CAP employee Uniform Wear

[RiverAux]

CAP now has a fair number of full and part-time employees at NHQ, working for NHQ out at the Wing level, or in some cases, working directly for the wing only. 

Should these employees be required to wear a CAP uniform to work?  This assumes that CAP employees are also CAP members -- if they are not, should they also be members?

Personally, I think they should be required to wear CAP uniforms while at work for two reasons:

1.  These individuals are often asked to represent CAP in meetings with non-CAP members often in conjunction with regular CAP members who are in uniform.  In order to present a unified appearance everyone from CAP should be in a CAP unifoorm. 

2.  More importantly, these individuals, especially out in the Wings, are working at CAP buildings that are often visited by the public and other officials and I think having a uniformed person working in the building makes CAP look better than someone wearing non-CAP civilian workclothes. 

Now, if do want them in CAP uniform, which uniform should it be?  AF style? CAP corporate military style?  Golf shirt?  Individual choice?   

[arajca]

CAP now has a fair number of full and part-time employees at NHQ, working for NHQ out at the Wing level, or in some cases, working directly for the wing only. 

Should these employees be required to wear a CAP uniform to work?  This assumes that CAP employees are also CAP members -- if they are not, should they also be members?

Personally, I think they should be required to wear CAP uniforms while at work for two reasons:

1.  These individuals are often asked to represent CAP in meetings with non-CAP members often in conjunction with regular CAP members who are in uniform.  In order to present a unified appearance everyone from CAP should be in a CAP unifoorm. 

2.  More importantly, these individuals, especially out in the Wings, are working at CAP buildings that are often visited by the public and other officials and I think having a uniformed person working in the building makes CAP look better than someone wearing non-CAP civilian workclothes. 

Now, if do want them in CAP uniform, which uniform should it be?  AF style? CAP corporate military style?  Golf shirt?  Individual choice?   

One of the issues you need to deal with is the perceived level of authority provided by wearing the uniform. That being said, the COWG/AA generally wears a CAP oxford. The shirt identifies him as CAP, but does not confer authority. He also holds the rank/grade of Capt as a regular member. Given that the paid staff often interacts with folks of higher grade, do you want a 2d Lt representing CAP to high level executive. They may not know our system, but they know LT's are at the bottom of the officer food chain and could easily be insulted because no one of an appropriate grade/rank would meet with them.

The other benefit of the paid staff who are also volunteers not wearing a regular CAP uniform is it provides an easily identified separation between their CAP work and CAP volunteer service. The fire service went through a huge issue several years ago about paid firefighters who were also volunteers doing the same thing. The ruling was if the firefighter responded as a volunteer and was doing the same functions as their paid job for the same dept - even on a mutual aid call - they were required to be paid.

[RiverAux]

Personally, I suppose that if CAP employees were to wear uniforms I would go with the golf shirt combination for them.  It is fairly typical of the sort of clothes worn in most civilian offices and would present a uniform appearance.  I'm not a big fan of it for other CAP uses, but it would seem appropriate in this case. 

[FW]

I think the policy for employees (who are members) is not to wear a CAP uniform unless required for a specific reason.

Employed individuals who are "non exempt" can not work more than 40 hours/week without collecting overtime.  If the employee is also a member, there must be specific separation between volunteer duties and paid duties.  These rules are from federal and state employment codes.  Wearing a CAP uniform may blur the line and cause us problems.

[Eclipse]

...any more than military employees where uniforms at work.

[arajca]

...any more than military employees where uniforms at work.

Different rules. Military is a unique class and has different rules regarding work time. As has been pointed out many times before, CAP is not the military, so rules that apply to the military (UCMJ comes to mind) do apply to CAP. CAP employment rules fall under civilian employment rules.

[RiverAux]

I think the policy for employees (who are members) is not to wear a CAP uniform unless required for a specific reason.

Employed individuals who are "non exempt" can not work more than 40 hours/week without collecting overtime.  If the employee is also a member, there must be specific separation between volunteer duties and paid duties.  These rules are from federal and state employment codes.  Wearing a CAP uniform may blur the line and cause us problems.

If they are put in a situation where they may be doing the exact same thing one day for pay as they are doing the next as a volunteer, then we've got a bigger problem then what uniform they are wearing.  That is just going to cause all sorts of havoc for the reasons you describe.  

That being said, being required to wear a CAP uniform during their assigned work hours shouldn't be a problem.  

[arajca]

What needs to specified is what uniform you are talking about - service uniform, bdu's, flight suit, golf shirt, CSU,

A unique, paid staff uniform may be the right answer. A oxford or similar shirt with a CAP seal or crest would probably be appropriate. As long as it DOES NOT show up in CAPR 39-1, but is in the CAP employee rules.

Another issue is cost. When you start getting that specific, the employer needs to provide the uniform. Dark blue golf-style shirt is general enough to avoid problems, but dark blue golf-style shirt with CAP seal embriodered on the right breast is specific and rises to the "employer must provide" level.

[FW]

Yep, thats about right.  And, unless the Air Force agreed to let us spend "appropriated dollars" on the expense, we couldn't afford it.

[RiverAux]

When you start getting that specific, the employer needs to provide the uniform.

Says who? I have to wear the equivalent of the golf shirt uniform for my real job and it isn't provided.  Have to buy them.  That has been my experience in other jobs as well. 

[Eclipse]

...any more than military employees where uniforms at work.

Different rules. Military is a unique class and has different rules regarding work time. As has been pointed out many times before, CAP is not the military, so rules that apply to the military (UCMJ comes to mind) do apply to CAP. CAP employment rules fall under civilian employment rules.

The authority and involvement issues are the same, UCMJ or not.

Civilian employees of CAP, in that capacity, have no authority whatsoever regarding the membership, operations, or finances, thee are all the purview of members.

The same with civilian ee's of the military.

If they want a uniform, they should join, if they are members, while they are wearing the uniform they aren't employees.

[RiverAux]

At least in my local experience, all CAP employees in my state have also been CAP members. 

[Eclipse]

At least in my local experience, all CAP employees in my state have also been CAP members.

Not while they are drawing a paycheck.

[RiverAux]

At least in my local experience, all CAP employees in my state have also been CAP members.

Not while they are drawing a paycheck.

If you're a CAP member, you're ALWAYS a CAP member.  They weren't acting as CAP members while drawing the paycheck.  However, as noted above it could be hard to tell the difference if they do the same thing as members that they do as employees. 

[Eclipse]

At least in my local experience, all CAP employees in my state have also been CAP members.

Not while they are drawing a paycheck.

If you're a CAP member, you're ALWAYS a CAP member.  They weren't acting as CAP members while drawing the paycheck.  However, as noted above it could be hard to tell the difference if they do the same thing as members that they do as employees. 

I also don't know how many paid ee's your state has, but mine has two, an SD and a WA, neither are members, and I think you'll find that this is the case in the majority of states.

[RiverAux]

State Directors are not CAP employees they are civilians employed by CAP-USAF.  They are not the people I'm talking about, which would be the Wing Administrators employed by CAP NHQ and emplyees working at NHQ.  And some states already had employees working for them before the Wing Administrators came on. 

Incidentally, CAP-USAF State Directors do wear a golf-shirt type uniform to work, so why not our folks?

[Eclipse]

Incidentally, CAP-USAF State Directors do wear a golf-shirt type uniform to work, so why not our folks?

Um, no, they don't, at least not by definition.  They work in civilian dress.

As to our folks, whatever, give them all the extra VSAF shirts.

[lordmonar]

No one has brought up that you can't wear the unifrom while engaged in your employment.

[Eclipse]

No one has brought up that you can't wear the uniform while engaged in your employment.

heh...an interesting nuance...good point.

[RiverAux]

No, you can't wear the uniform in a non-CAP activity, which employment certainly is for 99.9% of CAP members.  However, by definition someone working for CAP is involved in a CAP activity and it wouldn't break any CAP regulations to require CAP employees to do so.  However, even if it appeared to be an issue, its a very easy fix in the regs.

Um, no, they don't, at least not by definition.  They work in civilian dress.

What definition are you talking about?  A uniform doesn't necessarily have to be a military uniform.  Pretty much the definition I use is that if you're required to wear something, it is a uniform. 

[Eclipse]

Um, no, they don't, at least not by definition.  They work in civilian dress.

What definition are you talking about?  A uniform doesn't necessarily have to be a military uniform.  Pretty much the definition I use is that if you're required to wear something, it is a uniform. 

Ok, they aren't and they don't.

[DNall]

I don't know if someone has mentioned this already, but miltechs are a large class of civilian contract employees that are also required to be members of the guard/reserve.

1) They are required to wear uniforms with their mil grade to work.

2) Their mil grade may not correspond to their civilian authority level. It is certainly possible to have a LTC assigned under a SSG on the civilian side.

3) They are NOT in any way bound by UCMJ while in their civilian contractor position.

4) They get no military related benefits or retirement points for any part of this employment.

5) They are many times deployable in their civilian status as well as their mil status.

6) None of these are given anything additional for uniforms based on being a civilian employee. If enlisted they can trade in sets every two years if the unit has money avail in the budget. As an officer they buy their own out of pocket, including expensive stuff like gortex, and they're required to have every item in specified quantities.

With that example, how may I ask is CAP different?

[James Shaw]

Color of law is a legal term that is used alot when you have lets say a

Deputy sheriff who is POST certified to carry a gun and make arrest is a "true" Deputy Sheriff.
Deputy sheriff who is POST certified as a correctional officer only and not authorized to make arrest or carry assigned sidearm is not "truly" a Deptuy Sheriff but a correctional officer who works for the Sheriff.

In this respect if you have a NHQ employee who is compensated by NHQ than they should wear a distinctive employee attire when they are performing their paid jobs. When they are not paid they should wear the CAP volunteer uniform.

[DNall]

Lets just talk about color of law.

A CAP civilian employee in a golf shirt has no perceived authority, be they wing commander to director to janitor.

In uniform they have some perceived authority commensurate with their grade. You can argue now about a 2nd Lt in a director job... well, why in the hell are you hiring an inexperienced person in that position anyway? Why would you not select someone who has paid their dues as a CAP volunteer for years & years, and also has the right qualifications.

And, did you just read my post right above yours. The military does not take this view at all with their civilian employees. Meanwhile, you're talking about a group of employees paid from federally appropriated funds that come out of the AF budget, and most of whom are at NHQ on an active military base.

[RiverAux]

It wasn't mentioned, but I did think about DNall's example.  Of course, the military also has civilians who do not wear any uniforms at all and that is also a legit way to go even if I think that wearing uniforms would be preferable.

Judging by the poll results, this might just be the most unpopular idea I've proposed here, maybe even topping the CAP Reserve concept. 

[James Shaw]

Lets just talk about color of law.

A CAP civilian employee in a golf shirt has no perceived authority, be they wing commander to director to janitor.

In uniform they have some perceived authority commensurate with their grade. You can argue now about a 2nd Lt in a director job... well, why in the hell are you hiring an inexperienced person in that position anyway? Why would you not select someone who has paid their dues as a CAP volunteer for years & years, and also has the right qualifications.

And, did you just read my post right above yours. The military does not take this view at all with their civilian employees. Meanwhile, you're talking about a group of employees paid from federally appropriated funds that come out of the AF budget, and most of whom are at NHQ on an active military base.

No disagreement with you on the individual definitions or examples. I did not say this was the law I said this is how I would perceive it. If I work for NHQ as a civilian employee then I would wear the appropriate civilian clothes or NHQ employee approved uniform. If I am performing CAP duties as a volunteer then I would wear the appropriate CAP uniform.

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that CAP corporate employees sometimes actually do have real authority over CAP members doing their duty.  For example, isn't the NOC manned by CAP corporate employees and they make decisions about CAP corporate mission approvals. 

[Timothy]

Of course they should be required to wear a uniform at work. Shouldn't be much of a problem, since by definition a "CAP uniform" could be anything from the grey polo combo to service dress, and everything in between.

I'm thinking the people voting no are assuming this poll is about making them wear blues? Otherwise, what's the problem? If the guy that makes my fries at McDonalds can wear a "corporate uniform," why can't someone at National or Wing wear one?

[SJFedor]

It's gone a page and a half without someone (while briskly reviewing the thread) bringing this up...


who cares???

They're employees, they're there to do a job. They're doing that job.  Who cares whether they're in a CAP uniform or not?

[DNall]

Yeah, and I as a Major can be under a Capt/IC or in charge of a LtCol GTL... what's your point. In my military unit, I answer to a CWO4 master gunner, and another CWO4 that's chief IP, as do all the pilots there including the LTC BN Commander.

Likewise, I'm a national guard officer, but my uniform says "US Army" on it regardless if I'm on title 10 or 32 orders. I can put it on cause I feel like it & go give orders to people even when I'm not "on duty." Hell, I can show up in civilian cloths off-duty & give orders.

There is no volunteer versus paid uniform. There's just a uniform. Authority ALWAYS comes from position, never cloths.

As far as what the required uniform should be, that should be commander's discretion, but for NHQ or any other Wg/Reg HQ on a mil facility, I would strongly prefer equiv to what other folks on base are wearing for similar duties - so most likely blues/CSU, with maybe Friday can be BDU/BBDU or Golf shirt.

If you'll check, I do believe NHQ is mostly in golf shirts or the CSU on a daily basis.

It's gone a page and a half without someone (while briskly reviewing the thread) bringing this up...

who cares???

They're employees, they're there to do a job. They're doing that job.  Who cares whether they're in a CAP uniform or not?

To that end... I'd agree with you, but I do care about CAP members walking around mil bases on a daily basis.

[RiverAux]

It's gone a page and a half without someone (while briskly reviewing the thread) bringing this up...


who cares???

They're employees, they're there to do a job. They're doing that job.  Who cares whether they're in a CAP uniform or not?

I stated my reasons for proposing this.  If you disagree with them thats fine, but I did provide some justification.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think that CAP employees should wear CAP uniforms for many reasons.

1) It implies some sort of authority in both directions.  A NHQ employee goes to an NCSA to provide support and ends up being told to go drive a van because they are a 2d Lt and the NCSA LG guy is a Capt.

2) We do not hire or require CAP employees to be members, IIRC it's illegal to.  That is an option to them.  There are many people at NHQ that are not members of the organization, so you would have some wear a uniform and others not?

3) Uniforms and rank do not create an environment of free, open thought and open communication. Something that we desperately need at our NHQ.

4) It separates and differentiates between the volunteer staff and paid employees, and important difference that needs to be made.

5) Does that mean that if one paid employee happens to be a lower rank volunteer can they can't be a higher ranking person's boss?

6) Our uniform represents our volunteer heritage.  Our volunteers sacrifice hundreds of hours every year in the perfomance of their duties.  Our awards and decorations represent actions during volunteer service and I think that our uniform should be reserved to represent that service.

If you'll check, I do believe NHQ is mostly in golf shirts or the CSU on a daily basis.

Paid employees of CAPNHQ do not wear CAP uniforms of any variety in the performance of their duty. 

[RiverAux]

I'm reasonably sure I've seen at least one paid NHQ staffer wearing the blazer uniform with proper CAP nametag at a Wing conference.  I know I have seen another one at Wing conference in regular civilian clothes. 

[Hawk200]

Must be nice to have all this time to dream up solutions looking for a problem.

CAP employes have been doing just fine for a while without a specific uniform.  Ask a few questions:

1. Does this solve a problem?

2. Does it make sense?

3. Would it avoid any problems?

4. Is it worth the expense?

So far, not seeing anything resolved by the idea of wearing a uniform. Seems like a rebel solution to a non-existant problem.

[RiverAux]

Justifications were provided.  If you don't believe they are sufficient, thats fine. 

Incidentally, there doesn't have to be an existing problem to justify changing something.  Things can always be improved, even those things that are currently working.

[jimmydeanno]

IIRC at one time under [a] previous Executive Director some employees did wear their CAP uniforms to work.   This policy was later revoked/changed and employees were told not to wear their CAP uniforms.  My understanding is that it was for many of the reasons that I listed above.

I do not think that CAPNHQ employees or our Administrators wearing CAP uniforms would be any benefit whatsoever.  Believe it or not, most people have credibility based on their actions and demeanor as opposed to what they are wearing.  All seem to be able to do their jobs and accomplish many things without the aide of a uniform, heck, most things they do are done by phone.

I still don't see any benefit or need to force our paid employees to wear uniforms, especially when it wouldn't have any effect on the performance of their jobs.  Even interacting with other agencies, most of them aren't wearing uniforms.

[RiverAux]

I don't think that CAP employees should wear CAP uniforms for many reasons.

1) It implies some sort of authority in both directions.  A NHQ employee goes to an NCSA to provide support and ends up being told to go drive a van because they are a 2d Lt and the NCSA LG guy is a Capt.

How?  No more than faced by CAP members in almost every situation you might name and the fact is that it just doesn't happen.  As you know, CAP authority is generated primarily by position and I can't think of a single time when a senior member in CAP has tried to order someone around based solely on rank.  Your example isn't very realistic. 
2) We do not hire or require CAP employees to be members, IIRC it's illegal to.  That is an option to them.  There are many people at NHQ that are not members of the organization, so you would have some wear a uniform and others not?
Reference for it to be illegal to require CAP membership of an employee?  But, lets assume that you are right, CAP the corporation can still require its employees to wear any uniform it likes whether or not they are CAP members. 

3) Uniforms and rank do not create an environment of free, open thought and open communication. Something that we desperately need at our NHQ.

Gee, I suppose we should get rid of them for all CAP members as well.  If this is your general position, no justification that I might provide, no matter how great, will suffice. 

4) It separates and differentiates between the volunteer staff and paid employees, and important difference that needs to be made.

Why does there need to be a distinction?  The paid staff are very critical to our operations.  If anything, the paid people and the volunteers could benefit from being closer together. 

5) Does that mean that if one paid employee happens to be a lower rank volunteer can they can't be a higher ranking person's boss?

Why not?  It works that way in the rest of CAP. 

6) Our uniform represents our volunteer heritage.  Our volunteers sacrifice hundreds of hours every year in the perfomance of their duties.  Our awards and decorations represent actions during volunteer service and I think that our uniform should be reserved to represent that service.

I'm not sure I've ever heard that before.  Our uniform represents our affiliation with the Air Force, and those folks tend to get paid.

[JayT]

I wouldn't be opposed to a oxford, or a polo shirt, but again, what problem are we looking to solve here? No one has truly be able to answer that, beyond half justifcations such as "Well, they represent CAP."

[Pylon]

Not a fan of the idea.  I don't think it would benefit CAP at all.  I particularly like the obvious distinction between the volunteers at the National level and the paid staff.

[DNall]

Not a fan of the idea.  I don't think it would benefit CAP at all.  I particularly like the obvious distinction between the volunteers at the National level and the paid staff.

I don't! As a guardsmen, there is no difference between me & an active duty officer. I don't care if someone is paid to do full-time work for CAP or they are doing it as a part-time volunteer. POSITION is all that matters. If this person is a director & I'm not then they are in charge of their subject area & I'm not. It doesn't matter if they are a 2LT or a civilian employee. Their authority comes from the person that put them in that position - in this case a Wg/Reg/Nat CC or board. That trumps my grade as a CAP Major and that of my Sq CC.

I'm sure you've noticed the Army now wears ACUs everywhere - in situations where class Bs or even As would traditionally have been more appropriate. That policy was set to psychologically reinforce solidarity of soldiers at home with the ones overseas - ie we're really at war even though you're safe in bed at night, so you better work and train hard cause lives depend on it. Same is true of the flag on BDU/ACUs, which is traditionally worn ONLY overseas in a multinational environment to identify what country you belong to.

I think the same is true in this case. I don't want bland employees just punching a clock & doing their job to minimum standard. I want people that are emphatically part of the same team & working desperately every second of the day to make that team successful. I do believe dressing them the same as the rest of us reinforces that concept - or to be more blunt, makes it impossible for them to forget the weight of responsibility they hold with their position on that team. 

[FW]

There are many differences between the military and CAP.  The most important one is we are a civilian force of volunteers under a volunteer leadership structure.  The paid employees of CAP, inc. are not necessarily members of CAP however, they are employed by CAP, inc. which is a nonprofit corporation which happens to get a "few bucks" from the govt.  

That being said, NHQ employees wear distinctive shirts at all conferences or events where the membership takes a part.  WAs and SWAs may wear uniforms, if they are members, when they are performing duties which require it (when they are volunteering).  Some employees/members are considered exempt from state/federal employment rules (managers, supervisors). They don't have to worry about the "blurred line" and do wear the uniform in any appropriate situation.

I think the rules make sense and there is no reason to change them.

[airdale]

Personally, I think they should be required to wear CAP uniforms while at work ...

You need to find something productive to do with your time.  5000 posts here is not it.

[davedove]

I don't know the legalities of it, but our Wing Administrator is also a CAP member.  The way I understand it, she cannot wear the CAP uniform while working at her job, but she does so when functioning as a CAP member.

[jimmydeanno]

NHQ employees are also told that they can't volunteer in a position similar to their paid positions.  So if you are the NHQ LG, you aren't allowed to volunteer to be a squadron LG.  Helps avoid corruption and the appearance that the organization is forcing their paid employees to work in their positions on a "volunteer" basis without being compensated.

[FlyingTerp]

I visited NHQ last week.  Some employees were wearing some sort of CAP insignia wear, but I would describe the "dress code" as business casual.  Everyone looked professional and it seemed like a nice working environment. 

CAP logo non-uniform wear is good enough to identify them as employees and not volunteers.

[Ned]

I don't want bland employees just punching a clock & doing their job to minimum standard. I want people that are emphatically part of the same team & working desperately every second of the day to make that team successful. I do believe dressing them the same as the rest of us reinforces that concept - or to be more blunt, makes it impossible for them to forget the weight of responsibility they hold with their position on that team. 

I have good news for you.  I have spent a number of weeks at NHQ recently, and I can tell you without hesitation that they are most definately "emphatically part of the same team and working desperately every second of the day to make that team successful."

And they do that while dressed in professional business attire.

I'd say that Mr. Rowland is doing an excellent job in directing and supervising our employees.

Now that we have addressed your concerns, perhaps we can move on to subjects that we actually have some control over, like making sure that our volunteers dress professionally while doing their duties.

Ned Lee

[RiverAux]

Now that we have addressed your concerns, perhaps we can move on to subjects that we actually have some control over, like making sure that our volunteers dress professionally while doing their duties.

More than adequately covered in hundreds of other threads. 

[DNall]

I don't want bland employees just punching a clock & doing their job to minimum standard. I want people that are emphatically part of the same team & working desperately every second of the day to make that team successful. I do believe dressing them the same as the rest of us reinforces that concept - or to be more blunt, makes it impossible for them to forget the weight of responsibility they hold with their position on that team. 

I have good news for you.  I have spent a number of weeks at NHQ recently, and I can tell you without hesitation that they are most definately "emphatically part of the same team and working desperately every second of the day to make that team successful."

And they do that while dressed in professional business attire.

Did you also read the paragraph before that? The one explaining Army policy to wear the ACU in most all cases in order to force unity with the warfighter down all soldier's throats on a daily basis?

Out here in the field we work extremely hard - or rather a core group at the center of each unit/Gp/Wg/Reg/Nat work at extreme burnout speed, while most everyone else hangs on the fringe contributing some time/money/etc when they can or when they feel like it. The organization exists because of that dedicated core that are sacrificing to the hilt to keep the doors open and cause us to operate.

If paid employees are not equally committed & working at equally breakneck speed like their kids lives depended on it, then they should not be employees. The Army chooses to reinforce that psychology with uniform policy, and is proving to be extremely effective at it. I did not agree with breaking tradition for that purpose at first, but they've sold me on the effectiveness of that policy.

As for being or not being members, it seems appropriate to me to grant complimentary membership to NHQ staff, and equally to hold them to at least the same standards as everyone else.

And as for money, we get a "few bucks" from the federal govt out here in the field or at Wg/Reg level, but NHQ is primarily federally funded.

[RiverAux]

Although it may have been somewhere in the back of my mind, the reasons being proposed by DNALL also seem to hit the nail right on the head.

Hey, and if nothing else, requiring that the folks at NHQ try to get the proper uniform items out of Vanguard might spur Vanguard to work on their customer service a little bit--- Although voted on by the CAP leadership, I strongly suspect that it was NHQ that did all the legwork deciding on who to go with when we outsourced. 
 

[Ned]

If paid employees are not equally committed & working at equally breakneck speed like their kids lives depended on it, then they should not be employees. The Army chooses to reinforce that psychology with uniform policy, and is proving to be extremely effective at it. I did not agree with breaking tradition for that purpose at first, but they've sold me on the effectiveness of that policy.

LT, its a bit of an "apples and oranges" thing.

CAP volunteers -- just like Army AD types, Reservists. and Guard members -- perform their assigned duties typically in uniform.

CAP employees -- just like the tens of thousands of DA civilians -- toil in their professional business attire.  Every day.


Using your logic, we should get our NHQ employees into uniform right after every single civilian working for the DoD starts wearing a uniform.


Let me know when that happens.

[lordmonar]

The break down....is that not even the military require their civilians to wear uniforms.  Yes the reserve and guard technicains are being pushed into uniform....but they are BOTH military and civilians at the same time.  But all the other civilians who are GS/GM/GV employees do not.  And some of these individuals COMMAND military units!

Bottom line....what value added do we get by forcing our paid employees into uniform?
99% of us never see them....so it can't be to set a good example.
The Vanguard issue is a crock...because for the most part vanguard gives good value.....remember that CAP is just about their only direct sales customer...and NHQ staffers have just about as much pull with VANGUARD that we do.
Identity with the guys in the field?? Then everyone should go to flight suits...to identify with our primary "field" unit.

No...sorry guys I just don't buy it.

[RiverAux]

The Vanguard issue is a crock...

That was about 90% a joke...forgot the emoticon...

[RiverAux]

The break down....is that not even the military require their civilians to wear uniforms.

It hasn't always been that case.  I don't know about the other services, but during WWII the CG had just about all their civilian staff made part of the Temporary Reserve in order to get them in uniform.  I don't have the reference immediately at hand, but as I recall the reason given in the history of the TRs was pretty similar to what DNall mentioned and in addition I think it said that it was thought to help smooth things over to have everyone working together in uniform. 

Obviously they don't do it that way now, but I suspect that has more to do with the difference in benefits between civilian and military and with that taken into account the cons outweighed the pros.  However, that isn't a concern in our situation.

[JayT]

The break down....is that not even the military require their civilians to wear uniforms.

It hasn't always been that case.  I don't know about the other services, but during WWII the CG had just about all their civilian staff made part of the Temporary Reserve in order to get them in uniform.  I don't have the reference immediately at hand, but as I recall the reason given in the history of the TRs was pretty similar to what DNall mentioned and in addition I think it said that it was thought to help smooth things over to have everyone working together in uniform. 

Obviously they don't do it that way now, but I suspect that has more to do with the difference in benefits between civilian and military and with that taken into account the cons outweighed the pros.  However, that isn't a concern in our situation.

If it's not a concern, then why did you bring it up?

That seems to be a classic thing on this board lately. We bring up something that vaguely has to do with whatever we're talking about, then we say "It really has nothing to do with it."

If you're trying to make a comparison between the USCG TR in WWII and the Civil Air Patrol of the United States Air Force in the year 2008, then make do it. But I don't see why you're bringing up an obscure portion of history at all.

The fact is, the military does not require it's civilian employees to wear a uniform during the course of normal duty. So why would we want CAP employees to do the same?

Do you'll just want more guys running around in the same uniform as you on military bases? Seems almost like a case of basking in reflected glory.

[lordmonar]

The break down....is that not even the military require their civilians to wear uniforms.

It hasn't always been that case.  I don't know about the other services, but during WWII the CG had just about all their civilian staff made part of the Temporary Reserve in order to get them in uniform.  I don't have the reference immediately at hand, but as I recall the reason given in the history of the TRs was pretty similar to what DNall mentioned and in addition I think it said that it was thought to help smooth things over to have everyone working together in uniform. 

Obviously they don't do it that way now, but I suspect that has more to do with the difference in benefits between civilian and military and with that taken into account the cons outweighed the pros.  However, that isn't a concern in our situation.

I think this is just another one of your solutions looking for a problem.  Okay 60 years ago civilian emploees wore uniforms.....but they have not done so in the last 35 years or so.

[RiverAux]

If it's not a concern, then why did you bring it up?

You misunderstood.  We don't have to worry about giving military benefits to civilians working for our agency as the CG or other services would if they put all their staff in uniform.  Whether or not CAP staff wear uniforms won't affect their retirement, etc. one bit, SO, the fact that at least one service put all their staff in uniform during WWII IS relevant today. 

Okay 60 years ago civilian emploees wore uniforms.....but they have not done so in the last 35 years or so.

See above for why that is the case and why it doesn't matter.  I anticipated that this would be said, which is why I mentioned why the services don't do it that way now.

I think this is just another one of your solutions looking for a problem.

Ah, one of my favorite arguments to see on the board...as I've already explained, even things that are already working can always be improved without their necessarily having to be a "problem". 

[lordmonar]

Okay let's look at it as a cost benifit analysis.

What would be benifits if all our corporate employees were in uniform?

Who is going to pay for said uniforms?

If we "make them" wear uniforms the by rights we should pay for them...that is we should give them a clothing allowance.

The USAF clothing allowance is around $400/year....multiply that 100+/- employees....that comes to $40K per year.....just to get and keep our employees in uniform.

Okay.....now.....what program do you want to cut to pay for it?

$40K is two new vans.   It is a lot of flying hours.  It is the operating budge of a NSCA.

Now what were the benifits again?

[jimmydeanno]

It is the operating budge of a NSCA.

How about 4 of them?

[Eclipse]

I think this is just another one of your solutions looking for a problem.

Ah, one of my favorite arguments to see on the board...as I've already explained, even things that are already working can always be improved without their necessarily having to be a "problem". 

No, that's the grand fallacy of internet forums, people who believe they need to fill dead air with "what ifs?"

[BillB]

1 The USAF funds the van purchases
2. CAP members pay for their uniforms why not the employees pay for theirs
3. Which of the 37 available CAP uniform combinations would you have them wear?
4. Why in the world would employees need to be in uniform in the first place?

[DNall]

I don't really give a crap what these people wear, as long as it's not an embarrassment to the org on an AFB. But, it's not apples to oranges. That implies they are on some different plain than us. I don't give a crap how much someone gets paid or if they get paid at all. They're just one more body to me with equal standing. All I care about is their ability to perform above standard & synergisticly with the team. Your stereotypical civil service type employee is unacceptable.

Now, like I said, I don't care so much what these folks wear, but if I can turn an average employee into an even slightly more dedicated employee by altering the dress code a bit, you bet your butt I'll do that. It sounds silly that something like that would work, but it is working on a really wide scale in the Army right now.

If we "make them" wear uniforms the by rights we should pay for them...that is we should give them a clothing allowance.

The USAF clothing allowance is around $400/year....multiply that 100+/- employees....that comes to $40K per year.....just to get and keep our employees in uniform.

Okay.....now.....what program do you want to cut to pay for it?

$40K is two new vans.   It is a lot of flying hours.  It is the operating budge of a NSCA.

What's my clothing allowance again? Oh yeah, ZERO. Officers don't get one & must buy all items - trust me when I say the "extra pay" actually means you need a second job to cover your responsibilities, from uniforms to FRG. Guard/Reserve enlisted don't get any kind of allowance either. They can trade out items once every two years, IF the unit has spare budget to purchase replacement items, which is hit & miss at best.

So, right now you got employees in business attire. What does that wardrobe cost them? They cancel out.

Again though, I'm more concerned with the culture/psychology & resultant productivity of the people than whatever the dress code should or should not be. However, inconveniencing a hundred people doesn't bother me in the slightest if advances the purpose of the organization.

[Cecil DP]

The fact is that most of the employees at National Headquarters are and were members before being hired by National Headquarters. Many were actively recruited from the field to work there. So please don't refer to them as " Bland employees working to a minimum standard." I have never had a problem with the quality of the work done by National employees, they are always able to assist when called and ready to stay late to solve a problem.

As for the uniform issue as Bill B stated what uniform would you have them in? when I've gone to National they have always been in business attire which is appropriate for the work they do. I believe that having them wear a "military style" uniform would be counter productive, unless there was a ceremony or special requirement for it.

[jimmydeanno]

2. CAP members pay for their uniforms why not the employees pay for theirs

Most states require that if an employer requires that an employee wear a specific uniform or uniform item, the employer must provide a reasonable number of uniforms or items at no cost to the employee. 

This usually doesn't apply if the requirement is vague.  An example would be if the dress code was "jeans and a black t-shirt."  They are generic enough that the employer wouldn't have to pay for them.

However, switch that t-shirt to a "TECHNO-MART" branded polo shirt and they need to provide you with a few.  I think our uniforms would qualify in the "need to provide or compensate for" area.

[DNall]

The fact is that most of the employees at National Headquarters are and were members before being hired by National Headquarters. Many were actively recruited from the field to work there. So please don't refer to them as " Bland employees working to a minimum standard." I have never had a problem with the quality of the work done by National employees, they are always able to assist when called and ready to stay late to solve a problem.

As for the uniform issue as Bill B stated what uniform would you have them in? when I've gone to National they have always been in business attire which is appropriate for the work they do. I believe that having them wear a "military style" uniform would be counter productive, unless there was a ceremony or special requirement for it.

I did NOT refer to anyone as, "Bland employees working to a minimum standard." I said very specifically that I do NOT want such people, and would take such measures as necessary to prevent an individual of that nature to become or remain employed, or to allow a culture that would tolerate such unmotivated people. IF a dress code, possibly to include uniforms, would advance that agenda, then I have no issue with that at all.

I don't believe anyone has specified a uniform in the tread. However, the equiv of business attire is the AF-style blues shirt or white aviator-style alternative. I think for the most part you will find that to be less expensive than most appropriate business attire.

Most states require that if an employer requires that an employee wear a specific uniform or uniform item, the employer must provide a reasonable number of uniforms or items at no cost to the employee. 

And most employers reduce pay accordingly to pass on the costs. I also don't believe that's the case in AL.

[Eclipse]

2. CAP members pay for their uniforms why not the employees pay for theirs

Most states require that if an employer requires that an employee wear a specific uniform or uniform item, the employer must provide a reasonable number of uniforms or items at no cost to the employee. 

Please cite the states where that is the case, because it sure isn't where I'm from.

[jimmydeanno]

Please cite the states where that is the case, because it sure isn't where I'm from.

Based on my own experience, NH, MA, VA, ME.

I should probably rephrase because I don't have the time or the resources to search through 50 sets of state laws for that particular one.

So,

"Many states require that if an employer requires that an employee wear a specific uniform or uniform item, the employer must provide a reasonable number of uniforms or items at no cost to the employee." 

[JayT]

I think this is just another one of your solutions looking for a problem.

Ah, one of my favorite arguments to see on the board...as I've already explained, even things that are already working can always be improved without their necessarily having to be a "problem". 

Again, why don't we work on some of our legit problems before we start 'improving' stuff that doesn't need it.

So far, all of the 'for' arguments have been half straw grasps are comparisons to the Army, or the National Guard, or the Coast Guard in WWII, or whatever.

CAP Inc. employees have no reason to wear a CAP uniform to work. It's that simple.

[heliodoc]

Uniforms scmooooniforms

How about the real legit missions we are looking for???

Worried about some folks at NHQ, eh??

We are barely military with nall the rattle trap combos out there

Have to love all the RM responses, too

We really got to worry about OTHER things rather than play military dollhouse tryng to dress everyone appropriately...  I would venture to say about 10 % of the 50,000 or 60,000 CAP population really could care less

There are things out there simply MORE important than how we can dress NHQ

Again I spent 21yrs in Army NG Aviation and have gotten over some of the 670-1 / 39-1 syndrome and still shave when I don CAP duds

I have dressed appropriately for Title 32 , ARNG, CAP and my current gig ..... office duds or Nomex depending upon the mission

But you guys slay me with all "this is how we view CAP employees""


WOOOOOW!!!!!!!

[heliodoc]

oooops that 90% percent of the CAP population

[RiverAux]

I believe I've said somewhere in this thread that the golf shirt uniform would probably be the most appropriate.  I'm not a big fan of it, but as long as it is authorized, this would seem to be an good place for it.  However, the white aviatior shirt might even be better as it is a bit more formal and can be worn by everybody. 

By the way, if you want to discuss some other burning issues of critical important to CAP, we've got plenty of thread-space.   That doesn't preclude discussion of other minor issues, does it?  Whenever that objection pops up I'm always tempted to post a reply in every thread that day saying "Why aren't we talking about important issues?", no matter what the topic. 

[SarDragon]

I believe I've said somewhere in this thread that the golf shirt uniform would probably be the most appropriate.  I'm not a big fan of it, but as long as it is authorized, this would seem to be an good place for it.  However, the white aviatior shirt might even be better as it is a bit more formal and can be worn by everybody. 

By the way, if you want to discuss some other burning issues of critical important to CAP, we've got plenty of thread-space.   That doesn't preclude discussion of other minor issues, does it?  Whenever that objection pops up I'm always tempted to post a reply in every thread that day saying "Why aren't we talking about important issues?", no matter what the topic. 

But you, sir, still haven't presented a convincing argument for why this is an important issue. You still haven't adequately defined a "problem" that needs the solution you propose.

[RiverAux]

Just you don't like the justifications presented doesn't mean that they aren't there.  I get it...some of you don't think it is important... your voices have been heard...no need to repeat it.  Nothing wrong in voting in the poll and moving on...

[JayT]

Just you don't like the justifications presented doesn't mean that they aren't there.  I get it...some of you don't think it is important... your voices have been heard...no need to repeat it.  Nothing wrong in voting in the poll and moving on...

What justifications have been presented?

[Slim]

Please cite the states where that is the case, because it sure isn't where I'm from.

Based on my own experience, NH, MA, VA, ME.

I should probably rephrase because I don't have the time or the resources to search through 50 sets of state laws for that particular one.

So,

"Many states require that if an employer requires that an employee wear a specific uniform or uniform item, the employer must provide a reasonable number of uniforms or items at no cost to the employee." 

Add MI to that list.

[Eeyore]

The majority of paid CAP staff that I have come across do wear the CAP polo with some form of slacks.

I suppose there are areas where this may not be the case, but I feel that the paid staff tends to want to come across in a professional manner.