There are plenty of things that we as a society allow or encourage or celebrate which many of our allies find distasteful. Too f'in bad. We're not doing it for them.
That is a very naive stance to take. I would hope its one you keep for this forum and not one you take with you on Expeditionary Operations.
And yet, the recruits are not flooding in as predicted ...
Dispirit de corps
What would appeal to the country’s young men and women? The answer, as laid down in the new CAF regulations, was that they “should reflect the changing norms in Canadian society. This will welcome a more diverse group of CAF members, which will benefit the CAF as diversity is a known force multiplier.”
Consider the new rule for hair: “Full or partial shaving of hair on the head is permitted. Colouring of hair is permitted. The wearing of wigs, locks, or hair extensions is permitted. Long hair is permitted but must be secured…in such a manner to prevent hair from falling in or covering the face when leaning forward.”
In other words, personnel can have any colour hair down to their shoulders when in uniform. In addition: “all styles of facial hair and sideburns are authorized. Facial hair may be braided/pony tail style and coloured.” At the same time, male and female “members may wear coloured nail polish, artificial nails, temporary lashes, and eyelash extensions.” In addition, men may wear skirts if they wish, so long as the hem falls below the knee.
If these new regulations worked to attract new and diverse recruits, they might be justified. Thus far, however, they have had no such effect. Recruitment continues to be slow while retirements increase. This is no surprise to those who have served (or somehow continue to serve).
Dispirit de corps - Legion Magazine
Given the lack of meaningful support, it’s easy to appreciate morale issues among the military’s rank and filelegionmagazine.com
It was the purple hair and coloured nails. More conservative countries (see Eastern Europe and the Middle East) and frankly, most of NATO think we look like fucking losers because of some of these bozos.
They don't have higher standards, they just enforce the high standards better. Show up for work not complying with the standard, you might get a warning but a second time would be dismissal, especially if you're still on a probation period. After the probie period, the process is a little more drawn out, because in a unionized environment you're more protected, but could still face disciplinary measures (loss of pay, reduced hours, etc.)Kind of funny that a fast food restaurant has higher standards than the CAF for presentation, but had similar at a number of different manual labour jobs where you were representing the company. Even though you ended up looking like a wrung out hobo dog by the end of the long day in the summer doing landscaping, they definitely wanted you to start looking presentable when you were showing up to someone's home to do some work (especially the high end jobs).
Weird that with a push for recruiting, they didn't consider brand impact by having some guidelines for still looking neat and presentable while loosening what was allowed.
Kind of funny that a fast food restaurant has higher standards than the CAF for presentation, but had similar at a number of different manual labour jobs where you were representing the company. Even though you ended up looking like a wrung out hobo dog by the end of the long day in the summer doing landscaping, they definitely wanted you to start looking presentable when you were showing up to someone's home to do some work (especially the high end jobs).
Weird that with a push for recruiting, they didn't consider brand impact by having some guidelines for still looking neat and presentable while loosening what was allowed.
At the end of the day, are we writing the Canadian Forces Dress Instructions to appease foreigners, or are we trying to write something that works for Canadians?
There are plenty of things that we as a society allow or encourage or celebrate which many of our allies find distasteful. Too f'in bad. We're not doing it for them.
Let's be honest, the lost credibility of the CoC has almost 0 to do with dress regs. Now toxic leadership on the other hand, housing? Etc....Are we writing dress policy to appease 20%?
The CAF has lost credibility, internally and internationally, with this track. All to appease what, 20%?
Interesting enough I have worked with 3 people that went through the "inappropriate comments" scenario and although it was a nightmare for them the first 2 both stuck to their guns and were ready to do it again but slightly differently. One was a MCpl back when females were to wear neutral colour bras that informed a Cpl he was working with that hers was not at dress standards as it could be fully seen through the paper thin blouses they wore at that time (she wore black). The change he made was that if he ever had to do it again he would do it in an office with a female MCpl as a witness to what was said instead of in the open office. The third one was restricted from contact with the complainant but was still able to go to his office.We are not talking about the same things...
I am talking about people looking unprofessional, you keep going back to ops and/or safety issues.
There is a difference between being told "stand down, you got that wrong", and "We have received a harassment complaint from S3 Bloggings that you made inappropriate comments about their personal appearance. This made them feel unsafe in the workspace, so you are going to work from home until the UDI is finished".
Is it 20%? Seems high.Are we writing dress policy to appease 20%?
The CAF has lost credibility, internally and internationally, with this track. All to appease what, 20%?
They absolutely do have higher standards, and they also back up management's ability to enforce them. On the flip side they would also likely hold management accountable for not enforcing safety/food standards issues (for liability if nothing else) so works both ways. Do you think McDonalds would care if you claimed to be a viking and where getting hair all over the food, or getting it too close to the fryers?They don't have higher standards, they just enforce the high standards better. Show up for work not complying with the standard, you might get a warning but a second time would be dismissal, especially if you're still on a probation period. After the probie period, the process is a little more drawn out, because in a unionized environment you're more protected, but could still face disciplinary measures (loss of pay, reduced hours, etc.)
We don't have those same immediate levers to pull. We can't doc someone's pay while they go home and change, and the disciplinary process is to onerous to be effective. And just yelling at someone while they stand at attention can be easily tuned out.
I would estimate 5% or less.Is it 20%? Seems high.
Not just dress, toxic leadership, etc but there are a number of things that are huge dissatisfiers in every job. Poor leadership OR LACK of leadership is a major issue IMO.Let's be honest, the lost credibility of the CoC has almost 0 to do with dress regs. Now toxic leadership on the other hand, housing? Etc....
You mean we shouldn't of forced anyone with QL5 and a pulse on PLQ because we lacked leaders? Say it ain't so!Not just dress, toxic leadership, etc but there are a number of things that are huge dissatisfiers in every job. Poor leadership OR LACK of leadership is a major issue IMO.
Were the “old” new dress regs even out then? The funeral was in mid-Sep 2022.Was there an issue or incident where Canadians were kicked off a parade for the late queen because of our appearance?