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

New Dress Regs 🤣

I haven't seen the slideshow. Under this new policy can:

A male wear a deu skirt when required to wear deus; and

Can a male dye their beard all kinds of colours too?
 
acial tattoos are still job limiting though, so hopefully people give that a bit of thought ahead of time if they ever want to get a job outside the military, but really that is a personal problem.

Well said.


The answer on hiring is simple and straightforward – an employer can legally choose not to hire based on any (visible) tattoos or piercings.

The situation is more complicated after an employee has been hired. Here the employer’s rights differ greatly depending on whether it is a unionized workplace or a non-union workplace.
 
I believe the slide deck says yes to wearing a skirt. Don't know about the beard, but it's just hair anyway, so why not.
 
I haven't seen the slideshow. Under this new policy can:

A male wear a deu skirt when required to wear deus; and

Can a male dye their beard all kinds of colours too?
I suspect the rules about what footwear you need to wear with the skirt will prevent guys from doing it for a laugh. Women can't wear ankle boots with the skirt now, so I doubt ankle boots with skirts will be allowed when the new rules come out. If a bunch of guys want to buy pumps and learn to walk in them for the "entertainment" of wearing a skirt, all the more power to them. I'm sure if/when they get the reaction they wanted they will go right back to trousers.

Whatever the new rules will be, there will still be rules about what can be worth with what, and when it can be worn.
 
As an outsider, but coming from a police service, interesting development. My reaction would be similar to my reactions when police services started allowing beards, earrings, tattoos and the like, and reflected my generation - I didn't like it. I have this notion that professions should look, well, . . . professional, that cops shouldn't look like bikers, but fully realizing that my preferred image is pretty much undefinable. However, I recognize that, at the time, concerns that our constituency - rural and small town residents who actually pay the bills - would not accept the changes, did not happen in any significant way.

I suppose my bottom line is that the image being projected shouldn't be the individual's, it should be the organization that they are very visibly representing, and if the organization is okay with it, then fine. I have my doubts that it will increase recruiting, but I guess that remains to be seen.

Will the public care? Considering that, outside of the media and typically on certain 'ceremonial days, the vast majority of the population never encounters a member of the CAF, I doubt they will notice, with the exception of vets. The one exception may be those ceremonial events. Purple hair and tats may be a tougher sell in ceremonial dress, standing guard at the Tomb or being eye-candy at a photo-op with the PM, than in day-to-day uniform.

I do have a few of concerns:
- The notion of interpretation being driven down to lower leadership does strike me as a cop-out. If a lower level makes a call that doesn't get supported up the chain, they will likely make that mistake once, and if they don't feel supported, may just say 'screw it' to many matters of dress and deportment. The OPP has (or at least had) rules that beards must closely shaven and hair must be a natural colour. Members looking like ZZ Top and purple hair on a senior commander pretty much negated the effectiveness of every policy point.

- With finer detailed interpretations being driven down, does it create problems with members passing judgement on appearance matters of the opposite sex? It sounds like every local interpretation will have to be accompanied by a treatise on it operational impact.

- I do have a problem with facial tattoos. The significance of the 'human visage' in human interaction is hard-wired into out brains, and we have no cultural history related to facial tattoos unlike, say, New Zealand. The whole idea of 'appropriate' visible tattoos strikes me as problematic. I await the debate on whether the bearer of a swastika is a Nazi sympathizer or channeling an ancient middle-eastern religion. Besides, if you get a tattoo that is later ruled as inappropriate, isn't it a little late?
 
Most folks I know aren’t using SCBA for fires — they have sealing hoods too…
If the seal goes bad for a Bio/Chem issue - it’s RFB (and not return to base)

The sealing hood also helps in blast issues - because of an explosion etc breaks a seal - your DOA.

Regardless of beard or not - I would that thought ship board firefighting kits would be a two level seal mask and hood - as burning ships tend to have the occasional explosion.
 
You can, still not approved for use. Just like personal tac vests and non-issue ballistic eyewear.
Invalid comparison; there are specific ANSI and CSA standards that different glasses are tested to and which are empirically validated. Shaved vs jellied beards in SCBA is not comparable to Revision Sawfly vs Oakley M Frame ‘just because’.
 
Any word or predictions on if this will change the piercing policy? Would be cool to get a small stud somewhere

Also, do you think this will be limited to OFP?
 

Will the public care? Considering that, outside of the media and typically on certain 'ceremonial days, the vast majority of the population never encounters a member of the CAF, I doubt they will notice, with the exception of vets. The one exception may be those ceremonial events. Purple hair and tats may be a tougher sell in ceremonial dress, standing guard at the Tomb or being eye-candy at a photo-op with the PM, than in day-to-day uniform.

Maybe it will help get more people in, and encourage others to stay in. 🤷‍♂️

 
This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .
 
This is really where COs, RSMs and the CoC need to set an example. You know that principle “lead by example” .
I think COs, RSMs and the CoC have a lot more to gain from leading by example in the context if work ethics, excellence in your job and other more substantial areas of their professional lives than attempting to influence subordinates to adhere to an arbitrary standard of professional appearance that the CoC deems acceptable that is above and beyond the published standard. I don’t care that little Joe has long blue hair with a weekend beard and long fake nails. I care that they do their job effectively and efficiently.
 
Not growing a huge beard. Keeping hair a reasonable length. That sort of thing. I know y’all wanna look like USN SEALs but…

I'm looking forward to long hair. I'm already pushing boundaries. The rest of it doesn't mean much to me.

Our hair regs became ridiculous when women were let to do the same jobs.
 
I think COs, RSMs and the CoC have a lot more to gain from leading by example in the context if work ethics, excellence in your job and other more substantial areas of their professional lives than attempting to influence subordinates to adhere to an arbitrary standard of professional appearance that the CoC deems acceptable that is above and beyond the published standard. I don’t care that little Joe has long blue hair with a weekend beard and long fake nails. I care that they do their job effectively and efficiently.

Ok I’m a bit old school and yes I agree with what you say to an extent however dress and deportment is somewhat important too. Wearing kit properly and using for what it was intended for is important.
 
Back
Top