CAP employee Uniform Wear

[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?