the end and saw the effects of a sudden access drinks.  Cutting it off can only make it worse for some when they get their mitts on it.  We see it with the USN all the time.  The Army doesn't have all the answers, nor does the RCN for that matter.  We'll survive, yes, but there will be some headaches that come with it.



Agreed.  Binge drinking is the real problem, and I think that it occurs regardless of whether guys can have 1 or 2 per night or not.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I believe binge drinking is going to be more of a problem if adults are muzzled most of the time.  Yes, I agree there are some (and they are a small minority) that have a problem with handling their booze regardless of it being available on a small regular basis or on an unregulated opportunity such as decompression or foreign ports.  The bad apples should get properly dealt with by their respective CoC should they cross the line.  I don't buy into the mob punishment mentality that is a common theme in the military.  Treat everyone like adults and usually they will respond in kind.  Those that don't, get spanked.

If you make something taboo then it will be abused harder than if it's not.  That is human nature.  Command will as I said, on occasion, rue this decision when it blows up in their face and onto CBC ala the Whitehorse.  And it will happen one day.  We'll be just like the Yanks in port, especially if the booze is as expensive or more so than downtown.  No-one will want to stick on board and will take it downtown.

This will I am sure make some decide to leave.  To some it will be another burr under the saddle blanket of enjoyment that will add to their reasons as to why it's becoming less fun.  And believe me, the Navy has been steadily whittling away on the fun factor for a number of years now bit by bit.  Will it make for a better Navy?   :dunno:  I do hope so for the institution's sake as they seem to be hell bent on pissing folks off with things like Spec Pay for Stokers etc.  

I'm in a shore posting at present and if the gods are kind will be moving on to civilian life next year so I don't have a dog in the fight, per se.  I don't get hammered at sea, and have no issue with the locks on while in the box but this is a another burr under my saddle blanket to go with the others.


----------



## George Wallace

devil39 said:
			
		

> .....or maybe they weren't around then....



That about says it.  They weren't around, so have no idea what they are missing.  It seems that in the late '80's and into the '90's the trend to take all the fun out of a dirty job, and make it just a dirty job happened.  I don't know the numbers or stats, but it seemed like a lot of good people were taking Releases in the late '90's into 2003 or so.  That compounded the situation of all the Retiring pers from the '60/70's.


----------



## McG

I don't see why denying a couple drinks per day is required.  That being said, if not having that daily drink or two requires somebody to binge drink the next time there is alcohol, then that individual may have a problem.  Under previous rules, was there a limit on the number of drinks an individual could have on any given day?

I have heard of other recent incidents of fairly significant shenanigans involving senior leadership and alcohol requiring involvement of investigators from outside the ship to resolve, and I gather from comments in this thread that alcohol incidents are not uncommon problems.  It would seem the Navy has reached the point where it feels that it must cause a cultural correction within itself.

Where a unit's culture of discipline (potentially including deportment, bearing, military routine, conduct, etc) is eroded, I have heard my sergeant major observe that the correction requires one to "go ugly early."  Parades/roll-calls, inspections and enforcement of rules increases while freedoms, exceptions, and liberties are constrained .... at the unit level it can be a lot like imposing a junior career course daily routine less the classes.  However, it needs to be communicated that the "ugly" is a path to a cultural correction and it needs to be communicated what criteria must be achieved to see a lessening of the hyper-regimented routine.

If the Navy has decided to make an internal cultural correction, I am not aware that the end state has been clearly articulated.  It does appear that the intent is to stay "ugly" forever and there is no light at the end.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Let's see if I have this straight:

Ship gets in massive crap alongside; embarrasses RCN and gets recalled to Canada. Check.

Commanding Officer, XO, Coxn disciplined? Nope.

Beer and wine no longer available at sea for entire fleet. check (that was always problematic for me as aircrew, anyway, but it is always nice to have the illusion of choice)

Alcohol now more expensive. Check. That should keep everyone onboard and under the supervision of the duty watch, instead of downtown  :

More mandatory briefings and training to attend. Check.

Now, after spending even more time at sea, and fewer port visits (where we all stand 1 in 3 duties anyway, regardless of the actual  threat or workload), the first night in we will now be restricted to the ship for our own protection? I am responsible for a crew and multi-million dollar helicopter, but cannot be trusted to make good decisions in port? Do I have that about right?

I am routinely dealing with aged ships and antique helicopters; substandard and over-crowded living conditions as we pack ever more people into the ships and yet, me, deciding to have a beer or two is the problem?

Maybe, just maybe, it is not me or the rest of the ship's company who is the real problem here. My experience has always been that if you treat people like children, you will reinforce childlike behaviour. Once you have a fleet full of children, your talent will walk.

This whole policy is a study in failure of command at all levels. Jesus wept.


----------



## devil39

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That about says it.  They weren't around, so have no idea what they are missing.  It seems that in the late '80's and into the '90's the trend to take all the fun out of a dirty job, and make it just a dirty job happened.  I don't know the numbers or stats, but it seemed like a lot of good people were taking Releases in the late '90's into 2003 or so.  That compounded the situation of all the Retiring pers from the '60/70's.



Yup....next will come a decade of arguing with your risk adverse boss as to why your troops should be allowed into town when you are out of the country on a dry exercise...and looking for a bit of fun and adventure....

Please...let's be more like the US Army and Navy.... Clearly they are the standard to achieve!!

We used to be a mission command Army and CF....not so much any more


----------



## Stoker

Nothing we can do about it now anyways. While I don't like the policy change, I stand behind the COC on this decision and we'll see how it goes.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Commanding Officer, XO, Coxn disciplined? Nope.



......and there is the crux of the problem right there.   The friggin' Glee club mentality just keeps making *us* more and more of a joke.....

* those who, like me, are long gone but still believe in the institution.*


----------



## Cronicbny

Sigh


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Nothing we can do about it now anyways. While I don't like the policy change, I stand behind the COC on this decision and we'll see how it goes.


When they make sense, I do too.  Not this time though.  

I expect I'll be reading how well it fails to go in the Chronicle Herald one day down the road too.  Hopefully I'm wrong, but I fear I'm not.


----------



## ModlrMike

While I applaud the decision in broad terms, I fear it will have the opposite effect of what is intended. Having seen the troops go stark raving mad on R&R in the Balkans, and in Cyprus when we came out of Afg, I'm not sure this will make it better.


----------



## Stoker

When the Whitehorse incident first blew up we were at sea and was due to be in St.John's a few days later. Obviously everyone was concerned that any further incidents would be dealt with harshly and no one wanted to be "that ship". We went to the Jr ranks and asked them to collectively come up with some ideas to police themselves as the alternative was to restrict alcohol consumption while alongside. So what they came up with was 4 drink maximum, duty driver to bring you home no questions asked, if you're duty the night before you had to be back on board by 2am and everyone was to be on board the night before we sailed by midnight. It worked out well.


----------



## Cronicbny

What did the Wardroom and CPOs come up with to mitigate?


----------



## Stoker

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> What did the Wardroom and CPOs come up with to mitigate?



Everybody was involved with the developing the measures. Everyone on board was under the same rules and everyone agreed that it needed to be done. No one said that you couldn't get drunk, as long as it didn't bring discredit to the RCN. The buddy system was emphasized to ensure your winger got home safely and without incident.


----------



## V_I_Lenin

I am curious what the policy is in the British Navy?

I recall the Brit Jimmies on Mount Gola sending down garbage bags full of empties while their Canadian counterparts (Bosnia 2VP 1997) were still suffering through the Army's long, dark winter of abstinence. It seemed to me that their CofC had a much more mature attitude towards the consumption of alcohol. In any event, that tour saw the start of the new alcohol policy...two beers, per-man, per-day, with a punch card to keep track. The same policy was in effect during my third tour of Afghanistan (Kabul 2004), but I believe it was subsequently eliminated...


----------



## mariomike

mark-space said:
			
		

> I am curious what the policy is in the British Navy?



Reply#20
http://army.ca/forums/threads/100324/post-1322847.html#msg1322847


----------



## McG

What was the previous policy in the RCN?  We're there daily limits or restrictions on time and/or place?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

At sea, you were limited to not more than two beer or glasses of wine. You could not consume alcohol 6 hours before a watch (12hrs for aircrew) and were never permitted to be intoxicated. 

For certain operational sails (Most CJOC operations), alcohol consumption was not permitted at sea and even in port, in some cases.

Alongside, there were no limits on alcohol consumption, as long as you were not on duty, within published bar hours and did not breach the general CF provisions on drunkeness and misconduct.

So, there have always been perfectly serviceable control measures. As long as they were enforced.


----------



## PuckChaser

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So, there have always been perfectly serviceable control measures. As long as they were enforced.



Maybe we've found the issue then...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

No shit. But, punishing everyone is easier than actually holding COs to account. Apparently.


----------



## Cronicbny

We can (and do) enforce the rules and follow through with admin and disciplinary measures - granted, some units more than others (not everything will lead to a UDI nor should it in all cases). The tools are certainly in the toolbox. That being said, even with the full force of the CSD and DAODs we have to accept that people will still get into trouble no matter how strong the Command Team and no matter what controls are in place. Even IF we dont allow people ashore at all in foreign ports, there will always incidents - at home. The number of people under some sort of admin or disciplinary process for Impaired driving, drug trafficking and other criminal issues continues unabated. Are we to hold Command Teams responsible for everything, at all times, with no exceptions? If so i cant help but wonder how quickly NSPB files peter out...

I am of the mind that we should continue to support Command Teams when they follow the process(es) as outlined in the References to hold people to account. As it exists today there are many hurdles (AJAG, CMs, DMILC, politics of course) standing in the way of efficient and suitable military justice.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> At sea, you were limited to not more than two beer or glasses of wine. You could not consume alcohol 6 hours before a watch (12hrs for aircrew) and were never permitted to be intoxicated.
> 
> For certain operational sails (Most CJOC operations), alcohol consumption was not permitted at sea and even in port, in some cases.
> 
> Alongside, there were no limits on alcohol consumption, as long as you were not on duty, within published bar hours and did not breach the general CF provisions on drunkeness and misconduct.
> 
> So, there have always been perfectly serviceable control measures. As long as they were enforced.



A lot of people never drink at sea as well to start with, aside from some special occasions like banyans etc, and even then, pretty limited.  I think I've had maybe half a dozen beers at sea over two years (with about 15 months away), and that's not atypical.

There was always the option though, and the few times I did, it was to unwind with a few friends over a beer after months of hard work paid off with a deployment that went well.  Things were always wound tighter when operational, but you have to keep in mind that there are weeks of routine straight transits to get from point A to B sometimes where the tempo drops off to normal day to day business.  That kind of allowed people to 'decompress' a bit on board so they were more normalized when you get back home.

There are plenty of existing options in place to deal with anyone that wasn't disciplined and broke the rules in place; if they can't trust the crews to be adults then we probably shouldn't be trusted with billion dollar warships.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> I am of the mind that we should continue to support Command Teams when they follow the process(es) as outlined in the References to hold people to account. As it exists today there are many hurdles (AJAG, CMs, DMILC, politics of course) standing in the way of efficient and suitable military justice.



Yup......but as long as there's no pressure on "Command Teams" to make the effort to jump those hurdles, then we just get the "Oh, he/she [or I] will be posted soon and somebody else's problem."


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I will agree with this- Commanding Officer's hands are often tied by NDHQ staff who will not accept a recommendation to release chronic crap disturbers.

But guess what? Those chronic crap disturbers are not going to be deterred by these new rules, either.

Once again, the innocent vast majority get punished for the sins of the few.


----------



## Stoker

Perhaps we should be taking some of the extra cash being generated from the increased alcohol sales and but it towards port activities, tours etc. Give the sailors something to do if they choose.


----------



## Cronicbny

The extra cash will inevitably go to the ships funds - so your wish will probably come to fruition Chief


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should be taking some of the extra cash being generated from the increased alcohol sales and but it towards port activities, tours etc. Give the sailors something to do if they choose.



Wouldn't extra money go to PSP and NPF or something?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not directly. The ship's fund and all messes onboard a ship are separate and distinct from any base organization. 

The only real nexus is that Canex is the warehouse, through which goods are purchased for sale onboard a ship. Their profit potential stands to diminish, if quantities of bulk alcohol purchases from ships decline.

I have never seen a shortage of funds from any mess on any ship that I have been on to support outings and activities off of the ship.


----------



## OldSolduer

We have the military that Canada, particularly that some politicians and "peaceniks" want:

Toothless and emasculated. 
The Air Force has aging aircraft. The Navy has no tankers to supply the fighting ships. Of all three the Army is best off, and we worried about pips and frickin crowns.
Rant over.


----------



## McG

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wouldn't extra money go to PSP and NPF or something?


A Ship/Unit find is NPP (NPF apparently being a bad word now).  The money gets invested back into goods and services for the crew.


----------



## Jed

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We have the military that Canada, particularly that some politicians and "peaceniks" want:
> 
> Toothless and emasculated.
> 
> Rant over.



Well said.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Why does the Navy needs it's own "conduct" and/or "alcohol" policies?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-0.page

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-7.page

If you step out of line with the above, there is:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-4.page

and

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-defence-admin-orders-directives-5000/5019-2.page

and of course, the CSD, QR & O Vol II, etc.

Instead of reinventing the wheel or trying to make a wheel roll differently than other wheels, why doesn't the RCN just properly employ an already devised system and tools?

I've never sailed, but it sounds to me from previous posts like control measures/directives already were in place.  Why not use the tools at the CofC's disposal to deal with the offenders?  We have the "12 hours bottle to throttle" rule in the flying world; if 1 or 2 crew members decided to party past when they should have, should the RCAF Comd then impose restritions on 'everyone' instead of the CofC using the tools on their belt to deal with the offenders?

Seems to me like this is more about appearance than anything, and a way for the higher echelon of the RCN to protect themselves from stuff that happens at the Captain & ships company level.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jed said:
			
		

> Well said.
> [/quote


----------



## chrisf

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Perhaps we should be taking some of the extra cash being generated from the increased alcohol sales and but it towards port activities, tours etc. Give the sailors something to do if they choose.



Sounds like a great idea.

My current employer has a quite firm zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy, we were recently in a shipyard, with fairly free and easy access to alcohol which remained prohibited...

Rather than rely on punitive measures, the employer was fairly proactive, spending a bit of their social budget on diversionary activities... it all worked out quite while... I can't say no one consumed alcohol, but there were no issues with drunkenness, and any of the fighting and other nonsense associated with it...


----------



## Stoker

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Sounds like a great idea.
> 
> My current employer has a quite firm zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy, we were recently in a shipyard, with fairly free and easy access to alcohol which remained prohibited...
> 
> Rather than rely on punitive measures, the employer was fairly proactive, spending a bit of their social budget on diversionary activities... it all worked out quite while... I can't say no one consumed alcohol, but there were no issues with drunkenness, and any of the fighting and other nonsense associated with it...



The bigger ships with more personnel and more money generated enjoy a lot more activities for the crew when they typically get into port. Myself being on the KINGSTON Class we do not get anything like that, except if we deploy overseas where there are tours and whatnot arranged for the crew. Picture a boat load of young men and women and let loose in a port, with nothing to do but drink. Not saying people will not drink, but they should have a choice and the option of something interesting to do with their time off.


----------



## George Wallace

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Sounds like a great idea.
> 
> My current employer has a quite firm zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy, we were recently in a shipyard, with fairly free and easy access to alcohol which remained prohibited...
> 
> Rather than rely on punitive measures, the employer was fairly proactive, spending a bit of their social budget on diversionary activities... it all worked out quite while... I can't say no one consumed alcohol, but there were no issues with drunkenness, and any of the fighting and other nonsense associated with it...



Even you pointed out that there 'may' have been alcohol consumed, so restrictive measures really are not effective.  Again, it boils down to having the respect towards your troops and treating them like responsible adults, not children who don't know better.  If you want to have responsible people in positions of the CAF, ensure you treat them in a way that they will be responsible for their actions.  Treating them like children is not the way to do it.

One of the worse things the CAF can have is leadership who are "Born Again" or "Reformed"; Alcoholics or Christians or whatever.  They figure that their "weaknesses" are common to all.  Sorry, but punishing the masses for your sins is not a good thing.


----------



## Scott

To be perfectly clear before I make this statement, I always treated this issue of booze on the boats with indifference. 

Now that it's blown up its rather simple, we are speaking about alcohol in a workplace. Think about that. How many other workplaces have this?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Scott said:
			
		

> To be perfectly clear before I make this statement, I always treated this issue of booze on the boats with indifference.
> 
> Now that it's blown up its rather simple, we are speaking about alcohol in a workplace. Think about that. How many other workplaces have this?



I, very regularly, have a drink with lunch during working hours.  The health benefits of drinking a beer or a glass wine during the day are well documented.  It's sad that the American villainization of alcohol has crept into our military.


----------



## Stoker

Scott said:
			
		

> To be perfectly clear before I make this statement, I always treated this issue of booze on the boats with indifference.
> 
> Now that it's blown up its rather simple, we are speaking about alcohol in a workplace. Think about that. How many other workplaces have this?



Yes Scott but how many workplaces confine hundreds of people in a metal box, a couple of hundred feet long for months on end. I don't drink at sea, but I respect their desire to have a beer after watch as long as its 6 hrs from going on watch.


----------



## Scott

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I, very regularly, have a drink with lunch during working hours.  The health benefits of drinking a beer or a glass wine during the day are well documented.  It's sad that the American villainization of alcohol has crept into our military.



Good for you. Do you work on a vessel at sea? Do you have emergency duties? 

Again, how many workplaces, outside of the military, would allow drinking while at work? This isn't villianization of booze, it's common sense. Booze and work don't mesh well. In fact, alcohol doesn't even factor into any risk assessment matrix I have ever seen, and I wonder why that is. 



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes Scott but how many workplaces confine hundreds of people in a metal box, a couple of hundred feet long for months on end. I don't drink at sea, but I respect their desire to have a beer after watch as long as its 6 hrs from going on watch.



Chief, I work offshore. You don't have to explain the hardships to me. Granted, I don't do stretches of months at a time, but I do know how limited the options are for fun. We do not have booze. I cannot imagine having it. I have also experienced emergencies at sea during my hitch and I wouldn't want to have Lloyds Register having to ask if anyone had been drinking. It just doesn't compute. At all.

Edited to insert quotes and remove a disjointed ramble.


----------



## Stoker

Scott said:
			
		

> Good for you. Do you work on a vessel at sea? Do you have emergency duties?
> 
> Again, how many workplaces, outside of the military, would allow drinking while at work? This isn't villi animation of booze, it's common sense. Booze and work don't mesh well. In fact, alcohol doesn't even factor into any risk assessment matrix I have ever seen, and I wonder why that is.
> 
> Chief, I work offshore. You don't have to explain the hardships to me. Granted, I don't do stretches of months at a time, but I do know how limited the options are for fun. We do not have booze. I cannot imagine having it. I have also experienced emergencies at sea during my hitch and I wouldn't want to have Lloyds Register having to ask if anyone had been drinking. It just doesn't compute. At all.



Yes Scott I do and I have to be ready at a moments notice to rush into a fire, in fact I have more time at sea than most reservists. I don't drink at sea because of that of my position. If we had to look at it and compare it to the civilian side, then yes no drinking at sea would be order. Perhaps if we never had it to begin with, but as you might imagine good or bad this is part of our tradition and culture. Change is hard.


----------



## Scott

I'll try a different approach to make my point.

I am a safety guy. It's my job to debate matters like this. Though I've never had to explain the "no booze offshore" thing to anyone, it's just one of those accepted norms. 

I was working elsewhere in the world when even near beer was outlawed because someone had a photo taken of him tripping pipe with a Becks in his hand. It wouldn't matter to Greenpeace if it was dealcoholized, the image would have sunk us.

Shell, like many of the companies nowadays, has "life saving rules" Take a look at them here: http://www.shell.ca/en/environment-society/safety-tpkg.html They are based on actual incidents and recorded injuries and fatalities. These are the 12 things that, to Shell, can get you fucked up if you don't abide by them. They also represent immediate sackable offences for some outfits.

Again, I treated this issue with indifference. I had no issue with it. But now that the decision has been made I have to state that it is simple common sense.


----------



## PuckChaser

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I, very regularly, have a drink with lunch during working hours.  The health benefits of drinking a beer or a glass wine during the day are well documented.  It's sad that the American villainization of alcohol has crept into our military.


Absolutely. I took the Alcohol, gambling, other drugs course PSP offers a year or so ago, and the whole course for into a fairly heated debate with the base addictions councilor on how alcohol is a fast track out of the CF now, but if you're doing oxys in your shacks they'll put you through years of rehab. Instead of encouraging responsible use (and correcting those that abuse), we've taken the 1920s approach and painted everyone like an alcoholic that wants to go to TGIT at the mess.


----------



## Scott

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Yes Scott I do and I have to be ready at a moments notice to rush into a fire, in fact I have more time at sea than most reservists. I don't drink at sea because of that of my position. If we had to look at it and compare it to the civilian side, then yes no drinking at sea would be order. Perhaps if we never had it to begin with, but as you might imagine good or bad this is part of our tradition and culture. Change is hard.



I am glad that someone with as much time as you've had can agree with me on this point.

On the flip side, I can see how the change would be hard, and not easy to understand for some. I can sympathize with that.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Scott said:
			
		

> Chief, I work offshore. You don't have to explain the hardships to me. Granted, I don't do stretches of months at a time, but I do know how limited the options are for fun. We do not have booze. I cannot imagine having it.



How long are your shifts off shore? 


Don't remember if I've brought it up but in Bosnia (  :warstory: ) there was a 2 drink limit per day. I found that placing a limit on people;
1. seemed to prompt a lot of people to make sure to get their 2 drinks a day.  Where someone may or may not really be inclined to drink every day now they were drinking at least 60 drinks a month.
2. it almost challenged some people to try and drink more than 2 drinks a day just to prove they could.



Obviously just hearsay but I've heard enough stories (navy alcohol antics)  that makes me genuinely surprised this hasn't happened sooner.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Scott said:
			
		

> Good for you. Do you work on a vessel at sea? Do you have emergency duties?
> 
> Again, how many workplaces, outside of the military, would allow drinking while at work? This isn't villianization of booze, it's common sense. Booze and work don't mesh well. In fact, alcohol doesn't even factor into any risk assessment matrix I have ever seen, and I wonder why that is.
> 
> Chief, I work offshore. You don't have to explain the hardships to me. Granted, I don't do stretches of months at a time, but I do know how limited the options are for fun. We do not have booze. I cannot imagine having it.
> 
> Edited to insert quotes and remove a disjointed ramble.



Smokey Smith won the Victoria Cross while on the piss so maybe we should start to take alcohol into consideration when conducting s risk assessment but I digress.  I am talking about drinking "a beer" or "a glass of wine" which has been shown to lower heart rate and blood pressure and have a calming effect on the nerves.  

You seem to be talking about something completely different, i.e. Crushing a 12 pack, which I agree is completely unacceptable.  Your above comments only further validated my previous comments about the American villainization of alcohol that now pervades our military.


----------



## Scott

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How long are your shifts off shore?



14 days.



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Smokey Smith won the Victoria Cross while on the piss so maybe we should start to take alcohol into consideration when conducting s risk assessment but I digress.  I am talking about drinking "a beer" or "a glass of wine" which has been shown to lower heart rate and blood pressure and have a calming effect on the nerves.
> 
> You seem to be talking about something completely different, i.e. Crushing a 12 pack, which I agree is completely unacceptable.  Your above comments only further validated my previous comments about the American villainization of alcohol that now pervades our military.



I don't know where you get that I am furthering this so-called villianization of booze, but if you want to read that into my comments then give 'er. I like to drink as much as the next guy, I just know that it doesn't belong in certain place: like cars, the workplace, cockpits, etc. 

You really want to compare Smokey Smith's actions to the modern workplace? That's weak. 

The difficulty is how the line is drawn. I can admit being conflicted in that I don't have much of an issue with soldiers having a beer in the field during downtime. On the other hand, every sailor I've ever spoken to has told me that fire at sea is their greatest fear - and I repeat, the aftermath would fucking suck if I had to explain that one of the ER guys had a beer. It's just a question that doesn't have to come up. Does this make me a hypocrite, maybe. But I can rationalize it pretty easy in that the dude working on base in an office type setting doesn't have the inherent risk that someone at sea does, nor does he have the ER roles.


----------



## Stoker

Scott said:
			
		

> 14 days.
> 
> I don't know where you get that I am furthering this so-called villianization of booze, but if you want to read that into my comments then give 'er. I like to drink as much as the next guy, I just know that it doesn't belong in certain place: like cars, the workplace, cockpits, etc.
> 
> You really want to compare Smokey Smith's actions to the modern workplace? That's weak.
> 
> The difficulty is how the line is drawn. I can admit being conflicted in that I don't have much of an issue with soldiers having a beer in the field during downtime. On the other hand, every sailor I've ever spoken to has told me that fire at sea is their greatest fear - and I repeat, the aftermath would ******* suck if I had to explain that one of the ER guys had a beer. It's just a question that doesn't have to come up. Does this make me a hypocrite, maybe. But I can rationalize it pretty easy in that the dude working on base in an office type setting doesn't have the inherent risk that someone at sea does, nor does he have the ER roles.



Scott I'm also the Safety O and Enviro O on the ship as well. Like it has been already said life aboard a civilian vessel is vastly different than a military one. I guess its all about what sort of risk you are willing to assume. I will guarantee that aboard the Protecteur and the Kootenay someone was having a drink. I do appreciate your position. If we are to make life at sea just like the civilian work, we might as well join the merchant marine.


----------



## Scott

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Scott I'm also the Safety O and Enviro O on the ship as well. Like it has been already said life aboard a civilian vessel is vastly different than a military one. I guess its all about what sort of risk you are willing to assume. I will guarantee that aboard the Protecteur and the Kootenay someone was having a drink. I do appreciate your position. If we are to make life at sea just like the civilian work, we might as well join the merchant marine.



Chief, I can see your points as well. Again, I do not think it's a cut and dried thing. I don't necessarily think that this single decision will render you guys just like civvy boats, but perhaps it's one of the thousand cuts, I can appreciate that. It's unfortunate, but taking it away is the simplest form of control - as always.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Nobody is talking about going on the piss while at sea- under the current rules, that is already prohibited.

And a naval vessel is not just a workplace, it is also a home- for sometimes up to 9 months at a time. A guarantee no one spends 9 months straight on an oil rig, nor does anyone consider it a home.

The issue I keep coming around to is that this new policy is in response to misconduct that occurred in port. Exactly how does banning alcohol at sea address misconduct in port? And how does adding new policy work when (apparently) the old policy wasn't being enforced. What we have is an enforcement (read command) problem, not an alcohol problem. I can gaurantee that drinking on ships will continue- it will just be driven underground.

I don't (or very, very rarely) drink at sea due to my position. I have seen more fires and other emergencies at sea than I care to list. A no alcohol policy, on the face of it, makes my life easier. On the face of it. The fact of the matter is that I am a leader of adults, not children. My job is to treat them like adults and respect them, not take the easy way out and always say no. This new policy is essentially an admission that ship level leadership is now so poor that they cannot be trusted to treat a ships company like adults and lead and motivate them to good behaviour. That is why I am horrified, because the long term implications are frightening.


----------



## Scott

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Nobody is talking about going on the piss while at sea- under the current rules, that is already prohibited.



I know this. It might not be aimed at me, but I would never try to suggest that it was about going on the piss.



> And a naval vessel is not just a workplace, it is also a home- for sometimes up to 9 months at a time. A guarantee no one spends 9 months straight on an oil rig, nor does anyone consider it a home.



I never said anyone does spend that time on a rig or platform. However, we do consider it home. 



> The issue I keep coming around to is that this new policy is in response to misconduct that occurred in port. Exactly how does banning alcohol at sea address misconduct in port? And how does adding new policy work when (apparently) the old policy wasn't being enforced. What we have is an enforcement (read command) problem, not an alcohol problem. I can gaurantee that drinking on ships will continue- it will just be driven underground.



Fair point, agreed on all.



> I don't (or very, very rarely) drink at sea due to my position. I have seen more fires and other emergencies at sea than I care to list. A no alcohol policy, on the face of it, makes my life easier. On the face of it. The fact of the matter is that I am a leader of adults, not children. My job is to treat them like adults and respect them, not take the easy way out and always say no. This new policy is essentially an admission that ship level leadership is now so poor that they cannot be trusted to treat a ships company like adults and lead and motivate them to good behaviour. That is why I am horrified, because the long term implications are frightening.



I can't comment fairly on leadership issues. I know your posts well enough to trust what you say completely, and I appreciate the angle you approach it from.

I have it easy - it was never an option for me in my career offshore, so I don't miss what I have never had. It does get discussed, every now and then, at our dinner table and it's generally agreed that we do not want what we do not have. 

My approach to this has always "been on the face of it"


----------



## jollyjacktar

No perhaps about it.  It is another one of the thousand cuts that is being inflicted or at least that will be the impression to some of those who are affected by it.  

Just because it's a simple solution doesn't mean it's the best or most effective for the long haul.  Sometimes "simple" solutions come from a lazy mind and attitude from those who could not give enough of a shit to rise to the occasion.  There are already policies in place that deal with this subject, however, it appears there are those who could/would not take the time and effort to enforce them satisfactorily.  So the end result is this knee jerk reaction at PR damage control... ( BZ!   :sarcasm

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting tradition should trump safety but despite the spin the MSM has put on this, being at sea is not an episode of MASH or Carnival Cruise Lines.  We don't spend our off watch hours getting hammered and partying.  That, for some was a foreign port pastime and if conducted on board could be regulated by the bartenders and duty watch with an eye on the sailor's well being and seeing him/her safely to his rack if need be.  Now, with jacking the prices to downtown, why stay on board?  They'll be more likely to go ashore and it might be a recipe for heart break more often as happened twice this past year on deployments where two sailors went ashore and died.  Of course there is a "simple" solution to that problem too.  Cut out/down port visits... oh wait, they're doing that already.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Scott, I think you are only looking at one part of the story here; all the reported incidents over the last few years while the ships were tied up alongside.  I browse through the court martial results once in a while, and I can't remember even one incident of anyone being charged with drunkeness while on duty at sea, which is what should happen if you didn't follow the existing restrictions.

I think if you want to compare it to being on an offshore platform, this is more like you are banned from alcohol during those 14 days of your shift, then on your time off, you are still sitting on the platform, and under similar restrictions, which they also are jacking the price up of.

To recap, there were no incidents of this affecting the safety of anyone *while on duty*.  This is a reaction to people not behaving on their time off, and a new policy on top of the existing CAF level and already particularized RCN ones.

Again, not the end of the world, but given that morale is already pretty low from the decade of lack of funding to the Navy and resource restrictions impacting things like maintenance and ship availability, crew shortages resulting in jetty hopping, and pay/benefit cuts, so this won't help retention.  Also, things that traditionally happen on ships, like RPCs after promotion, department parties when you get in to port and a few other things like that were you generally get to know the people you work with better and become friends rather then just colleagues won't be affordable, which will have a negative ripple through unit cohesion.  It's really noticeable between a shore unit on the coast and a ship already; so I think this will just further contribute to growing sense that you're just punching the clock to get a paycheck.

We have some of the best trained sailors in the world, and the vast majority of them are extremely professional, so a disproportional group punishment like this over the actions of a few won't be well received.


----------



## Scott

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just because it's a simple solution doesn't mean it's the best or most effective for the long haul.  Sometimes "simple" solutions come from a lazy mind and attitude from those who could not give enough of a shit to rise to the occasion.  There are already policies in place that deal with this subject, however, it appears there are those who could/would not take the time and effort to enforce them satisfactorily.  So the end result is this knee jerk reaction at PR damage control... ( BZ!   :sarcasm



Even this safety guy hates it when people take the path of least resistance simply to avoid working a problem. 

I've got no experience with the Navy, so tell me: your guys with ER roles, do they rotate between jobs depending on being on watch or off? i.e., will someone see themselves moved from a fire role to something else deeding on their tower? And do the boats have any peers who have no ER role whatsoever? 

For example: I have two dedicated ER teams of 6 each, a dedicated hospital/stretcher team of 6, and a command team of about 12. Then we have a muster controller and a cox and assistant cox for the rest of the people. Everybody else just stands there during a muster. We do not switch roles between on/off tower.


----------



## Scott

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Scott, I think you are only looking at one part of the story here; all the reported incidents over the last few years while the ships were tied up alongside.  I browse through the court martial results once in a while, and I can't remember even one incident of anyone being charged with drunkeness while on duty at sea, which is what should happen if you didn't follow the existing restrictions.



Pete, I understand.



> I think if you want to compare it to being on an offshore platform, this is more like you are banned from alcohol during those 14 days of your shift, then on your time off, you are still sitting on the platform, and under similar restrictions, which they also are jacking the price up of.



Fair enough.



> We have some of the best trained sailors in the world, and the vast majority of them are extremely professional, so a disproportional group punishment like this over the actions of a few won't be well received.



Which is almost uniformly the case in instances like this, military or not. I can't make that bitter pill taste any better, it is what it is.

I can admit it, I am not above reassessing. I repeat, however, on the very face of it this is alcohol in the workplace. That's unwinnable. That said, deeper down, I have no problem believing that it had been controlled by you guys without issue. I said in the beginning, I didn't really care about booze and boats before this because it had never been an issue.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Scott, I am by trade an HT.  We, along with the other Marine Engineering Department trades (Stokers and Electricians) the main backbone of the DC Section Base Teams 1 (Fwd) and 2 (Aft), SBT3 takes care of the Hangar and Flight Deck and it's composition will include Air Detachment personnel when we have them with us, Fire Fighters (the fourth MED trade) and HT, the Flight Deck ET and Stoker plus if there is no Air Det embarked, the SWOAD (Sailing without Air Det) personnel which come from other trades such as Bos'n etc.  There are also other teams that comprise of the emergency response teams for the ship.  There is SBT4, a manning pool of off watch people usually from the Combat Ops Room trades, Casualty Clearing Teams (Medical folks, Stewards etc) and Emergency Repair Teams from the Combat Systems Engineering Department.

Of the Engineering Trades the Stokers and ET stand watches.  HT are day workers, unless they are employed as Helo Crash Rescue FF with SBT3 (I'll get to them), we also stand rotating watches in HQ1 either monitoring the damage control systems (DCS)  as the HQ1 Watchkeeper or Roundsmen, lastly the guys in the shop rotate as Duty HT to take care of any repairs that come up after normal work hours (0800-1600).  SBT3, if there is an Air Det attached then they are there whenever there are air ops going on, in addition the FF/HT who make up the flight deck helo crash rescue team also provide a RAT (rapid attack team) they get booted and spurred in a matter of a few minutes and are they first response until one of the section base teams attack teams get to the scene to relieve them.  RAT is a very successful concept and quite often take care of things before they get out of hand, however, if they are conducting air ops RAT is not available as they're looking after the flight deck.

So long story short, if you're not on watch you're off duty so to speak.  If an emergency happens which requires the ship to go to either Emergency Stations Fire/Flood etc) or Action Stations then you are expected to head to your respective Section Base and do your thing.  Everyone is trained to do shipboard firefighting and flood repairs, although it is the SBT who will do that at sea.  Everyone therefore has a role to play in keeping the rest of their shipmates safe at sea so we can get home to our families.  I guess the only dedicated team of the same guys is RAT and HT's as the rest (Stokers and ET) stand watch and might not be available for emergency/action stations.  

Not too convoluted for you to follow I hope, Scott.  That is sort of the abridged version and I may have missed something in there...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How long are your shifts off shore?
> 
> 
> Don't remember if I've brought it up but in Bosnia (  :warstory: ) there was a 2 drink limit per day. I found that placing a limit on people;
> 1. seemed to prompt a lot of people to make sure to get their 2 drinks a day.  Where someone may or may not really be inclined to drink every day now they were drinking at least 60 drinks a month.
> 2. it almost challenged some people to try and drink more than 2 drinks a day just to prove they could.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously just hearsay but I've heard enough stories (navy alcohol antics)  that makes me genuinely surprised this hasn't happened sooner.



Most of the antics happen while in port so saying "no drinking at sea" is like giving someone antibiotics to treat a virus.  It gets the person out of the emergency room but does nothing to treat the actual the actual illness.  

Scott, my comment ref Smokey Smith was a joke but I was still alluding to something.

I am an infantry officer by trade, with this in mind, if the Government of Canada expects me to pick up a rifle and go put a bullet into another man, is it an unreasonable demand that when I am finished my hot and heavy patrol I can't come back to the FOB and have a nice cold can of Alpine Lager?  I don't see a sailor finishing his duty and retiring to the mess as being any different in this regard.  

We gave the QR&O's, CSD, CFAO's, DAOD's, etc... For a reason.  Of course taking a different course in the above instance would actually require the CAF to empower its leadership.  Unfortunately, we tend to subscribe to a more top down, micromanagement style which this decision is a perfect reflection of.

I understand your POV but I don't agree with it.  I'd like to see the Navy leadership challenged on this decision in an open house.


----------



## Scott

jollyjacktar, thanks for that. Clear and understood. Thanks for taking the time.

Drew, I don't think your Alpine at the FOB is the same as someone on a vessel, but we could pick nits all day long on that. I don't care to and I'm certain you don't either. Suffice to say we both have our points, I think we both respect one another's, and we can both see the ups and downs of each. I am happy with that.

I haven't forgotten how pissed off I was on Persistence when we were told we couldn't have a beer. I still believe that young men crowded around older/wiser/more experienced men, with a beer or two, tend to open up more and sort out more issues. I am still a big fan of a small bar in a volunteer fire hall, I have seen and benefitted from this. So, again, I can handle being a tad hypocritical here - because I know for a fact what the black and white answer is, no matter what the upsides are.

I also grant that this was a rather gutless decision made from the top.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Scott,

Forgive me for stating that oil rigs were not homes to the crews. I had wrongly assumed that the crew viewed them more as a work site.

This is pretty much an academic debate, as the decision has been made and I don't have much (if any) sailing remaining in my future.


----------



## Scott

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Scott,
> 
> Forgive me for stating that oil rigs were not homes to the crews. I had wrongly assumed that the crew viewed them more as a work site.
> 
> This is pretty much an academic debate, as the decision has been made and I don't have much (if any) sailing remaining in my future.



No worries at all. I find a lot of people are surprised at what we get up to in our spare time on the platform. It's important to overall health. Besides the gyms, we have nightly poker games, bingo and crib once a week, hockey pools, etc. We also probably do the same as you guys, we sit and bitch, we wind one another up, we share stories. If it weren't a little bit of fun it would suck a whole lot. It is a workplace, but it's also home for half the year, minimum. 

Sorry for the tangent.


----------



## chrisf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And a naval vessel is not just a workplace, it is also a home- for sometimes up to 9 months at a time. A guarantee no one spends 9 months straight on an oil rig, nor does anyone consider it a home.



I spend about 6 months a year on an oil rig, I assure you, it is a second home and considered as such.

When you consider transit times, and training, I spend more time living on the rig than I spend in my actual home.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Scott said:
			
		

> We also probably do the same as you guys



You guys play Gay Chicken too?   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You guys play Gay Chicken too?   ;D


What is Googled cannot be ungoogled ....  :facepalm:


----------



## cryco

that is one disturbing game. You made me search too.


----------



## chrisf

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You guys play Gay Chicken too?   ;D



Gay chicken?

If you're going to do it, get in there, don't be such a wuss about it.


----------



## cupper

Why in God's name would you even consider googling such a thing?

:facepalm:

You only have yourselves to blame for the traumatic experience you put yourselves through. :nod:


----------



## zerosum

procedure (mindless):
x=: drinking on ship
y=: drinking on shore
if problem with :
 ban (x):
end mindless:


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This new policy is essentially an admission that ship level leadership is now so poor that they cannot be trusted to treat a ships company like adults and lead and motivate them to good behaviour. That is why I am horrified, because the long term implications are frightening.



You mean like the horrendous drug problems they have in J.P. Jones' Navy?


----------



## misratah500

There is a trend in the last few years that I see in the navy and a lot of the older guys are saying it's to drive people out intentionally. 

In the 90's they wanted to shrink the military by use of the FRP and what they saw was the young guys take the pay out get out and then get back in many years later. Instead of forcing the older guys to retire like they thought would happen.

The morale in the navy has been low for several years now and it just seems like it's a death by a thousand cuts that are just driving people to pull the pin. 

These things include:

Freezing PLD (2010) and constant rumors of it's removal
Loss of Sliders (2012)
Modified Daily Routine Gone (2012)
Loss of 2 Shorts at Xmas Time (2013)
Switching Duty Watch back from 7 man to 10 man with no next day off (2014)
Stoker Spec Pay Freeze ( 3 years now I think?)
Loss of Blue Boat in Victoria (2012)
Paid Parking in Halifax (2014)
Less fun port visits (Personal Opinion)
Can't wear uniform in public (2014)
General mistrust of crews (Mandatory Bag Checks going on and off boat) At least mine.
More working foreign port visits (Personal Observation)
Weak leadership leading to punishment as a whole navy
Rumors of tinkering with our pensions from best 5 years to whole career
Sailing on Fridays or Weekends and coming back on Mondays

I've talked to a lot of people in the C&PO's on the west coast and they and myself seem to think it's all calculated to drive people out the door and get costs down. Do more with less. They know the new ships are going to require half the billets to man, so we're not going to need as big a navy right?

This is all just my wild theories and conjecture, but if you look at all these little changes that we've seen in the last 5 years it just shapes up to be a shitty picture. I have 11 years sea time myself so I have definitely seen a change since when I first started sailing in 2002.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Just a quick observation I noticed recently is that the current government in its obsession to 'bring back the past' has actually killed more real traditions (those that were actually maintained) than any other government likely since PET.
> 
> Just with the Navy alone for three quick examples (I won`t even begin to go into detail on the other things lost as we have all heard it before) we have lost Sliders, Drinking at sea, and Beards on ship (that were a big part of Naval Tradition).



Some of what you speak of is self inflicted. Beards are a risk when doing CBRN tasks. Sliders I can't speak to but other RCN pers told me it was an Admiral's direction.
We're run by a bureaucracy IMO


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Some of what you speak of is self inflicted. Beards are a risk when doing CBRN tasks. Sliders I can't speak to but other RCN pers told me it was an Admiral's direction.
> We're run by a bureaucracy IMO



Someone with an agenda is looking to make CDS


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Just a quick observation I noticed recently is that the current government in its obsession to 'bring back the past' has actually killed more real traditions (those that were actually maintained) than any other government likely since PET.
> 
> Just with the Navy alone for three quick examples (I won`t even begin to go into detail on the other things lost as we have all heard it before) we have lost Sliders, Drinking at sea, and Beards on ship (that were a big part of Naval Tradition).



Ditto on the beards. CRBN
By sliders do you mean small hamburgers?
You guys can't handle your booze so you lost the privilege.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Some of what you speak of is self inflicted. Beards are a risk when doing CBRN tasks. Sliders I can't speak to but other RCN pers told me it was an Admiral's direction.
> We're run by a bureaucracy IMO



Sliders - scuttlebutt throughout the fleet is that in some quarters it was changed as counter to what they feared might be public perception on such a ghastly tradition.  I don't know if said public were aware of sliders, or had an opinion on it, but, the Admiral who was at the helm when the change was implemented is not remembered kindly by most of the sailors.

Beards - safety issue and is quite frankly no issue except for a few diehards whom you couldn't change their opinion of it at any rate.

Booze - it is believed almost universally, amongst the rank and file, there have been some Admirals who have been gunning and waiting for an excuse, any excuse, to kill it off if they can.  There have unfortunately been a couple of deaths while ships were in port overseas and said deaths were believed to have alcohol as a contributing factor.  WHITEHORSE, well that too was in port, but seems to be the straw that broke the camels back on the issue.  Reactions from what I have been hearing is mixed.  There are some who applaud and many who don't.  Time will tell if this policy decision was prudent or if it will blow up in the PR face of the navy one day down the road.  Debate will no doubt continue on this for some time to come.  My personal opinion is that it was a knee jerk reaction as these decisions sometimes are, there will be tears, but I don't see it going back to the way it was.  It is said that "Booze is NOT unauthorized at sea, you can have it during special events like Banyans"  The cynic in me sees the next step is to outlaw Banyans.  (that, will take care of the loophole methinks...).  Again, the Admiral who was at the helm for this decision is being called names in some quarters that are unprintable and probably chargeable under numerous statutes    he won't be fondly remembered by the matelots.


----------



## OldSolduer

Maybe the public didn't know about sliders. But what if they did? You can be sure a very vocal minority may have stood up and asked "why are we giving CF members a half day off per week? They are paid to be there so they should be there. "

As for the beard issue, you are "one off " case. 

As for drinking, the wife of a fellow Snr NCO asked many years ago "why are youallowed to drink at lunch hour? You guys handle weapons and alcohol should be a no no"

Guess what....


----------



## Tibbson

The beard issue is one I could give or take.  As for sliders and drinking, I never got that one even though I spent years in Halifax.  My guys got time off when it was earned or needed for worthy personal issues and no drinking was allowed any time on duty or deployed so I see these two issues more as coming around to match everyone else.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe the public didn't know about sliders. But what if they did? You can be sure a very vocal minority may have stood up and asked "why are we giving CF members a half day off per week? They are paid to be there so they should be there. "
> 
> As for the beard issue, you are "one off " case.
> 
> As for drinking, the wife of a fellow Snr NCO asked many years ago "why are youallowed to drink at lunch hour? You guys handle weapons and alcohol should be a no no"
> 
> Guess what....



Even with enough stubble you can have a hard time getting a seal; you need that skin to rubber contact for it to be airtight.

On the plus side, the new leave manual allows the CO to grant half a day of short, so you can now substitute sliders for actual leave to compensate people if you want to do the paperwork.  As a manager, it is a big disatisfier though to not be able to sort that stuff out on your own; this drives it to micromanaging at a high level.

The rule on drinking at sea before was nothing 8 hours prior to going on shift, and no more then 2 per day.  For a good chunk of the crew, you almost never or very rarely have the eight hours off depending on your rotation, and if you did, you'd probably be relaxing for half hour with a beer before racking out.  Even for the 'day workers' they'd could be on watch during the night, so it was limited, and plenty of them never drink anyway due to the risk of fire/flood or general after hours work.  I'd say a better analogy was being confined to base after work , but being unable to have a drink in the mess after you were off.  Also the base is about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide and about 5 stories high with 200+ other people in it.  And it's constantly moving.  And noisy.  and all the air is recirculated.

Not that it really matters, but they've done nothing to address the actual problems, which was people going on benders and being irresponsible.  At least before there would be a portion having too much to drink and getting confined to the ship; now there is no incentive to do that if it's roughly the same price as ashore, so I can see more people getting up to shenanigans.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What's the big deal about mini hamburgers?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What's the big deal about mini hamburgers?



They don't want to see us getting fatter.   



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> As for drinking, the wife of a fellow Snr NCO asked many years ago "why are youallowed to drink at lunch hour? You guys handle weapons and alcohol should be a no no"
> Guess what....



When I was on OP CARIBBE in 2011 the locks were on when we were in the "box", which is to say there was a possibility of having to have fingers touching stuff that goes bang.  Although the first time for me to have this restriction, it wasn't an issue with the crew and we were fine with it.  When we were out of the box, the locks came off and we were free to have a cold one if able.  Again, no issue or problem.

In a foreign port, if you were drinking on board and tried to go ashore, it wasn't happening.  You were kept where you were safe and could be looked after.  Now, if there's no real incentive to staying on board they will have lost the ability to keep a grip on things that they can monitor.

I have heard through the grapevine (not confirmed) that FRE has both Cinderella leave (back on ship by midnight) for the whole crew with the exception of a select one or two approved hotels for overnight leave in foreign ports.  If you stay out, you will be required to muster each morning at 0700 hrs to check on your welfare.  Sounds like fun...not.  We're turning into the USN little by little and they have all sorts of issues come up.  PR heads exploding all over the place at times.  The big boys may yet rue the day they clamped down on things.


----------



## Stoker

Sliders were gotten rid of when it got so bad that on Fri afternoon's the dockyard was deserted. FMF complained that their wasn't anyone on the ships to look after work and thus affected maintenance, that's why it went. Nothing yet on first night protocol. There are already measures in place in foreign port such as be back on board at 2am if your duty, 12am if sailing the next day and 0730 welfare check no matter where you are. Also if anyone gets into the sh#t they will probably have the max fine and stoppage of leave imposed.
Prices on board have already been adjusted with beer at $3 and a oz of liquor $3. So at $120 a forty, there's going to be lots of dust in the beer and pop stores me thinks.


----------



## kratz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Prices on board have already been adjusted with beer at $3 and a oz of liquor $3. So at $120 a forty, there's going to be lots of dust in the beer and pop stores me thinks.



Great, more spaces to check during cleaning stations.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Calling in from a hotel of your choice, is different from staying at one or two "approved" sites and showing up in the flesh to report.  As I say, I can't confirm it, it may not be true.  Same goes for the Cinderella leave rumor too. Have also heard first night protocol rumours of confined to ship for all with a Club ### night for entertainment.  
  
Prices of beverage will make a difference on staying on board or going on a shore run.  If the gang goes on a run, they can't be monitored for safety as they could on ship.  Things have a bigger chance to go pear shaped now than before, as our American cousins find in most foreign ports for some of the crew.  That's one reason they have a brig on major vessels.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Calling in from a hotel of your choice, is different from staying at one or two "approved" sites and showing up in the flesh to report.  As I say, I can't confirm it, it may not be true.  Same goes for the Cinderella leave rumor too. Have also heard first night protocol rumours of confined to ship for all with a Club ### night for entertainment.
> 
> Prices of beverage will make a difference on staying on board or going on a shore run.  If the gang goes on a run, they can't be monitored for safety as they could on ship.  Things have a bigger chance to go pear shaped now than before, as our American cousins find in most foreign ports for some of the crew.  That's one reason they have a brig on major vessels.



The last time I was in foreign port (St.John's), that's what we did. I had a approved pass you be at my parents house, so I called in. I would imagine Fred made up some of their own rules in absence of direction. This also depends on what area you are in, when we in Columbia we used the buddy system. You signed out with your buddy and had be back with him, if you didn't you be charged. TOR when last in St.John's did exactly what we did.
I believe there is no appetite for first night protocol.


----------



## jollyjacktar

This, what we're hearing, is a new direction.  Totally different and more restrictive rules.  Hell, even CHA was restricted to 2 beers while in Italy during OP MOBILE.  A more nanny state, state of mind seems to be taking over the risk adverse big whigs more and more these past few years now.


----------



## Jarnhamar

As far as beards and CBRN go in the Navy I don't think it's that much of an issue.

The ship can just sail out of the big stink cloud.
If there is a CBRN threat then members need to go to full protective state. Does every member on board have access to a working CBRN suit?  

If anything I'd be most concerned with how ship safety/fire-fighting equipment is affected by beards (which I know zero about).

Charging standard price for alcohol? Giver.

The thing about alcohol though.... from the minute someone joins the CF they're surrounded by a culture of alcohol. New recruits earning the privilege of being allowed in the mess and having drinks to 2 beer limits at the smoker at an end of an ex to 1500hrs Friday afternoon mandatory beer calls at the mess.
We can't condition people from day one of their career to use alcohol then act surprised when they misuse it or become dependent.


----------



## Tibbson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This, what we're hearing, is a new direction.  Totally different and more restrictive rules.  Hell, even CHA was restricted to 2 beers while in Italy during OP MOBILE.  A more nanny state, state of mind seems to be taking over the risk adverse big whigs more and more these past few years now.



Seems like we heard these kinds of comments back when booze was restricted on deployments but the world didn't come to a crashing halt then so I don't suppose it will now.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Seems like we heard these kinds of comments back when booze was restricted on deployments but the world didn't come to a crashing halt then so I don't suppose it will now.



No, you're right.  Life will carry on.  My comments, however, cover not just alcohol.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Life will, indeed, carry on.  It is just sad to see those who sail treated a little less like adults and to watch those that cause the problems that the rest of us wear, to essentially skate away.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Don't need to tell you but...welcome to the army.  Same shit different pile.


----------



## Pusser

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The rule on drinking at sea before was nothing 8 hours prior to going on shift, and *no more then 2 per day*.  For a good chunk of the crew, you almost never or very rarely have the eight hours off depending on your rotation, and if you did, you'd probably be relaxing for half hour with a beer before racking out.  Even for the 'day workers' they'd could be on watch during the night, so it was limited, and plenty of them never drink anyway due to the risk of fire/flood or general after hours work.  I'd say a better analogy was being confined to base after work , but being unable to have a drink in the mess after you were off.  Also the base is about 450 ft long, 50 ft wide and about 5 stories high with 200+ other people in it.  And it's constantly moving.  And noisy.  and all the air is recirculated.
> 
> Not that it really matters, but they've done nothing to address the actual problems, which was people going on benders and being irresponsible.  At least before there would be a portion having too much to drink and getting confined to the ship; now there is no incentive to do that if it's roughly the same price as ashore, so I can see more people getting up to shenanigans.



The statement in *yellow* is actually not true.  There has never been an actual individual consumption limit on booze at sea (until now).  The two beers per day is actually only an ordering limit we apply for the embarkation of duty free beer (i.e. Customs allows us to embark a maximum of 2 cans X the number in the ship's company X 90 days).  However, the only limits on consumption were the time prior to one's next watch and the rule that one was not allowed to become intoxicated.  A day worker (i.e. one without a watch to stand) who could drink four beers in a sitting and not get drunk would not be in violation of any regulation.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> The statement in *yellow* is actually not true.



Actually when I was on Op Toucan, we did have a two beer a day limit.  The bartender had a nominal roll of the junior ranks, and he would check off your name if you had your two beer.   This also made it easy to drink more than two beer, as they quickly figured out who wasn't drinking, so those who didn't drink, did in fact drink (on paper).


----------



## Pusser

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Actually when I was on Op Toucan, we did have a two beer a day limit.  The bartender had a nominal roll of the junior ranks, and he would check off your name if you had your two beer.   This also made it easy to drink more than two beer, as they quickly figured out who wasn't drinking, so those who didn't drink, did in fact drink (on paper).



I have no doubt that was the case.  However, that limit was not imposed by the Navy.  That came from DCDS/CEFCOM/CJOC (i.e. applies once the ship CHOPS to that organization).


----------



## NavyShooter

The beards are more than just a CBRN issue, it's also a Fire-Fighting issue.  We have our Draeger fire-fighting masks that we also must be able to get a seal with, not just for shipboard firefighting, but also for HAZMAT cleanup.

All the 'petty' things, well, they add up, but more than all of the 'nickel and dime things' is the schedule.  Or, should I say, the lack of one.

The new navy is able to respond on a moment's notice, I was on CHA when we went to Libya for Op Mobile in 2011, I came to work on Tuesday, and left for 6 months on Wednesday.  

This is all the more true for ships that have completed MLR and are piecing themselves back together after the refit and are undergoing the TRP (Tiered Readiness Program) which is 'managed' by the Navy, but has Irving, Lockheed Martin, L3, the IPMS contractors, various trials agencies, Sea Training, and so on all demanding time, a place in the schedule, and the changes to the schedule have made things such that our sailors don't know when they're coming or going.  

My own home life has taken a spin for the worse because of all this, bringing a ship through the TRP, to the point that I almost volunteered for the last 2 months of TOR's deployment so that I'd be assured of a definite schedule.  

To be truthful, I don't give a damn about the booze at sea.  No big deal to me, I don't drink at sea, haven't in years.  First night in rules?  We'll see what happens.  I've got 2 ports coming up in the next 2 months, one is a working port (mid WUPs) and one is post WUPs (Red-Hat-Safe!) and I would imagine that the first night in the second port has more potential for concerns than the first port.

I've been told that my time at sea in this rank comes to an end this summer, and I'm headed ashore.  I'm really looking forward to it.  It will be nice to come home every night to my family, and maybe get back to the gym. 

NS


----------



## Eaglelord17

The drinking at sea was something I never really took part in other than the odd time (this was the case for most people as well, so why cut it?). I just liked having the option. I also liked being able to purchase booze for 1$ (really cuts down on your costs especially in port). The part that annoys me about this is the fact that it is being taken away for a crappy reason (i.e. a political reason not a logical reason), and the fact that no one seems to be fighting it, everyone has just rolled over and taken it. As mentioned before the administrative policies were in place to deal with people who broke the rules, it just takes leadership which actually has a back bone to enforce it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This, what we're hearing, is a new direction.  Totally different and more restrictive rules.  Hell, even CHA was restricted to 2 beers while in Italy during OP MOBILE.  A more nanny state, state of mind seems to be taking over the risk adverse big whigs more and more these past few years now.



Welcome to the infantry  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Welcome to the infantry  ;D



Yes, been there, done that.  It's great to be 13 again having the babysitter coming while the adults are out at dinner.  I feel 40 years younger already.


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, been there, done that.  It's great to be 13 again having the babysitter coming while the adults are out at dinner.  I feel 40 years younger already.



See, there IS an upside!  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I supose in today's X-Box driven world its OK to leave complex and potent console controlled weapons in the hands of 13 year old's.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oh the irony.  Following the FELEX such things were banned on FRE as they were wireless controllers and couldn't be used because of the new SECLAN.  They may have lightened up since I left in April last, but I don't know.


----------



## Pelorus

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They may have lightened up since I left in April last, but I don't know.



They have not.


----------



## NavyShooter

Most definitely not....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh the irony.  Following the FELEX such things were banned on FRE as they were wireless controllers and couldn't be used because of the new SECLAN.



Are you kidding me. You mean that with today's knowledge of radio interference the powers that be could not come up with  a SECLAN that is secured from external low power RF interference? What's the point of the SEC in SECLAN then?


----------



## Occam

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Are you kidding me. You mean that with today's knowledge of radio interference the powers that be could not come up with  a SECLAN that is secured from external low power RF interference? What's the point of the SEC in SECLAN then?



Secure means encrypted data transmission.  It doesn't mean it's not susceptible to EMI.  The policy concerning EMI/EMC on warships is constantly evolving, and SECLAN is but only one system in the big picture.


----------



## Furniture

Occam said:
			
		

> Secure means encrypted data transmission.  It doesn't mean it's not susceptible to EMI.  The policy concerning EMI/EMC on warships is constantly evolving, and SECLAN is but only one system in the big picture.



The end result of the new rules in place is a diminished quality of life onboard ship. When you are restricted from having wireless devices in most spaces, even a Kindle.. It is a major step backward.


----------



## Occam

As I said, the policies are evolving.  The post-FELEX EM environment was initially mapped using computer modeling, theoretical values, and conservative best guesses.  As more testing is done to determine realistic values based on real data, you'll see things relaxed.  We have a hard enough time making sure that the ship's systems don't negatively interfere with each other, we'll get to Xboxes and Kindles eventually.


----------



## NavyShooter

The other problem is a matter of hardware access and control.

With the old CCS, you would be hard pressed to find a way to hook a computer up to it (that wasn't specially designed) to pull data off the net.  Good luck finding a Triax Connector compatible....with the correct termination resistance.

With the new CMS, I would think that due to the greater potential for hardware compatibility with civilian spec hardware, well, having a list of authorized personal electronic devices is a *good thing* and, having strong policy to control and ensure that someone doesn't bring their X-box in and tie it into a large display somewhere on the ship is a  BETTER thing.

I'm fine with the policy.  

Alas, it means that the FitBit that my wife got me for Christmas languishes in the car, so I have no idea how far I walk on the ship in the run of a day!  (Get it...run....LOL)

NS


----------



## Halifax Tar

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hmcs-calgary-officer-charged-with-drunkenness-disobeying-orders-1.2239963

Whoops.  Some one just stirred the pot again!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Another XO... and West Coaster too.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Notice he is a CMDR now.  So he has been promoted since this incident.


----------



## McG

It appears to be the same incident which precipitated the new conduct policy.
The CAF has only just gotten around to laying charges.


----------



## Jed

What a PC world we live in. It can't be much fun in the Navy anymore at any Rank level. I'm not excusing anyone's misbehavior, but the extremely wide range of offenses appears to make anyone who hasn't the protection of the media and / or the squeaky clean moral behavior of Jesus Christ himself open for defamation.


----------



## Monsoon

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Notice he is a CMDR now.  So he has been promoted since this incident.


In fact the results of the promotion selection board were released just prior to the incident.


----------



## Ostrozac

Anyone fresh off the Presiding Officer's Training?

What's the story for an offense that occurred when you were a Maj/LCdr but charges not laid until you are a LCol/Cdr? Still eligible for summary trial by formation commander, or is it an automatic court-martial?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hmcs-calgary-officer-charged-with-drunkenness-disobeying-orders-1.2239963
> 
> Whoops.  Some one just stirred the pot again!



Not making excuses for this individual but its a pity, I sailed with said individual when he was on the East Coast and he is one of the few who truly cared for his subordinates and who actually had a clue on what he was doing.


----------



## cupper

"Pour encourager les autres" maybe?


----------



## dapaterson

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Anyone fresh off the Presiding Officer's Training?
> 
> What's the story for an offense that occurred when you were a Maj/LCdr but charges not laid until you are a LCol/Cdr? Still eligible for summary trial by formation commander, or is it an automatic court-martial?



I believe it will be determined by his rank when the charge is laid - so no summary trial.

NDA 164 provides no saving provision. Indeed, if a Maj screwed up, got charged as a Maj, and was then promoted before the summary trial, my read is that the trial would have to become a court martial.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/FullText.html


----------



## Naval Reservist

I don't know about everyone else but I feel that when Mark Norman is replaced this policy will be abolished and something close to the old one will be reinstated. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I don't know about everyone else but I feel that when Mark Norman is replaced this policy will be abolished and something close to the old one will be reinstated. ;D



Don't count on this. Once a policy like this is in place it's rarely rescinded.


----------



## Pusser

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Don't count on this. Once a policy like this is in place it's rarely rescinded.



Well, the Americans did repeal the Vostead Act (which was enacted to carry out the 18th Amendment - Prohibition) once they realized that it was stupid, ineffective and caused more problems than it never solved.

A more recent Canadian naval example occurred when the Navy allowed the sale of tobacco in ships and shore establishments again after it had been banned for a year.  However, in that example the banning order did have a "get out of jail card" in that it included a clause that the policy would be reviewed after one year's time.  After it was reviewed it was realized that the ban was stupid, ineffective and caused more problems than it never solved. 

Alas, my gut feel is that Mr Seggie may indeed be right this time.


----------



## Naval Reservist

I think I may transfer over to MARS Officer just to become the next vice admiral. Then I will reinstate alcohol aboard ship, heck while I'm at it I'll reinstate rum rations as well. :bowing:


----------



## Lightguns

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well, the Americans did repeal the Vostead Act (which was enacted to carry out the 18th Amendment - Prohibition) once they realized that it was stupid, ineffective and caused more problems than it never solved.
> 
> A more recent Canadian naval example occurred when the Navy allowed the sale of tobacco in ships and shore establishments again after it had been banned for a year.  However, in that example the banning order did have a "get out of jail card" in that it included a clause that the policy would be reviewed after one year's time.  After it was reviewed it was realized that the ban was stupid, ineffective and caused more problems than it never solved.
> 
> Alas, my gut feel is that Mr Seggie may indeed be right this time.



The policy is in keeping with the expected temperance of the military by our civlian population.  The drunken fools of Canada don't liek their uniforms to be crunken fools.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Repealing an Act that applies to all is not the same thing as changing a policy that only applies to specific number of public servants. In any event, it did not result in alcohol being available to American seaman onboard ship, did it?

As for the cigarette example, its not really the same thing at all. Lets face it, that policy was secretly aiming to induce seaman that smoked to quit. The "no sale of cigarettes onboard meant that these smokers had to bring all their cigarettes with them on deployment: For a four to six month deployment, that could mean anywhere between 15 to 30 cartons of cigarettes for a single seaman. Once He put that in his locker, it used up half the space !!! So, they would "chance" not going south or north, or wherever, and leave some of their other gear home - and be found missing it if the ship changed destination.  

So what happened: The extra cartons got put back in the bonded stores (even though they were duty paid) for storage and the stores holder now had to account not only for their presence onboard but also for which ones belonged to whom and keep a running tally (i.e. Bloggins has twenty cartons, and today he came and got one, so he now has 19, while Billy has 9 and Jack has 13, and I got Bloggins to sign, so he wouldn't argue we stole some later, etc.). The whole thing became a nightmare and did not discourage a single (well maybe a single) seaman from smoking.

Alcohol is different because while available in the messes (and still is, just not at sea or at a reasonable price), no one, other than the CO, is allowed to bring his own booze onboard or stow some in his own locker or space.


----------



## Jed

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Repealing an Act that applies to all is not the same thing as changing a policy that only applies to specific number of public servants. In any event, it did not result in alcohol being available to American seaman onboard ship, did it?
> 
> As for the cigarette example, its not really the same thing at all. Lets face it, that policy was secretly aiming to induce seaman that smoked to quit. The "no sale of cigarettes onboard meant that these smokers had to bring all their cigarettes with them on deployment: For a four to six month deployment, that could mean anywhere between 15 to 30 cartons of cigarettes for a single seaman. Once He put that in his locker, it used up half the space !!! So, they would "chance" not going south or north, or wherever, and leave some of their other gear home - and be found missing it if the ship changed destination.
> 
> So what happened: The extra cartons got put back in the bonded stores (even though they were duty paid) for storage and the stores holder now had to account not only for their presence onboard but also for which ones belonged to whom and keep a running tally (i.e. Bloggins has twenty cartons, and today he came and got one, so he now has 19, while Billy has 9 and Jack has 13, and I got Bloggins to sign, so he wouldn't argue we stole some later, etc.). The whole thing became a nightmare and did not discourage a single (well maybe a single) seaman from smoking.
> 
> Alcohol is different because while available in the messes (and still is, just not at sea or at a reasonable price), no one, other than the CO, is allowed to bring his own booze onboard or stow some in his own locker or space.




This policy will ensure future problems on ships for years to come.   The rules will be broken, and when they are broken some of those events will be spectacular, media rich, events. As long as policies broad brush all the good folks and treat the problem children the same as the rest; history shows you can expect this result.


----------



## shadreamer

The ban will be quietly lifted if and when retention numbers go down as a result of this. Could be the proverbial straw for many to pack their sea bags. Time will tell. 

There will always be troublemakers in any organization or branch. Taking away privileges from the majority because of the actions of a few is short sighted.


----------



## PuckChaser

Nobody is leaving the Army or the RCAF because we can't drink on deployments. Anyone suggesting that this alcohol policy will have a negative result in retention numbers clearly believes RCN members have an issue with alcohol consumption in the first place. 

Would I have loved a few beer after a mission in Kandahar? Damn right. Did I threaten release/remuster because I couldn't? No way.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, by and of itself it shouldn't be a deciding factor for some to leave the RCN (there may be one or two that will see it so).  But, it is a gigantic burr under the saddle blanket.  One more thing that dissatisfies people and enough straws will break any camels back eventually.  If you suck every last bit of enjoyment out of a job or career for your employees they will start to ponder "why stick around".  The fun meter has been moving more towards the empty mark more and more these past number of years.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think this will probably have a big effect on the messes though; usually already pretty rare to have a mess event, but if it's about the same price to have a beer on the ship as downtown, hard to see a good reason to relax after work in the mess for a beer with a few friends, other then pure convenience.  And if there are a bunch of restrictions around that alongside, going to make it even less attractive.

Still don't see anything that couldn't be dealt with by simply enforcing the previous rules though.  Given the number of sailors this is still pretty isolated in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Is this our new 'Black Tot' day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Tot_Day

Doubtless, in 1972, there were those who guessed that everyone would quit then, too.


----------



## NavyShooter

First port visit coming up post policy change.....


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Still don't see anything that couldn't be dealt with by simply enforcing the previous rules though.  Given the number of sailors this is still pretty isolated in the grand scheme of things.



And you are correct. Disciplinary and administrative measures may be used. Banning a legal substance is a lazy way of dealing with issues like this.

IMO it will take an Admiral with big brass ones to reinstate your old policy, or temper this one.


----------



## Naval Reservist

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IMO it will take an Admiral with big brass ones to reinstate your old policy, or temper this one.



If that Admiral does exist, and so chooses to speak up. He/She is a true leader and will earn the respect and admiration of his subordinates, for that is what a true leader is. Someone who earns respect vs. someone who uses pure rank for respect.


----------



## Monsoon

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> If that Admiral does exist, and so chooses to speak up. He/She is a true leader and will earn the respect and admiration of his subordinates, for that is what a true leader is. Someone who earns respect vs. someone who uses pure rank for respect.


No - a true leader is the one who makes necessary decisions in the face of criticism and who doesn't look to win popularity contests. With all due respect to your right to have an opinion, you don't have the context needed to criticize this one. Go to sea first.


----------



## Pusser

Back in the mid 90's we went through a shake-up when a number of deployed personnel p***ed in the pickles and some very restrictive policies came down for all DCDS operations (i.e. two beers per person per day).  The Navy's first reaction was that since we already had a longstanding policy in effect (that as far as were concerned worked as we had had no issues - at that point), and so surely these new DCDS policies didn't apply to us?  We were told, no, if the ship was CHOPPED to a DCDS operation, then all the DCDS policies also applied.  So we formed a committee to study the issue.  I was the secretary of that committee and its major conclusion was that as long as our existing regulations (MARCORDs and SSOs) were enforced this was pretty much a non-issue.  One of the interesting things that came up though was an observation by the Command Chief and few others old enough to remember the days of the tot (period prior to 1 Apr 72).  The old chiefs pointed out that the Navy had had more problems with alcohol BEFORE the tot was stopped (i.e. when the only alcohol available to sailors was their daily ration).  To understand this, it is useful to know how things worked:

Up to and including 31 Mar 72:

1)  Only the Wardroom and CO had bars
2)  Sailors were restricted to their single daily tot
3)  Junior sailors had to either drink their entire tot in front of the issuing officer or mix it if they wanted to take it aside - they still had to drink it within the compartment where issued
4) C&POs were allowed to drink their tots neat
5)  Despite the restrictions, sailors (being the ingenious folks they are) found ways around the rules and often hoarded thier rations (there are tales of exploding coconuts full of rum that had been hidden in various places around the ship
6)  Tots were often "donated" or shared on special occasions (e.g. birthdays) to other sailors or even used as currency for the payment of debts ("sippers," "gulpers," etc).  Thus, it was possible for some sailors to receive more that a regular tot (1/2 gill) on some days and get drunk
7)  Sailors often tried to smuggle more alcohol on board
8 )  Not all sailors actually drew their daily ration and so there was an argument that it was losing its popularity.

1 Apr 72 and beyond:

1)  All three messes now had full duty-free bars
2)  The incentive to smuggle or hoard alcohol virtually eliminated due to reasonable access at low prices
3)  Reduction in disciplinary issues.

Providing a controlled environment where access to a legal substance is reasonable means that its consumption can monitored and controlled.  Trying to ban it altogether simply drives it underground and leads to a whole host of other problems.

To be honest though, I'm inclined to think this is much ado about nothing.  We're not removing alcohol from ships.  We are simply placing a new restriction on consumption AT SEA.  The reality though is that hardly anyone drinks at sea anymore anyway.  I'm not prepared to get too upset about this.


----------



## MARS

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> If that Admiral does exist, and so chooses to speak up. He/She is a true leader and will earn the respect and admiration of his subordinates, for that is what a true leader is. Someone who earns respect vs. someone who uses pure rank for respect.



The overriding assumption in this thread (and throughout the Navy) is that this Order originated from within the Navy's guardrails.

I heard something different, which may or may not be true.

If what I heard is correct, then Admiral Norman is demonstrating outstanding leadership in making the Order he was given, his own Order.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MARS said:
			
		

> The overriding assumption in this thread (and throughout the Navy) is that this Order originated from within the Navy's guardrails.
> 
> I heard something different, which may or may not be true.


I have heard nothing, one way or another, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if such an edict came from WELL "on high".


----------



## Naval Reservist

MARS said:
			
		

> The overriding assumption in this thread (and throughout the Navy) is that this Order originated from within the Navy's guardrails.



I can only form an opinion based on what ive heard. Unfortunatly, what ive heard is that this was solely a move to further advance his career.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MARS said:
			
		

> The overriding assumption in this thread (and throughout the Navy) is that this Order originated from within the Navy's guardrails.
> 
> I heard something different, which may or may not be true.
> 
> If what I heard is correct, then Admiral Norman is demonstrating outstanding leadership in making the Order he was given, his own Order.



We all answer to somebody, even the adults.  I have no doubt he was given some marching orders and is supporting his CoC by carrying it on and out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I can only form an opinion based on what ive heard. Unfortunatly, what ive heard is that this was solely a move to further advance his career.



I am going to step in here and say: I highly doubt Adm Norman is advancing his career.

The problem I have with this edict (whatever it's original source, and I have my suspicions as well) is that it punishes the majority at the expense of the minority and it speaks to an almost unbelievable mistrust in both sailors and the chain of command in general.

We have been told since the beginning of time the a ship us more than piece of steel: it is our home. 

We spend months inside it, often enduring great discomfort. this makes home somewhat less "homey".

I also predict we will see in increase in illegal drinking onboard and problems with alcohol downtown. The Law of unintended consequences being what it is...


----------



## Jarnhamar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I also predict we will see in increase in illegal drinking onboard and problems with alcohol downtown. The Law of unintended consequences being what it is...



The last smoker I went to was a brigade sized smoker. The brigade commander lifted the 2 beer limit and told us there was no beer limit for the night but to be responsible and act like soldiers. The onus was on leadership to step in if and when we needed to.  We had a couple very minor issues but nothing news worthy, not bad for a brigade with a no alcohol limit.

The RCNs new policy is lazy leadership.


----------



## Monsoon

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I can only form an opinion based on what ive heard. Unfortunatly, what ive heard is that this was solely a move to further advance his career.


I've met the man; you've heard incorrectly. It's never too soon to learn the lesson that the more knowledgeably someone speaks on a topic in the mess, the less he is likely to actually know about it.


----------



## Stoker

I'll wade in on this one as I was recently in a foregin port where more time and enough sailors got into trouble.  The amount of beer consumed beween the 3 messes was the low side of a couple of dozen entire visit. As expected everyone scattered and drank ashore, people were warned, no incidents. People got drunk but caused no trouble. Overall the policy is working as intended. I suspect the amount of money the ships fund will take in due to mess sales will take a dive based on what I have seen first hand.


----------



## Stoker

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> I can only form an opinion based on what ive heard. Unfortunatly, what ive heard is that this was solely a move to further advance his career.



Let me get this straight, you with zero experience and as your profile says a OS is making the opinion that the Commander of the RCN brought in this policy to advance his career? My advice for you is don't listen to rumours and trust your superiors. You are a OS, you don't have the experience or right to state opinions. I would love to have you in my department, lad.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As one who have known the Admiral from way back when, I can certify that he cares not about advancing his career, but only acting as an honourable officer at all times.

I would sail in the tightest spots anytime with Admiral Norman.


----------



## Naval Reservist

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight, you with zero experience and as your profile says a OS is making the opinion that the Commander of the RCN brought in this policy to advance his career? My advice for you is don't listen to rumours and trust your superiors. You are a OS, you don't have the experience or right to state opinions. I would love to have you in my department, lad.



It's funny, I thought the whole point of a non-affiliated forum was to engage in discussion and share opinions. The fact that im an OS really shouldnt matter here (please read this post about use of rank on the forum http://army.ca/forums/threads/64170.0.html). As per my right, in a working enviorment while onduty or likewise you would be right. However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.

On a more related note; after discussions here it seems the opinions I formed about Admiral Norman based on what has been talked about in the mess were fortunatly wrong. Thanks to the fact I shared my opinion I have learned a great deal about the Admiral. I dont regret what I said at all, even if my view of him has or has not changed.


----------



## Stoker

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> It's funny, I thought the whole point of a non-affiliated forum was to engage in discussion and share opinions. The fact that im an OS really shouldnt matter here (please read this post about use of rank on the forum http://army.ca/forums/threads/64170.0.html). As per my right, in a working enviorment while onduty or likewise you would be right. However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.
> 
> On a more related note; after discussions here it seems the opinions I formed about Admiral Norman based on what has been talked about in the mess were fortunatly wrong. Thanks to the fact I shared my opinion I have learned a great deal about the Admiral. I dont regret what I said at all, even if my view of him has or has not changed.



If you don't want to be squared off in a post don't post your rank on your profile. I take issue with you making claims about the leadership of the RCN, and at the end of the day is your boss too. Like we are always told talk to what you know, not what you think you know.


----------



## medicineman

What I THINK the Chief meant to say was this - there are opinions and then there are informed opinions...there's a huge difference.  You're at the beginning of your career and have likely been handed a bunch of mis/disinformation by a bunch of disgruntled mess mates who only see/hear what you want to see/hear.  As you've stated is your right here, you've come in and opined something...however, that was based on very little knowledge and without much in the way of critical thinking - something many folks here value, both for the forum and for the CAF.  All CS is suggesting is to get ALL the facts before opining on something here, lest you get jumped on for it.  Same goes for at work.  As the old saying goes, we have two ears and only one mouth for a reason - keep the two open and working BEFORE allowing the singleton to engage.

MM

Edit to add - Chief - I think you sort of beat me to the punch.


----------



## Stoker

medicineman said:
			
		

> What I THINK the Chief meant to say was this - there are opinions and then there are informed opinions...there's a huge difference.  You're at the beginning of your career and have likely been handed a bunch of mis/disinformation by a bunch of disgruntled mess mates who only see/hear what you want to see/hear.  As you've stated is your right here, you've come in and opined something...however, that was based on very little knowledge and without much in the way of critical thinking - something many folks here value, both for the forum and for the CAF.  All CS is suggesting is to get ALL the facts before opining on something here, lest you get jumped on for it.  Same goes for at work.  As the old saying goes, we have two ears and only one mouth for a reason - keep the two open and working BEFORE allowing the singleton to engage.
> 
> MM
> 
> Edit to add - Chief - I think you sort of beat me to the punch.



Cheers MM, my crustyness is out in full force today.


----------



## Monsoon

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> As per my right, in a working enviorment while onduty or likewise you would be right. However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.


Please note that your "freedom to express [your] opinions" is limited when that opinion is libellous. You might want to take a look at this thread if you want to know why experienced users of this board avoid attributing accusations against public individuals by name: http://army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0

I'm quite certain that the good Admiral isn't going to do anything similar, but his personal restraint is certainly no reason for us to abuse a man who's been one of the better commander's we've had in the past 20-odd years.


----------



## medicineman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Cheers MM, my crustyness is out in full force today.



No worries  ,

MM


----------



## Jarnhamar

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.



Just a point to note on that matey. I know of a senior NCO in the army who was fined $1500 for comments he made on his personal facebook page.  We all grow up running around shouting_ freedom of speech_ and _it's a free world _but in practice things become a bit more convoluted, especially when dealing with the military where many a mindset are still stuck in the 50's and 60's.


----------



## Jed

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just a point to note on that matey. I know of a senior NCO in the army who was fined $1500 for comments he made on his personal facebook page.  We all grow up running around shouting_ freedom of speech_ and _it's a free world _but in practice things become a bit more convoluted, especially when dealing with the military where many a mindset are still stuck in the 50's and 60's.



Now that is sage advice.


----------



## kratz

[quote author=Naval Reservist]However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.
[/quote]

A couple years ago, I was instructing a course at CFNOS(Hfx) and an unhappy student posted a disgruntled comment online. By stand easy, he was hauled into the Chief's office and "advised" to adjust his post before the end of lunch.

It can and does happen that fast IRL.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And you are correct. Disciplinary and administrative measures may be used. Banning a legal substance is a lazy way of dealing with issues like this.
> 
> IMO it will take an Admiral with big brass ones to reinstate your old policy, or temper this one.



To be fair, I tend to agree this wasn't a CRCN decision; I was onboard when he sailed a few times as CCFL, and also have met him a few times more recently, and this doesn't really seem like his leadership style.  My impression is that left up to his own devices the Navy would have come down hard on the guilty parties, there would have been a lot of briefings and reminders of the policies and consequences.

Aside from being very competent, he's a really reasonable and quite personable guy with a good dose of common sense, and one of those leaders that really gets people working together to get work done, but have fun as well.  

I'm guessing this is probably more of a Minister/PMO driven decision for making a nice headline and winning a few votes.  Seems kind of their style.


----------



## cupper

Naval Reservist said:
			
		

> It's funny, I thought the whole point of a non-affiliated forum was to engage in discussion and share opinions. The fact that im an OS really shouldnt matter here (please read this post about use of rank on the forum http://army.ca/forums/threads/64170.0.html). As per my right, in a working enviorment while onduty or likewise you would be right. However, this in an online forum and freedom to express my opinions is something I hold dear.
> 
> On a more related note; after discussions here it seems the opinions I formed about Admiral Norman based on what has been talked about in the mess were fortunatly wrong. Thanks to the fact I shared my opinion I have learned a great deal about the Admiral. I dont regret what I said at all, even if my view of him has or has not changed.



You are correct that you are free to express your opinions. However with that freedom comes the responsibility that it is a well informed opinion and not grumbling going around the mess or some other forum where people would rather bitch and blow off steam than have meaningful discussions.

The point that the well seasoned navy types have made is that you really have a limited amount of life experience in the Navy. They are not trying to stifle your right to express an opinion. They are merely trying to give you sound advice about when to do so, and when not to.

Take it as a lesson to be learned.

(Damn. Should have kept reading the posts. Didn't mean to pile on.)


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hmcs-calgary-officer-charged-with-drunkenness-disobeying-orders-1.2239963
> 
> Whoops.  Some one just stirred the pot again!


... and he is found not guilty.  But, this looks more like an example of prosecution failing and not so much a matter of the accused did nothing wrong:


> Naval officer found not guilty in groping case
> Richard Watts
> Times Colonist
> August 15, 2016
> 
> A senior Canadian naval officer who was alleged to have groped the buttocks of an American coast guard sailor was found not guilty of all charges on Monday.
> 
> Following a court martial trial last week at CFB Esquimalt, military judge Col. Mario Dutil ruled the prosecution had failed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" charges against Cmdr. Joshua Yanchus.
> 
> The prosecution had alleged that Yanchus:
> 
> 
> disobeyed the lawful command of a senior officer, the captain of HMCS Calgary
> conducted himself in a way that would prejudice good order and discipline
> engaged in drunkenness.
> 
> Yanchus is now serving in Ottawa on the Strategic Joint Staff, which provides military analysis and advice to the Chief of Defence Staff. But the charges relate to a time when he was still a lieutenant commander, and the second in command of HMCS Calgary.
> 
> All three charges relate to events on June 25, 2014, when HMCS Calgary was tied up in Hawaii following a 16-day crossing to join RIMPAC 2014.
> 
> RIMPAC is a major international military exercise of Pacific Nations, led by the U.S. navy. That year, it involved forces from 20 countries and 45 warships.
> 
> It was alleged that Yanchus disobeyed an order from HMCS Calgary's captain prohibiting "mixed messing," or officers, petty officers and seamen mingling in one another's messes, areas of a ship where celebrations can occur.
> 
> It was alleged that while at the junior ranks' mess, Yanchus groped the buttocks of and kissed a female U.S. Coast Guard sailor, who was never called to testify, and that he engaged in drunken behaviour, stumbling and moving without co-ordination.
> 
> Testimony from enlisted sailors varied widely, however.
> 
> One sailor testified that Yanchus and the U.S. Coast Guard sailor danced respectfully and he pecked her on the cheek at the end.
> 
> Another said the two were "necking" while sitting at the bar. Another said that, while dancing, Yanchus kissed the woman while running his hands along her back and buttocks.
> 
> Dutil said he found the testimony that Yanchus was touching, kissing and necking with the U.S. Coast Guard sailor unreliable.
> 
> He said he doesn't believe the witnesses deliberately lied, but that their testimony could not be relied upon.
> 
> The military judge said evidence showed the Calgary's captain did give an order to prohibit mixed messing.
> 
> But it is an accepted practice for mess presidents, those appointed to administer their messes, to offer special invitations to members of other messes.
> 
> On the day of the alleged offences, the wardroom, the officers' mess, had invited the president of the junior ranks mess in for drink. The same invitation was then extended to Yanchus to attend the junior ranks' mess.
> 
> During the court martial, Yanchus took the stand and testified he had no memory of even being in the seamen's mess.
> 
> But Dutil said since he heard no medical testimony or evidence detailing how much alcohol Yanchus had consumed, it would not be possible to rule that he had suffered a drunken blackout.
> 
> "The fact somebody says he cannot remember is evidence of lack of memory, not necessarily the result of intoxication," he said.
> 
> After the verdict, Commodore Buck Zwick, commander of the Canadian Pacific Fleet, said allegations of harassment or poor behaviour will be investigated, and if warranted, charges will be laid, regardless of rank.
> 
> "We have to ensure that our people receive the best leadership possible," said Zwick.


http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/former-officer-on-hmcs-calgary-found-not-guilty-in-court-martial-1.2323412


----------



## Cronicbny

Of course, one's memory does begin to fade a bit AFTER TWO YEARS!!!! Perhaps it really is a prosecution problem - why is it taking this long for Courts Martial to be held? 

Think about that.

Two years - the accused on pins and needles. 

Victims waiting for some resolution... closure... whatever.

Witnesses... memories fading. Released, posted to Dubai, the Golan Heights, at sea in a ship somewhere...

Plus... for fun... all these people get posted to other places while we wait... then some poor unit, who doesn't even know the ins and outs of the case, is stuck dealing with staffing up the whole process - Officers of the Court, Duty NCOs and all the other crap.

Two words... streamline

You see what I did there.


----------



## PuckChaser

Would he have been convicted based on a balance of probabilities? I have a strong feeling if it were a summary trial, he'd already be found guilty, fined, and the matter closed.


----------



## Lumber

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Would he have been convicted based on a balance of probabilities? I have a strong feeling if it were a summary trial, he'd already be found guilty, fined, and the matter closed.



Which just might be why it ended up in Court Martial; election.

At a unit I may or may not have worked at, a member elected court martial for drug possession, because he was afraid that the CO had a real hate on for drugs (he thought he'd throw the book at him), and he felt that a military judge would given him a sentence more in-line with what would happen in the civilian world.

Sometimes you can't streamline the system.


----------



## gryphonv

Pusser said:
			
		

> Two of those rows of ribbons appear to be Legion and perhaps Navy League medals?  If so, they may be legitimate and they are being worn on his right breast, which would be correct.  As the other side, they appear to be Golden and Diamond Jubilee medals and perhaps a Commissionaire long service medal?  These too could be legitimate and if they are, they are being worn correctly.
> 
> Having said that, I'm not sure the Navy League has a white tunic in their orders of dress, but the shoulder flashes are definitely wrong.  He's wearing RCN shoulder flashes, not Navy League ones.  Also, the correct rank title/abbreviation for a lieutenant in the Navy League is Lt(NL).



Legit or not...wearing DEUs of any shape or form in a strip club is definitely questionable conduct.  Not sure the legal avenues of the navy league. I just know heads will roll if something like this happened in the reg force today and the media seen it .


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Another problem is most of the MSM can't tell the difference. Any uniform with Canada on the shoulder means CAF. Similar to them calling anything with a gun and turret, tracked or not, a tank.


----------



## Navy_Pete

gryphonv said:
			
		

> Legit or not...wearing DEUs of any shape or form in a strip club is definitely questionable conduct



Woah woah tabernac!  That is fleet week heresy!  ;D

Generally not a good idea though, particularity in whites.  Those get stains while hanging in the closet in a protective suit bag.  They are a nightmare, and you look like you are trying to sell garbage bags and/or icecream.  And that's ignoring the possibility of media running a story.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Woah woah tabernac!  That is fleet week heresy!  ;D
> 
> Generally not a good idea though, particularity in whites.  Those get stains while hanging in the closet in a protective suit bag.  They are a nightmare, and you look like you are trying to sell garbage bags and/or icecream.  And that's ignoring the possibility of media running a story.



Ruined many a set of whites during a rigger run ashore, and I may have be in a strip club or two or three. That was the good old days when we were allowed to have fun. Now not so much.


----------



## gryphonv

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Ruined many a set of whites during a rigger run ashore, and I may have be in a strip club or two or three. That was the good old days when we were allowed to have fun. Now not so much.



A recent fleet week a buddy of mine was on. They were told they were not allowed to drink in uniform while in New York.

Times have changed


----------



## jollyjacktar

That's fucking bullshit!!!  No wonder morale is taking hits.  Thank Christ my sailing days are done.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's ******* bullshit!!!  No wonder morale is taking hits.  Thank Christ my sailing days are done.



Last year, first night in no uniforms allowed ashore. You could drink in uniform at sanctioned events however do not get drunk. Whites allowed ashore but no whites after 2300. This year its sounds like things got progressively worse in regards to restrictions.


----------



## FSTO

Does our leadership not realize that if you treat your people like children they will act like children? The funniest thing about all this is that the ones in position to make these calls were the hardest runners ashore when they were subbies and jr Lieutenants.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

So, are we about to watch the RCN return to rum, sodomy and the lash?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, are we about to watch the RCN return to rum, sodomy and the lash?



We need to start press ganging people!  It could be a way to help the government finally meet one of their 'aspirational recruiting goals


----------



## PuckChaser

There's a joke here about thinking the RCN never gave up 2 of those things. But that's probably enough derailment for now.

Do we even have a "Why can't I drink in the RCN anymore?" thread? Mariomike?  >


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's a joke here about thinking the RCN never gave up 2 of those things. But that's probably enough derailment for now.
> 
> Do we even have a "Why can't I drink in the RCN anymore?" thread? Mariomike?  >



An increase in the other two to compensate for the lack of one  :rofl:


----------



## mariomike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Do we even have a "Why can't I drink in the RCN anymore?" thread? Mariomike?  >



RCN to introduce new Conduct Policy and new Alcohol Policy  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/117268.25
8 pages.


----------



## gryphonv

FSTO said:
			
		

> Does our leadership not realize that if you treat your people like children they will act like children? The funniest thing about all this is that the ones in position to make these calls were the hardest runners ashore when they were subbies and jr Lieutenants.



You don't see many flag officers who are not yes men for the beaucrats.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

mariomike said:
			
		

> RCN to introduce new Conduct Policy and new Alcohol Policy
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/117268.25
> 8 pages.


----------



## PuckChaser

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> An increase in the other two to compensate for the lack of one  :rofl:



This is why we have briefings. :alarm:


----------



## George Wallace

FSTO said:
			
		

> Does our leadership not realize that if you treat your people like children they will act like children? The funniest thing about all this is that the ones in position to make these calls were the hardest runners ashore when they were subbies and jr Lieutenants.




 :goodpost:

.....and I have seen this start way back in the '80's.  Treated like children and they started to act like children.  

Even saw the hypocrisy of one BGen (Armour type)who became the Multi-national Contingent Comd in Bosnia enforce the same rules that he enforced in Petawawa, state to the Press that he  did not mind a glass of wine with his meal.....all the while restricting the troops.


----------



## Pusser

gryphonv said:
			
		

> You don't see many flag officers who are not yes men for the beaucrats.



You obviously don't know too many flag officers...


----------



## Navy_Pete

gryphonv said:
			
		

> A recent fleet week a buddy of mine was on. They were told they were not allowed to drink in uniform while in New York.
> 
> Times have changed



What in the actual f&^k.

We were not allowed off the ship at all unless we were in uniform, and the instruction was 'Have fun, stay safe and look after your wingers and shipmates'.  We did all three, and that was only about five years ago.  The last day they finally relaxed the policy and let people leave the ship in civvies because there were about 80 people with mangled heels from the punishment of the white goblin shoes.  What is the point of going to fleet week if you are going to put rules like that in place?  The entire point is going to a  big city in the states, going out in uniform and seeing all the sights.  Its an amazing experience, and you skip all the big lines like the empire states building (four hours worth!) but I'd like to think you can at least enjoy a drink with a meal.  That is even more restrictive than what we had while on port visits while IN THEATRE (at friendly ports) where it was two drinks max.  But you know, HIGH READINESS DEPLOYED SHIP so that was reasonable for when you were off duty.


----------



## Halifax Tar

That's too bad.  Fleet Week was one of my all time favorite things I have done with the RCN.  

Nothing like crossing the brow at 4am with only your white pants on to show the duty watch you had a good night lol


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That's too bad.  Fleet Week was one of my all favorite things I have done with the RCN.
> 
> Nothing like crossing the brow at 4am with only your white pants on to show the duty watch you had a good night lol



I would imagine if that happened now you would be on the way out..... :


----------



## Halifax Tar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would imagine if that happened now you would be on the way out..... :



No kidding.  Sad. 

You know funny enough, I was in Ont with the Army when all this anti-fun, anti-drinking stuff infected the RCN.  It left allot of civilians, that I talked to, scratching their heads as their image of a sailor is of a good time guy, who goes on runs ashore and drinks.  And they didn't have a problem with that image.  They actually thought it was endearing to some extent it seemed.  

Its funny I think the RCN made a bigger deal out of the "incidents" than the rest of country did. 

#overreaction #kneejerkreaction


----------



## SupersonicMax

Just my opinion, but if you need the Navy to let you drink in uniform at foreign ports to keep you happy, perhaps you need to reassess your priorities and perhaps you have bigger problems that may need to be addressed.

I don't see what's wrong with going in civies.  Drunk uniformed sailors aren't the image I'd want the public to remember.


----------



## Stoker

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, but if you need the Navy to let you drink in uniform at foreign ports to keep you happy, perhaps you need to reassess your priorities and perhaps you have bigger problems that may need to be addressed.
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with going in civies.  Drunk uniformed sailors aren't the image I'd want the public to remember.



I need no problem with drinking in uniform personally as long as you know your limits, its the 1% that's the problem.  We're you ever at a fleet week? The whole idea is going ashore in uniform, and having a few if so inclined.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Navy worked hard and played hard ashore, I could see a toning down of stuff, but society is capitulating to the New Puritans and the more you give them, the more they want.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Navy worked hard and played hard ashore, I could see a toning down of stuff, but society is capitulating to the New Puritans and the more you give them, the more they want.



Its relaxed a bit, in fact they dropped the alcohol prices on the ship. It went from $3 to $1.50.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Its relaxed a bit, in fact they dropped the alcohol prices on the ship. It went from $3 to $1.50.



I wonder if that was because the beer would be going skunky and the write off losses would be too much.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I need no problem with drinking in uniform personally as long as you know your limits, its the 1% that's the problem.  We're you ever at a fleet week? The whole idea is going ashore in uniform, and having a few if so inclined.



Pretty sure the idea of fleet week is to show the public what the (US) Navy is about.  It isn't about "going ashore and having a few".  Especially not to the point of returning to the ship half naked.

Maybe it is the "1%" that ruin it for all but when there are a couple of high profile events, some of them international, maybe there is a problem and maybe it needs to be addressed.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I wonder if that was because the beer would be going skunky and the write off losses would be too much.



That was one reason, I also think it was because the ships funds weren't making any money.


----------



## Stoker

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Pretty sure the idea of fleet week is to show the public what the (US) Navy is about.  It isn't about "going ashore and having a few".  Especially not to the point of returning to the ship half naked.
> 
> Maybe it is the "1%" that ruin it for all but when there are a couple of high profile events, some of them international, maybe there is a problem and maybe it needs to be addressed.



Of course it is, and exposure to our US Navy partners. Its also about having fun and believe me going ashore and having a few or having a few bought for you is also a main part of it. As for high profile events one has to look to our US navy partners coming back to their ships half naked and worse.


----------



## Furniture

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, but if you need the Navy to let you drink in uniform at foreign ports to keep you happy, perhaps you need to reassess your priorities and perhaps you have bigger problems that may need to be addressed.
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with going in civies.  Drunk uniformed sailors aren't the image I'd want the public to remember.



When we were at San Diego fleet week we were not allowed ashore unless we were in TWL/3B. People in San Diego were excited to see so many military people in uniform all over and having a good time in their city, I imagine fleet week is the same in every city in that way.

In or out of uniform a problem drunk is an issue, so why punish everybody on the chance that the problem childern will live up to their nature.


----------



## daftandbarmy

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When we were at San Diego fleet week we were not allowed ashore unless we were in TWL/3B. People in San Diego were excited to see so many military people in uniform all over and having a good time in their city, I imagine fleet week is the same in every city in that way.
> 
> In or out of uniform a problem drunk is an issue, so why punish everybody on the chance that the problem childern will live up to their nature.



I have to admire the Navy for being able to do something like that with relatively little drama.

They used to let the Army do that 'drink in town in uniform' thing.... 

.... but the big sissies chickened out sometime after the rape of Badajoz....


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just my opinion, but if you need the Navy to let you drink in uniform at foreign ports to keep you happy, perhaps you need to reassess your priorities and perhaps you have bigger problems that may need to be addressed.
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with going in civies.  Drunk uniformed sailors aren't the image I'd want the public to remember.



Says the guy whose idea of deployment is anything less than a 4 start resort   RCAF, best union in the CAF. 

In all seriousness that is the only time, I mean Fleet Week, where you wanted to go ashore in uniform.  It was fun.  I got free seats at Yankees games, I never paid for food or drink... Lots of thank yous...it really was an amazing experience. 

I still don't know where you get the foundation in the thread for a statement like that though...

Whats the big deal about coming home with only my pants on ?  I wasn't hurt, neither was anyone else.  I made it back to ship before leave expiry... No issues with Police or any other folks.  So whats the issue ?  If you think thats bad, ever heard of the Norfolk Hamburgler ?


----------



## SupersonicMax

I spent time posted at a US Navy unit so I have an idea of what their traditions are.  Drinking in uniform outside the confines of the base was a big no-no.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Did you never do a Liberty port of call?  Anytime I've done a Fleet Week or seen them visit Halifax,  there was mucho drinking in uniform for both the Marines and Sailors.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I spent time posted at a US Navy unit so I have an idea of what their traditions are.  Drinking in uniform outside the confines of the base was a big no-no.



There is a big difference between fast jet (or aircrew) and the surface/sub-surface fleet in that regard.  I've worked with both from both Navy and Air Force side.  For the Surface/Subs folks, Fleet Week is pretty much an extended Remembrance Day piss-up.  

I wouldn't say that this is done to keep the sailors happy.  I'd say this is done so that cities show their support to the Navy and associated organizations.  HMCS Calgary wears Whites to the Stampede - it's the same sort of thing.


----------



## Stoker

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I spent time posted at a US Navy unit so I have an idea of what their traditions are.  Drinking in uniform outside the confines of the base was a big no-no.



Really? For certain events such as fleet week, the Portland rose fest , and special events such as the war of 1812 drinking was encouraged especially in uniform. Hell there was a open bar all you could drink as a thank you for the sailors, and all in uniform. The blue angels were even there and they were the biggest bags of crap.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I spent time posted at a US Navy unit so I have an idea of what their traditions are.  Drinking in uniform outside the confines of the base was a big no-no.



Context is everything, Max. Getting casually pissed in your USN whites on a week night in home port- not condoned.

Getting gooned at Fleet Week? That seems to be a whole other ball game to the USN....


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Context is everything, Max. Getting casually pissed in your USN whites on a week night in home port- not condoned.
> 
> Getting gooned at Fleet Week? That seems to be a whole other ball game to the USN....



Not everything is about drinking during these festivities but if you want to have a drink or many the US is not under the same restrictions as we are. The US as we are still under the "don't get into shit" rule.You get out of line you pay the consequences. I find our restrictions kill the fun for the kids, especially in regards to the uniform restrictions and alcohol policy.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Not everything is about drinking during these festivities but if you want to have a drink or many the US is not under the same restrictions as we are. The US as we are still under the "don't get into crap" rule.You get out of line you pay the consequences. I find our restrictions kill the fun for the kids, especially in regards to the uniform restrictions and alcohol policy.



If people want to have a drink, they should be allowed.  Getting trashed in another story.  We have QR&Os/CSD for a reason.

I drink all the time in uniform, usually at lunch when I feel like having a beer before going back to the office.  It's not illegal to drink alcohol so why does the CAF treat alcohol like it's some sort of capital crime?


----------



## mariomike

See also,

At the pub 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/92199.0
OP: "You're 30 seconds in side the door and are promptly chewed out in front of everyone by some guy in the CF."


----------



## Pusser

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> If people want to have a drink, they should be allowed.  Getting trashed in another story.  We have QR&Os/CSD for a reason.
> 
> I drink all the time in uniform, usually at lunch when I feel like having a beer before going back to the office.  It's not illegal to drink alcohol so why does the CAF treat alcohol like it's some sort of capital crime?



Actually, the CAF doesn't.  There may be some local policies at play in some locations, but there is no regulation prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in uniform.  There are a host of other regulations against being a jackass, but they're not necessarily uniform dependant.  No, there is nothing inherently wrong with having a drink in a public place in uniform, provided it is legal to have a drink there in the first place and that you don't do something stupid.


----------



## stoker dave

Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, the CAF doesn't.  There may be some local policies at play in some locations, but there is no regulation prohibiting the consumption of alcohol in uniform.  There are a host of other regulations against being a jackass, but they're not necessarily uniform dependant.  No, there is nothing inherently wrong with having a drink in a public place in uniform, provided it is legal to have a drink there in the first place and that you don't do something stupid.



Hi folks.  Long time lurker here.  Just got around to registering.  

I have registered explicitly for the purpose of responding to that comment above. 

Am a former MSEO.  I completed my training and contractual obligations, then left to work for an engineering company.  I have worked at various firms over the last 23 years (yes, it has been that long since I wore a uniform).

While there may be no rules against you having a beer at lunch, I will say that it makes you look ridiculous.  It shows you don't take your work seriously or your career seriously.  There are very, very few people I know (mostly engineers, engineering technicians and labourers) who would ever even consider having a beer at lunch.  Drinking is absolutely frowned upon by anyone whose job requires important decisions, operation of equipment or supporting operations.  At most work sites, drinking at lunch will get you fired.  

I have been to gatherings where there are, say, 100 people present (all senior engineering types).  All are drinking water or pop, except for four guys in uniform in the corner who are drinking beer.  They were the laughingstock of the meeting (but everyone was too polite to point this out).

So here's a lesson guys:  to be taken seriously, stop drinking at lunch.  It is not cool.  It is not generally a good idea.  It makes you look like an amateur.


----------



## mariomike

The post above is about non-CAF employers, so I will add mine.

No comment on the RCN "Conduct Policy and new Alcohol Policy" and traditions, as I never served in the RCN.



			
				stoker dave said:
			
		

> At most work sites, drinking at lunch will get you fired.



Drinking was a firing offence at my former work site. 

"No employee will report to work, consume while at work, have in their possession, or respond to a call while under the influence of any type of alcohol or drugs. 

No employee shall purchase, have in their possession or consume alcoholic beverages while in uniform."

The second sentence applied to conduct off-duty, if in uniform.


----------



## Pusser

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Hi folks.  Long time lurker here.  Just got around to registering.
> 
> I have registered explicitly for the purpose of responding to that comment above.
> 
> Am a former MSEO.  I completed my training and contractual obligations, then left to work for an engineering company.  I have worked at various firms over the last 23 years (yes, it has been that long since I wore a uniform).
> 
> While there may be no rules against you having a beer at lunch, I will say that it makes you look ridiculous.  It shows you don't take your work seriously or your career seriously.  There are very, very few people I know (mostly engineers, engineering technicians and labourers) who would ever even consider having a beer at lunch.  Drinking is absolutely frowned upon by anyone whose job requires important decisions, operation of equipment or supporting operations.  At most work sites, drinking at lunch will get you fired.
> 
> I have been to gatherings where there are, say, 100 people present (all senior engineering types).  All are drinking water or pop, except for four guys in uniform in the corner who are drinking beer.  They were the laughingstock of the meeting (but everyone was too polite to point this out).
> 
> So here's a lesson guys:  to be taken seriously, stop drinking at lunch.  It is not cool.  It is not generally a good idea.  It makes you look like an amateur.



Little judgemental don't you think?  Having a drink makes you a laughing stock?  Really?  I can understand excessive drinking being a problem, but having a drink at lunch is not inherently bad.  Consumption does not equal drunk or unable to think clearly.  If the civilian engineering world is really that judgemental today, then it has really changed a lot.  There was a time when every executive had a stocked bar in their office.


----------



## mariomike

Pusser said:
			
		

> There was a time when every executive had a stocked bar in their office.


----------



## NavalMoose

stoker dave, here's a lesson for you...if you want to be taken seriously, don't preach to professionals in an organization where it seems you did the minimum required, got some paid education, saw a few places and then left.  Well done to you if things worked out ok for you, but the condescending tone is not necessary.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some work sites don’t let drink at all, some allow a certain amount at times, generally after hours. When your work site is also your home for 6 months, then it’s a bit more complicated. Generally allowing a certain amount at specified times is way better than trying to ban it. Then you get people doing stuff like crack, so their system is “clean” for the urine test. Funny enough if you treat people like adults and intervene with good leadership with the people that can’t adult, then it’s way better than outright bans. There are times and places for outright bans, but far to many companies default to it because it’s easier than thinking, planning and having good leaders/supervisors.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Little judgemental don't you think?  Having a drink makes you a laughing stock?  Really?  I can understand excessive drinking being a problem, but having a drink at lunch is not inherently bad.



I'm inclined to somewhat agree with Stoker Dave.  No issues with grabbing a drink for lunch but I've found in in the CAF people will seem to almost have to make a showing of them drinking at social events.  Like it's bragging rights to have a table full of empties ordering 4 beer at a time and everyone around knows they're in the military.  Weddings and social evens with mil pers and civilians mixed lead to pretty good examples of this.

I'll draw on my non-existent psychology degree and say we, the CAF, cause this by making a huge deal of soldiers being dry then rewarding them with alcohol. So when adults in the military have an opportunity to drink at an event they jump in with both feet.


----------



## Stoker

Back in the day (early 90's) we used to have a canteen at DC DIV and at lunch hour buy a couple of beers and go fight fires. Today, I would say everything in moderation, if I was to go out at lunch and have a beer it shouldn't be a problem. It all depends what I have to do afterwards in regards to my duties.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have personally witnessed German workers have a beer on lunch break, then continue on the job site.

So, it kind of depends on the culture. Alcohol is neither inherently good nor bad.


----------



## mariomike

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have personally witnessed German workers have a beer on lunch break, then continue on the job site.
> 
> So, it kind of depends on the culture. Alcohol is neither inherently good nor bad.



I knew a guy who used to open an airline bottle of vodka at 0900. He mixed it with orange juice and enjoyed it as a breakfast beverage.


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have personally witnessed German workers have a beer on lunch break, then continue on the job site.
> 
> So, it kind of depends on the culture. Alcohol is neither inherently good nor bad.



Whole different culture.  You get a beer with your meals in German Hospitals.  While we had a CFE, the German CE workers had it right in their contracts that they could have a beer with their meal and coffee breaks.  You actually seldom saw any really drunk Germans anywhere; except on the day when they had finished their Compulsory Service in the Bundeswehr  [cheers]

I think many of our problems actually date back to the landing of the Puritans at Plymouth Rock and then the arrival later of religious sects that demonized alcohol as they spread throughout North America.  Not even the French and Scottish influences could stop their ideals.  Europe, Central and South America, etc. never saw anything like the years of Prohibition that North America saw.

Looks like we have the 'Tea Toddlers" now in power and instead of breeding adults educated in the use of alcohol, they are treating everyone as a child who needs to be saved from sin.

History can be very cyclic if we don't learn from it.


----------



## Pusser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Back in the day (early 90's) we used to have a canteen at DC DIV and at lunch hour buy a couple of beers and go fight fires. Today, I would say everything in moderation, if I was to go out at lunch and have a beer it shouldn't be a problem. It all depends what I have to do afterwards in regards to my duties.



I always thought it was odd back in the 80s/90s that the West Coast DC School banned alcohol at lunch and even went so far as to prohibit folks from imbibing at any of the numerous drinking establishments on the Old Island Highway.  Yet, the East Coast DC School sold beer in the canteen. :nod:


----------



## Navy_Pete

stoker dave said:
			
		

> Hi folks.  Long time lurker here.  Just got around to registering.
> 
> I have registered explicitly for the purpose of responding to that comment above.
> 
> Am a former MSEO.  I completed my training and contractual obligations, then left to work for an engineering company.  I have worked at various firms over the last 23 years (yes, it has been that long since I wore a uniform).
> 
> While there may be no rules against you having a beer at lunch, I will say that it makes you look ridiculous.  It shows you don't take your work seriously or your career seriously.  There are very, very few people I know (mostly engineers, engineering technicians and labourers) who would ever even consider having a beer at lunch.  Drinking is absolutely frowned upon by anyone whose job requires important decisions, operation of equipment or supporting operations.  At most work sites, drinking at lunch will get you fired.
> 
> I have been to gatherings where there are, say, 100 people present (all senior engineering types).  All are drinking water or pop, except for four guys in uniform in the corner who are drinking beer.  They were the laughingstock of the meeting (but everyone was too polite to point this out).
> 
> So here's a lesson guys:  to be taken seriously, stop drinking at lunch.  It is not cool.  It is not generally a good idea.  It makes you look like an amateur.



Depends what you are doing in the CAF; if you show up to afternoon meetings after having a few beers at lunch, people will notice. Some units do have specific alcohol policies but most don't as you are expected to be *an adult*. It's a crazy concept.

Also, in the majority of the conferences, professional society meetings, defence exhibits etc all the actual networking and sidebars happens over coffee during the day and over beer/wine afterwards.

TL;DR you can have a beer and be professional if you understand the circumstances, don't be a judgemental dink now that you left the mob.


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> TL;DR you can have a beer and be professional if you understand the circumstances, don't be a judgemental dink now that you left the mob.



Agreed on all counts.  

Being self-righteous, judgemental, or just plain off the wall offensive and treating others like children only makes for the likelihood of them beginning to act like children.  This just reinforces the opinion that the "PURITAN" culture we see in North America, that is not seen in other countries, is what drives some peoples views on alcohol.  Instead of 'educating' they find it much easier to 'condemn'.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I find it ironic that while the CAF has policies to discourage abuse of alcohol, it's own internal policies and business practices seems to drive a lot of people to want to abuse alcohol to stay sane.

Things like spending weeks to get travel approval for Canada mandated meetings with contractors, the 3,765,831 approval gates within projects, numerous reporting requirements of the same information in different formats to multiple organizations (that generally ignore it anyway), consensus building amongst 'key stakeholders' to get any decisions made (only to have the final decision to delay making a decision) and the numerous hurdles you need to clear to get things done all make relaxing once in a while necessary to maintain sanity, and sometimes that means you have a beer while talking with people that is about something other than the ridiculous bureaucracy that you fight every single day (you can only spend so much time in the gym).

I'm more impressed things ever get done within our procurement / PM system than disappointed at the failures of large complex programs, given the ludicrous limitations and restrictions people have to fight through.  It also makes conspiracy theories laughable as there is no way any group larger than about 12-15 people can ever be that coordinated to pull anything big off in secret, let alone have 'the government' plan major crises to further some sneaky agenda.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:

I'm shocked to have been able to accomplish what I have so far.  Red tape city.  No wonder we want a drink at times...


----------



## Steve_D

During my first stint in the CAF in the early 90's, I was an Air Force Transportation Officer. This was before email (actually, before we even really had computers). Going to the Officer's Mess for lunch and having a beer (and I mean just one) and having discussions with fellow officers more often than not lead to the resolution of issues that would have taken forever with memos, minute sheets and thousand milers. No one got "drunk". You went back to the office and closed the loop on those issues that got resolved by having a good 'face to face' with someone over said beer.

Alcohol is not the issue. It is the consumers who can not control themselves that are.


----------



## Pusser

NavyPhoenix said:
			
		

> During my first stint in the CAF in the early 90's, I was an Air Force Transportation Officer. This was before email (actually, before we even really had computers). Going to the Officer's Mess for lunch and having a beer (and I mean just one) and having discussions with fellow officers more often than not lead to the resolution of issues that would have taken forever with memos, minute sheets and thousand milers. No one got "drunk". You went back to the office and closed the loop on those issues that got resolved by having a good 'face to face' with someone over said beer.
> 
> Alcohol is not the issue. It is the consumers who can not control themselves that are.



Tangent:  the sad part is that email has not made this easier.  In fact, it has made it more complex.  In the old days, a single file folder circulated with everything on the subject contained inside (memos with minutes attached) so a complete understanding could be had by simply reading the whole file.  Nowadays, emails circulate and can be split into many strings with multiple attachments and addressees being added and removed (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not), with no real control.  It can get very confusing, to the point, where alcohol becomes an actual solution...


----------

