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

Current Dress Regs

I disagree with the premise. Inclusivity increases effectiveness. Exclusivity decreases it. Excluding people for literally any reason that doesn't have a negative impact on operational effectiveness... decreases operational effectiveness of the CAF.

Only bona fide operational requirements are justifiable reasons to exclude anyone, IMHO. Aesthetics preferences sure as hell are not.

Following rules is certainly important, but those rules need to be justified based upon, you guessed it, bona fide operational requirements. Making up stupid rules just because you can doesn't make the CAF better.
Ok and who decides that the rule is stupid? I think the rule that members are required to have a certain education level is stupid as I have worked with many that would not get in under the current standards. Worked with a CWO that only had grade 3 and was sharp as a tack when it came to his military knowledge. Knew many that had reached grade 10 before dropping out and going to work. My brother had grade 9 which would have excluded him but was also a licensed mechanic so graduated basic as a Veh Tech promoted to Cpl. So what is the bona fide operational requirement for this rule? It only serves as a filter point to reflect that the member can be taught.

Freedom of expression being limited in uniform is fine, for valid reasons; it is of course completely improper for a CAF member to be attempting to use their membership in the CAF to influence politics, sell products, etc etc. Being told to do dangerous things is justified when there is a valid requirement to do so; you can order someone to fight a fire or get in a fire fight; and associated training to prep to do so. You can't order them to play in traffic or to not wear a helmet when riding a bike.
Who says you can't order them not to play in traffic or not to wear a helmet when riding a bike? Are you a judge able to determine what is and isn't a lawful command? Do you have the basis of why the order was given? Maybe there is a valid reason for it that you are not privy to.

I'm not a fan of the new limit on beard length; I'd be all in favour of tightening up grooming requirements. Being neat and tidy while in uniform is all well and good. But the arbitrary length limit seems, well, arbitrary. And when the impact is that the member can't do what they want with their facial hair while off duty, then it should be justified for some reason other than aesthetics.
The catch - the rules are written to cover the regular force and applied to the reserves to maintain that inclusivity and uniformity we are all fond of. As a regular force member you are on duty at all times and subject to the NDA, Dress Regs, QR&Os, etc. Too often we mix up on duty with "on duty" (being at work). Wish they would come up with a different term for the two.

Edit: also, forgot, the restriction on facial piercings. I can see keeping a "no mouth piercings" one due to the increased risk of dental damage, but don't think barring eyebrow or nose are reasonable.
1718034592560.png1718034789295.png

I think perhaps I'm not getting the main point of my argument across directly enough: I take issue with "dress" instructions when those dress instructions require a member to change or not change their body.
But the dress instructions don't require members to do this, they lay out what is entailed for the job and the member then makes the choice if they want to make the changes themself just like any other job you may apply for. I walked into recruiting and was interviewed by an officer. Several times during that interview he spent some time flipping back and forth through his papers and leaving to talk to someone to ascertain his next step. I was dressed in black leather boots, superwide jeans, tshirt, leather jacket, beasties on my wrist and neck, several earrings, full face hair and hair down to my butt. I answered yes or possibly to a couple questions that no one else ever had to him. I think the question that threw him the most was when he asked me why I had stopped something and I replied "because I knew it wasn't allowed in the military and I had decided I wanted to join". approximately a month later I was clean shaven with a brush cut, no earrings or beasties wearing a "bus driver" uniform because that was the choice I had made and I continue to make the choice to adhere to the dress regs as any time I want I can release.

Off duty, yes. On duty no. I am in no way shape or form advocating that members be allowed to augment uniforms willy-nilly. What I don't want is limitations that affect how they present themselves while off duty (except for good reasons like "you need to be clean shaven while on ship because otherwise we all might die in a fire").
Again Regular Force members are never actually off duty and are always representing the military to the public. If Cpl Bloggin goes downtown looking like a bag shit and gets in a fight the press release will identify him as in the military and he will be subject to discipline by the military if it is so desired. Personally, with the way the press and public are I think that should also apply to the reserves.

I do agree there was/is a large amount of room for changes in the dress regs and the enforcement of them (often they were enforced on the males and not females when civilian dress was authorized is one example). I am on the fence with some of these changes and your posts have kept me there instead of falling to the other side. I also think you have not fully thought through your points from both sides in order to make your point and thus are missing the counters in the discussion.

My pers take on the headdress wearing - I prefer to keep the current rule with saluting policy as it is. this enables me to walk around work outside without the need to constantly salute as we are not required to wear headdress at the work location. I honestly don't recall the last time I had to salute someone in the last 8 years.

Service dress all the time except the field. That would kill morale more than any self “expression” issues.
Been there and it is a royal pain when you are expected to do certain tasks and keep your white shirt white.
 
In all seriousness, they could develop an inexpensive poly-cotton “garrison dress 2.0” that was wash n’wear, didn’t require constant ironing and spit-shining, was comfortable, didn’t have a ridiculous camp jacket that was neither warm or appropriate for any use and would put significantly less wear and tear on expensive CADPAT.

But maybe I’m just a dreamer…
 
In all seriousness, they could develop an inexpensive poly-cotton “garrison dress 2.0” that was wash n’wear, didn’t require constant ironing and spit-shining, was comfortable, didn’t have a ridiculous camp jacket that was neither warm or appropriate for any use and would put significantly less wear and tear on expensive CADPAT.

But maybe I’m just a dreamer…
IMG_3170.jpeg
 
Ok and who decides that the rule is stupid? I think the rule that members are required to have a certain education level is stupid as I have worked with many that would not get in under the current standards. Worked with a CWO that only had grade 3 and was sharp as a tack when it came to his military knowledge. Knew many that had reached grade 10 before dropping out and going to work. My brother had grade 9 which would have excluded him but was also a licensed mechanic so graduated basic as a Veh Tech promoted to Cpl. So what is the bona fide operational requirement for this rule? It only serves as a filter point to reflect that the member can be taught.


Who says you can't order them not to play in traffic or not to wear a helmet when riding a bike? Are you a judge able to determine what is and isn't a lawful command? Do you have the basis of why the order was given? Maybe there is a valid reason for it that you are not privy to.


The catch - the rules are written to cover the regular force and applied to the reserves to maintain that inclusivity and uniformity we are all fond of. As a regular force member you are on duty at all times and subject to the NDA, Dress Regs, QR&Os, etc. Too often we mix up on duty with "on duty" (being at work). Wish they would come up with a different term for the two.


View attachment 85879View attachment 85880


But the dress instructions don't require members to do this, they lay out what is entailed for the job and the member then makes the choice if they want to make the changes themself just like any other job you may apply for. I walked into recruiting and was interviewed by an officer. Several times during that interview he spent some time flipping back and forth through his papers and leaving to talk to someone to ascertain his next step. I was dressed in black leather boots, superwide jeans, tshirt, leather jacket, beasties on my wrist and neck, several earrings, full face hair and hair down to my butt. I answered yes or possibly to a couple questions that no one else ever had to him. I think the question that threw him the most was when he asked me why I had stopped something and I replied "because I knew it wasn't allowed in the military and I had decided I wanted to join". approximately a month later I was clean shaven with a brush cut, no earrings or beasties wearing a "bus driver" uniform because that was the choice I had made and I continue to make the choice to adhere to the dress regs as any time I want I can release.


Again Regular Force members are never actually off duty and are always representing the military to the public. If Cpl Bloggin goes downtown looking like a bag shit and gets in a fight the press release will identify him as in the military and he will be subject to discipline by the military if it is so desired. Personally, with the way the press and public are I think that should also apply to the reserves.

I do agree there was/is a large amount of room for changes in the dress regs and the enforcement of them (often they were enforced on the males and not females when civilian dress was authorized is one example). I am on the fence with some of these changes and your posts have kept me there instead of falling to the other side. I also think you have not fully thought through your points from both sides in order to make your point and thus are missing the counters in the discussion.

My pers take on the headdress wearing - I prefer to keep the current rule with saluting policy as it is. this enables me to walk around work outside without the need to constantly salute as we are not required to wear headdress at the work location. I honestly don't recall the last time I had to salute someone in the last 8 years.


Been there and it is a royal pain when you are expected to do certain tasks and keep your white shirt white.
That would require a change to the NDA. I can't speak for other units, but mine normally keeps on top of what most of the troops put on social media, anything deemed inappropriate is normally taken down pretty quickly. Many reserve units are also based in smaller communities, meaning that it gets back to the chain of command pretty quickly if something considered off-side occurs. They may not be subject to military discipline the same way if they were not in uniform, but there are other ways to address the issue.
 
In all seriousness, they could develop an inexpensive poly-cotton “garrison dress 2.0” that was wash n’wear, didn’t require constant ironing and spit-shining, was comfortable, didn’t have a ridiculous camp jacket that was neither warm or appropriate for any use and would put significantly less wear and tear on expensive CADPAT.

But maybe I’m just a dreamer…


Here you go... I wore the equivalent - usually during various 'arduous courses' - in the UK.

Perfectly functional...

 
In all seriousness, they could develop an inexpensive poly-cotton “garrison dress 2.0” that was wash n’wear, didn’t require constant ironing and spit-shining, was comfortable, didn’t have a ridiculous camp jacket that was neither warm or appropriate for any use and would put significantly less wear and tear on expensive CADPAT.

But maybe I’m just a dreamer…
You mean Work Dress?
 
You mean Work Dress?

IOW, the infamous 'Sweat Bag'?


ew do not want GIF by Arika Sato
 
You mean Work Dress?
Kinda... Just a lot less shit. I wore that garbage when I joined, and before I joined as a cadet. We can do a lot better.

In the real world, clothing manufacturers have figured out how to make office appropriate work clothing that is extremely low maintenance and still presentable. Why can't the CAF hire an actual professional to design a uniform that is both cost effective and comfortable?
 
Kinda... Just a lot less shit. I wore that garbage when I joined, and before I joined as a cadet. We can do a lot better.

In the real world, clothing manufacturers have figured out how to make office appropriate work clothing that is extremely low maintenance and still presentable. Why can't the CAF hire an actual professional to design a uniform that is both cost effective and comfortable?
Because then Peerless Garments and Logistik Unicorp wouldn't get the contracts.
 

Now that's a form of dress I've not heard of in a long time....a long time.

In the PPCLI we wore it not to work in but parade in. Including spit shining Garrison boots, pressing and ironing creases etc....

I recommend you shelve this idea
Hold on - are you suggesting that the army would take a good idea and dumbify it?

Oh My God Wow GIF by reactionseditor
 
Here you go... I wore the equivalent - usually during various 'arduous courses' - in the UK.

Perfectly functional...

Wore that regularly ... most often "bush" trousers and a shirt, sleeves rolled up, in summer, "bush" trousers and a shirt and high neck seater in spring and fall and the same with a parka in winter.

Circa 1980, I recall observing to my RSM that the working dress of the day in our Regiment seemed to be combat boots, work dress trousers and troop or squadron T-shirts. It was practical and sufficiently neat and tidy to pacify even our most "Guardish" sergeant majors.
 
Back
Top