New Dress Regs 🤣

[Eye In The Sky]

Yep,

I'm at a new job right now with around 30 other people in my training class. Literally nobody is dressed like a goof ball, kind of refreshing

Happy retirement! I’d love to be watching from the side some days…

 

[Furniture]

Like PLD, cost of living, overly aggressive op scheds?

We are doing SFA about the big items either and I'm tired of hanging around waiting. At this point I'm here out of spite because I don't want to let the system win, but it's apathy is overwhelming my GAF.

I think the flipside of these minor items is it highlights how little we are actually doing to address things that matter; the items that have been a major worry for over a decade are worse than ever, so colour me dis-fucking-satisfied with some housekeeping on D&D.

Glad this makes a few people happy I'll just go back to my box of hoping the RCN doesn't kill people sending them to sea in ships TC would require repairs to meet basic commercial standards (for cargo ships). Don't worry though they are fully crewed.... er operating with restrictions er.... covered with robust risk mitigations... well fuck.

Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.

The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.

The Op Sched, and maintenance issues are entirely RCN issues, so the CAF dress committee members aren't really having an impact on that...

Everybody has big issues to deal with, that doesn't mean we should drop everything else and only focus on the big issues. Right now all the bandwidth for OT&E in my occupation is directed at one problem. We have 20 other things that need replacing, things that could have been done long ago, but all the effort was focused solely on the "big" thing. Now we don't have the big problem sorted, and have 20 other problems getting bigger... Sometimes splitting the effort a bit, and getting some of the smaller problems off the table is required.

Dress is a small problem, but one that the CAF can fix all on it's own. It's now a small problem that is off the table, so that some people can pick away at the next small problem, while the big problems get sorted over the next several years. Unless you really believe nobody is looking at the issues you mentioned?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I am on the fence about the hair colour aspect some as I think it’s too broad. I have a hard time convincing myself My Little Pony hairstyles will “bring credit to the CAF”.

But discussing this with a peer a few months ago after some details were passed at the WCWO Council, they said “what if my kid has cancer and wants the family to all dye their hair or something for unity. I couldn’t do it right now”.

Dress regs will be like the Weed rules; if you’re operational, OUTCAN, forget weed. The senior leadership has to assume the risk for any negative outcomes to this change. Therefore I suspect any restrictions will be well thought out, justified and reviewed by all the SMEs they should be (legal comes to mind).

I am still more concerned the techs working on the 40+year old aircraft I am part of the testing crew for this week can legally get mind-fucked on weed 25 hours before turning wrenches than I am they might go for a hairstyle like Lagertha or Floki…

Or, that we have 40+ year old aircraft that there is no plan to replace yet…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.

The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.

The Op Sched, and maintenance issues are entirely RCN issues, so the CAF dress committee members aren't really having an impact on that...

Everybody has big issues to deal with, that doesn't mean we should drop everything else and only focus on the big issues. Right now all the bandwidth for OT&E in my occupation is directed at one problem. We have 20 other things that need replacing, things that could have been done long ago, but all the effort was focused solely on the "big" thing. Now we don't have the big problem sorted, and have 20 other problems getting bigger... Sometimes splitting the effort a bit, and getting some of the smaller problems off the table is required.

Dress is a small problem, but one that the CAF can fix all on it's own. It's now a small problem that is off the table, so that some people can pick away at the next small problem, while the big problems get sorted over the next several years. Unless you really believe nobody is looking at the issues you mentioned?

PLD is being worked on/looked at. No solid details but it is being looked at; no one who has info is likely going to post them here (I won’t).

 

[Navy_Pete]

Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.

I've heard that for years. We aren't an effort based institution.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

As long as the public and media are focused on dress change stuff, they’ll stop thinking about the fighter file, (non) FWSAR, JSS, tanks and APCs and stuff.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

@btrudy

I hope you don’t mind an observation. You talk about things like respecting the dignity of all, protection of freedom of expression under the Charter. Good points and relevant to the discussion.

However when anyone exercises their freedom of expression and opinion contrary to your own personal ones, you use words like bigot or say they should consider leaving the CAF (not the exact words but certainly was the message).

You have to walk the walk; debating the way you do detracts from credibility and consideration of your points because of the “double-standard stuff”.

“You have to respect the dignity of people and their freedom of expression you bigot!”

Doesn’t really add up if you’re honest about it, does it.

 

[btrudy]

@btrudy

I hope you don’t mind an observation. You talk about things like respecting the dignity of all, protection of freedom of expression under the Charter. Good points and relevant to the discussion.

However when anyone exercises their freedom of expression and opinion contrary to your own personal ones, you use words like bigot or say they should consider leaving the CAF (not the exact words but certainly was the message).

You have to walk the walk; debating the way you do detracts from credibility and consideration of your points because of the “double-standard stuff”.

“You have to respect the dignity of people and their freedom of expression you bigot!”

Doesn’t really add up if you’re honest about it, does it.

That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.

Because the one thing that'll destroy the concept of respecting the dignity of others? Ignoring it when people are not doing so.

Being a transphobe (or any other form of bigotry while we're at it), is not after all a protected class under the charter. I'm under no obligation, legally or morally to consider that to be a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect. It, by its very nature, is indeed inherently disrespectful, and I'm morally obligated to treat it as such.

 

[Kilted]

That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.

Because the one thing that'll destroy the concept of respecting the dignity of others? Ignoring it when people are not doing so.

Being a transphobe (or any other form of bigotry while we're at it), is not after all a protected class under the charter. I'm under no obligation, legally or morally to consider that to be a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect. It, by its very nature, is indeed inherently disrespectful, and I'm morally obligated to treat it as such.

Well, in our private capacities, we are not subject to the Charter, so we are free to disagree with any opinion and have no obligation to respect the view of any type of protected class.

 

[Remius]

Are we doing SFA about those things, or are they being worked on behind the scenes? Last I heard the CAF and TB were working on the PLD and pay issue. Previously the TB backed out of negotiations because too much was leaked, and the government wasn't happy.

The RCAF is trialing a whole new pay system based on occupation as we speak, if it's a success I suspect it will be rolled out to a broader range of CAF occupations.

The Op Sched, and maintenance issues are entirely RCN issues, so the CAF dress committee members aren't really having an impact on that...

Everybody has big issues to deal with, that doesn't mean we should drop everything else and only focus on the big issues. Right now all the bandwidth for OT&E in my occupation is directed at one problem. We have 20 other things that need replacing, things that could have been done long ago, but all the effort was focused solely on the "big" thing. Now we don't have the big problem sorted, and have 20 other problems getting bigger... Sometimes splitting the effort a bit, and getting some of the smaller problems off the table is required.

Dress is a small problem, but one that the CAF can fix all on it's own. It's now a small problem that is off the table, so that some people can pick away at the next small problem, while the big problems get sorted over the next several years. Unless you really believe nobody is looking at the issues you mentioned?

I agree with all of this.

We can walk and chew gum. But it would be nice to get a fresh piece of gum from time to time lol.

 

[btrudy]

Well, in our private capacities, we are not subject to the Charter, so we are free to disagree with any opinion and have no obligation to respect the view of any type of protected class.

There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.

 

[Kilted]

I agree with all of this.

We can walk and chew gum. But it would be nice to get a fresh piece of gum from time to time lol.

Are we, the information that came out about chewing gum in uniform was somewhat confusing.

 

[Kilted]

There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.

Disagreeing with an opinion is not hateful conduct.

 

[Weinie]

I walk into Wing Supply every summer when my calendar reminder tells me “it’s time” for my T shirts, issued gitches and 4 pair of light and heavy weight long underwear. No questions asked other than “service number” and “what size”. No proving anything or silliness; it’s part of my SOI.

Luxury. (and I won't even post the Yorkshiremen.)

 

[btrudy]

Disagreeing with an opinion is not hateful conduct.

When said opinion was "trans people should be afforded the same rights and opportunities as everyone else", yes, it is.

There is no friendly difference of opinions when it comes to whether or not certain people deserve basic human rights.

 

[Weinie]

I am on the fence about the hair colour aspect some as I think it’s too broad. I have a hard time convincing myself My Little Pony hairstyles will “bring credit to the CAF”.

But discussing this with a peer a few months ago after some details were passed at the WCWO Council, they said “what if my kid has cancer and wants the family to all dye their hair or something for unity. I couldn’t do it right now”.

Dress regs will be like the Weed rules; if you’re operational, OUTCAN, forget weed. The senior leadership has to assume the risk for any negative outcomes to this change. Therefore I suspect any restrictions will be well thought out, justified and reviewed by all the SMEs they should be (legal comes to mind).

I am still more concerned the techs working on the 40+year old aircraft I am part of the testing crew for this week can legally get mind-fucked on weed 25 hours before turning wrenches than I am they might go for a hairstyle like Lagertha or Floki…

Or, that we have 40+ year old aircraft that there is no plan to replace yet…

All of the above.

But asking sr leadership to assume risk, IMO, is a bridge too far. Many of them are already looking over their shoulders, wondering, "Am I next." By somewhat cleaning up the system in the last two years, we have created a whole new constraint.

 

[Jarnhamar]

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.

Incorrect.

Oxford dictionary says transphobic is

having or showing dislike towards trans people, or treating them unfairly

He doesn't dislike trans people. He's forming an opinion based on numeric value observations.

Pilots, generals, DHTC assaultes are "worth more" than infantry privates.

If the recruiting/medical/resource cost of training 1x trans member (or whoever) is equal to training 20x infantry members then it's not a hate crime to have an opinion that training the 20x members is more economical or more worth while.



EITS hit the nail on the head.

 

[Kilted]

When said opinion was "trans people should be afforded the same rights and opportunities as everyone else", yes, it is.

There is no friendly difference of opinions when it comes to whether or not certain people deserve basic human rights.

Well, that's a little bit of a loaded situation and not where I was directed my comment. Yes, anyone advocating taking charter rights away from a specific group would meet the grounds for hateful conduct. It is also completely possible to disagree with the way someone acts or the way that someone believes about something without hating them.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.

You don’t get to decide that.

That'd be the Paradox of tolerance at work, now wouldn't it?

When someone's literally saying that we shouldn't bother recruiting trans people, because they come with too much baggage.... well, that is a clearly transphobic viewpoint, that should not be tolerated.

Because the one thing that'll destroy the concept of respecting the dignity of others? Ignoring it when people are not doing so.

Being a transphobe (or any other form of bigotry while we're at it), is not after all a protected class under the charter. I'm under no obligation, legally or morally to consider that to be a legitimate viewpoint worthy of respect. It, by its very nature, is indeed inherently disrespectful, and I'm morally obligated to treat it as such.

So while debating inclusion, respecting others…you feel justified in doing the opposite.

Jarnhamer simply pointed out a large % of the CAF is CISHET or whatever the acronym is. You basically said you’re a bigot and should leave the CAF. You’re seriously going to try to defend that? I think many people would have more respect for you and your opinion if you had the courage to say “that was over the line, sorry”. I’ve had to suck it in and apologize on this forum more than once and I’d like to think I was thought better of for it.

Like I said, credibility and all that…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is no such thing as "in our private capacities" when it comes to hateful conduct.

Is calling someone names or labelling people unhateful conduct?