# Daily wear - Work Dress vs Operational dress [Split from Sleeves up]



## FSTO (31 Jul 2019)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Sleeves rolled up or down, members choice while in *office setting*.  This was released decades ago via some sort of direction (official or otherwise).   Sleeves don’t roll up on zoom suits, so I guess I’m just happy with the two way zipper.



Or you just wear No 3's in the office setting and there is no rolled sleeves issue (during the summer).


----------



## cld617 (31 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Or you just wear No 3's in the office setting and there is no rolled sleeves issue (during the summer).



If dress of the day is service dress, why should mbrs be required to wear something above that to be comfortable? Roadblock for the sake of it.


----------



## FSTO (31 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> More to the point, if dress of the day is service dress, members aren't actually authorized to wear something "above" that to be comfortable. That's the point of dress of the day, isn't it? To mandate what the member is required to be wearing on a daily basis?
> 
> Anyways, this whole entire "no rolling sleeves at all" thing to me seems to be a decision that is just emblematic of what I consider to be the worst traits of the Army. Valuing appearances and conformity over everything else, and not giving a hoot about the comfort or well being of the people under your command. I just feel sorry for the Air Force folks who got wrapped up in this crap just because the rules for wearing CADPAT got delegated down to the commander of the Army.



Pretty happy that the new Navy Combat Dress has the ability to roll the sleeves up!  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Jul 2019)

If we are smoking dope, like the Taliban, and wearing beards, like the Taliban, why don't we adopt their national dress during the summer?


----------



## Remius (31 Jul 2019)

The CAF relaxes grooming standards, allows pony tails, gets with the times about recreational drug use and boots but somehow the CoC gets branded as not caring about their people.

In the PS there are literally thousands of people who haven't had an accurate pay for five years, whose financial futures are ruined and we whine about beard length and sleeves.  FML.


----------



## Remius (31 Jul 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Treat people like adults and they will behave like adults.  Treat them like kids and you got yourself a pre-K daycare...



The CAF is probably the largest professional organisation that holds hands as much as they do with their pers.   Many times when you try to treat them as adults they still want their hands held.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The CAF military is probably the largest professional organisation that holds hands as much as they do with their pers.



We're up there, but not at US military standards of hand-holding.  This is the organization that finally dropped the requirement to wear reflective belts while on PT in daylight this year.

https://www.stripes.com/news/army/army-secretary-pt-belts-aren-t-needed-in-daylight-1.564178


----------



## mariomike (31 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This is the organization that finally dropped the requirement to wear reflective belts while on PT in daylight this year.



Some funny stories about reflective belts.  
https://www.duffelblog.com/tag/reflective-belt/


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Some funny stories about reflective belts.
> https://www.duffelblog.com/tag/reflective-belt/



You don't even need to quote Duffelblog.  I knew it had reached peak level ridiculousness when a) people had to wear them inside the very-well-lit gym, and b) some units had colour-coded belts for officers, SNCOs, etc and I even saw one with the rank pins on them.  

This was all in KAF or Kuwait.


----------



## SupersonicMax (31 Jul 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The CAF is probably the largest professional organisation that holds hands as much as they do with their pers.   Many times when you try to treat them as adults they still want their hands held.



That’s because people have been spoon-fed and their hands held from the time they joined.  This issue is rooted deeply in our culture and it needs to change.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Treat people like adults and they will behave like adults.  Treat them like kids and you got yourself a pre-K daycare...



So the CoC needs to inform their people about why this and many other decisions have been taken. IF the reasons are sound most will go with the program. 

BUT there will always be the barracks room lawyers.....


----------



## mariomike (31 Jul 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> That’s because people have been spoon-fed and their hands held from the time they joined.



Judging from some of the Recruiting threads, maybe even before they joined.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Judging from some of the Recruiting threads, maybe even before they joined.



As far as I know the standards have been written so a person of average intelligence can reasonably comprehend and comply.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jul 2019)

If you work day to day in Canada in an office setting, then there's no reason to wear the most costly uniform (operational dress) day to day, other than the laziness of members who don't want to iron their clothes or polish their shoes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Eh, you're supposed to be. As per the dress instructions (Chapt Annex D Para 2) , specifications on how to wear CADPAT for all CAF members was devolved down to the Commander CA. Same deal for people who wear flight suits, even if they're working for an organization that doesn't fall under the RCAF, they still follow the rules laid out for flight suits by the commander of the RCAF.



There is a CADO that directs our dress in 1 Cdn Air Div, plus I have Wing and Sqn dress instructions.  I don't concern myself too much with anything coming from the Army; there's enough direction as it is.

There's lot of direction in CFP 265 that gets ignored...by all ranks, and most of those who should be setting a positive example.  

Example 1  

Example 2

I could go on with examples from our social media pages...

Dress regulations - it's a freakin' uniform.  If there was no direction on how it shall be worn, well imagine the shit-show it would be then.  There are times they will be relaxed, and times they will be (and need to be) enforced.  

The CAF is becoming a whiny bunch of spoiled kids.  I don't want to do drill and parades  :'(, I don't want to dress how I'm told  :'(, I don't want to shave my neck and cheeks  :'(.  Honest to fuckin' jesus.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Example 2



I don't see what's wrong with this one?  If it's because the Sgt's CD isn't mounted properly, it's because he just got it awarded.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I don't see what's wrong with this one?  If it's because the Sgt's CD isn't mounted properly, it's because he just got it awarded.



Take a closer look at the Sgt.

- the Command Badge is not centered properly on the breast pocket, IAW 265 (this one is common in the RCAF);
- the tie knot is the shits.  

NCOs will set the example for subordinates;  sometimes it's a bad example...

CFP 265, Ch 3, Sect 5, Para 4.


> Command Badges. Subject to the approval of each commander, metal and enamel commandbadges of approved design shall be worn on the service dress jacket as indicated in Figure 3-5-1.



It's not the fact that command badges, as an example,  are wrong that concerns me, honestly; it's more the mentality of "so what?" that does.


----------



## BDTyre (31 Jul 2019)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Gotcha, thanks for the info EITS. So depending on which version Caspar shirt they have, the member can choose to roll their sleeves or not. Kinda using common sense.



Apparently it dictates what belt they can wear too...

CADO Vol 1, 1-006 OPERATIONAL DRESS   (latest version)

CANADIAN PATTERN LIGHT WEIGHT COMBAT CLOTHING

General

13. LWCC shall be worn as follows:

e. the pants shall be secured with an approved belt;


ENHANCED COMBAT UNIFORM

General

17. ECU clothing shall be worn as indicated:

f. the pants shall be secured with a belt; and


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Apparently it dictates what belt they can wear too...



:stirpot:


----------



## Throwaway987 (31 Jul 2019)

The problem with DEU for office wear is that the shoes require constant upkeep. I’ve never worn shoes that had a layer of polish that could be damaged through normal wear before. Do people normally have a separate set of oxfords for parades and another set of non-polished shoes for routine office wear?

It feels like a massive systemic failure to buy shoes that require so much institutional manpower to maintain. Could we just make the patent ones standard and save a lot of man hours?


----------



## BDTyre (31 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> :stirpot:



You know there's some RSM out there telling his troops what sort of belts he'd like to see with CADPAT...


----------



## BDTyre (31 Jul 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> The problem with DEU for office wear is that the shoes require constant upkeep. I’ve never worn shoes that had a layer of polish that could be damaged through normal wear before. Do people normally have a separate set of oxfords for parades and another set of non-polished shoes for routine office wear?
> 
> It feels like a massive systemic failure to buy shoes that require so much institutional manpower to maintain. Could we just make the patent ones standard and save a lot of man hours?



I've noticed the oxfords over the last several years (since the introduction of the new sole and fleece insole) have also had a coating on them that holds a shine well, but once you actually walk in the shoe it starts to separate and peel off, taking your shine with it and the leather underneath needs more effort than the coating. So for some time you're left with patchy looking shoes that don't polish quite right.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jul 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> It feels like a massive systemic failure to buy shoes that require so much institutional manpower to maintain. Could we just make the patent ones standard and save a lot of man hours?



The Aussies did have patent leather shoes issued, and their complaint was that once they got scratched or scuffed, that was it - nothing could bring them back.  Unrelated, but hilarious, their soles were only glued on so in the Aus heat, they would peel off as you stepped off on parade.

They have these instead now - RM Williams Craftsman boots.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> You know there's some RSM out there telling his troops what sort of belts he'd like to see with CADPAT...



We don't have a lot of RSMs in the RCAF... ;D

8 bucks a piece, lasts me about a decade or so, good to go with CADPAT or flying suit.  I bought a replacement that is a little better than the issued brown one on Ebay for when I need to wear tan stuff.

https://www.canex.ca/military-combat-belt-s-m.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I've noticed the oxfords over the last several years (since the introduction of the new sole and fleece insole) have also had a coating on them that holds a shine well, but once you actually walk in the shoe it starts to separate and peel off, taking your shine with it and the leather underneath needs more effort than the coating. So for some time you're left with patchy looking shoes that don't polish quite right.



Same as the issued ankle boots, the polish doesn't bond to the leather quite right.  I was told there is a wax coating/treatment applied to the leather, and to really get a good shine that holds well, you need to basically sand/strip the leather and then start the polish.  I've got better things to do with my time...


----------



## Throwaway987 (31 Jul 2019)

The boots you posted seem pretty reasonable. Just wipe off the dust and dirt and you’re good to go.   The intent being to obtain a reasonable appearance with the minimal amount of effort/time required. i.e. make it easier for the average CAF member to maximize their dress and deportment 

I’ve got fairly nice Geox ones that are shiny black and I’ve never had to polish them in years. Just take them out of the travel bag and they’re good to go. I’m always slightly frustrated/disappointed with the CAF with wasting my time whenever I have to wear my oxfords. What kind of shoe requires transport in an ornate box to maintain their appearance?!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

I was on course in Halifax recently;  noticed more people seem to be going towards the patent leather oxfords for 3B.  Seems like a good option for anyone who isn't keen on the polish upkeep gig.


----------



## cld617 (31 Jul 2019)

Interesting


----------



## Infanteer (31 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was on course in Halifax recently;  noticed more people seem to be going towards the patent leather oxfords for 3B.  Seems like a good option for anyone who isn't keen on the polish upkeep gig.



Work smart, not hard.  Why work for 40 minutes for a descent shine when you can do 4 minutes for a great one?


----------



## Navy_Pete (31 Jul 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> Edit: Navy Pete’s mentioned working in just a T shirt during real work but this tunic-off situation isn’t always possible/practical. It’s like ordering people to wear the ICE jacket and wondering why there’s resentment and difficulty enforcing this regulation.



It's not terribly unusual to go with tshirts in the Navy side when you are doing something when it's this hot and you are outside working.  You always have your second layer with you (the NCD jacket) so pretty easy to also carry the blue shirt.  Not sure if that will stay the same with the new NCDs but can't see why that wouldn't work  the same. Maybe a bit easier when you are in a self contained unit that's it's own real estate, but if you don't show common sense, make sure the sailors are in a comfortable order of dress, and make sure folks have sun screen, water, whatever, that's normally when you feel the wrath of Command for not looking after your people.

ps what is the ICE jacket?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (31 Jul 2019)

Is there any leeway given in the Army dress orders, like we have in 1 Div for hot Wx ops?  Divs, Bdes, Regiments etc can establish their unit policy for Hot Wx Ops?



> under certain conditions and where practical (i.e. extreme heat), the LWCC/ECU shirt may be removed in accordance with local Wing/Unit policy. Local Wings/Units should establish policy governing when and where the LWCC shirt may be removed.



I only wear 2 piece flight suits; if the office is hot, I am allowed to take off my flight shirt and move around Sqn spaces.  Hot Wx flying ops;  the skipper can authorize deviation from the normal "dual layer shall be worn", and, again I can go down to just a t-shirt (with the common sense expectation my jacket, shirt, gloves come with me if I'm swapping seats or something).



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ps what is the ICE jacket?



ICE jacket is the (IIRC used to be OD, CADPAT now) combo of combat jacket/wind pants & parka/bib-overalls that has been out for the past decade + now for Army/AF types.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/96742839@N08/16539432889


----------



## BeyondTheNow (31 Jul 2019)

I’m not a Millennial and it was silly for anyone to even bring that element into this at any point.

Millennials aren’t the only ones who request and/or would like to see certain policies relaxed when the circumstance is relevant.

Adding more to the mix is the fact that leadership isn’t in consensus across the board, even those in high-profile, combat positions (pictures are worth a thousand words), so it’s hardly acceptable to come down on certain persons and/or a group of persons for wanting to be a tad more “comfortable” on occasion, especially when the humidex is reaching 40 by 1000 when they are fully aware that their comfort level (or lack thereof) is entirely in the hands of who’s calling the shots at their specific location. 

Time and a place. Yes, there are absolutely instances where it’s necessary to ‘suck it up, buttercup’ and deal with it—whatever it is—Do what you’re told, no questions. That’s what you signed up for. But in the quiet, informal, tedious portions of duty, especially if under hot sun, or much higher-than-normal temps, treating one’s soldiers with just a tad of consideration can go a long way.

My CoC (which is RegF Army) have been quite reasonable. On the pde square, sleeves down always. Outside, cadpat shirt off and hat. Anywhere indoors with no AC, sleeves up and/or cadpat shirt off, depending.

That little bit of flexibility has really helped morale. (And despite what some may believe, positive morale is important *when the opportunity for boosting it a little bit exists.*) It leads to greater efficiency in job performance, improved cooperation amongst colleagues and heightened overall respect for superiors...thus, their jobs become slightly easier. And that’s not a bad thing. (‘Pretty common rule-of-thumb for any leadership role, anywhere—keep your subs happy and your job is going to be a hell of a lot easier.) 

Again, yes. This is the military. There’s going to be many times where gripes and complaints, well, no one cares. Also, no one cares about one’s comfort level during certain aspects either. But a little discernment about when to implement the approach of ‘shut yer cake-holes, these are the rules and you’ll do what yer damn well told’ and when not to is entirely necessary.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jul 2019)

EITS:

When I was at Minto I authorized my RSS staff to work in TShirts during the hot months and the issue fleece in the colder months. 
It worked. 
Common sense prevailed. I think.


----------



## Throwaway987 (31 Jul 2019)

I appreciate your passionate response and I’ll respectfully respond from my point of view.

My own frustrations and concerns come from seeing an archaic institution failing to adapt to a changing generational mindset. We risk losing the future best and brightest, the ones who have the capability to leave, and being left with an increasing proportion of people who have no where better to go.

I believe that the changing demographics mean that “why” will become an increasing factor in ensuring compliance with orders and directive (in non-combat situations). I think of the times when I have personally had internal thoughts about a questionable order but knowing why soothed almost any hardship.

In your example of NBC training, my counterpoint is that the purpose of being uncomfortable in that dress is that it serves as training for future operations. It’s an easy sell and the “why” is reasonable. I do not believe that sleeves always rolled down in garrison is a comparable situation and it does not fulfil the “why” in the same obvious manner. In combat or deployed situation, the very context of the environment provides the “why” and there is mutual innate understanding that questioning is inappropriate.

In the second example of following orders, I believe that it is also a red herring. I am not suggesting that I personally contravene these orders. On the contrary, I’m relatively anal retentive person and I struggle with trying to convince others to follow all our policies in a world of limited time and resources.  I am merely providing an explanation for why, on a population level, we are struggling to implement and enforce this order. Why are there LCols in conflict with a CWO over sleeves? Why are there reports of an Vandoo RSM on reddit stating the opposite of the CCA’s directives? 

I recall from a management seminar that we should identify problems as systemic issues versus individual issues. I view the sleeve issues as a systemic one as it causes many reasonable individuals to run into the same issue time and time again. Should all these senior leaders all report to the release section as you suggest? Or could they be reasonable people trying to work with an unreasonable policy?

I disagree with your assessment on the slippery slope theory. I do not believe that questioning an impractical order means that you are automatically blinded to all sense of reason and judgement with more practical orders. Can it be possible that we’re talking about two different groups of people? Can people who lack attention to detail simply lack attention to detail and need to be rehabilitated or removed from the CAF?


----------



## gcclarke (1 Aug 2019)

The usual refrain of "orders are orders" might be true, but it's not without consequences. You can issue a stupid order and expect it to be followed, but in doing so you undermine the trust your personnel have in your leadership, and you increase the likelihood that those personnel are just going to say "fuck it, I've had enough of this stupid BS, I'm going to leave and get a nice cushy civvy job. 

If one person thinks an order is stupid, that's probably that person's problem. If  everyone with less time in than Christ thinks an order is stupid, that's the person who issued the order's problem. Just because someone has the legal authority to issue an order doesn't make that order "right" from either a moral perspective, or from the perspective of "is this a good idea"? That's what I'm seeing far too often: people issuing orders seemingly without bothering to consider the consequences of their actions, the impact that it will have upon the morale of their subordinates and the follow-on impact on retention and thus operational effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces. 

Because, let's face it, no one really wants to continue working for an organization which continually comes up with really stupid rules that you have to follow that make no sense. No one wants to continue working for an organization that proves time and time again that they're deaf to the concerns of the people who have to follow said orders. 

Far too many times when discussing issues like this, people always fall back on the tried and true "Orders are orders" and "If you don't like it get out", with the problem being that we're in the midst of a retention crisis, and far too many people are getting out, in no small part because they're tired of dealing with petty BS like this. At that point, it's not the member who's VRing's problem, it's the CAF's problem.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> If  everyone with less time in than Christ thinks an order is stupid,



So here are some Roman Legionnaires on Hadrian's Wall..........bitching about the sleeve policy.  Nothing new here folks.


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> , and you increase the likelihood that those personnel are just going to say "fuck it, I've had enough of this stupid BS, I'm going to leave and get a nice cushy civvy job.



Wasn't always cushy. I remember when our police wore long-sleeved shirts and neck ties all summer long.    

Little fans on the dashboard for air-conditioning.


----------



## gcclarke (1 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Wasn't always cushy. I remember when our police wore long-sleeved shirts and neck ties all summer long.
> 
> Little fans on the dashboard for air-conditioning.



I would assume that most people who are tired of dealing with uniforms would probably get out and not get another job that has a uniform. "Business Casual" is rather prevalent and extremely flexible.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I would assume that most people who are tired of dealing with uniforms would probably get out and not get another job that has a uniform.


I suspect that anyone getting out because dress regs proved too overwhelming will continue to bitch about their McDonalds or Walmart uniforms.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Aug 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So here are some Roman Legionnaires on Hadrian's Wall..........bitching about the sleeve policy.  Nothing new here folks.



Actually, I think the one guy is asking why his unit doesn't get LDA....


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Aug 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So here are some Roman Legionnaires on Hadrian's Wall..........bitching about the sleeve policy.  Nothing new here folks.



One of them might be me.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Aug 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So here are some Roman Legionnaires on Hadrian's Wall..........bitching about the sleeve policy.  Nothing new here folks.


"Why do we always lead off with the left when we march?  Why not the right?  I tell you, there's something _*sinister*_ about leading off with the left foot..."


----------



## dimsum (1 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I would assume that most people who are tired of dealing with uniforms would probably get out and not get another job that has a uniform. "Business Casual" is rather prevalent and extremely flexible.



At risk of starting a tangent, my civie friends would argue otherwise.  Of course it depends on what you're doing, but it's basically some form of button-down shirt with/without tie, maybe polo, and slacks or at worst, nice jeans and shoes in an office environment.  This sounds pretty petty, but they also pay for it and don't have any subsidies (or straight up free clothes).  

This comes up more than I'd care to admit with them, but they actually envy us because we don't have to think about what we have to wear in the morning, whether it looks too much like what was worn already this week (it's a thing apparently), what shoes match what pants/belt/shirt, etc.

I agree with you in the big picture, but if you don't like something that much, send it through the Dress Committee and try to change it.


----------



## brihard (1 Aug 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Why do we always lead off with the left when we march?  Why not the right?  I tell you, there's something _*sinister*_ about leading off with the left foot..."



This reply didn’t get nearly the love it deserved. Well played, sir. Well played.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Aug 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> At risk of starting a tangent, my civie friends would argue otherwise.  Of course it depends on what you're doing, but it's basically some form of button-down shirt with/without tie, maybe polo, and slacks or at worst, nice jeans and shoes in an office environment.  This sounds pretty petty, but they also pay for it and don't have any subsidies (or straight up free clothes).
> 
> This comes up more than I'd care to admit with them, but they actually envy us because we don't have to think about what we have to wear in the morning, whether it looks too much like what was worn already this week (it's a thing apparently), what shoes match what pants/belt/shirt, etc.



Can confirm from jobs pre-mob; lot more thought is required in what to get dressed in. Also can get pretty expensive; figure probably spent about $1k on a few pairs of pants, a selection of shirts, jacket, shoes and a few belts, and probably another $100+ every quarter or so as things wore out.  That was 20 years ago, so probably more now. And that was low level, so wasn't wearing anything fancy.  Know people that budget $5k (or more) per year for daily office wear, and can be much higher if you aren't wearing off the rack suits.

I regularly send in comments to logistik about the tailoring when they change the sizes, but will never complain about getting a free uniform. Not a big fashion maven, so really appreciate being able to only have to figure out what the weather is doing to see if I want to wear a short or long sleeve shirt when I'm pulling on the DEUs.

Love the Roman off shoot but can't figure out anything clever. They probably also complained about the hobnail sandals and the lack of proper cold weather gear too!


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Can confirm from jobs pre-mob; lot more thought is required in what to get dressed in. Also can get pretty expensive; figure probably spent about $1k on a few pairs of pants, a selection of shirts, jacket, shoes and a few belts, and probably another $100+ every quarter or so as things wore out.  That was 20 years ago, so probably more now. And that was low level, so wasn't wearing anything fancy.  Know people that budget $5k (or more) per year for daily office wear, and can be much higher if you aren't wearing off the rack suits.



I've put my faith in Moore's, recently. I got four suits for under $1000, and they even took my old suits as part trade. The new fabrics are excellent, kind of like a wool/spandex blend, and they do a great tailoring job.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Aug 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> My own frustrations and concerns come from seeing an archaic institution failing to adapt to a changing generational mindset.



How much adapting is "too much"?  I think the CAF is adapting, based on 'where it was 30 years ago' when I joined to today.  I'd rather see the focus on better career management practices, a personnel evaluation system that rewards people more for the core job skills than secondary duties and community service, the ability for people to move from Reg to Res, Res to Reg quicker, etc.  Those are the issues I'd rather see our senior leadership bring to the CDS, AFC, etc.  Sleeves?  That topic won't really improve my QOL any.  



> We risk losing the future best and brightest, the ones who have the capability to leave, and being left with an increasing proportion of people who have no where better to go.



I've heard this argument before about the 'best and brightest'.  I know a few folks in my trade that had bright futures that left;  it was not over buttons and bows, it was more about issues like I mentioned in the line above.  



> I recall from a management seminar that we should identify problems as systemic issues versus individual issues. I view the sleeve issues as a systemic one as it causes many reasonable individuals to run into the same issue time and time again. Should all these senior leaders all report to the release section as you suggest? Or could they be reasonable people trying to work with an unreasonable policy?



I hope most people in leadership positions will pass on their concerns to their superiors, and then carry on with the job.  Is this sleeves down issue really THAT big of a deal for Army folks?  Because it's been that way in the RCAF for...well as long as I've been in flying jammies.  Also from CADO, Vol 1, 1-006 Operational Dress:

*Flying Clothing/Coveralls:  Sleeves shall neither be rolled nor pushed up.*



> I disagree with your assessment on the slippery slope theory. I do not believe that questioning an impractical order means that you are automatically blinded to all sense of reason and judgement with more practical orders. Can it be possible that we’re talking about two different groups of people? Can people who lack attention to detail simply lack attention to detail and need to be rehabilitated or removed from the CAF?



Slippery slope - let's say on a LRP crew, 2 of the Officers have their sleeves pushed up in the crew room.  Cpl Bloggins arrives on Sqn, sees that and says "hey, cool we can do that".  Goes walking around like that, and the SCWO, or WCWO etc see him/her.  What defence does the Cpl have?  "Well, the Officers are doing it".  

Lead by example.  

The Sqn's on the operational side of our Wing requested permission to wear ballcaps between hangers/buildings to the WCOMD.  It was reviewed and denied.  A few weeks later, there I am in Stadacona...sailors wearing ballcaps in NCDs all over the place.  I don't have to like it, it doesn't have to make sense to me...and I wore my wedge around.  I wear my wedge from my car to the 
breezeway, and then put my ball hat on.  



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> if you don't like something that much, send it through the Dress Committee and try to change it.



This.

I've had more than my fair share to say in this thread, I'll try to bow out at this point.  I'm curious, though, if the Army dress reg's allow for 'unit level' policy like the RCAF for hot Wx ops.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Aug 2019)

Do we have a retention problem?  As far as I know, our attrition rate is within the desired range of 6.5 to 10%, and likely not far off the long term statistical norms of approximately 7%.  If anyone has more recent figures that would be helpful.


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 Aug 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Do we have a retention problem?  As far as I know, our attrition rate is within the desired range of 6.5 to 10%, and likely not far off the long term statistical norms of approximately 7%.  If anyone has more recent figures that would be helpful.



Some trades are harder hit than others...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Aug 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Some trades are harder hit than others...



Acknowledged, and that is a tougher nut to crack to be sure.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Aug 2019)

Some problems lie with organizations failing to structure their training systems to meet that attrition rate, or to account for growth in occupations.

HR planning needs to be an integral part of force development, and not an afterthought that, magically, hundreds of trained and experienced sailors, soldiers and aviators will appear to man the new equipment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Aug 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Some problems lie with organizations failing to structure their training systems to meet that attrition rate, or to account for growth in occupations.
> 
> HR planning needs to be an integral part of force development, and not an afterthought that, magically, hundreds of trained and experienced sailors, soldiers and aviators will appear to man   person the new equipment.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Aug 2019)

From a news article last year:

"At the end of fiscal 2018, the forces were losing about 4.1 per cent of its members — both regular and reserve — a year. In fiscal 2017, the attrition rate spiked to 7.9 per cent. That spike, according to the briefing note prepared for Sajjan was a result of the clearing of a backlog of medical releases." https://globalnews.ca/news/4450927/canada-armed-forces-diversity-goals-digital-recruiting/

What the CAF doesn't have, to my knowledge, is an 'employee engagement survey' that gives quantifiable data on employee satisfaction levels related to various workplace factors. As a result, like in this thread and others, alot of what gets shared around is individually generated impressions.

In God we trust, all other bring data... and that data should be used to drive enterprise wide HR and other policy development. We can't do that yet for things like 'rolled up sleeves' policies etc. IIRC

Employee Surveys Are Still One of the Best Ways to Measure Engagement

https://hbr.org/2018/03/employee-surveys-are-still-one-of-the-best-ways-to-measure-engagement


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Aug 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> From a news article last year:
> 
> "At the end of fiscal 2018, the forces were losing about 4.1 per cent of its members — both regular and reserve — a year. In fiscal 2017, the attrition rate spiked to 7.9 per cent. That spike, according to the briefing note prepared for Sajjan was a result of the clearing of a backlog of medical releases." https://globalnews.ca/news/4450927/canada-armed-forces-diversity-goals-digital-recruiting/



Those are actually low numbers, which is not necessarily the same as good numbers.  We need a certain amount of turnover.  Our system is designed around it.



> What the CAF doesn't have, to my knowledge, is an 'employee engagement survey' that gives quantifiable data on employee satisfaction levels related to various workplace factors. As a result, like in this thread and others, alot of what gets shared around is individually generated impressions.
> 
> In God we trust, all other bring data... and that data should be used to drive enterprise wide HR and other policy development. We can't do that yet for things like 'rolled up sleeves' policies etc. IIRC
> 
> ...



We have plenty of surveys.  All CAF members have been invited on numerous occasions to take part in them.  Automatically deleting all messages from higher or "CAF Spam" is a fine way to disenfranchise oneself, and to skew the data.


----------



## BDTyre (1 Aug 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What the CAF doesn't have, to my knowledge, is an 'employee engagement survey' that gives quantifiable data on employee satisfaction levels related to various workplace factors. As a result, like in this thread and others, alot of what gets shared around is individually
> 
> Employee Surveys Are Still One of the Best Ways to Measure Engagement
> 
> https://hbr.org/2018/03/employee-surveys-are-still-one-of-the-best-ways-to-measure-engagement



To echo PPCLI Guy, we do have surveys...many of them. In the past...six or seven years I have done at least as many CAF surveys on various topics, including at least one (if not two) on job satisfaction, morale, engagement, future prospects, etc.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Aug 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've put my faith in Moore's, recently. I got four suits for under $1000, and they even took my old suits as part trade. The new fabrics are excellent, kind of like a wool/spandex blend, and they do a great tailoring job.



No arguement here; got my last suit from Moores. I went from having nothing to having enough dress clothes to get through a week, but ended up getting more dress shirts.  Figured out pretty quick to stick with a few basic colours for the shirts, so didn't matter if I did laundry mid week and wore the same shirt twice. Also got a really good pair of comfortable shoes that I still have, but think those were probably the most expensive single item.

Now I have a bunch of ties, a few pairs of shoes and a couple of belts, so it's just replacing pants/shirts as they wear out.  That's pretty infrequent, but an unfortunate side effect of going to the gym more regularly over the last few years is that my tailored civvie shirts are all tight around the chest and shoulders (after I went from skinny to less skinny). They normally fit pretty good off the rack, so typically just get them tapered for the waist. They've lasted years with the occasional wear (ie Fridays and the odd night out) so not a big deal.

Still, out of pocket zero dollars for my uniform replacements, so even a reasonable priced set of clothes costs more than the uniform. My only real complaint about the uniform is the sometimes weird dimensions, where I might get need to go up several sizes to have arms long enough on shirts (the NCDs were particularly bad), or have odd match ups like loose waist with baggy seat and tight thigh, which I can't really picture having skinnier legs than mine while also having a bigger waist/arse.  All fixable, but find it odd that I can normally get off the rack stuff that fits pretty good at any store, but look like a bag of milk expecting a flood in the same sizes of uniforms.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> This reply didn’t get nearly the love it deserved. Well played, sir. Well played.



I agree!  Well-played, TV! :nod:

And as a ‘lefty’ (physiologically speaking, of course) I take pride in personally identifying with the most fundamental of the principles of drill, that the sinister shall take precedence over the dexterous. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 Aug 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I agree!  Well-played, TV! :nod:
> 
> And as a ‘lefty’ (physiologically speaking, of course) I take pride in personally identifying with the most fundamental of the principles of drill, that the sinister shall take precedence over the dexterous.
> 
> ...



Sir, I disagree.  The "sinister" does not take precedence over the "dexterous" in drill.  As we harken back to those legionaires discussing why they start off with the left foot, it must be acknowledged that they did so because their weapons were carried and operated by their right hands.  The left side was occupied by a static implement, the shield, which, while important in their tactical employment, was not the offensive capability.  It was all those "pointy sticks" being thrust forward (or thrown) by the right side that decided the battle.  Things didn't work as well if the thrusting and throwing started off on the right foot.

Fast forward to the pointy stick being on the end of a rifle.  The left foot forward was for balancing the body when presenting the rifle for firing or en garde for the bayonet.  It was the right hand that operated the weapon and the right foot that stabilized the body against recoil when firing or accepting the weight of an enemy when he ran into your bayonet.  Even today we can see the maintenance of that same principle in ceremonial when performing "examine arms" or "firing volleys".

While the training and employment of the CF in crowd control has been curtailed there may be a few who remember advancing in "step - check" with baton and shield during internal security BDF training. (See here at 25:35 for an example).  Moving forward with shield and baton may not have been that much removed from how a Roman century advanced on an unruly group in the provinces except the Romans probably didn't bang on their shields to intimidate.

It's all those lefties wanting to do their own thing that screws up tried and accepted routine.  Next thing is probably someone wanting to pilot a helicopter from the left seat.  Madness!


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've put my faith in Moore's, recently. I got four suits for under $1000, and they even took my old suits as part trade. The new fabrics are excellent, kind of like a wool/spandex blend, and they do a great tailoring job.



Yup. I move to a plainclothes job in September, and have to stock up. I’ve got one of the Moore’s 50% off coupons you get after doing a suit rental (damned weddings); I’m gonna have to swing by soon and built a business casual wardrobe for the first time in my life. Fortunately I’ll get a clothing allowance to help with it, but it’s still a big chunk up front.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Yup. I move to a plainclothes job in September, and have to stock up. I’ve got one of the Moore’s 50% off coupons you get after doing a suit rental (damned weddings); I’m gonna have to swing by soon and built a business casual wardrobe for the first time in my life. Fortunately I’ll get a clothing allowance to help with it, but it’s still a big chunk up front.



Or, fly to Hong Kong or Singapore and buy bespoke suits there.  They'll keep your measurements on file, and you can order new ones by email in the future.


----------



## RocketRichard (2 Aug 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or, fly to Hong Kong or Singapore and buy bespoke suits there.  They'll keep your measurements on file, and you can order new ones by email in the future.


Or, get a bit more style and go to Symons or The Bay. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Aug 2019)

A plainclothes cop with style :rofl:.....oh, sorry, thought you were kidding. ;D


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A plainclothes cop with style :rofl:.....oh, sorry, thought you were kidding. ;D









Only not quite as classy...


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2019)

Easy there, gentlemen. I’ve decided I will at least get different sunglasses to wear in lieu of my M-Frames. Let’s be content with that to start.


----------



## RocketRichard (2 Aug 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> A plainclothes cop with style :rofl:.....oh, sorry, thought you were kidding. ;D










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Aug 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> It's all those lefties wanting to do their own thing that screws up tried and accepted routine.  Next thing is probably someone wanting to pilot a helicopter from the left seat.  Madness!



Madness indeed! 

(Touché  )


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We have plenty of surveys.  All CAF members have been invited on numerous occasions to take part in them.  Automatically deleting all messages from higher or "CAF Spam" is a fine way to disenfranchise oneself, and to skew the data.



For example, this article discusses the Your Say Survey, issued regularly.  https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2019/03/7677


----------



## Pusser (14 Aug 2019)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If dress of the day is service dress, why should mbrs be required to wear something above that to be comfortable? Roadblock for the sake of it.



Umm, No. 3 IS service dress and was designed to be daily office wear.  People in climate controlled offices in Canada should always be in "service dress," which would be any of the various renditions of No. 3.

CF Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), Chapter 5, Annex C refers.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Umm, No. 3 IS service dress and was designed to be daily office wear.  People in climate controlled offices in Canada should always be in "service dress," which would be any of the various renditions of No. 3.
> 
> CF Dress Instructions (A-DH-265-000/AG-001), Chapter 5, Annex C refers.



It has to be one of the most uncomfortable numbers of dress we have, IMHO.  I really hate wearing No. 3 order of dress.  Maybe I am alone, I dont know.


----------



## Furniture (15 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It has to be one of the most uncomfortable numbers of dress we have, IMHO.  I really hate wearing No. 3 order of dress.  Maybe I am alone, I dont know.



I love wearing No. 3s, I find it the most comfortable uniform for around an office. The only uniform I found as comfortable, but easier to wear due to a lack of real upkeep requirements is NCDs. 

There is a dry cleaning pick-up/drop-off in my building, so now No. 3 is just as easy to maintain as NCDs were.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It has to be one of the most uncomfortable numbers of dress we have, IMHO.  I really hate wearing No. 3 order of dress.  Maybe I am alone, I dont know.



It's trousers and a short sleeve shirt with a collar.  What makes it "most uncomfortable" as compared to . . .  say . . . the civvies that you would wear if you were taking the wife (or girlfriend, or both if living dangerously) out for an evening of dining, dancing and a little bit of "how's your father".


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Aug 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I love wearing No. 3s, I find it the most comfortable uniform for around an office. The only uniform I found as comfortable, but easier to wear due to a lack of real upkeep requirements is NCDs.
> 
> There is a dry cleaning pick-up/drop-off in my building, so now No. 3 is just as easy to maintain as NCDs were.



I like my NCDs as well.  I find after a few washes they become very comfortable.  The No. 3s I just dont feel comfortable in and honestly dread anytime I am told its the DotD.  Thankfully I can pretty well stay on ship for the foreseeable future so those days should be few and far between. 



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> It's trousers and a short sleeve shirt with a collar.  What makes it "most uncomfortable" as compared to . . .  say . . . the civvies that you would wear if you were taking the wife (or girlfriend, or both if living dangerously) out for an evening of dining, dancing and a little bit of "how's your father".



I find them uncomfortable and the upkeep isn't my cup of tea.  My wifes idea of a nice night out is Swiss Chalet followed by a walk with the dogs and kiddo.  Or we head to our camp in the woods.  I lucked out.  I found a low maintenance easy going lady


----------



## Pusser (15 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> It has to be one of the most uncomfortable numbers of dress we have, IMHO.  I really hate wearing No. 3 order of dress.  Maybe I am alone, I dont know.



If any uniform is uncomfortable, then it doesn't fit properly.  That is easily fixed.  NCDs consists of shirt, trousers and optional jacket.  No.3 consists of shirt, trousers and optional jackets/sweater.  Really, what's the difference?  What's worse is the fact that personnel are wearing out the most expensive clothing in the CAF, sitting at desks in air-conditioned offices.  When operational clothing has to be replaced more often then not because the ass is worn out, then something is wrong.  

There was a time when officers, and many PO2s and above, only wore NCDs when the ship was off the wall.  Nowadays, we seem to think the ship will instantly burn to the waterline unless every single member of the ship's company isn't constantly wearing NCDs.


----------



## BDTyre (15 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If any uniform is uncomfortable, then it doesn't fit properly.



Except a kilt. It should be tight...you should feel uncomfortable. It's almost like a girdle/corset combo.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If any uniform is uncomfortable, then it doesn't fit properly.  That is easily fixed.  NCDs consists of shirt, trousers and optional jacket.  No.3 consists of shirt, trousers and optional jackets/sweater.  Really, what's the difference?  What's worse is the fact that personnel are wearing out the most expensive clothing in the CAF, sitting at desks in air-conditioned offices.  When operational clothing has to be replaced more often then not because the *** is worn out, then something is wrong.
> 
> There was a time when officers, and many PO2s and above, only wore NCDs when the ship was off the wall.  Nowadays, we seem to think the ship will instantly burn to the waterline unless every single member of the ship's company isn't constantly wearing NCDs.



I am not saying I am right, I am only stating my opinion.  I don't find them comfortable.  And I get overly concerned about any dirt or possibility of causing harm to them, and thats not even my whites.  Generally they go on for divisions and off as soon as possible.

I do believe shore establishments, in Halifax, require PO2s and above to wear No. 3s.  I could be wrong. 

Man making anyone to have wear No. 3s as DotD on a ship is punishment.  We would defiantly need more Logistik Unicorps points.  There isn't a day that goes buy that, paint, grease or grime isn't on my uniform and I am a PO1 storesman.  Also 99.99% people wear civis to and from ship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If any uniform is uncomfortable, then it doesn't fit properly.  That is easily fixed.  NCDs consists of shirt, trousers and optional jacket.  No.3 consists of shirt, trousers and optional jackets/sweater.  Really, what's the difference?  What's worse is the fact that personnel are wearing out the most expensive clothing in the CAF, sitting at desks in air-conditioned offices.  When operational clothing has to be replaced more often then not because the ass is worn out, then something is wrong.
> 
> There was a time when officers, and many PO2s and above, only wore NCDs when the ship was off the wall.  Nowadays, we seem to think the ship will instantly burn to the waterline unless every single member of the ship's company isn't constantly wearing NCDs.



I can't speak for the RCN and C Army kit...but the RCAF LS and SS shirt is a gong show.  For me to get the size the fits my chest, shoulders and neck...it is ridiculously long in the sleeves and large in the waist.  Base tailors do not fit the shirts anymore I've been told....so I end up with an excessive amount of material that just ends up making my 3B look pretty unprofessional, IMO.  I will wear it only when absolutely required and I will not pay for tailoring of uniform items out of my own pocket.  

Solution: pay the tailor to tailor shirts.  I know...crazy idea.  I don't understand the logic here;  if my tunic from Logistik needs some tailoring...that's good to go.  A shirt?  Nope!  Pants...yup good to go.   :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I do believe shore establishments, in Halifax, require PO2s and above to wear No. 3s.  I could be wrong.



That's the way it was last month when I was on course there (Trinity).


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If any uniform is uncomfortable, then it doesn't fit properly.  That is easily fixed.  NCDs consists of shirt, trousers and optional jacket.  No.3 consists of shirt, trousers and optional jackets/sweater.  Really, what's the difference?  What's worse is the fact that personnel are wearing out the most expensive clothing in the CAF, sitting at desks in air-conditioned offices.  When operational clothing has to be replaced more often then not because the *** is worn out, then something is wrong.
> 
> There was a time when officers, and many PO2s and above, only wore NCDs when the ship was off the wall.  Nowadays, we seem to think the ship will instantly burn to the waterline unless every single member of the ship's company isn't constantly wearing NCDs.



Unless you are doing ceremonial on top part, wearing no 3s on a ship is stupid. It's an industrial environment, so NCDs with the associated steel toe boots with the oil rated soles is the minimum PPE.  With repairs and other work constantly on the go, really easy to have a bit of oil on the deck or ladders, and the oxfords/parade boots turn to ice skates.  Have personally slipped in both spots going about my day to day business as an officer on board, and probably would have had a career ending injury if I hadn't managed to grab the rungs (and smash my knees and wrench my shoulder instead of bouncing 10 ft down).  Can be a change parade, but if I had a meeting in no 3s ashore, first thing I did was put on my NCDs when I got back.

There are also all kinds of protrusions everywhere that have bits of grease on them, so even just going from A to B it's easy enough to ruin a shirt.

Would counter that if you can go the whole day onboard alongside and never be at risk of any of that, either your job should be ashore, or you aren't maybe being as active as you should in getting around and talking to people.  Although it could be kind of a nightmare, good for even the CO to walk around during the day to the various nooks and cranies to see what's actually going on (on occasion).

Work dress should be for when it's needed; we pay a lot of money to fit people out with FR clothing and train them to do first aid in an emergency, would be monumentally stupid to lose even one person to an injury in that rare event because someone though 'no 3s looked better'.  Ugh.


----------



## Pusser (16 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Unless you are doing ceremonial on top part, wearing no 3s on a ship is stupid. It's an industrial environment, so NCDs with the associated steel toe boots with the oil rated soles is the minimum PPE.  With repairs and other work constantly on the go, really easy to have a bit of oil on the deck or ladders, and the oxfords/parade boots turn to ice skates.  Have personally slipped in both spots going about my day to day business as an officer on board, and probably would have had a career ending injury if I hadn't managed to grab the rungs (and smash my knees and wrench my shoulder instead of bouncing 10 ft down).  Can be a change parade, but if I had a meeting in no 3s ashore, first thing I did was put on my NCDs when I got back.
> 
> There are also all kinds of protrusions everywhere that have bits of grease on them, so even just going from A to B it's easy enough to ruin a shirt.
> 
> ...



I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that is the way it was.  In many ways though, we've gone to the opposite extreme and there is room walk back the jackstay somewhat.  I will also point out that most of us had extra service dress (No. 3) that we only wore on board (especially whites) because it was stained and damaged.  The EO and CERA always wore white coveralls  when they went down in the spaces.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that is the way it was.  In many ways though, we've gone to the opposite extreme and there is room walk back the jackstay somewhat.  I will also point out that most of us had extra service dress (No. 3) that we only wore on board (especially whites) because it was stained and damaged.  The EO and CERA always wore white coveralls  when they went down in the spaces.



How long ago did you last sail ?  I've been at sea on HMC ships since 2001 and I have never seen an EO or CERA in coveralls let alone white ones.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How long ago did you last sail ?  I've been at sea on HMC ships since 2001 and I have never seen an EO or CERA in coveralls let alone white ones.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Rainbow_(1891)


----------



## Nuggs (16 Aug 2019)

Wow, you post well for someone of your advanced age..... about 120


----------



## cld617 (16 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that is the way it was.



History is riddled with poor ideas we've since progressed away from.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but that is the way it was.  In many ways though, we've gone to the opposite extreme and there is room walk back the jackstay somewhat.  I will also point out that most of us had extra service dress (No. 3) that we only wore on board (especially whites) because it was stained and damaged.  The EO and CERA always wore white coveralls  when they went down in the spaces.



Going down into the engine room in No 3s as EO is where I almost fell down the ladder from the top; had a discussion with the XO after that and unless I was doing some ceremonial or something I was in NCDs. 

I don't see that particular jackstay being walked back; everyone working on the ship should wear NCDs. Officers etc wearing No 3s is a throwback to the upstairs/downstairs culture, and that encourages cabin commandos everytime there is a store ship or similar evolution. That's definitely noticed, and gets people grumbling pretty quick. Crews are getting smaller, which requires a lot more egalitarian division of labour, and people to pick up after themselves. On the really small ships, that includes doing your own dishes and cleaning stations.

NCDs are comfortable, look pretty good and serve a genuine safety purpose on a ship. To repurpose a retired trope, anyone who thinks they are too good to wear it on a day to day work on a ship should probably just get a civie job somewhere where they can dress up nice in an office.


----------



## ballz (17 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Officers etc wearing No 3s is a throwback to the upstairs/downstairs culture



That's all I could think of reading this No 3s for POs and up stuff while on a ship. From an outsider's perspective, the Navy officers seem to love this kind of stuff.

I can't imagine going to Battalion wearing anything but combats... besides the fact that even in garrison I would on many occasions sporadically hop in a truck or LAV and go to the field for a recce or something... I'm just picturing myself walking into the company lines or the LAV barn (which numerous a day) wearing 3s of any variety... :boke:


----------



## Navy_Pete (17 Aug 2019)

It's weird because the type that is typically all for this revival overlaps with the 'What would Nelson Do' crowd.  Pretty sure he didn't lose and arm and an eye by not leading from the front. It's a pretty small but vocal crowd, but normally a non issue unless they are part of the Command triad.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's weird because the type that is typically all for this revival overlaps with the 'What would Nelson Do' crowd.  Pretty sure he didn't lose and arm and an eye by not leading from the front. It's a pretty small but vocal crowd, but normally a non issue unless they are part of the Command triad.



I would concur with your above post.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Aug 2019)

I think officers wearing No 3 all day every day would look smart and dashing. Mess kit should be worn over lunch as well.


----------



## Underway (17 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Mess kit should be worn over lunch as well.



Ridiculous.  Nelson would only dine in Red Sea Rig for tea.


----------



## FSTO (17 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How long ago did you last sail ?  I've been at sea on HMC ships since 2001 and I have never seen an EO or CERA in coveralls let alone white ones.



I was on both coasts from 1990-1996. 3Bs for officers alongside, tunic for OOD. Work got done, ships didn't burn to the waterline, and ship's company turned to when required. As a subbie we'd change into that era's version of NCD's to store ship etc. The EO certainly did wear white coveralls.

When I came back to the fleet in 1999, things had not really changed (except for the EO no longer wearing white coverall.) 

Went back ashore in 2004 and when I came back in 2013 that was the big change to nothing but NCD's alongside.


----------



## Underway (17 Aug 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I was on both coasts from 1990-1996. 3Bs for officers alongside, tunic for OOD. Work got done, ships didn't burn to the waterline, and ship's company turned to when required. As a subbie we'd change into that era's version of NCD's to store ship etc. The EO certainly did wear white coveralls.
> 
> When I came back to the fleet in 1999, things had not really changed (except for the EO no longer wearing white coverall.)
> 
> Went back ashore in 2004 and when I came back in 2013 that was the big change to nothing but NCD's alongside.



When I started OOD was in 3's.  Berets were to be worn as going out dress with NCD's.  Now NCD's and ballcaps everywhere.  Aside from comfort responding to a fire in proper dress was the death to 3's aboard (along with beards at sea...).  I have no issues with this.  There are no good work reasons for dress to be 3's onboard and plenty of good work related reasons for NCD's.


----------



## dimsum (17 Aug 2019)

Underway said:
			
		

> Aside from comfort responding to a fire in proper dress was the death to 3's aboard (along with beards at sea...).



I also saw OODs in 3s and thought that considering they're potentially the first people into a fire, wearing polyester was incredibly stupid.


----------



## Pusser (20 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think officers wearing No 3 all day every day would look smart and dashing. Mess kit should be worn over lunch as well.



Don't be silly.  Mess dress is evening wear - only worn after 1800.

Kidding aside, back in the day when all single officers* generally lived on board their ships, officers wore mess undress for dinner every evening, unless they were attending a formal event ashore immediately following dinner, in which case, they could wear mess dress.

*Only the older officers (e.g. CO/XO) tended to be married.


----------



## Pusser (20 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How long ago did you last sail ?  I've been at sea on HMC ships since 2001 and I have never seen an EO or CERA in coveralls let alone white ones.



2007 in a Canadian ship.  2015 in a British one.  It appears that yet another tradition has died.  :'(

PS:  Do they not let you inside your ships?  It must get pretty miserable being on them all the time ;D


----------



## Pusser (20 Aug 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It's weird because the type that is typically all for this revival overlaps with the 'What would Nelson Do' crowd.  Pretty sure he didn't lose and arm and an eye by not leading from the front. It's a pretty small but vocal crowd, but normally a non issue unless they are part of the Command triad.



One of the reasons Nelson is reported to have been picked off by a French marine sharpshooter is because he stood out from the crowd in his admiral's uniform.

I'm not saying we have to return to 1990 (yes, it was that recent), but there are some folks who take the operational mantra to an extreme.  When one of the arguments for wearing combat clothing in an air-conditioned headquarters in Canada is in order to maintain an "operational mindset," I call BS.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> . . .   When one of the arguments for wearing combat clothing in an air-conditioned headquarters in Canada is in order to maintain an "operational mindset," I call BS.



Such would be, IMO, BS.  However in the vein of "clothes make the man", in our southern neighbour's navy there seemed to be considerable angst when they went to a common "operational dress" (the much reviled blueberries) that required officers and CPOs to stop wearing khakis on ship.  They even refer to their Chiefs as "khaki leadership" and there were even some misguided souls who proclaimed that eliminating khakis afloat who seriously disrupt operational efficiency.  There were similar outbursts when junior ratings were given an "office uniform" that included a khaki shirt.  The identification of rank (social standing?) differences seems to be of such importance to them that the USN's latest trial version of a sea going operational dress includes a khaki version to be worn by officers and chiefs and a blue version for junior ratings.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Aug 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ... there were even some misguided souls who proclaimed that eliminating khakis afloat who seriously disrupt operational efficiency.


Well, they subsequently had two serious collisions with merchant ships in the Pacific.  Coincidence?


----------



## dimsum (20 Aug 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There were similar outbursts when junior ratings were given an "office uniform" that included a khaki shirt.



I've seen those when in the US, and to be honest, I thought that was a dumb move.  So now, in the USN everyone has a khaki shirt in the office, with badges (not huge ones) all in the same place.  

When this all came about, there was an option to have the E6 and below have ranks on sleeves rather than collars.  That would have been a good compromise, since the small ranks can be hard to distinguish.


----------



## gcclarke (20 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'm not saying we have to return to 1990 (yes, it was that recent), but there are some folks who take the operational mantra to an extreme.  When one of the arguments for wearing combat clothing in an air-conditioned headquarters in Canada is in order to maintain an "operational mindset," I call BS.



I would also suggest, for the exact same reasons, that the stated rationale for sometimes having us ensure that our shirts are properly ironed and that our shoes are shiny and that our hair isn't allowed to get too long and that we shouldn't be able to dye said hair purple, in order to "act like professionals" is likewise BS. If NCDs don't make someone think with an operational mindset, then likewise DEUs also don't affect how we think or act. 

The clothes don't make the person, their actions do. Perhaps it's time to stop wasting so much time on what we look like and more time on what we do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Aug 2019)

I stayed away from this thread so far, as I thought it had strayed quite far from its original intent, and was starting to turn into another Army vs Navy thing.

As it stayed on the up-and-up, I believe a bit of historical perspective on a few points raised throughout can be of use to all.

First, it is important to remember that for the Army, the dichotomy between uniforms worn in battle (wether you call it Battledress, Combat or Cadpat) and those worn in garison (which we would call Service dress today) started in the Crimean war and was fully adopted during WWI. Before that, soldiers had only one - bright, colonial power - uniform. Trench warfare made adoption of batle dress necessary.

The navies didn't look, or need to look at a second set of "operational" clothing until the Falkland war, which is why, in most navies, they were first introduced around the late 1980's to early 1990's. Before that, sailors simply wore their sailor uniforms for everything, and since officers got white shirts, ties and jackets, that's what they wore at sea and ashore. There simply was no concept that a special "operational" uniform was required. The Falklands changed all that: the war demonstrated that the main danger to personnel was not shrapnell and concussion from HE blast anymore, but rather flash fire and hot gases from penetration by missiles still full of fuel. Protection from that was needed.

That, in itself is the reason naval personnel who served in the RCN before 1995 are seeing wearing 3's onboard as natural: it was the only uniform we had. Interestingly enough, as many here decry the dangers of wearing #3's onboard, in the pre-NCD days of the "unification" period, the officers wearing 3's were better protected than the seamen in case of fire. The green service dress (and it is still true of the current Navy DEU - save the SS shirts) was made of wool, with mostly (65%) cotton shirt, while the seamen wore the old green work dress at sea, which was all made of 100% polyester. As for shoes, in my days, we all wore the seaboots at sea, regardless of uniform, until they were unfortunately discontinued and replaced by "parade" boots. Even then, most of us, at sea, had a pair of "parade" boots that we had resoled with a proper hard rubber sole for good grip.

Even today, considering that the naval DEU is wool and cotton (save the SS shirt - but most officers I know don't use the CF issued one anyway - but buy the 100% cotton US pattern ones), working onboard wearing #3's would not be much of a danger in case of fire or other shipboard emergency.

As for the E.O's "steaming" suit - the white coveralls - there is both a practical and historical reason for those in the days of steamships: The practical one is simply that you didn't want to wear your navy wool jacket down in a room where steam engines caused both high humidity levels and heat, so something else had to be worn instead over your shirt and tie; the historical one is that on steam ships, near absolute cleanliness ("I want to be able to eat off those deck plates!") of the engine room was required to be able to immediately spot even the slightest steam leak in the process of developing - so God save the poor engine room watch who had the misfortune of being shown that the E.O. somehow got dirty on their watch (hence the white coverall).  

I think someone just created a split while I was typing this, please moderators - put this post in the appropriate thread. Thanks.


----------



## mariomike (20 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> The clothes don't make the person, their actions do.



There is also this old saying,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817


----------



## Journeyman (20 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> There is also this old saying,
> clothes+make+the+man









   8)

I didn't mind Work Dress.  Mind you, we wore it with a jump smock... and when in the office, it was normally Regimental t-shirt or sweatshirt, depending on the season.


I too got caught up in the thread split..... but I'm not too concerned.   :boring:


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> 2007 in a Canadian ship.  2015 in a British one.  It appears that yet another tradition has died.  :'(
> 
> PS:  Do they not let you inside your ships?  It must get pretty miserable being on them all the time ;D



Well played


----------



## Pusser (21 Aug 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Such would be, IMO, BS.  However in the vein of "clothes make the man", in our southern neighbour's navy there seemed to be considerable angst when they went to a common "operational dress" (the much reviled blueberries) that required officers and CPOs to stop wearing khakis on ship.  They even refer to their Chiefs as "khaki leadership" and there were even some misguided souls who proclaimed that eliminating khakis afloat who seriously disrupt operational efficiency.  There were similar outbursts when junior ratings were given an "office uniform" that included a khaki shirt.  The identification of rank (social standing?) differences seems to be of such importance to them that the USN's latest trial version of a sea going operational dress includes a khaki version to be worn by officers and chiefs and a blue version for junior ratings.



Funny you should mention that.  In the early days of the switch from green to blue work dress at sea, it was suggested that officers be issued extra white shirts for use with work dress, precisely so they could be readily identified as leaders in tense situations.

Of note, in the USN there was a difference between the standard (largely polyester) permanent press khakis worn ashore and the "wash khakis" (cotton) worn at sea.  Wash khakis always had long sleeves, whereas those worn ashore often had short sleeves.


----------



## Pusser (21 Aug 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> First, it is important to remember that for the Army, the dichotomy between uniforms worn in battle (wether you call it Battledress, Combat or Cadpat) and those worn in garison (which we would call Service dress today) started in the Crimean war and was fully adopted during WWI. Before that, soldiers had only one - bright, colonial power - uniform. Trench warfare made adoption of batle dress necessary.
> 
> The green service dress (and it is still true of the current Navy DEU - save the SS shirts) was made of wool, with mostly (65%) cotton shirt, while the seamen wore the old green work dress at sea, which was all made of 100% polyester. As for shoes, in my days, we all wore the seaboots at sea, regardless of uniform, until they were unfortunately discontinued and replaced by "parade" boots. Even then, most of us, at sea, had a pair of "parade" boots that we had resoled with a proper hard rubber sole for good grip.
> 
> Even today, considering that the naval DEU is wool and cotton (save the SS shirt - but most officers I know don't use the CF issued one anyway - but buy the 100% cotton US pattern ones), working onboard wearing #3's would not be much of a danger in case of fire or other shipboard emergency.



The British Army actually had a garrison uniform as far back as at least the 18th Century.  It was made of a natural shade of wool (whitish) and was worn for daily work and could be cleaned.  The red coat was saved strictly for battle and parades and could not generally be cleaned because they were not colourfast.

I don't recall anyone wearing service dress at sea.  Officers tended to wear S4B (work dress trousers and short-sleeve light green shirt).  Work dress was a cotton-poly blend, but service dress was a wool-poly blend.  Both melted when it got too hot.

Things have changed.  We haven't had those horrific 100% polyester short-sleeved shirts for some time now.  They are now the same cotton-poly blend as the long-sleeved ones and even come with the Canada badges already sewn on!


----------



## gcclarke (22 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> There is also this old saying,
> https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817



Well, yes. I kind of thought it was fairly obvious that I was directly alluding to that phrase, and rejecting its premise. Like a lot of old sayings, it's a load of bullshit.


----------



## Furniture (22 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Well, yes. I kind of thought it was fairly obvious that I was directly alluding to that phrase, and rejecting its premise. Like a lot of old sayings, it's a load of bullshit.



Is it?

First impressions still matter in this modern age, and being well dressed/turned out helps one make a positive first impression. We can pretend all we want that people aren't judged on appearances, but that's not reality.

Clearly it takes more than just being well dressed to keep a positive image  with others, but starting out positive sure does make it easier to get the chance to make a more lasting positive impression.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Aug 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Is it?
> 
> First impressions still matter in this modern age, and being well dressed/turned out helps one make a positive first impression. We can pretend all we want that people aren't judged on appearances, but that's not reality.
> 
> Clearly it takes more than just being well dressed to keep a positive image  with others, but starting out positive sure does make it easier to get the chance to make a more lasting positive impression.



Dress for the job you want, then you can look as sloppy as you like if you're aiming low  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/11/15/should-people-really-dress-for-the-job-they-want-not-the-job-they-have/#fe5defa26364


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2019)

You know, this sentence in that article just jumped at me:

"_In addition, there is a common perception among management that if you can’t handle the small things, you probably aren’t well suited to handle larger responsibility. Put simply: If you can’t even dress yourself properly, you can’t handle much else._"

Well, well! Wouldn't that be something appropriate to the threads where we discuss the proper wearing of uniforms or performance of drill.

Just sayin!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't recall anyone wearing service dress at sea.  Officers tended to wear S4B (work dress trousers and short-sleeve light green shirt).  Work dress was a cotton-poly blend, but service dress was a wool-poly blend.  Both melted when it got too hot.



OK, just a few points here Pusser (and I am trying to be ... pusser,  ;D): First, my comprehension fo the thread was that it related to wearing uniforms onboard a ship while in harbour.

In my days (1975-2000), we certainly wore service dress in harbour onboard ship. I refer to "3's" for the sake of comprehension by people who have never used the old green unibags, but in reality, we wore the S4A's (winter) and S4B's (summer), especially after the green combat sweater became available.

The S4B's, however are NOT what you described. The S4 order of dress were as follows: S4A: service pants, shoes, long sleeve shirt and tie - could be worn with combat sweater. That's what we wore in harbour in winter. S4B was the same but substitute short sleeve shirt/open collar for the long sleeve/tie one. That's what we wore in summer.

When we let the lines go - had finished exiting harbour (i.e. part ship hands had been secured) we switched to a W5/W6 combination.
The W orders of dress were amazingly simple: W1: full work dress including jacket and tie; W2: same without the jacket*; W3: full work dress with jacket - no tie; W4: same but without jacket - but then with sleeves rolled up, which you didn't do with the W2 order; W5: work dress with light green service shirt and jacket; W6: same but without jacket.

You may recall also that, even though not i.a.w. any dress order, we officers wore the W5/W6 at sea with our green P-cap - not the berets. If anyone is interested in finding what we looked like, I suggest you go on YouTube and type: "Canadian navy Full Speed Ahead" and watch a beautiful little document made by the CAF to attract candidates to the naval officer program of the days (mid 1970's). Here's a direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmUrOtRfJU


*: To be fair, in all my years, I cannot recall a single occasion in the Navy where we bothered to wear the tie with the work dress, must be an Army thing that it even existed  .


----------



## Journeyman (23 Aug 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You know, this sentence in that article just jumped at me:
> 
> "_In addition, there is a common perception among management that if you can’t handle the small things, you probably aren’t well suited to handle larger responsibility. Put simply: If you can’t even dress yourself properly, you can’t handle much else._"
> 
> ...


Hang on.  So you're saying that if you play dress-up like an extra in a low-budget Bollywood movie, maybe governing a country isn't for you?


----------



## Pusser (23 Aug 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The S4B's, however are NOT what you described. The S4 order of dress were as follows: S4A: service pants, shoes, long sleeve shirt and tie - could be worn with combat sweater. That's what we wore in harbour in winter. S4B was the same but substitute short sleeve shirt/open collar for the long sleeve/tie one. That's what we wore in summer.
> 
> When we let the lines go - had finished exiting harbour (i.e. part ship hands had been secured) we switched to a W5/W6 combination.
> The W orders of dress were amazingly simple: W1: full work dress including jacket and tie; W2: same without the jacket*; W3: full work dress with jacket - no tie; W4: same but without jacket - but then with sleeves rolled up, which you didn't do with the W2 order; W5: work dress with light green service shirt and jacket; W6: same but without jacket.
> ...



You're absolutely right.  I guess the memory fades over the years.  S4B was with service dress trousers.  W5/6 looked similar, but with work dress trousers and occasionally the work dress jacket (or flight jacket for those so lucky).


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's time to stop wasting so much time on what we look like and more time on what we do.



Of course you are right. 

First impressions aside, there is also the old adage, "Deeds speak."


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Of course you are right.



I don't believe he/she IS right actually.  I think there should be a balance.  When we are "in the public eye", as a matter of day to day business, how we look in uniform is important.  Parades, Nov 11th, etc.

Other times, dress is less important for "the PR factor" and is only pertinent to operations (or should be);  Hot Wx Ops, field op, on ship "when not along side"...however, there are still regs and need to be regs on how we dress because people just can't do what they want.  We'd be a shitshow in front of the public (doesn't matter if they care, or not) and people would start ignoring things like sanitizing uniforms, wear of PPE, etc during ops.   

We could adopt the 'unprofessional military look', in service and operational dress...sort of go the way the folks in the attached pictures have.  Or we could maintain a professional military look.  I personally don't want people to wonder if I might be a member of a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something when I am alone or in a group.  Dress standards and reg's exist for good reasons, both for PR sakes and for operational reasons as well.


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2019)

Of course you are also right.  

Forgot the sarcasm emoji.  Didn't think it was needed.   

Apparently it was,



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> There is also this old saying,
> https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Forgot the sarcasm emoji.  Didn't think it was needed.
> 
> Apparently it was,



Oops!   ;D  My bad.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something


Professional appearances aside, my first thought looking at those two pics was ".... and they're breeding. FML   :'(  "


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Aug 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't believe he/she IS right actually.  I think there should be a balance.  When we are "in the public eye", as a matter of day to day business, how we look in uniform is important.  Parades, Nov 11th, etc.
> 
> Other times, dress is less important for "the PR factor" and is only pertinent to operations (or should be);  Hot Wx Ops, field op, on ship "when not along side"...however, there are still regs and need to be regs on how we dress because people just can't do what they want.  We'd be a shitshow in front of the public (doesn't matter if they care, or not) and people would start ignoring things like sanitizing uniforms, wear of PPE, etc during ops.
> 
> We could adopt the 'unprofessional military look', in service and operational dress...sort of go the way the folks in the attached pictures have.  Or we could maintain a professional military look.  I personally don't want people to wonder if I might be a member of a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something when I am alone or in a group.  Dress standards and reg's exist for good reasons, both for PR sakes and for operational reasons as well.



We almost shot some friendlies by accident, once upon a time in a cr*ppy terrorist conflict a long time ago, who were in a covert OP and dressed not too differently from these guys. 

Where anything you do can get you killed, including dressing differently, there's alot of value in conforming to dress regulations


----------

