Loss of USAF uniforms

Started by goblin, May 25, 2015, 05:44:42 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lordmonar

Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.

Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform?  Sure we could. 

We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt.   And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.

Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.

And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.

We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.

And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.

The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform.  It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.

Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).

So that's the compromise.   We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies.  If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many?  Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.

We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.

And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus.   Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:42:13 PM
I can't answer that question. However, I can say that, in my opinion, uniforms should not drive membership. Unfortunately, we have members who are more concerned with uniforms, grades, badges and ribbons that with accomplishing our missions. One thing is to wear the uniform with pride (I know I do) and another is to make that our primary reason to be in CAP. Personally, I'm in CAP because I believe in the mission and the organization. The uniform is just a tool.
Yep....in a perfect world we would all be in CAP to make better cadets, serve our community state and nation and be happy with the opportunity to serve.

But no one......and I mean no one lives in that world...not really.   Even you or you would not be unhappy about the status qua.

Badges, ranks and uniforms do mean something to our membership and making drastic changes will affect that membership and must be factored in to any decision made. 
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

PA Guy

#102
As long as our senior leadership, wing/region and higher commanders, are allowed to wear the USAF style uniform with impunity in spite of their non compliance with the ht/wt reg nothing will change and those of us who abide with the rules to accomplish the mission will continue to wear the corporate clown suit. It's good to be wing/region king.

Since those who wear the corporate uniform aren't allowed to wear any of their military bling how about we do the same with the USAF style and spread the pain plus it would make the USAF style more "distinctive".

FW

Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?

I know this is a hot topic of discussion here on CT, however it is difficult to relate this discussion with membership recruitment and retention.  I don't think exit Surveys show this as a reason for leaving CAP. There never was a survey question on how the AF uniform (or CAP Distinctive) is a factor in recruitment.  While Ned gives a great argument for not polling for uniform preferences, it might be advantageous to make it a question in recruitment or exit surveys. There are ways to get objective data on the subject; we just have to be able to ask the right questions...

Storm Chaser

Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2015, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 28, 2015, 11:53:15 PM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

Is it really the best compromise? Many who are forced to wear the corporate uniform because of weight and height restrictions (I'm not one of them) would disagree. Wouldn't a better compromise be approving a gray flight cap and corporate service dress jacket for those who can't wear the Air Force Class A and B uniforms? If those are made optional, it wouldn't affect anyone but those who would like to have a true equivalent to the AF-style service uniforms. Wouldn't that be a better compromise?
Maybe.....but like Ned keeps saying....all compromises are at some level a lose-lose scenerio.

Could we adopt a real non USAF uniform?  Sure we could. 

We would be making the new basic service uniform go to around $120....Slacks, Shoes, Shirt, Hat, Belt.   And around another $200 for coat, tie, longsleeve shirt.

Then of course a gray service CAP, a great coat/over coat for those Northern Tier units.

And then some sort of Mess Dress Equivalent.

We will be handing Vanguard another monopoly because we will never be able to get multiple sources.

And of those who are perfectly happy with the current corporate they will all be butt hurt about it.

The corporate serves a second purpose other then just allowing those outside USAF Standards to wear a uniform.  It is also for those people who don't have a cool $300 sitting around to get into a uniform on the cheap.

Gray Slacks $20 from Wal Mart.
White shirt $20 from pilot mall.com
Rank and Badges $20 from Vanguard.
any black shoe, any black belt.....free from your closets (most people have them already).

So that's the compromise.   We can't get everyone into USAF uniforms with out kicking out the Fat and Fuzzies.  If we pushed everyone into corporates we will piss off a lot of people....how many?  Don't know...but a significant number in my opinion....maybe enough to actually hurt our ability to do missions.

We will piss off all those who have invested a significant amount of money in the USAF uniforms and they would have to change.
We would piss off all those who would see this a just one more attempt to push us farther away from the USAF.
We would piss off all those who would see it as another "all NHQ thinks about is uniforms no missions" argument.

And that is just talking about perceptions.
So...the current uniform committee focus most of the uniform decisions from a mission focus and not a perception focus.   Just because unless they see clear evidence that the focus is wrong...they are going to try to do least harm as the move forward.

You missed the part where I said "optional".

coudano

I, for one, appreciate the heck out of not having to wear a hat with my corporate uniform.

But that's just one opinion :)

lordmonar

#106
Already allowed.  You may wear any hat you want with the corporate uniforms.

Sorry.....the CAP ball cap and civilian head gear for inclement weather is allowed.

But..........Why?   Adding more options and optional combos.....is going against your whole point isn't it?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

AirAux

Ah, but there is a solution.  Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress).  You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer.  Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this.  If not, it is 3:10 A. M.  Obviously I had an epiphany.  The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's.  The action will be for discrimination against obese members.  Obesity has been classified by the A.M.A. as a disease.  The A.M.A. contends that obesity is not necessarily controllable as previously thought and has genetic and medical components involving the endocrine system.  Obesity has been classified as an impairment by the Social Security Administration.  Other than perceived image the Air Force has no reason to deny CAP members from wearing the military uniform.  Unfortunately that was also a consideration regarding gays being allowed to wear the uniform or even join the Air Force.  That has been rectified and so will this uniform issue in the same manner, by the Court.  One way or the other, we will become uniform and remove the stigma of obesity from our rank and file.  The ACLU loves these cases and makes their living off of them.  This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA.  There will probably be a claim for damages in that the routine and continual stigma suffered by our obese members is self evident, or will be attested to in Court.  Further, as part of any settlement or award, CAP/USAF, may be required to furnish, pay for, or reimburse all current members if a separate uniform is required to right the wrong of this egregious treatment of the offended parties.  See, I knew there was a solution.  I just forgot that we do not have to always approach the beast with our hat in our hand but may drop back on logic and utilize the argumentum ad baculum.  So, I must leave you with one of my favorite closings, "Govern thyself accordingly".  Of course, Ned, I don't mean you specifically, but you might wish to convey the message to the powers that be.
   

Holding Pattern

#108
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
Ah, but there is a solution.  Ned, as you probably know, I am a seasoned lawyer (well seasoned if you count the salt, pepper, garlic, cumin, that I love, but I digress).  You, Sir, are also a seasoned lawyer.  Since you know we are 24/7 people, you can see what time I am posting this.  If not, it is 3:10 A. M.  Obviously I had an epiphany.  The solution is a class action suit against Civil Air Patrol and bringing in the Air Force as a co-defendant, as CAP's fall back position will be that Ma Blue controls the uniform Reg's.

I think you actually found the one way to actually get the AF to disavow the CAP. Bravo.

And actually that wouldn't work. Because we still let people do jobs regardless of their ability to wear or not wear a uniform. Thus, no discrimination.
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 07:31:46 AM
This action will not cost our obese members one penny as legal fees will be covered under the EAJA.

It will cost plenty when uniforms are no longer supplied and the legal fees are decided to be slapped against CAP the non-profit in AUX-OFF status and EAJA not applying, and the fees added to the general cost of operation, paid now in total by membership dues.

AirAux

Your definition of discrimination is not even close.  If you think disparate treatment of some members based upon obesity isn't discrimination, you don't have a clue.

Holding Pattern

#110
Quote from: AirAux on May 29, 2015, 08:08:49 AM
Your definition of discrimination is not even close.  If you think disparate treatment of some members based upon obesity isn't discrimination, you don't have a clue.

First, I don't think what you posted. I would ask that you rebut what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

Then feel free to elucidate.



Because if a person is being treated differently by their command because of their weight, they have the ability to take it up the chain. If the person is being treated like every other member regardless of what they wear, then there is nothing to complain about.

There is also still the incredibly shaky ground of the suit given the volunteer nature of our work.

SarDragon

OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Alaric

Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
I know that I am one of the guys pushing for data here, but I'm not sure a survey of the membership is going to help.

There is a saying in academia that "the plural of anecdote is not data."  Similarly, I'm not sure that surveying the membership and collecting thousands of opinions will amount to data, either.

Imagine you are the national commander.  What do you do if, for example, the membership splits roughly 50-50 on the issue?  In all likelihood, you may decide that such a split does not amount to a mandate for change. 

Does that mean the members who genuinely feel that the dual track uniforms are unfair and demeaning will change their views?  That seems unlikely.

What happens if it is 60/40 or even 70/30 one way or another?  Does that really solve the problem or make a transition easier?  If members are feeling strongly about the issue, it seems unlikely that simply finding out that their personal opinion is in the majority or minority will change their minds.  We feel what we feel.

Ultimately, I don't think personal subjective opinions (even if we collect them from every member) about what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful to our diverse membership can effectively drive uniform policy.  In large part because we will never, ever, ever have a solid consensus on the issue.  Never.

I submit that missions must drive uniform policy.  After all, a uniform is only a tool to allow us to perform our missions more effectively.  Accordingly, I'm believe that data collection on this topic has to be mission-oriented to be useful to policy makers.

Some have mentioned that some prospective members may or may not join because of our uniform policies.  That would be a good data point, since membership drives mission capability.  And in the case of CP, membership in essence IS the mission.  We would need to design a study that would allow us to say that changing our uniform policy would increase (or decrease) our membership by x%.  (Surveying current membership alone would be insufficient, since we can assume that they joined or renewed their membership under the current policy.)

Similarly, if actual data can be developed concerning how sorties flown, AE classes delivered, ground team capabilities, etc. would be affected by eliminating AF uniforms, that would help move the process forward.

You may remember that I have described this issue in the past as a "Wicked Problem" because of the complex interdependencies of the proposed solutions (each solution just leads to other problems), the presence of confounding factors, and the fact that we cannot even agree on a definition of the "problem" in the first place.

Since the problem can never really be "solved" in the sense that any possible uniform choices will always leave a significant amount of (very) unhappy members, the best that any leader can do is to implement coping strategies that allow us to accomplish our missions with a minimum amount of turmoil and friction.

And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

As always, the leadership is open to additional solutions and / or coping strategies.  But we already know that  neither the "all corporate" or "all AF-style" positions will satisfy the membership.

Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly

CP-  AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.

ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing.  The importance is mission functionality

Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality

ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations

AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity

Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality

Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4

Alaric

Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.

With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not

LSThiker

Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.

With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not

Not always.  For some people, they use facial hair to cover scars from either accidents or bad facial acne.  Also, what do they do with Soldiers that have Pseudofolliculitis Barbae?  Remember that DA Form 3349, Physical Profile?  Soldiers with shaving profiles receive a "2" for "P" under the PULHES system.   

Alaric

Quote from: LSThiker on May 29, 2015, 12:51:00 PM
Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 12:00:20 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on May 29, 2015, 09:59:38 AM
OK, you've solved the problem for our more rotund members. How about the barbate segment? They do not share the same protected status.

With the exception of some religious restrictions, hair length and facial hair are a matter of choice, obesity is (sometimes) not

Not always.  For some people, they use facial hair to cover scars from either accidents or bad facial acne.  Also, what do they do with Soldiers that have Pseudofolliculitis Barbae?  Remember that DA Form 3349, Physical Profile?  Soldiers with shaving profiles receive a "2" for "P" under the PULHES system.

I know something now, I didn't before, my day is not wasted.

Brit_in_CAP

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 26, 2015, 06:39:49 PM

I don't think it will much impact our missions, but it might torque some folks off. And if that is the only reason they're in, then really, is it a great loss?

Actually, that's a **really** good point; its something I find personally very annoying.  Personally, I'd stay with CAP and give my serving children less to be amused about!   :)

That said....there are more than a few CAP members who, in my personal expererience, play at being more than they are and I have one group in mind especially as I write this.  Truly, if the rank and 'status' is your driving force then we're better off without you.

YMMV

AirAux

Actually, Sikh's serving in the military are allowed to keep their beards and turbans for religious reasons...

Storm Chaser


Quote from: lordmonar on May 29, 2015, 05:50:48 AM
Already allowed.  You may wear any hat you want with the corporate uniforms.

Sorry.....the CAP ball cap and civilian head gear for inclement weather is allowed.

But..........Why?   Adding more options and optional combos.....is going against your whole point isn't it?

Your opinion.

This doesn't affect me, as I wear the AF-style uniform. But many of my members, the ones who want to wear the AF-style uniform, but can't due to height and weight restrictions, would like a true corporate equivalent. Many here in CAP Talk have expressed the same thing.

Storm Chaser


Quote from: Alaric on May 29, 2015, 11:58:48 AM
Quote from: Ned on May 28, 2015, 09:57:47 PM
I know that I am one of the guys pushing for data here, but I'm not sure a survey of the membership is going to help.

There is a saying in academia that "the plural of anecdote is not data."  Similarly, I'm not sure that surveying the membership and collecting thousands of opinions will amount to data, either.

Imagine you are the national commander.  What do you do if, for example, the membership splits roughly 50-50 on the issue?  In all likelihood, you may decide that such a split does not amount to a mandate for change. 

Does that mean the members who genuinely feel that the dual track uniforms are unfair and demeaning will change their views?  That seems unlikely.

What happens if it is 60/40 or even 70/30 one way or another?  Does that really solve the problem or make a transition easier?  If members are feeling strongly about the issue, it seems unlikely that simply finding out that their personal opinion is in the majority or minority will change their minds.  We feel what we feel.

Ultimately, I don't think personal subjective opinions (even if we collect them from every member) about what looks better, more professional, or is more respectful to our diverse membership can effectively drive uniform policy.  In large part because we will never, ever, ever have a solid consensus on the issue.  Never.

I submit that missions must drive uniform policy.  After all, a uniform is only a tool to allow us to perform our missions more effectively.  Accordingly, I'm believe that data collection on this topic has to be mission-oriented to be useful to policy makers.

Some have mentioned that some prospective members may or may not join because of our uniform policies.  That would be a good data point, since membership drives mission capability.  And in the case of CP, membership in essence IS the mission.  We would need to design a study that would allow us to say that changing our uniform policy would increase (or decrease) our membership by x%.  (Surveying current membership alone would be insufficient, since we can assume that they joined or renewed their membership under the current policy.)

Similarly, if actual data can be developed concerning how sorties flown, AE classes delivered, ground team capabilities, etc. would be affected by eliminating AF uniforms, that would help move the process forward.

You may remember that I have described this issue in the past as a "Wicked Problem" because of the complex interdependencies of the proposed solutions (each solution just leads to other problems), the presence of confounding factors, and the fact that we cannot even agree on a definition of the "problem" in the first place.

Since the problem can never really be "solved" in the sense that any possible uniform choices will always leave a significant amount of (very) unhappy members, the best that any leader can do is to implement coping strategies that allow us to accomplish our missions with a minimum amount of turmoil and friction.

And the current "dual-track" uniform constellation is one such coping strategy, and represents the best compromise our leaders could find to balance the directly competing positions.

As always, the leadership is open to additional solutions and / or coping strategies.  But we already know that  neither the "all corporate" or "all AF-style" positions will satisfy the membership.

Ned, I would agree with you that missions should dictate uniform policy, and in doing so, can lower the number of uniforms significantly

CP-  AF Blues or Corporate equivalent, just like now.

ES (Field) - BBDU, the woodland BDUs are no longer an Air Force Uniform, and that way everyone would be wearing the same thing.  The importance is mission functionality

Flight - Blue Flight Suit - fulfills mission functionality

ES (Mission Base) - Polo Shirt/Grey Slacks, like most volunteer SAR/ES organizations

AE- Either the dress uniform or the Polo Shirt depending on the activity

Do away with Mess Dress and its Corporate Equivalent as they have no mission functionality

Reduced the number of Uniforms from 8 to 4

I think this is a very reasonable proposal.