• 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 🤣

The hat looks a lot like my shiny new one... Maybe I'll grow my hair out after Labour Day. :ROFLMAO:

I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years. I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did. Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.


A-2371767-1588823595-1893.jpg
 
Yet there are no rules prohibiting a doctor or lawyer from getting purple hair or pink nail polish.

They can. And I bet a few do. But the majority don’t. Just like the CAF.

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Their legitimacy in the profession won't last long in the real world. Just like the CAF.


you-do-want-to-express-yourself-dont-you.jpg

These new regs will make it easier to spot the clowns in the circus.
 
Things will come to a natural conclusion just like it does in civy land. People need not panic.

I don't think anyone is panicking. Some are finally taking their pensions and leaving for pinker pastures as a 'final straw'. This isn't something I'd retire or release over.
 
I have one of those short on the sides long on top hair cuts and I've had it for years. I just started growing it and wanted to see if anyone would say anything; and no one did. Now that its gonna be legal I might go back to the flat top Johnny Unitas look.


View attachment 72024
I will not be surprised when a lot of people - especially 25-40 year olds - do the same. It will be a reaction: pink hair and face piercings are OK? Great, I'm going for the opposite "look."
 
I will not be surprised when a lot of people - especially 25-40 year olds - do the same. It will be a reaction: pink hair and face piercings are OK? Great, I'm going for the opposite "look."

"His ticker stopped in the middle of a junior flat-top."

"Me? I just cut the hair."

 
You're an AESOP right ? You already make more than most of the the rest of the NCM corps. Mind if the rest of us go to the front of the line this time ? Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to add perspective.

I am so jealous of the RCAF Union. If I wasn't brainwashed into the RCN I may have switched lol

Lots of trades are Spec1; my AIRCRA isn’t actually worth much after taxes, less so if it was a month with 100+ hours logged. With all the quals and currencies we need to maintain to keep flying, exams and simulator times…AIRCRA doesn’t amount to much compensation for effort needed. With all the skills/knowledge/proficiency we need to maintain, the Spec1 value is questionable to me often. There’s significant effort for it and impact on life. It’s about $10 more a day than someone same rank/PI in the Standard group after deductions etc.

AIRCRA… not pensionable. Make it pensionable and it’s worth it.

The real money in my trade is LRP Dets; tax free on named Ops usually get Ops FSP, HA, RA and full per diem. Spec1 and aircrew are peanuts compared to those trips.
 
Last edited:
You're an AESOP right ? You already make more than most of the the rest of the NCM corps. Mind if the rest of us go to the front of the line this time ? Not trying to be a jerk, just trying to add perspective.

I should have added…I was thinking pay raise a la the kind when everyone gets it. Our increases every 3-4 years aren’t even coming close to keeping up with the rising COL in this country under the current govt.

The next pay review the RCAF is doing after the pilot and SAR Tech one, the other 3 aircrew trades aren’t included in the 9 RCAF managed ones that are part of the next review.

I am so jealous of the RCAF Union. If I wasn't brainwashed into the RCN I may have switched lol

If not the RCAF one, the Air Operations branch for sure. All the tech trades are Spec1, AES Op is Spec1, Flt Engr and NDT are Spec2 and SAR Techs are equivalent to LCol-Col GSO pay.
 
Yet the CAF wonders why people don't join/stay in...
In the 70s and 80s they beat the crap out of you but they didn't have the retention and recruiting issues we have. I think we need to look at what they had to keep them in that we don't have.
 
In the 70s and 80s they beat the crap out of you but they didn't have the retention and recruiting issues we have. I think we need to look at what they had to keep them in that we don't have.
Grade 8 education requirement is what they had. People with no prospects tend to stay in. Society has managed to close that education gap so now more prospects.
 
Look, there is no magic dress or deportment issue at the source of recruiting/retention problem. It's a natural cycle and goes this way in peacetime:

Bad economy and high unemployment = good recruiting and retention;
Good economy and low unemployment = bad recruiting and retention.

Recruiting/retention is about to get good again ;)
 
Look, there is no magic dress or deportment issue at the source of recruiting/retention problem. It's a natural cycle and goes this way in peacetime:

Bad economy and high unemployment = good recruiting and retention;
Good economy and low unemployment = bad recruiting and retention.

Recruiting/retention is about to get good again ;)
It'll be bad for a while before it gets good. One of the principal problems with the economy right now is stagflation. We have a tight labour market not because of growth, but because people are dropping out of the workforce, no real economic growth, yet prices are through the roof. In other words, it's overheating due to coolant failure and god only knows how it'll end.

On the topic of the thread... after reading through these 44 pages, I guess my final opinion is that there's no other way forward - given the political, legal and social reality of Canada - than those changes, but I do have a problem with two things.

1. It still requires me to wear a hat everywhere. :cautious:

2. It ends the practice of having all recruits shave their heads on basic, which is an awfully bad idea in my view. Why? Because it allows people to wrongfully think and feel that they'll never have to sacrifice their appearance for operational purposes. Those individuals might then be surprised when push comes to shove, and that's one more reason they'd have to find excuses not to deploy. In essence, we'd be training and investing in un-deployable - thus militarily useless - members. It's a bad idea for the same reasons that letting recruits have cellphones on basic is a bad idea, and that outlawing punitive PT is a bad idea. In a war, you won't have cell service whenever. If you fuck up, you will seriously pay for it, no matter what.

On the idea that there's no difference between funky, coloured hair, and natural colours and short hair... Maybe dwell on the biological differences involved? It's not ''my preference'' to have brown hair... it's just how it is. It follows logically that doing something other than keeping it out of the way (short) is an outward expression of style, meant to attract attention. Contrary to popular claims, no one dresses / wears makeup / does anything purely aesthetic ''only for themselves''. If you did, you'd be wearing cargo shorts and a T-shirt every day - because that's what folks who really ''dress for themselves'' do.

On the idea that dress and deportment have no correlation with behaviour and mental health... Some of you's haven't gone through CEGEP and it shows. I say that because CÉGEP is the college that every aspiring university student has to go through in Québec, and it includes psychology courses. Some of the basic psychology topics explored in those courses include: how linguistic differences affect cognitive processes / perception, how appearance reflects and affects behaviour (Ie; police officers with black uniforms are usually more violent), as well as an introduction to mental illness (and how a majority of mentally ill individuals have more than one diagnosis, one of those typically being a personality disorder that includes attention-seeking behaviour).

Breadcrumbs:
https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/attention-seeking-behavior#common-causes
https://genesight.com/blog/patient/managing-multiple-mental-illnesses/#:~:text=Is%20it%20possible%20to%20have,had%20two%20or%20more%20disorders.
 
Last edited:
On the idea that there's no difference between funky, coloured hair, and natural colours and short hair... Maybe dwell on the biological differences involved? It's not ''my preference'' to have brown hair... it's just how it is.

The default state might be "just how it is", but the fact that you haven't decided to change that default state to something else is indeed based upon your preference. There isn't a shade of natural occurring hair which exists which can't be replicated via the bottle. And currently, there's plenty of people in the CAF who are wearing hair that isn't their natural shade.

You've got a choice to dye your hair, and you chose not to.

It follows logically that doing something other than keeping it out of the way (short) is an outward expression of style, meant to attract attention. Contrary to popular claims, no one dresses / wears makeup / does anything purely aesthetic ''only for themselves''. If you did, you'd be wearing cargo shorts and a T-shirt every day - because that's what folks who really ''dress for themselves'' do.

Nonsense. There's lots of people out there who prefer to dress for comfort, and there's lots of people out there who like looking good. "Good" being defined by their own personal preferences of course.

And with regards to hair, both of those approaches (and everything in between) can be accomodated. Great!
 
Back
Top