• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

NDHQ Dress Code

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was probably me.

Piper said:
I don't know where that poster works,

It's in my profile.

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

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

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

I don't.
 
ltmaverick25 said:
When you are a soldier and you look like a bag of shit you do not instill confidence from the public, nor do you represent yourself well do your peers, subordinates and superiors.

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

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

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

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

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

John Q. Public at the Rideau Centre can't tell whether one is a CS-02 or a Major.    ???
 
Piper said:
, playing cards (cough certain infantry battalion cough)

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

I'm 100% sure Civi U guy has not earned the right to throw fish around yet.
 
CDN Aviator said:
There's your problem.


I second that.

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

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

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

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

dileas

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

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

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

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

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

What was really surprising is that the Navy in Esquimalt catgorically did not want you to wear what was then caled "work dress" uniforms on the city busses, and in Pet in the early 80s you were not allowed downtown Pet or Pembroke in anything but CFs
 
Occam said:
That's all well and good, but there's still one question which remains...

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

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

This sounds like a "she got more ice cream then I did" kitchen fight. You aren't a civi, you don't play by the same rules. We have a standard, hold yourself to it, if you don't like it there are always options.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
I'm starting to agree with some of my DS compatriots about you.

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

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

I second that.

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

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

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

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

dileas

tess

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

Oh wait.
 
CDN Aviator said:
There's your problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If denim and sneakers are that unprofessional looking, then why - for the paltry sum of $1 per Friday - are military members permitted to relax their dress even beyond the "Dress With a Difference" regulations, and be permitted to wear jeans and sneakers during the GCWCC campaign in the fall?  Is that not saying "Wearing jeans projects an unprofessional appearance of the CF, but we're willing to look unprofessional if you're community-minded and donate to charity"?
 
Piper said:
I'm not shocked there is a dress code, just that it is one designed around days past when it comes to fashion sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can still support the cause of my choice.
 
OK, tangent....

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

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




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

It's all about optics and perceptions, you know
 
Piper said:
Someone with your 'time-in' should know that.

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

I dont need a lesson from you on what i should know, i have lived it for much longer and seem to grasp it much better than you.
 
Piper said:
I'm not shocked there is a dress code, just that it is one designed around days past when it comes to fashion sense. That's all I was saying. I like the rebel without a clue comment though, really funny. I'm sure you'll apply the same label next time someone complains about not being allowed to wear their Danners or Oakleys, or how they can't wear their whiz-bang spec ops rig on a weekend exercise.

Oh wait.

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

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

dileas

tess
 
ltmaverick25 said:
On a different note, I do think that if there is a dress code in effect for military personnel who are not in uniform, then that same dress code should be enforced within the civilian employee cadre.  I can just imagine a CF member wearing jeans being told by one of the civies who is also wearing jeans, that they cannot be served because of the jeans!

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

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