Current Dress Regs

[markppcli]

Sure have. I was a recce qualified infantry soldier. And in my time after morning PT, we were all in uniform and regularly inspected by the CSM or D/RSM for our turnout. Not advocating the for/against on that particularly, but there were uniform standards and everyone was expected to meet them. Its common hardships and requirements that bring people together, not individuality and special treatment for some.

If everyone wearing the same thing the. It’s not special treatment is it?

If your unit is lounging about in PT gear all day long, times have certainly changed. I'd argue it sounds like you have a leadership problem but I don't know the present circumstances that have allowed that to occur.

I can just about guarantee you if you stopped by a recce platoon they’re in PT kit.

But regardless you showed up to work in gym clothes right?

 

[Navy_Pete]

As an aside, I'm flashing back to basic where one of the guys had to be given the personal hygiene talk repeatedly by course staff and MIR, with a few briefings on how to have a shower, and we were supposed to report if he wasn't doing it properly (spoiler, he wasn't). It wasn't a time thing, he just didn't like washing anything other than his feet for some reason.

Thankfully he got punted anyway for other reasons, but it was brutal. He stunk bad enough that the course staff ignored the air freshners we had tucked away in our rooms.

I've never quite encountered anything like that. Was mind boggling that someone with regular and full access to showers, soap etc and plenty of time to use it, as well as order to wash himself just.... wouldn't. It was a reek you could taste and feel cloying at your eyeballs. Even after he was gone and we cleaned the hell out of his room (including washing the walls, mattress etc) it lingered for weeks.

 

[FJAG]

They are a uniform…for combat. Just like how flight suits are a uniform for flying. Unit PT gear is also a uniform.

Again, if we are going to use civilian standards of a “professional look”, then why should the clerk in the OR be wearing CADPAT? Or the watch officer in an Operations Centre? Those are inherently climate-controlled office-like spaces, and civilian standards would suggest office attire, not combat clothing.

But if I suggested that for the CAF, I’m guessing that the response would be…not supportive.


Have you seen the presentation or read the article posted? It wasn’t a large majority - it wasn’t even a majority. I have seen the presentation that prompted this and almost 1/3 of respondents were neutral about the 2022 changes. A “large proportion” doesn’t mean the majority - if something was 1/3 agree, 1/3 disagree, and 1/3 neutral, each of those are still large proportions, but not the majority opinion in any case.

The comparisons about uniform are relevant. “Professional look” isn’t just what colour your hair is or how many earrings you are wearing. For example, if you walked into a bank and the staff members there had “office approved” hair/nails/etc, but were wearing workout gear, would you say that is professional or not? I personally think it’s fine, but I guess most banks don’t allow their staff to wear Lululemon gear at work.

Okay. I've seen enough of this thread and cringed my way through it. Here's a few points from an old dinosaur (and not the navy one that you proposed )

1. "Work-out dress" is a red herring. No one should wear that anywhere but working out without getting a well-deserved kick in the gonads. If you truly have folks wearing PT dress around the work space after PT then you have a leadership issue.

2. Why do some people have a fetish about insisting that "office dress" be worn in an office. Suits and ties are an anachronism going back over a century now. (I mean what use is a tie in any event?) "office dress" distinguishes the "elite" office staff from the hum drum worker class. I always thought it stupid that as a junior officer with an "office" down in the gun park my troops were in combats but I had to wear a form of service "office" dress which prevented me from going anywhere where I might get dirty - changing into coveralls or combats was frowned upon.

3. Same issue different place. It was frowned on to wear combats in public because it might make the public nervous about having soldiers amongst them. The public would feel more comfortable if I was wearing my bus-driver uniform. Honestly, if I were king then every parade would be in fighting order bearing arms and with serviceable equipment on parade. The public should know and understand that their money is going towards building a fighting force and not a bureaucracy in green and blue suits. Everyone - and I mean everyone - is a member of one service, the Canadian Armed Forces and should represent that.

4. Back to combats in the office. Maybe the problem isn't the uniform but that some people are allowed to wear it like slobs. Last fall, I had my first trip to Ottawa in many years and was gob-smacked by the poor standard of dress and grooming. Let it be known that in my day I was the guy who was part of the hippie revolution who was constantly called out for needing a haircut. I'm not a buzz-cut aficionado. I'm the guy who thinks combats/CADPAT in the office is perfectly fine. So if I think the standard of dress is horrible then you know its descended far below where it ought to be. Just because a uniform is a combat uniform does not mean that there can't be a standard of how it is worn and should look.

5. Spent a few years in a highland unit. Liked the kilt. But I think that it too is becoming an anachronism. Why do we still insist that we acknowledge a particular cultural group in our uniforms to the extent that we do? Would we be prepared to create a Sikh regiment in Brampton? I'm all in favour of regimental identities but am coming to the point where I think that they should be more muted and more in the nature of a patch on the sleeve and a hat badge. From a distance there should be a level of uniformity even if up close you can tell a particular regimental affiliation.

6. I don't like different uniforms for females. One can have a perfectly standardized uniform for everyone based on pants with the cut being appropriate for either a male or female form. Why have them wear a different hat? Or have a dress option? It detracts from uniformity and singles them out as different. Uniform means uniform.

Okay. Enough ranting for the moment although I've got a bit more saved up.

 

[QV]

If everyone wearing the same thing the. It’s not special treatment is it?



I can just about guarantee you if you stopped by a recce platoon they’re in PT kit.

But regardless you showed up to work in gym clothes right?

You can get off your high horse. We are not talking about the same thing. Go ahead and dress how you like, if walking around in PT kit all day is acceptable to you and your chain of command, and you're not a public facing organization, have at 'er. Whether that is unprofessional is going to be situation dependent (#2 rifleman in company lines in Pet: prob not unprofessional.... Anyone in NDHQ Carling: definitely unprofessional... PAFFO: definitely unprofessional).

Are you not in a leadership position? Can't you tell the difference between the morning PT timing in gym clothes vs the rest of the work day in your work uniform,?

The original (radical) changes to the dress regs were too far and ridiculous. They've now sucked back somewhat, which is an improvement. I don't disagree the dress regs needed modernizing, but it went way too far and damaged the reputation of the CAF.

 

[markppcli]

You can get off your high horse. We are not talking about the same thing. Go ahead and dress how you like, if walking around in PT kit all day is acceptable to you and your chain of command, and you're not a public facing organization, have at 'er. Whether that is unprofessional is going to be situation dependent (#2 rifleman in company lines in Pet: prob not unprofessional.... Anyone in NDHQ Carling: definitely unprofessional... PAFFO: definitely unprofessional).

Are you not in a leadership position? Can't you tell the difference between the morning PT timing in gym clothes vs the rest of the work day in your work uniform,?

The original (radical) changes to the dress regs were too far and ridiculous. They've now sucked back somewhat, which is an improvement. I don't disagree the dress regs needed modernizing, but it went way too far and damaged the reputation of the CAF.

I’m sorry asking questions in response to your statements upset you so much.

 

[QV]

I’m sorry asking questions in response to your statements upset you so much.

It doesn't, no need to be sorry. But your passive aggressive personality is showing.

 

[markppcli]

Well no, I asked you a question that you didn’t answer and it got you going about me being on some kind of a high horse, and had a bunch of other comments that neither answered a question or advanced your argument. Ie your response to being asked a question wasn’t to answer it, it was to go after the person asking the question.

 

[Quirky]

I think wearing a uniform for different situations is a completely different topic from coloured hair, nails, beards etc.

 

[QV]

I think wearing a uniform for different situations is a completely different topic from coloured hair, nails, beards etc.

And nobody is arguing the old dress regs didn't need updating. It's the gigantic initial swing that was the problem.

 

[markppcli]

Sure but QV said who’s wearing PT not to the office, which is the reality for many so ya know… bring something up expect it to be commented on.

I agree generally that the dress reg changes went too far. Although I roll my eyes about the “in the civilian world” when I have friends working corporate and public service jobs with all kinds of dyed hair and tattoos. One even has pink hair and runs a marketing department. What we think of as the corporate norm is probably a touch out of date.

 

[Navy_Pete]

One reason to wear DEUs vice combats is that it's cheaper, but with the way everything is tailored it's hard not to look like a bag of milk.

I just got 3 new pairs of DEU pants the "same" size, but none of them fit the same. The shirts are about the same, and I don't think they are even worth getting tailored properly because of how cheap they are. I'll probably do some home modifications to make the shirt tails shorter though as it has an extra 3 feet of material and looks like you are wearing an adult diaper.

Pretty frustrating when you try and turn out sharp and it looks like you ironed an oversized sackcloth.

At least the combats are more comfortable, but at least on the Navy side means you are clumping around in heavy work boots in an office which can be uncomfortable. I usually have a change of shoes if I need to drive so I don't catch a speeding ticket as well.

 

[dimsum]

Okay. I've seen enough of this thread and cringed my way through it. Here's a few points from an old dinosaur (and not the navy one that you proposed )

1. "Work-out dress" is a red herring. No one should wear that anywhere but working out without getting a well-deserved kick in the gonads. If you truly have folks wearing PT dress around the work space after PT then you have a leadership issue.

2. Why do some people have a fetish about insisting that "office dress" be worn in an office. Suits and ties are an anachronism going back over a century now. (I mean what use is a tie in any event?) "office dress" distinguishes the "elite" office staff from the hum drum worker class. I always thought it stupid that as a junior officer with an "office" down in the gun park my troops were in combats but I had to wear a form of service "office" dress which prevented me from going anywhere where I might get dirty - changing into coveralls or combats was frowned upon.

3. Same issue different place. It was frowned on to wear combats in public because it might make the public nervous about having soldiers amongst them. The public would feel more comfortable if I was wearing my bus-driver uniform. Honestly, if I were king then every parade would be in fighting order bearing arms and with serviceable equipment on parade. The public should know and understand that their money is going towards building a fighting force and not a bureaucracy in green and blue suits. Everyone - and I mean everyone - is a member of one service, the Canadian Armed Forces and should represent that.

4. Back to combats in the office. Maybe the problem isn't the uniform but that some people are allowed to wear it like slobs. Last fall, I had my first trip to Ottawa in many years and was gob-smacked by the poor standard of dress and grooming. Let it be known that in my day I was the guy who was part of the hippie revolution who was constantly called out for needing a haircut. I'm not a buzz-cut aficionado. I'm the guy who thinks combats/CADPAT in the office is perfectly fine. So if I think the standard of dress is horrible then you know its descended far below where it ought to be. Just because a uniform is a combat uniform does not mean that there can't be a standard of how it is worn and should look.

5. Spent a few years in a highland unit. Liked the kilt. But I think that it too is becoming an anachronism. Why do we still insist that we acknowledge a particular cultural group in our uniforms to the extent that we do? Would we be prepared to create a Sikh regiment in Brampton? I'm all in favour of regimental identities but am coming to the point where I think that they should be more muted and more in the nature of a patch on the sleeve and a hat badge. From a distance there should be a level of uniformity even if up close you can tell a particular regimental affiliation.

6. I don't like different uniforms for females. One can have a perfectly standardized uniform for everyone based on pants with the cut being appropriate for either a male or female form. Why have them wear a different hat? Or have a dress option? It detracts from uniformity and singles them out as different. Uniform means uniform.

Okay. Enough ranting for the moment although I've got a bit more saved up.

We’re actually arguing the same thing. I brought up the DEU point because I find that the views on the CAF looking professional (or not) writ large do not jibe:

1. We are supposed to conform to civilian standards of “professional look”
2. We are inherently not like civilian public or private service - postings, unlimited liability, etc but also in terms of how we look due to uniforms

So, in general, what should we be? Point 2 doesn’t always match with Point 1 - my example of CADPAT in the office hopefully shows that. The “business-casual” equivalent you’d see in a civilian office setting is DEU, not CADPAT so already, we don’t conform to civilian standards.

But if we’re going to wear CADPAT in office settings (and I have no issue with that), then I don’t know why we are so slavishly holding onto civilian office grooming standards which, depending on which industry you’re in, aren’t even all that accurate anyway. I have a friend who is a civilian software engineer and his entire office looks like the stereotypical “IT guy”. However, no one says they look unprofessional because that is the norm for that industry. Again, this ties into Point 2 - we are inherently not like civilian industry.

Besides, historically the military was the leader in what constituted professional dress and appearance. Suits, khakis, etc all started in the military and later spread into civilian life. We didn’t follow civilian trends - they followed us.

 

[QV]

Sure but QV said who’s wearing PT not to the office, which is the reality for many so ya know… bring something up expect it to be commented on.

I agree generally that the dress reg changes went too far. Although I roll my eyes about the “in the civilian world” when I have friends working corporate and public service jobs with all kinds of dyed hair and tattoos. One even has pink hair and runs a marketing department. What we think of as the corporate norm is probably a touch out of date.

It's going to vary from place to place and boss to boss.

Poorly styled and poorly fitting uniforms are a major problem. People look like crap and feel like crap. This is one area the CAF could invest a little effort into and probably make major improvements on professionalism and morale.

 

[Quirky]

Start with the RCAF blue DEUs. They look f*cking awful and embarrassing.

 

[dimsum]

Start with the RCAF blue DEUs. They look f*cking awful and embarrassing.

I would have said Army but there’s already a project underway.

But I would argue that the uniform-specific arguments aren’t really the purview of this thread. Aside from the CA uniform project, the dress regs update doesn’t talk about uniforms at all.

 

[Blackadder1916]

2. Why do some people have a fetish about insisting that "office dress" be worn in an office. Suits and ties are an anachronism going back over a century now. (I mean what use is a tie in any event?)

Conventional is as conventional does.

Rules of Order and Decorum - Manner of Speaking

PROPER ATTIRE
While there is no Standing Order setting down a dress code for Members participating in debate, [84] Speakers have ruled that to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire. [85] The contemporary practice and unwritten rule require, therefore, that male Members wear a jacket, shirt and tie as standard dress. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. [86] The Chair has even stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). [87] Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. [88]

In certain circumstances, usually for medical reasons, the Chair has allowed a relaxation of the dress standards allowing, for example, a male Member whose arm was in a cast to wear a sweater in the House instead of a jacket. [89]

 

[dimsum]

Conventional is as conventional does.

Rules of Order and Decorum - Manner of Speaking

Those folks are just anti-Beatnik.

 

[quadrapiper]

4. Back to combats in the office. Maybe the problem isn't the uniform but that some people are allowed to wear it like slobs. Last fall, I had my first trip to Ottawa in many years and was gob-smacked by the poor standard of dress and grooming. Let it be known that in my day I was the guy who was part of the hippie revolution who was constantly called out for needing a haircut. I'm not a buzz-cut aficionado. I'm the guy who thinks combats/CADPAT in the office is perfectly fine. So if I think the standard of dress is horrible then you know its descended far below where it ought to be. Just because a uniform is a combat uniform does not mean that there can't be a standard of how it is worn and should look.

I know this keeps getting circled back to, but something that isn't made of specialized fabric and built with complex pockets, knee pad pouches, and the like would be good for office, shop, company lines, and so on. Something with a buttonup shirt in the mix, if someone needs to play in that area, and otherwise a mix-and-match of comfortable stuff (steel toed and "office" footwear, skirt, shorts, and trousers, fleece, robust sweater, etc.) that'll work as well sitting at a desk as scrambling around a truck. Assume the member will be wearing some version of this most of the time.

Have a hard-over peacock order (Army full/undress, RCN and RCAF figure out whether that's effectively DEU or if there's interest in something more) for Royal and State occasions, dealing with Parliament, Remembrance Day and so on, an "80%" order, and specialist stuff: CADPAT, NECU, flight, sub, etc. Throw No. 3 out the window: either it's a workdress occasion or it's a peacock occasion, or you're doing a specific job and wearing the appropriate rig.

 

[OldSolduer]

As an aside, I'm flashing back to basic where one of the guys had to be given the personal hygiene talk repeatedly by course staff and MIR, with a few briefings on how to have a shower, and we were supposed to report if he wasn't doing it properly (spoiler, he wasn't). It wasn't a time thing, he just didn't like washing anything other than his feet for some reason.

Thankfully he got punted anyway for other reasons, but it was brutal. He stunk bad enough that the course staff ignored the air freshners we had tucked away in our rooms.

I've never quite encountered anything like that. Was mind boggling that someone with regular and full access to showers, soap etc and plenty of time to use it, as well as order to wash himself just.... wouldn't. It was a reek you could taste and feel cloying at your eyeballs. Even after he was gone and we cleaned the hell out of his room (including washing the walls, mattress etc) it lingered for weeks.

We had a guy like that in CFRS Cornwallis. I was a recruit at the time.

Trust me, Gomer the Stinky showered after the session of counselling we had with him one evening.

 

[FJAG]

Conventional is as conventional does.

Rules of Order and Decorum - Manner of Speaking

IMHO, every convention has a first day and a last day.

This was the convention of appropriate dress once:

It had its last day.

I think that it is high time that this:

Also have its last day.

As I asked before - what purpose does that tie fulfill? Why a jacket? Why not a sweater or cardigan or - gasp - nothing more than just a shirt? And why pants? Shorts work in Australia:

Who is the Good Idea Fairey that runs around and sets these standards? And why do we slavishly follow them?

Don't get me wrong. I know the bankers and lawyers aren't about to change. Hell we still look like this.

But thankfully not like this:

And I'm not advocating that the future should look like this:

Sometimes, however, someone needs to get bold and step out of "convention"