MCG said:
So, I suppose you can tell us the annual cost of boots as well and I suppose you know how the numbers as a percentage of each manufacturing industry's annual market?
I think that the point is that the circumstances are the same. The reasonings for the BTU being instituted are really no different than the problems being experienced for footwear. (Regardless, I know of one girl who gets re-imbursed well over the 160.00 dollar limit because she requires custom made bras --- well over).
The difference in dollar values is the only difference.
We already are aware that the CF attempted to have a footwear allowance brought in, but that this was rejected by PWGSC et al due to the impact upon the "Big 4" (<--- that would be the Big 4 Canadian footwear manufacturers ... who complained loudly when the attempt was made because federal contracts make up a huge part of their business [I'd complain too were I those companies when my livelihood is threatened]).
I will re-iterate once again: I HAVE NEVER COMPARED the BTU allowance to the NATIONAL CONTRACTING of footwear. I have stated that the BTU should be used as a presedence FOR PWGSC/GOVERNMENT approval of a footwear allowance because ... exactly like boobs --- each set of feet is also different.
No one Canadian manufacturer could supply different styles/types/spec of bra that was suitable for wear by all females serving in the CF ergo we got the BTU. YES --- I realize the "scale" of economy is different, yet that does not change the fact that it is because no one style could be found suitable to all and that differing chest sizes/types resulted in an annual allowance.
Fact: No one Canadian Boot manufacturer has been able to do this either for footwear.
Fact: CF females now buy their bras downtown with that allowance. Some buy Canadian made bras and others do not. Regardless of where that bra was made though, serving CF females are purchasing those bras in Canadian retail outlets and are therefore STILL SUPPORTING the Canadian economy.
Fact: Were a boot allowance actually approved, serving CF members would be buying those boots themselves too. Some would be "made in Canada" and some would not be, exactly as with the bras. Regardless of what boot was purchased though, serving CF members would be, for the vast majority of the part [just like the bras] purchasing those boots in Canadian retail outlets and would therefore be STILL SUPPORTING the Canadian economy. <--- Caveat: I DO realize that this would not necessarily be from the very vocal "Big 4" and thus their concern that those guaranteed shareholder profits based on government contracts that they currently enjoy would be in jeopardy (simply put, it sure does NOT make business sense at all for those "Big 4" NOT to complain when talk is heard of CF footwear allowances but that doesn't change the opinion that the footwear allowance is one of the best options out there which would enable our troops to have the type/style/best boot for THEIR foot such as we women currently enjoy with our boobs. And, I'd argue, that our feet are a critical soldiering tool which are much more important to look after properly than our boobs).
It's economy of scale --- and it is ALL POLITICS.
So, do we institute a system by which the soldier has a "choice" of stocked/contracted boots from a couple of the "Big 4"? But, won't doing that piss off the others of the "Big 4" who are left out?? Or do PWGSC et al continue to cater to keeping business' in business by giving Canadian soldiers a "choice" of contracted/stocked footwear from ANY of the "Big 4" just to keep them all happy? If we are going to do this ... then why not save ourselves a fortune on stocking/contracting fees by asking that PWGSC approve a "footwear allowance whereby members purchase the boots of their choosing from any of the "Big 4" Canadian manufacturer's. Troops then bring in their receipts to clothing stores who will stamp and initiate the claim for re-imbursement of the costs to the member --- provided that the purchase is made from one of the "approved" "Big 4" suppliers (this can also be done for bras by the way, no difference there. But, we haven't which tells me a lot about big business' protection by federal purchasing regulations which doesn't extend to small Canadian business). <--- note also that the insitution of something along these lines might actually serve as an impetus for those Canadian Boot manufactuers to design footwear that IS compatible with our troops' feet and getting the job done and therefore will be purchased, perhaps even sought out (!!) by our troops and those from other nations. Other non-Canadian footwear manufactuers certainly seem capable of doing so. Perhaps it is exactly the fact, that under the current guidelines and federal requirements for purchasing, that those footwear manufactuers do not need to expend shareholder monies in any great amount to come up with suitable and acceptable products which meet the needs of soldiers because their business is currently "guaranteed for them" under current rules. It would just make bad business sense once again ... and they are all about business. And, they would see some of their business heading off to Mark's Workwearhouse instead etc ... (but heck, I'm pretty sure it's Canadians working and benfitting from troops buying boots in that little store too and I really don't see the validity in the arguement that allowing troops to do this will "negatively impact" the Canadian economy --- rather it would negatively impact the Big 4 and their "guaranteed" sales).
What about all the mom & pop Canadian boot makers (many of whom DO make boots which some of our soldiers find to be acceptable tools) who are overlooked in the above scenario? Do they not have just as much right to survive (and have their business "protected" by federal contracting guidelines) or is that "guaranteed Canadian suppliers" only applicable to big and vocal companies? I already listed a whole bunch of some mom & pop Canadian bra manufactuer's that this rule was NOT applied for. Again, it's a matter of scale.
In short, I agree 110% agree with Ecco that the costs for BTU are not comparable to boots, but I have never tried to compare the costs. Again, that doesn't change the fact that the only difference in the situations is SCALE of economy and that the need exists. I have tried to compare the "critical needs based requirement for non-standard pattern for boots/bras [it IS the same]". We need a footwear allowance for the exact same "standard pattern/make manufacturer does not work for body parts which differ so vastly" reasons that a BTU allowance was approved by PWGSC and therfore instituted by the CF; and, scale of economy does not make that disappear or become invalid.
It just makes it a tougher fight and a much more political hot-potato ... and a purely political issue.
I'm not going to sit here and be told that "I am misleading" or that I am being "dishonest". I have NEVER said that LPO was the same as contracting -- quite the opposite actually. I have NEVER said that contracting boots was the same as buying bras. I NEVER brought up cost ... until someone ELSE brought up costs whereby I pointed out that I was not comparing contracting/LPOing, but was comparing PHYSICAL factors for the requirement FOR a Boot Allowance. I have said that the physical reasons/requirements that a boot allowance was required matched those of bras. That is still the case, despite protestations otherwise. And the only difference is scale. My boots could be worth a million bucks a pair and my bra a mere one doller -- it does NOT change the fact that feet differ from everyone else's and that I need boots that work FOR me just like I need a bra that works FOR me, not a bra or a boot that I am forced into which does NOT work for me, or is NOT suitable to the task, and in fact is hurting some soldiers and rendering them incapable of performing their primary SOLDIERING duties (there's enough threads from those people here already).
What's good and best for my boobs --- is still what's good and best for my feet. And the only reason we have one allowance and not the other is "politcial and economical scale". Sometimes, political/economical & business protection is NOT in the best interest of the troops.
!!)
