text:
The Newsroom => Military Current Affairs & News => Topic started by: X Royal on March 04, 2018, 08:39:01
Title: Jeans & mass punishment? #2
Post by: X Royal on March 04, 2018, 08:39:01
Second try as the first post was removed due to my unknowinly posting a link from a writer I shouldn't have posted here.
http://www.thewhig.com/2018/03/03/royal-military-college-brass-rip-students-over-jeans (http://www.thewhig.com/2018/03/03/royal-military-college-brass-rip-students-over-jeans)
Title: Re: Jeans & mass punishment? #2
Post by: Ostrozac on March 04, 2018, 08:44:55
In six months the College will have to come up with a plan for Officer Cadets smoking legalized weed behind the barracks. Are denim trousers really the hill they want to die on?
Post by: JesseWZ on March 04, 2018, 08:59:25
I was in the middle of a really long post when that got removed - I'll try and summarize my thoughts again.
I was initially of two minds on this one. First, that maybe with this new generation of OCdts, we're going to see some of the changes that have been going through BMQ in the last few years with regards to privileges. It seems privileges such as cell phone use, civilian clothing, weekends off, etc are being extended more frequently and earlier than in years past. Perhaps it is time for institutions to examine some of the more archaic traditions.
The manner the cadets decided to react to this however, demonstrates to me at least they aren't ready for those types of privileges.
One of the (several) articles I saw on this used the term "group punishment". I don't see it that way, and I don't think it was unfair at all. Some cadets committed the NDA offence of Failing to Follow a Lawful Command. All of the cadets were either complicit or willfully ignorant of the rule breakers. As serving members (and officers no less) they should be aware of their duty to report under the Code of Service Discipline. It seems more like instead of group punishment, this was individual discipline - applied to everyone.
What really turned my knickers into knots was the sheer volume of anonymous emails and interviews with the media. I read multiple publications that reported this, and many received emails and information from the students at RMC. The media is not how you air a grievance in the military. We have systems in place that work. If you feel like institutional change is required - be a goddamn officer and lead it. Whining (and it was just whining) to the media shows how poorly prepared or ill-suited for leadership some of the student body at that institution is.
While we having serving members in the desert and dirt unable to take off their flak jackets and helmets or put down their weapons for months on end, and Sailors constantly away from home for long periods of time, stuck in a tin can with 250 others similarly stuck, and Airmen and Women on constant duty rotations and last minute notice to moves, we have a group of future leaders that complain they have to wear semi-fancy pants to the bar.
I'm not one to throw around the word privilege - but privilege much?
The real kicker is, they signed up for RMC. No one can pretend they didn't know what they were in for. There are info sessions, recruiting packages, forums, meet and greets, etc. If they can't demonstrate how to follow the simplest of orders - how to dress yourself - then perhaps we shouldn't be entrusting them with more complicated ones - like taking a platoon and attacking a fixed position.
I foresee a meme coming - The Canadian Forces: Individual Experiences May Vary.
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 04, 2018, 09:23:59
Lets face it, my generation was wondering about that rule when we were officer cadets - we are talking mid 1970's here - and I bet every new generation has been wondering the same. In my days, it was not perceived as matter of privilege, it was perceived as left over from older days in trying to instil into the officer corps that we were the "gentlemen", above the fray that is the lower decks. We were more egalitarian than that in our view of other people (all being a product of the 60's movement), however, it was the rule and we followed it.
After a while, however, I came to realize, and many other friends have, that it had more to do with societal values in general: We were going to be the middle-top "managers" of the organization, therefore, we were expected to look and act the part as compared to civilian businesses.
Keeping that in mind, while the current cadets are supposed to dress "business casual", I can tell you that that attire does not include jeans, not even fancy ones you would wear to a dance or an evening out, not even for engineers (and that's a low standard of dress in business - trust me). So, if the idea is still to instil in them the way mid to upper management dresses as the standard, then they have nothing to "*****" about.
And I agree that what is being meted is not punishment, and that complaining through the press is simply not on - or even a sign of proper OLQ's.
Post by: SupersonicMax on March 04, 2018, 10:36:45
JesseWZ: try to prove that every cadet at RMCC had seen at least one other cadet in jeans in town. Yes, it is mass punishment. Oh and there is always going to be more important issues than yours. If you use this as a reason not to fix the issues you live with, you'll have a miserable life...
If we allow every other member on every other wing to wear jeans when they go in town, what are we teaching these kids? That you always have to wear smart casual? We teach them to be socially retarded? There are times for decontracted wear and times for buisness casual. Instead of always imposing buisness casual, wouldn't it be better to teach them contexts when one a more relax outfit is socially acceptable?
Post by: dapaterson on March 04, 2018, 10:40:49
Business casual includes jeans in every organization I know of outside the archaic pseudo Brits of Canada's military.
RMC is an expensive anachronism that the CAF should abolish.
Post by: MCG on March 04, 2018, 10:47:38
Quote from: SupersonicMax on March 04, 2018, 10:36:45
Yes, it is mass punishment.
Is it collective punishment or collective training? It is not just a semantics question. If there is a cultural problem across the student population, the institution needs to inculcate a correction - that takes collective training. Given the academic schedule, where do you fit that outside of evenings or weekends?
Quote from: dapaterson on March 04, 2018, 10:40:49
Or, at least, that could be inferred from its last AG report.
JesseWZ: try to prove that every cadet at RMCC had seen at least one other cadet in jeans in town.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. Lifestyles are networked (socially and otherwise) enough I have a really hard time believing there is a cadet at RMC that didn't know his or her peers were flaunting the rules. And I don't need to prove anything, this isn't court, its administrative action at a training establishment.
These kids "young adults that joined our all volunteer military and will one day lead people like me"are in a training establishment. Some of that training is how to follow orders.
While jeans is a stupid hill to die on, the rest of us aren't afforded the luxury of which orders we can choose to follow, so why should they? The issue isn't whether or not wearing of jeans is good policy, it's that it was the policy and was clearly and regularly flaunted.
If RMC wants to change policy, great, that's its prerogative. I have nothing against jeans, hell I'm in a desert right now and I get to wear them occasionally. If I was ordered to wear smart casual all the time, or choose between that and a uniform - I'd be following the order, because that's what it is.
I have no qualms about the RMC cadets and by extension the administration attempting to come up with solutions - hell I even encouraged them to lead that change - within the rules that are in place for all of us. Running their mouths to the media is not the right solution in any context.
Oh and there is always going to be more important issues than yours. If you use this as a reason not to fix the issues you live with, you'll have a miserable life...
I live a fairly happy life thanks. You're comparing apples to oranges. My issue is not their complaint (even though I think it's dumb), its how they went about "solving it". It demonstrates to me a lack of maturity to tackle those types of challenges.
Quote from: MCG on March 04, 2018, 10:47:38
Punishment: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. That really sounds like a punishment especially that Col Ayotte initially referred to the consequence as "confined to barracks" which is a punishment under the NDA.
JesseWZ: collective training as a remedial measure has been largely eliminated, at least in my experience. In my experience, it only serves as a mean to lower morale and reduce trust in leadership in those that perceive they haven't done anything wrong. Targetted disciplinary measures or targetted training is far more effective at correcting deficient behaviour (and it is much less ressource-intensive).
Post by: SF2 on March 04, 2018, 11:18:21
Are 1st years still required to wear their "4's" into town?
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 04, 2018, 11:24:09
Quote from: SupersonicMax
I've spent a couple weekends on duty for the sin of wearing a business casual shirt that wasn't business casual enough, to an informal mess going away function. I'm among the first to condemn our archaic dress regs (after a tour I was turned away from getting my claim sorted out in Ottawa after an hour drive because I was in jeans, BY a civilian in jeans) but that's not the issue. Officer cadets are ****ing off lawful orders because they think it's stupid. That privileged mentality carries over into other areas like courses where they show up and ignore cell phone rules or don't bother completing assigned homework. Because it's dumb.
From what I gather at RMC cadets are supposed to display integrity by both following the rules and reporting infractions to the rules. Seems like an institutional failing.
Post by: PikaChe on March 04, 2018, 11:28:37
I suppose charging the lot who failed to obey orders would be more hilarious. Summary trials for like forever.
This no jeans regulations are dumb. But then again, these are suppose to be leaders who may have to give lawful order that may send men and women under their command to their deaths.
Quote from: Jarnhamar on March 04, 2018, 11:24:09
That part of my post wasn't an excuse for not following orders but rather my thoughts on whether the dress standard at RMCC actually teaches what we want from officers. There are avenues to change rules and not following it is generally not it.
On a sidenote, I don't think you can evaluate someone's ability to follow orders in life/death situations with an order not to wear jeans. There is a spectrum of orders and this is best evaluated in tactical/operational training scenarios.
Note to self:If I ever have to go to RMC / CDA for work, be certain to wear clean jeans with a shirt, tie and blazer.
To rephrase a comment made here: I can't believe that wearing jeans is the hill the college is choosing to die on. And "individual discipline applied to everyone" is a cop out phrase. This is collective punishment - even described as a punishment under the NDA (confined to barracks) until Col Ayotte realized (or was told) the implications of what he said).
The CAF's institutional terror that blue jeans will lead to... listening to Elvis? Demon rum? Dogs and cats lying down together? needs some work. I have seen plenty of senior and general/flag officers, graduates of the CAF MilCol system, who have no idea of how to dress themselves when not in uniform - jeans are not the problem.
Pro tip: If you're in civilian clothes, but wearing the CAF green web belt with the brass buckle, plus your DEU oxfords, you look like an ***.
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 04, 2018, 11:50:14
Quote from: PikaChe on March 04, 2018, 11:28:37
This. RHIP... but leaders have to be prepared to die first too.
The way you change policy isn't by public temper tantrum, it's through the thoughtful and reasoned engagement with existing change processes. If the cadets want to wear jeans, then let the hundreds of smart young men and women there put together a rational argument, including benchmarking results from other peer organizations, and submit it to the College Chain of Command.
That's how they'll have to do it when they leave the privileged MilCol cocoon and enter the real CAF, or anywhere else they'll work in the real world outside of Mommy's basement.
Then you know very little organizations outside the CAF, Dapaterson.
I spent my whole life in the professional/industrial civilian world of Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Calgary and the US North-Eastern area (never really worked for La-La -Land West of the rockies, so maybe there?) and I can tell you that in the management side of things, and in the office side in general, as opposed to the shop floor, jeans are NOT acceptable as business casual. Someone showing up in jeans at the office would be sent packing faster than a speeding bullet - with two exceptions: high-end clean jeans are acceptable on casual Fridays (for those businesses that have it only - professional's offices for instance do not have that) unless you have to meet with clients, and it is accepted, with proof of payment on days where it is "sold" as a charity fundraiser, such as the Cancer Society's National Denim Day.
I happen to know, however, that wearing jeans to the office is fairly common amongst civil servants of various departments, probably more as something that developed because the civil service does not really try to have "standards" and with Union protection, you can't fire the civil servants for incompetence, let alone for the way they dress. But I am willing to bet that even in the civil service, you will not find EX-2 or above dressed in jeans at the office very often.
As for the acceptability of the rule: Well, it is the rule and the CAF is your employer, so follow them. You know, there is a long working hockey player called Tomas Pleckanec who played 13 years for the Canadiens. He wore a small goatee - always trimmed and clean - for his whole career. He was just traded to the Maple Leafs and guess what - he had to shave it clean. Why? Because an old fashion fart called Lou Amoriello has this rule that all players must be clean shaven at all times. Is it a stupid rule? Is it backwards? Is it old style management? Probably, but it is the employer's rule and everybody has to follow it.
Same goes for the CAF.
PS: I don't want people to think this is just a Military College rule. I mentioned in an earlier post that it was the rule in my days , mid 1970's, but I have to specify: I never attended MilCol. The rule existed and was applied for cadets at Chilliwak, at Venture and in the NROC program. It was the rule, basically, at all phases of an officer cadet training. We talk about RMC here, but, what is the current rule at the Leadership school in St-Jean for officer cadets right now?
So, you go out for a movie with your significant other on your time off and your employer will give you grief for wearing jeans? Becaus this is what we're talking about.
Post by: stellarpanther on March 04, 2018, 12:03:28
Just thought I'd mentioned that jeans are not allowed at CFSU(O) (Ottawa), from what I heard, the new CWO didn't agree with a no jeans rule and had it changed.
Post by: mariomike on March 04, 2018, 12:03:36
Quote from: Oldgateboatdriver on March 04, 2018, 11:52:44
We talk about RMC here, but, what is the current rule at the Leadership school in St-Jean for officer cadets right now?
BMQ/BMOQ JOINING INSTRUCTIONS
KIT LIST/
Candidates must report to CFLRS with the following items, at a minimum:
Casual dress pants or clean jeans without holes
END QUOTE
Virtually every technology company has moved away from that mindset. Many folks I know in senior positions in industry see nothing wrong with wearing jeans to work. Times have changed; the CAF needs to change as well.
That the grumpy old balding overweight white snooty classes still feel they need to dress out of the 1950s says much about them.
Maybe but I think stuff like this is where it starts and fluffing off stupid rules eventually leads to more serious ones being ignored.
It reminds me of a couple young LTs deciding "helmets in rucksacks" didn't apply to them on a brigade march, until the brigade commander stopped and ordered everyone to put on their helmets. Oops. Now there's a couple of platoon commanders who disobeyed the brigade commanders direction, how does that look in front of privates who actually get charged for having 48 pounds in a rucksack instead of the ordered 50?
Quite possible I'm reading too much into it though.
As for group punishment, isn't that what we always do? Someone drinks too much and makes an *** of themselves so then the whole policy changes?
Agree about this being a funny hill to die on when we're going to be dealing with pot smoking at work. Maybe this will be the catalyst to abandon our 1960s dress regs after all.
I can be charged for someone with my name on facebook "liking" something ;D
While I will always follow any lawful order, I strongly believe the CAF really needs to change it's archaic way of thinking on several issues if they want to retain mbr's and attract new recruits.
Post by: Journeyman on March 04, 2018, 12:26:06
Agree about this being a funny hill to die on when we're going to be dealing with pot smoking at work.
Maybe the College tribal elders are thinking that if they enforce ("collectively train") the dress regs, the Cadets may ...possibly catch on and subsequently adhere to pot smoking rules. :dunno:
a) I have doubts the leadership is looking/thinking that far ahead;
b) Maybe it's because that Air Force guy is gone, and he current Commandant is Army, so rules may be important?
Post by: yoman on March 04, 2018, 12:49:22
I see the great dress debate at RMC is continuing. During my time there the CoC instituted a policy that your off hour dress privaleges depended on what school year you were in:
1st years generally had to wear a uniform.
2nd years had to wear dress pants, dress shirt and a tie.
3 years were allowed khakis and a polo.
4th years were allowed jeans and a polo.
I was in 2nd year when this happened so my fellow classmates and I had to wear a tie just to go out to a movie or to go to Tim's. It was a little ridiculous but we followed be rules without whining to the media. Some cadets had fun with the rules and wore the most flamboyant looking outfits that they could find while complying with the rules. That was their little way of protesting.
Eventually, within a year or two if I remember correctly, the rules were reverted back to a set standard for all cadets. I believe that the internal pressures on the CoC from the college staff made it happen.
Bottom line is that obeying orders is important regardless of how stupid they seem to be.
Title: RMC Jeans/dresscode issue
Post by: Infanteer on March 04, 2018, 13:14:45
It helps if dress codes are properly defined. Although there are variance of opinion, most of the explanations I've seen fit the image I've attached.
White Tie/Black Tie = Ceremonial Dress/Mess Dress (No 1 and No 2 orders of dress in the CAF Dress Manual)
Semi Formal/Business Formal = Service Dress with jacket tie (No 3 and 3a in the manual)
Business Casual = Service Dress with no tie/sweater (No 3b, c, and d in the manual)
Also note that Business Casual does not include jeans (as alluded to by OGBD). Casual may include clean jeans with a collared shirt; it still looks clean, and one still should follow the standard rules of dress - belt matches shoes, socks match pants, etc, etc. Relaxed (called "sloppy" or "ultra casual") is whatever you want - it also is probably what 90% of us where 90% of the time - I'm a shorts, sandals and t-shirt kind of guy.
Note all these rules apply to women as well, as well as additional rules for the wear of dresses. So when everyone gets told the dress is business casual for an event, women should not show up in yoga pants (saw it happen).
Something like this should be promulgated in every workplace, so that the standard is plain and clear to everyone. I've seen a lot of confusion arise when a CO (or some other leader) makes a few offhand comments about "come dressed appropriately" but doesn't set the standard on what appropriate is. Any good event invitation tells you what the dress standard is so you aren't embarrassed by showing up over-dressed or under-dressed.
So, there are three issues at play with regards to this story:
1. What's the dress code? If it's business casual, don't wear jeans. If its casual, wear jeans but look presentable. If it's relaxed, where whatever you want. It ain't hard.
2. What dress code should the school apply to its students on and off duty hours? That's up to the school to decide and there are arguments for both sides.
3. What should the students do when given their dress code by their superior officers? Follow their damn orders.
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on March 04, 2018, 13:21:26
Alright, I'm going to weigh in here and hopefully provide you all with some context to this situation. For those who don't know, I'm an instructor at RMC and a member of the Training Wing Staff so the first thing I will say is there is a lot more to this story than what has been reported in the media and the version that is being pushed by many Cadets on Social Media is one side of the story, there is another.
I'll start by talking about the Special Staff Assistance Visit (SSAV) where all of this came from. Coles notes version, The CDS launched the SSAV last year as a result of a number of incidents at the College stemming from a breakdown in Discipline, Poor Morale and a Systemic Toxic Command Climate at the College. The report which I will link, gave a list of recommendations that the Military should adopt in order to make the necessary changes at the College. The CDS gave the order that all of the recommendations would be implemented and personally hand picked a team of Officers to sort the College out. Additional NCO's were brought in, Squadron Commanders were all replaced with an entirely new team tasked with supporting the CDS initiative to change the culture of the College.
SSAV Link: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/special-staff-assistance-visit.html (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/special-staff-assistance-visit.html)
I can personally tell you that the problems when I arrived here 8 months ago were monumental. There was no standard, no enforcement of discipline, the actual administration of the Cadets themselves was a disaster. Even the infrastructure at the campus was a dilapidated mess with many of the dorms being in a very poor state of repair. This was surprising to me considering I was a Cadet a little less than a decade ago and the College had undergone a number of massive infrastructure revitalization programs.
Worst of all, College Policy had strayed very far from CAF Policy. The very first thing the new Command Team did when they arrived was rip up the Cadet Wing Instructions (CADWINS) which is the College Code of Conduct that RMC is allowed to have according to QR&O Volume IV, Appendix 6.1, 3.10 link: http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-04/appx-06-01.page (http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-queens-regulations-orders-vol-04/appx-06-01.page). The QR&O's clearly state that RMC is allowed to have its own Code of Conduct which falls outside the Code of Service Discipline (CSD) and CAF Remedial Measures. The reason for this is because RMC is first and foremost a "Training Institution" and uniquely, it is a four year long one where Cadets are supposed to be objectively assessed by Training Wing Staff as to their suitability to be future Officers in the Canadian Forces. Secondly, the College has its own Code of Conduct with its own form of disciplinary measures as Cadets are expected to largely police themselves with Cadets in leadership positions being allowed to sanction other Cadets for breaching CADWINS. This is used to keep Discipline to a high level and also to teach Cadets that they will be expected to uphold rules and regulations once they leave RMC. Also, many of the offences committed day to day are not significant enough to warrant a CSD investigation.
What people fail to understand is, CADWINS IS THE TRAINING. RMC training environment is one where future Officers are presented with a series of ethical & moral dilemmas (many very minuscule) that they are expected to formulate a plan and take decisive action. It could be as simple as a Cadet skipped numerous classes at taxpayer expense to a Cadet committed a criminal offence such as sexual assault. Bottom line, if you know something about it, you report it and do your job i.e. Uphold the NDA which the CADWINS falls under. I am one Officer, with a Warrant Officer as my 2IC and we are responsible for monitoring 86 Cadets ourselves. It is impossible for me to police them 24/7 therefore I rely on them to police themselves. I can tell you that I sign off on every disciplinary sanction taken by my Senior Cadets and there isn't one thing I don't know about. I also step in when the situation is too difficult or sensitive for Cadets to handle. Everything from attempted suicide, drug use, fighting, personal conflict, disciplinary infractions, alcohol abuse, etc. I have dealt with them all this year and spent many weekends and my own personal time mentoring and training the Cadets so I can hopefully prepare them for the future.
I am not alone in this, we were told when we got here and were offered the job that things at the College would change and new Squadron Commanders were expected to take an active role in the day to day life of their Cadets. It is a big commitment but one that I really enjoy as 95% of the Cadets are awesome young Canadians that simply want to be in the military and serve their country. I participate in Intramural sports with the Cadets, I am involved with the Model UN club, all of my Cadets have my personal cellphone number, I Conduct all activities with the Cadets, I'm going to watch them do a drill competition in a couple of hours on a Sunday.
Now as for this specific incident itself, as I said before, there is more to this story. The Training Wing has spent the last eight months rewriting the CADWINS, it is presently being translated but has been reduced from a 350 page document to a 50 page document, a massive undertaking. We are also redesigning the Military Component of the College along with the First Year Orientation Program. There are many changes happening and all of them pertaining to the SSAV. Contrary to what's been said in the media, the dress standard here has been significantly relaxed. The Number 4 blues uniform is no longer worn by first years in town, there is no tiered system of dress for Cadets as there was before with different years being required to wear different outfits. We have removed curfews for different years. The only thing that has changed is that No Jeans are allowed to be worn off the Peninsula, which was the case anyways expect fourth years were allowed in years past. We've done away with privileges for different years, everybody is the same. FYI the jeans policy was under further review even before this happened, the message has always been "this may change but until it does, we expect you to follow the direction we've given".
It's easy to cherry pick what the College is doing when we have 78 different recommendations to work towards, some of them complimentary to each other. This is where the misinformation is so difficult. While dress standards were identified as a point of contention by Cadets, another thing identified was the Cadet Culture of "Cover your *** and that of your buddy rather than doing the right thing". This has been something that the staff have persistently been working at changing and is the reason why the Cadets are presently confined to the Peninsula.
This is a culture we have been fighting since the beginning of the year and is still a real problem. There has been a systemic issue of Senior Cadets not enforcing standards and this is the mechanism we are using to break this poor leadership habit. If a Commanding Officer gives an Order and all the Senior NCOs in a Regiment choose to ignore it, what do you think would happen? Yes 95% of Cadets follow the Orders the problem is those 95% let the 5% that couldn't give a damn and will be real pains in the *** for their troops when they leave here, walk all over them. That culture has ended here and there is a new Regime in town that is holding people accountable. The CDS has given us direction that Personal Accountability at all times is what we are to strive for.
The Cadets that don't like this are the ones that are causing problems because they are finally being taken to task concerning their conduct and performance by a new group of Officers and NCOs that have more experience than previous groups of staff, understand policy and have the backing of the Chain of Command. I have personally given two Cadets their walking papers since arriving here and more will be coming unless they get on board with the Program. The message is a clear: shape up or ship out.
Quote from: Infanteer on March 04, 2018, 13:24:53
The dress code has been properly defined, as the CADWINS is being rewritten the DCdts has been putting out a series of Orders which define all of these things. The Dress Instruction was issued on 28 Sep 17 and clearly indicated that walkout dress is "Smart Casual" and further defined what that was with specific examples attached in an Annex. Cadets have known this all year and continued to ignore despite numerous discussions with Senior Cadets to get their peers to follow direction. Two weeks ago they were told, "either you start enforcing direction or we will enforce it for you and you may not like the way we do your job."
Correction - I had originally said 28 Sep 17 for the date the Dress Instruction was issued, I just rechecked and it was actually issued 18 Oct 17. The point remains valid though, Cadets have known about this since just after the end of FYOP last semester.
Quote from: Humphrey Bogart on March 04, 2018, 13:33:09
Well then, there isn't really an issue.
Post by: Good2Golf on March 04, 2018, 14:27:42
Not to be over-curmudgeonly, but I'm with OGBD regarding there being some places where jeans don't fit into 'Business Casual.' In international Defence/Aerospace, business casual is 'business suit with no tie' (and you keep your tie nearby).
HB, thank you for the background on where things are at these days at the College. I suspected there was more to the issue. Yes, "The Devil's ClothTM" has long posed pressure points within a number of CAF organizations. I have little sympathy for folks who think that enough mass makes breaking the rules okay. Is the rule cruel, unconstitutional, against the NDA, etc.? No. It is what it is. On annual leave away from the applicability of CADWINS, sure, fill your boots. Or.....prepare for a long limb, maybe the cadets could develop a case for College leadership accepting jeans, when tied to some other factors/conditions, like with a nice blazer and dress shirt, etc. (that actually makes jeans much nicer dress than stinky but always acceptable, week-old unwashed CADPAT....)
p.s. SF2: :warstory: Did you ever enjoy the privilege of being even a 4th Year and having to wear 4's during the duty day when going downtown?
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 04, 2018, 15:51:23
We had the same ***** late '60s, early '70s about jeans in the Mess. Jeans were ok in the Snake Pit but not in the lounge. It took years, and many cutouts of the Sears catalogue, but it was fought properly. Eventually with the move to more younger Commanders and supervisors taking over, it slowly changed to fit a more modern dress standard.
Are there ways to speed it up? I suppose if you wanted to go whole hog and waste your time on something as unimportant as what type of pants to wear downtown to impress the ladies you could force the issue.
Having said that, I might have doubts about someone that spends their time like that as opposed to learning how to be a leader. Challenging authority, through the media, is a mugs game. The ringleaders WILL be found out. It's human nature and someone that finally has his balls drop and takes his oath seriously will report them. I have no idea how RMC would handle it, but I know if one of our troops went to the press like this, we'd be pumping air to them while they marched up and down the parade square in full FFE.
As I age, I find it more comfortable to wear slacks or chinos or work pants anyway. I have one pair of jeans.
However, this is NOT about wearing jeans downtown. It is NOT about what constitutes 'business casual'. It's about the making of an officer suitable to lead. It is about trust, taking responsibility (own up to being the media snitch), honour, integrity and following orders. There's more, but they're the main. Things that are incumbent on all service personnel. How do you possibly even consider leading troops if you fail at a single item in that list? In the end, I can only hope they are rehabed or booted. If they slide, it'll be to the detriment of their future subordinates and very possibly, their bosses also.
Title: Group vs individual discipline/punishment
So punishing all for some individuals digressions is acceptable?
Not a trait I believe should be instilled in or applied to our future leaders.
Title: Re: Re: Jeans & mass punishment? #2
Quote from: X Royal on March 04, 2018, 15:52:18
It's not right, but nobody can argue the effectiveness of your pissed off peers to sort you out and make you part of the team, or get rid of you. This method comes with pitfalls that need to be managed carefully, but it works. Kinda like Buckley's Cough Syrup. :whistle:
So punishing all for some digressions is acceptable?
Read my post above, the reason the loss of privileges is collective as opposed to individual is because the problem of not holding others accountable for their actions (aka subordinates) has become systemic at the College. A significant issue for many Cadets that the SSAV identified was a lack of enforcement of standards and the perception that there was two tiers of graduates: those who could achieve the standards and those who couldn't but would still move on without any impact. Don't complain about others and then when given the opportunity to do soemthing about it, do absolutely nothing. Those days are over, the Four Pillars Program is the standard and Cadets are expected to meet it by the time they are ready to graduate.
The Mission of RMC is to "produce officers with the mental, physical and linguistic capabilities and the ethical foundation required to lead with distinction in the Canadian Armed Forces". The SSAV identified that this wasn't necessarily happening, we are correcting it and we have full support from the very top to get it done.
I understand that we are supposed to report anyone who violates regulations etc but has anyone ever considered what happens to the person who "rats out" his co-workers, it's not always good for them and I don't just mean in a violent way. I've even heard supervisors comment that rats have no place in the military and they have no respect for them. There has to be another way.
Quote from: recceguy on March 04, 2018, 16:00:45
Sort of like when an officer believes that group punishment is the way to go in an operational unit. Officer orders such an order pissing everyone off.
Later on the officer gives an order that's not sound. As long as no troops are endangered the senior NCO's ensure it's followed to a "T" instead of taking the officer aside and giving him some sound advice. Seen it happen.
Not an example that should be installed in young officers minds as an effective method.
It's been said "train like you fight".
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 04, 2018, 16:20:51
Quote from: Good2Golf on March 04, 2018, 14:27:42
Ahhh...the good old days. Wearing 4s to the Old Forge in Victoria on a Saturday night. Sure good for honing a Combat instinct. Surprisingly, we generally got left alone. I think even the bullies felt sorry for us!
Hey G2G- it is not like these RMC guys are pushing to wear leather jackets ;)
Quote from: stellarpanther on March 04, 2018, 16:17:07
To me it depends on the seriousness of the violation.
Cadet X is seen uptown in jeans is not an situation which needs reporting In my opinion.
Cadet Y is seen stealing from other cadets is one, due to the fact if you were to straighten them out properly it could result in charges against you.
Holy crap- am I actually witnessing a Royal counselling the passing of a fault?
Guess what: you are an Officer, that's why you get paid the money you do and have a Commission. To be the person that can stand up and make the unpopular call, right isn't always popular.
You will eventually have to do it in your career, been there before and the last time I did it, it cost me a posting and a job I'd been working towards for over a year and a half. I was not popular but it was still the right call and I'm happy I did it.
X Royal, I understand where you are coming from but I think where you are getting stuck at is you're focusing solely on the "jeans" aspect of this. This isn't the real issue, trust me when I say this.
Quote from: SeaKingTacco on March 04, 2018, 16:26:30
Sometimes knowing which fight is worth the trouble and which one is due to pure BS is the difference.
On that point, you and I are in heated agreement!
Are you trying to say it's about an officers integrity and obedience to orders?
Sorry I have seen too many failures on that case.
In this example officers both officers and non commissioned both have their faults.
You calling it a "penalty" does not make it that any more than sloppily using the phrase "confined to barracks" make something the NDA punishment by the same name.
If you are not doing your job properly and so you get retrained, that is neither punishment nor penalty.
The term "confinement to barracks" has been used by several CAF schools to describe a period of intense military indoctrination where candidates are not worked from the time they wake until time for sleep, with maybe an hour or two for personnel administration, and no authority to leave base. It was training and everyone would go through it as a matter of routine for DP 1 training. Well, a few years back the Engineer
School caught some unpleasant attention because somebody felt they were entitled to do what they wanted wherever they wanted to do it after 1600, and a barrack room lawyer uncle went straight to NDHQ demanding to know why "confinement to barracks" was being extrajudicially imposed on the poor nephew and coursemates. Well, a great big investigation later and the school's process was acknowledged as necessary but it has forever since been called "restricted to base".
So without fixating on a term that was used out of place, and considering recent information provided to this thread about the student population not having adapted to military cultural requirements for discipline, are you sure that you've given your final answer in this point of consideration:
I believe this is what RMC is attempting to fix.
It hasn't worked yet.
To me you either have the values or you don't.
You can't train them in. Yes they can hide for a while but personal values eventually come out.
Except we don't want blind obedience to orders. When a a major in the Airborne issues an order that's a war crime (as he did), platoon commanders must be able to stand up and challenge it. That is (in no small part) the driving force behind the degreed officer crops (recommendation #10 from the Report to the Prime Minister on the Leadership and Management of the Canadian Forces from 1997) - we want officers not who blindly obey, but who have the intellectual, moral and ethical wherewithal to understand what they do, why the do it, and prevent moral and legal failings of the institution.
Chickenshit group punishment for dress code violations would not appear to be a tool to develop such officers.
Are you conflating a disagreeable dress standard with a manifestly unlawful order?
Post by: garb811 on March 04, 2018, 17:29:47
At this point I'm starting to wonder if the ones continuing to focus on the jeans issue even bothered to read HB's explanation of what the viewpoint on what is going on from the staff side of the house. ???
I am stating that we want officers who ask "why", and who challenge those above them (when it is an appropriate time to do so).
"Because I say so" is not a valid approach with a five year old, let alone people we want to be institutional leaders.
Has this been done well? No. Not by the students nor by the college. I continue to be underwhelmed by the peninsula and all its inhabitants.
I was just about to post exactly what you just said. In my opinion, the only thing they are going to do is possibly make some cadets afraid to wear jeans while there. This will be viewed as a punishment by the cadets regardless of the real reason. Once they leave RMC they will be in leadership positions and do as they please for the most part. Unfortunately, the CAF is always slow to adopt change. they have a kinds of meetings and town halls asking for peoples opinions and suggestions and then just say no. I and many of my peers believe these are all for show so it makes the leadership look like their listening when in reality they don't care. It's there way or else.
I once read an article in the U.S. that said if leaders can only get their people to follow them with the conquence of being punishment if they don't, then they are not good leaders. Someone else can decide if that's accurate or not.
Quote from: garb811 on March 04, 2018, 17:29:47
Or questoning the staffs veiw point?
G2G - in 4th yr, it was 5s in town during duty hrs.
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2018, 18:26:18
Some times we don't have good followers either.
Questioning is always welcome. After the decision was made the Commandant who is a Brigadier-General held a Senior Barmen hour with 4-Bar Cadets and above i.e. The Top 19 Cadets in the College, they argued with the Cmdt and the DCdts about the Jean policy and it was also explained to them why this action was being taken. The Cadet Wing Commander who is the Senior Cadet has unrestricted access to DCdts and can talk to him whenever he wants. I don't know of anywhere else in the CAF where OCdts can have open and frank discussions with a General Officer.
I maintain an open door policy with all my Cadets, if they have a problem, they are encouraged to bring it up and I will always work towards getting them an answer although I am always letting them know that doesn't necessarily mean the ruling will automatically be in their favour.
The morning this broke to the media, I read CAF Reddit. The commentary was completely unprofessional. "Lets shame DCdts" "lets troll his Facebook and social media pages" "I want to make sure everyone knows how terrible he is!" Blahblahblah
I've known DCdts for eight months and between him and the Cmdt, they have pretty much singlehandedly restored my faith in CAF leadership. DCdts is a true professional, the man is at every Cadet event, is the first at work and the last to leave, he is physically fit and leads by example. A particular example of this is one morning I came in to work at 0515hrs to do PT a bit later with my Sqn only to run in to a DCdts ruckmarching around the Peninsula. The man is a true professional, he has commanded at Squadron and Regiment level and has lost soldiers overseas. The guy isn't some sort of Chateau Officer who sits in the gallery munching on cucumber sandwiches while sipping on cognac and smoking cigars. He is the example!
Honestly, I was PO'ed at the Cadets who wrote that crap.
The thing that made me most angry though was the following:
I went to RMC and those who know me well know I was no angel, more like a young punk with an attitude. I broke the rules many times and made many mistakes. I was twice CB'ed for 21 days in 4s and Gaitors for breaking CADWINS. I was even charged (it's on my conduct sheet) and I pled guilty. Not once did I ever not accept the punishment or feel the need to go on Reddit, call the National Post or not accept responsibility for my actions. Honestly, if this is what some Cadets have decided to do, they are cowards and I don't want to serve with them.
And maybe some don't want to serve with those who blindly follow BS policies?
Group punishment is just that.
Deal with the offenders.
X Royal, you can continue to ignore the majority of what I say and cherry pick pieces to suit your narrative, that's your prerogative.
When those below me rank wise were getting screwed over I was the first to defend them.
Yes I took a few hits for that but I am proud of that.
If someone deserved a charge it also happened.
Never did I employ group punishment or defend it as to me that shows a complete lack of leadership.
Did no one read what HB posted?
RMC is a training establishment.
At a training establishment, the ideas of both self and collective discipline have to be instilled.
This Commandant has arrived at the conclusion that the Cadet Wing needs a reinforcement in the concept of collective discipline. The jeans thing is a bit of a red herring. But hey- it says right there in the Q&ROs we can violate orders that we personally judge to be ridiculous, right?
In fact, we follow all orders, unless we find them to be manifestly unlawful. I am pretty sure jeans fails to sink to the standard of beating a thief to death in Somalia.
But since the Airborne Regiment was raised as an example, I was in Petawawa in the early 1990s. There was a group of people who sincerely believed they could pick and choose which orders to follow.
How did that work out for us all?
Quote from: SF2 on March 04, 2018, 17:52:26
5's! Man, you guys really had the easy times in the 90's! SKT and I would have killed for 5's! We had to live in a shoe box...
And you were always able to non-assumptively identify 100% of the offenders and leave 100% of the non-offenders untouched? If only the CAF had more of you, X Royal...
We can all google "Shidane Arone" the photos aren't pretty.
If there is one thing I've learned about RMC, everyone has their own opinion of how they would do this or do that with respect to running the institution. What I know, we have support from the very top and we are operating IAW NDA, QR&Os, DAODs and CFAOs. That is what matters to me.
...and count how many of the officers involved up to the TF Commander were RMC graduates... :not-again:
^ this!
All group punishments do is divide the group.
Counterproductive to a strong group.
Proper leadership takes thought to deal with the problems not just punish all.
When I was instructing a basic course and all was good except the bathroom sinks I didn't punish the whole group. Only those responsible for cleaning the sinks and the course senior for ensuring it was done properly.
Post by: BeyondTheNow on March 04, 2018, 19:57:30
I'm failing to understand why there is such contention surrounding group punishment or whatever else it's referred to as. It's nothing new during training—at least not for me. While measures directed solely at an individual are necessary under certain circumstances, superiors also arrive at the conclusion that collective discipline is necessary for whatever reasons also—sometimes it's a combination of both. Both exist and both serve their purposes. There are times when either method isn't delivered as methodically and exactly as perhaps it should have been, but c'est la vie—life goes on. It ticks people off, they get over it, they move on, hopefully lessons are learned on all levels.
I have always been under the impression that, especially when being trained (officer and/or ncm), one is not awarded the luxury of deciding which rules/policies/(lawful)orders etc they decide they do or do NOT want to follow. I've also been distinctly under the impression that just because one person gets away with doing something doesn't mean it's free reign for others to follow suit until someone gets caught/punished.
Sure. Ideally, from my point of view, it would've been much easier had people been crunched-on for dress code infractions much earlier on (and maybe they were) prior to it becoming a massive issue. But if it was, individual discipline wasn't working. So what's the next step in order to get the point across that strict change is/was needed? If one doesn't like it, handle one's complaints appropriately. And grand scheme, it's simply not a big deal for a person to have to adhere to a certain dress code for a very small fraction of one's life. Honestly. And even less so being CB'd for a short time. Grand scheme.
On a personal level I'm disgusted that students went to the media about this. It screams ridiculousness and reeks of poor entitled brats who don't get to do what they want when they want—IN the military? Uhhh... So now the school has completely unnecessary complications to deal with on top of trying to address the issues that HB very kindly explained, which shed much-needed light on the entire situation.
Good for you. I assume you did this because you judged it the correct response for the situation?
Can you not at least give the Commandant of RMC the same consideration and assuming he is doing what he is for the right reasons? Since none of us are actually at RMC?
With all the problems, moral issues etc at RMC, this action IMO is going to undo any progress that may have been gained. It was said somewhere here that 95 percent of the cadets follow the rules. Would it not have been better to have staff hand around to personally identify the offending mbrs. I can guarantee that this will be viewed as a punishment regardless of what the Comdt wants to call it and things will be worse.
IMRO there comes a time in training when individual punishment fails to work. Punishing the group sometimes yields surprising results. People respond differently when others are being punished for their failing.
Quote from: stellarpanther
I can guarantee that this will be viewed as a punishment regardless of what the Comdt wants to call it and things will be worse.
If they can't follow the rules maybe they should quit.
Group discipline is not my "go to setting" for correcting behaviour. But it is a legitimate and time tested tool in the toolbox.
"If you can't get them to salute when they should salute and wear the clothes you tell them to wear, how are you going to get them to die for their country?". General George S. Patton
...or maybe those with archaic ways of thinking should retire if they can't adopt to what is accepted in society.
I just mentioned this thread to my son and his friend, both in high school and their comment was "that's why a lot of kids don't want to join the military anymore. I'm starting to think that RMC and the rest of the military is going to go the way of the navy and everyone is going to release or simply not join.
My question to those here that may be in senior leadership postion is this: You do survey after survey and hold townhalls to discuss the issues that concern the troops but you rarely listen to them or it takes forever to implement a simple change that a CO can quickly make. Why even bother because to be honest, it makes things worse when they know leadership is aware but not willing to do anything about it.
A simple example is this. In Ottawa many units allow civi Fridays, others don't for the simple reason of the CO not being a fan of it. In my mind that is a simple way to improve moral that causes zero harm to anyone but it doesn't happen because one person simply doesn't like it.
So, HB, if I understand the chronology:
1. Senior cadets engage their CoC to get things changed;
2. CoC says no, sorry, rules remain;
3. Senior cadets unable to get subordinates to follow rules;
4. Group punishment.
May I suggest that the CoC skipped step 3a: Replace cadet leadership? Why can't new people be given senior appointments midway through the year, if those filling the positions can't get the other cadets to obey?
You're missing a few steps and your understanding of the situation is only partially correct. Firstly, Cadet Leadership changes every semester. The Training Wing Staff looks at how Cadets performed each semester and based off that performance assigns them leadership positions. This Barslate has been in position since January and we will begin looking at next years positions in about a month from now.
The reason Cadets aren't removed wholesale from Barslate positions is because as I stated earlier, this is a training institution. The Senior Cadets will be afforded the opportunity to correct their mistakes. That isn't to say Cadets can't lose their bar positions, I removed one Cadet's bars this semester for very poor Academic Performance for instance and awarded them to another Cadet who was taking their schooling more seriously and had been passed over for positions.
You should also know that every Cadet has a training file that is internal to the school, everything they do is noted by me, whether it's good or bad. This file is sanitized when they graduate and a course report is generated.
Post by: Simian Turner on March 05, 2018, 02:12:24
IMHO the jeans issue is the last straw that finally broke the Comdt's patience. Rather than allowing things to remain at business casual (vice jeans) he could easily change it to Dress 3, 4 or 5s as walking out wear. Business casual is a happy medium I think. Do they have set meal hours and class times or can Cadets come and go as they please. What if the Cadets are not morning people couldn't we just change the class or meal times? They are attending a military institution, therefore, rules, self-discipline and standards should be the backbone of their learning. If it was the haircut, footwear, headdress policy would corrective action been so objectionable?
At a time in history when woman, minorities and transgender folks are fighting to be treated the same as white men - is this really about jeans or is it about respect for standards? Respect is a two-street as long as a mob (mentality) isn't coming from one direction!
I strongly disagree with your statement. Unless you are in the CO's head, I don't think you can speak to all the reasons he/she has for making a particular decision. Perhaps there are operational or administrative reasons people need to be in uniform at the unit. Or perhaps the CO and RSM have witnessed civi Fridays lead to other disciplinary or administrative problems in previous units, or perhaps certain personnel needed to be in uniform and it created an unfair work environment for the privileged ones who could wear civilian attire.
As a leader (at all levels) your responsibility is to push back (in private) but support in public. That's the hard choice. Sometimes you can't be "one of the boys" when it comes to unpopular orders.
If it comes down the CO's mind won't be changed, then I suppose you can take your release and wear civis everyday should you so choose.
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 05, 2018, 06:58:54
Quote from: JesseWZ on March 05, 2018, 02:31:58
That is an astute statement and it is a problem I have seen infecting leadership in the CAF for a while now.
Post by: pbi on March 05, 2018, 10:17:15
Unfortunately, this is the frightening challenge that all people in an organization face when they know something wrong is going on. It gets much worse in organizations like the military, the police or the fire service where the positive ideals of shared danger, service before self and "I've got your back" sometimes get conflated with a "code of silence" .
I think it's fair to say that in the last few decades, we've seen examples of what happens in the CAF when people (at various levels) decide to close ranks when they know something bad is happening or ignore offenders because they don't want to be the "rat". Bad things keep happening, and sometimes (thankfully fairly rarely), they get much, much worse.
When these young OCdts at RMC graduate and have to lead soldiers (who may not necessarily see things the way officers do), they are going to face this challenge. I guarantee it. If the CAF allows officers to think that it is OK for them as a group to observe a "code of silence" and not "rat out" peers breaking lawful commands (an order to wear dress slacks is not the same as an order to murder prisoners), then how well are we preparing to encourage an environment in which members are not afraid to report wrongdoing?.
Dealing with offences committed by individuals is certainly one part of the solution, but I think another important part is to teach the group that it must function effectively as group, not a gang of individuals. That may mean, in certain situations, rewarding or punishing the group as a group, to reinforce that sense of shared responsibility.
Post by: Target Up on March 05, 2018, 10:30:04
Know why everyone hates collective correction? Because it works. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of it myself, but there's no doubt it's effective. To my eye, what's happening here isn't punishment, it's an enforcing of a regulation that was allowed to slide. Now the slide is being stopped. Does it suck? I guess. So does a lot of crap in the army.
Quote from: BeyondTheNow on March 04, 2018, 19:57:30
On a personal level I'm disgusted that students went to the media about this.
:goodpost:
PBI, you are quite right that "an order to wear dress slacks is not the same as an order to murder prisoners". The later is clearly and without any doubt an unlawful order - ordering dress regs to be followed is lawful.
This said, I don't think anybody is talking about "rating" here. The way I understand MilCol's functioning, the cadets are in great part self-governing (nothing new here - that's how it was in basic and then Phases 2 to 4 for all of us). There are cadets given seniority and leadership positions over other cadets, and then all the other ones are supposed to develop self-discipline*.
So the situation is not akin to "rating", but actually is the same as the junior officer in the field observing something wrong with someone in his platoon: the JO has a duty to correct the improper action, and only if stoping it/correcting doesn't work, then take the appropriate disciplinary action.
In other word, here, the cadets in authority should have spotted the other cadets lacking the self-discipline to follow a simple rule and accosted them directly to tell them to get on with abiding by the rule. Only if such cadet then still fail to mend their way should they have been brought up in disciplinary hearing by the senior cadets - not as "rating" to a superior. Yes, I know, disciplining near peers sometimes sucks, but it's what's needed in the military and that will not change (notwithstanding some people here thinking the military must adopt current Canadian "societal" standards). As future officers, they are expected to learn to correct improper behaviour in others and self-correct their own behaviour.
It is this "own discipline" system that seems to have failed here so everyone is reminded that if they want to be treated like officer material, they must act like officers. That is a group lesson - the same way that an obstacle course meant to be a team course can have to be repeated by all if the group fails the standard or is not acting as a team in execution.
Why is this lesson so important? Just look at the alluded case of the Airborne Regiment. The flaunting of many rules and regulation by soldiers was in great part due to Senior NCO's, Warrants and Officers not simply marching in to break some of the improper deportment of the soldiers as it occurred - not in a disciplinary manner, but simply as a matter of fact intervention. It starts with one instance, then two and builds up from there, and after a fashion, the leaders that did not correct the behaviour early enough get further and further behind the eight ball until they just don't have the moral authority to correct the behaviour anymore.
*: Self-discipline is like ethical conduct in this case: It is something you do wether there can be consequences or not and on your own simply because you know its the right thing to do. For an officer, dressing correctly according to regulations should definitely fall into that category. If an officer can't follow dress regs without being told, he/she has no right to expect his/her subordinates to do so.
Post by: captloadie on March 05, 2018, 11:10:17
Thank you HB for the work you and all the staff are doing at RMC for trying to return it to a military institution that instills all 4 of the pillars. There will always be milcol haters and no matter how one tries to argue their value and their methods, those individuals will keep their opinions the same. And that isn't a bad thing, because it keeps the rest of us attempting to continually improve the institution.
During my time at RMC, there was an infamous food fight. After standing on a parade square the next morning for an hour before class where the two individuals responsible for turning off the lights refused to come forward, we were all confined to the peninsula, for I believe a total of 4 weeks (2 before and 2 after Christmas break). It sucked, and it took the pressure of the individual's peers to get them to come forward afterwards so that the restriction in privileges could be lifted. But looking back, I don't think there was another option. They were never going to find the two individuals by doing a UDI. Their friends weren't going to turn them in, and no one else wanted to be that guy or girl who ratted them out. Until the group punishment started. That's when, as I said above, they were encouraged to turn themselves in for the greater good.
In this case, the restrictions in place are not meant as a punishment to the 5% who blatantly break the rules. Its a meant as a training tool (call it a punishment if you want) to remind 100% of the Cadet Wing that looking the other way is not a quality respected in the CAF. Its about teaching future leaders about having the courage to step forward and take action. I would hope that there are a few Snr cadets now thinking that next time, they can save their subordinates from this type of thing if they have the courage to act.
Post by: Strike on March 05, 2018, 11:52:16
Quote from: captloadie on March 05, 2018, 11:10:17
During my time at RMC, there was an infamous food fight...
I'm late to the party I see.
Yes...the infamous food fight. Surprised that hasn't come up until now. And a great example of how the group "punishment" worked.
Honestly, in all of this we have to remember that the issue isn't as simple as being able to wear jeans. It's people openly flouting the rules and barmen not carrying out their duties by ensuring simple rules are enforced.
RMC is a training institution. Part of that training is learning how to change the system properly. The cadet wing had already been told that the dress regs had the potential to change in the future so there was no reason to flout the rules. All is shows is a lack of maturity and an entitlement within the cadet population, especially by those who decided to approach the media.
There was one cadet quoted as saying something to the effect of stuff like this (the jeans and confined to grounds) being the reason why there were issues of depression and suicide. I suspect anyone in the cadet wing who has had dealings with such issues personally would have a few things to say about that. This one statement made the whole wing sound like a bunch of entitled brats who had never been grounded in their lives.
Reading the comments online from various sources, there is overwhelming support for the staff on this issue and very little sympathy for the cadets.
Quote from: Strike on March 05, 2018, 11:52:16
If you read the thread on r/Canada feed on Reddit, the commentary from the average Civilian Canadian was "Good, Our future Officers that we are giving an education should be held to a higher standard"
That was painful to read. And this comment makes me think that the redditor that made it might be the same one that cried to the media...
Its doing a 4 year degree plus mandatory sports and french while in basic. No wonder the suicide rate is so high.
...This said, I don't think anybody is talking about "rating" here. ..
I was keying on this phrasing from stellarpanther:
..I understand that we are supposed to report anyone who violates regulations etc but has anyone ever considered what happens to the person who "rats out" his co-workers, it's not always good for them and I don't just mean in a violent way. I've even heard supervisors comment that rats have no place in the military and they have no respect for them. There has to be another way...
This is more or less what I was getting at, except to add that being aware of an offence and not acting on it is perilously close to condoning it. I agree that even a peer can try offer advice or suggest a better way as a first response to seeing an offense, but if the offender doesn't listen, then as an officer (or a person aspiring to be one...) the peer has a duty to report within the Cadet system. That will, most definitely, be seen as "ratting" by the offenders.
That Reddit thread burned my eyes...
I'm going to jump on the bandwagon supporting HB.
What I'd like to know is did the cadets actually attempt to have this changed the proper way? Or was it just a blatant disregard for an order they disagreed with?
And if they did use the proper channels and a justification and reason was given and they still didn't like it and still didn't follow it? Just because a rule is one you don't like, it doesn't mean you ignore it or more importantly if you are in a position of leadership, not enforce it.
About ratting your fellows out. Commendable but prepared to suffer the consequences of that action. Many times in my earlier career we circled the wagons when we knew what had happened was wrong (I'm talking about minor things like buddy being late or the odd news of a bar brawl making its way up the CoC) but we always knew there was a risk of getting communal punishment as a result.
As much as some people are up in arms and saying it's just jeans, that also works the other way. Troops, it's just jeans and you effed that up.
I would like to suggest we've gone very circular with this. Is there really anything, or opinion, we haven't covered?
Post by: kratz on March 05, 2018, 16:58:41
I've read the news reports, online comments and this thread. From all the manufactured outrage I have read, distilled and found Humphrey Bogart's comments the most honest and coherent. Jeans are an article of clothing and not worth focusing on compared to the career value of what is at stake.
Was at the gym this afternoon and talking to a 4th year I see there often at the same time. Ref whoever leaked to the media, she felt it made the whole college look like a bunch of whiny kids, when in fact it is a very small number of people complaining and most understand the reasons behind the confinement to base.
I also noticed that the cadets are all wearing their RMC PT strip at the gym. Better for them as far as I'm concerned (except they should try and source college shirts in dry fit) since they are supposed to have priority on equipment during work hours on weekdays and it makes it easier to identify them that way.
Post by: meni0n on March 05, 2018, 18:23:33
Hopefully this won't turn them into those kind of officers who never leave the wire but give crap to troops who just came in after a month out for not having their pants bloused bloused or boots shined.
Ref whoever leaked to the media,
Yes, regarding that. I imagine it is frowned upon by the employer. Can you be kicked out for it?
You can be suspended or fired for expressing unsanctioned personal opinions on policy matters to the media - social or news - by some employers.
I'm going to start a GoFundMe page to buy RMC cadets nice jeans they can wear in their rooms.
Not that I think it's acceptable to run to the media about your complaints, but it's also apparently not something that you can be punished for either. We were eating lunch in the unit break room and one of the PAO's was there and the conversation came up about what regulation would be violated. According to him, it is not prohibited as many think, only frowned upon. He went further by saying a person could file a harassment complaint if they faced reproductions because of it as has happened in the past.
Yes, the world would be a better place if fewer RMC cadets faced reproduction.
What about QR&O
19.36 - DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
1) For the purposes of this article, the adjective "military" shall be construed as relating not only to the Canadian Forces but also to the armed forces of any country.
(2) Subject to article 19.375 (Communications to News Agencies), no officer or non-commissioned member shall without permission obtained under article 19.37 (Permission to Communicate Information):
a. publish in any form whatever or communicate directly or indirectly or otherwise disclose to an unauthorized person official information or the contents of an unpublished or classified official document or the contents thereof;
b. use that information or document for a private purpose;
c. publish in any form whatever any military information or the member's views on any military subject to unauthorized persons;
d. deliver publicly, or record for public delivery, either directly or through the medium of radio or television, a lecture, discourse or answers to questions relating to a military subject;
e. prepare a paper or write a script on any military subject for delivery or transmission to the public;
f. publish the member's opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities;
g. take part in public in a discussion relating to orders, regulations or instructions issued by the member's superiors;
h. disclose to an unauthorized person, without the authority of the department, agency or other body concerned, any information acquired in an official capacity while seconded, attached or loaned to that department, agency or other body;
i. furnish to any person, not otherwise authorized to receive them, official reports, correspondence or other documents, or copies thereof; or
j. publish in writing or deliver any lecture, address or broadcast in any dealing with a subject of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or pertaining to public policy.
I personally hope the person/persons can/will be held accountable for what was said and face repercussions if identifiable, just like when things are posted to social media that can be interpreted as disreputable to the forces. This absolutely cannot be precedent-setting—i.e. students thinking it's acceptable to run to the media when something occurs they don't like.
Not that I think it's acceptable to run to the media about your complaints, but it's also apparently not something that you can be punished for either.
Stellarpanther I would not seek advice from PAO or a barrack room lawyer. I think NDA Sect 129 would cover it.
Sample charge - Sec. 129 N.D.A. AN ACT TO THE PREJUDICE OF GOOD ORDER AND DISCIPLINE
Particulars: In that he, on 2 March 2017 at Kingston entered into direct communication with the local and national media on subjects connected with events occurring at the Royal Military College of Canada without authority from his chain of command, contrary to article 19.375 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces.
QR&O 19.375 - COMMUNICATIONS TO NEWS AGENCIES
(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), any communication concerning or affecting the Canadian Forces or any part thereof that it may be considered desirable to make to the press or any other agencies concerned with the dissemination of news or opinions will be made by the Minister or an officer or official designated by the Minister.
(2) An officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element may make communications to the press or other news agencies when they concern or affect only the command, formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and do not involve enunciation, defence or criticism, expressed or implied, of service, departmental or government policy.
(3) As it is desirable that the public should be acquainted with conditions of life in the service and that local interest be encouraged, an officer commanding a command, formation, base, unit or element is authorized at the officer's discretion to invite local representatives of the press and other news agencies to visit the command formation, base, unit or element under the officer's command and to furnish to them, subject to paragraph (2), such information as the officer may consider suitable for the purpose.
Again I don't think it's right to go to the media and wouldn't personally do it, but I have known people who have. They never seem to get charged or punished in anyway. Maybe the senior leadership doesn't want that type of fight?
As far as NDA 129, that's the coverall charge that many people think shouldn't exist because it's often used when they can't get a real charge to stick.
Post by: PuckChaser on March 05, 2018, 19:36:47
Or its hard to find out who did it unless they self identify by either the content of the communications or by directly telling someone else they did it. Reporters tend to be very wary about releasing the names of sources.
For reference to the discussion,
Leaking Information To Canadian Media
https://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=125321.0
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&ei=6tSdWuSDE4nUsAXu0qoY&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+19.36+-+%22DISCLOSURE+OF+INFORMATION+OR+OPINION%22&oq=site%3Aarmy.ca+19.36+-+%22DISCLOSURE+OF+INFORMATION+OR+OPINION%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...65419.79042.0.79575.41.19.0.0.0.0.93.1361.19.19.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..33.0.0....0.0nXKk7MRUE4
So it does certainly appear that there are regulations in place if the CoC wanted to lay a charge but it rarely if ever seems to happen. In fact, the person or group whinners often get what they were looking for.
So it does certainly appear that there are regulations in place if the CoC wanted to lay a charge but it rarely if ever seems to happen.
Seems the source was only identified as, "A senior cadet at the college told the Whig-Standard that their disappointment with their chain of command's decision goes beyond being unhappy that they can't wear some Levi's."
Some of the cadets seem to be lawyered up, "A former infantry officer of 28 years and later a legal officer, Fowler currently represents multiple cadets at the college who have reached out to him about the loss of privileges."
I'm the kind of person that normally just goes into work and does my job without much complaining so these aren't the normal things that pop into my head but if there are regulations in place, whether I or anyone else agrees with them, what could a lawyer even do? Why waste money hiring a lawyer? It's not like the CoC is violating their rights or are they? Getting a lawyer just doesn't make sense to me.
Post by: exCAFguy on March 05, 2018, 23:13:48
So RMC expects the OCdts to, as future officers, report wrongdoing by peers etc. Some OCdts bring forward an issue to the CoC and the CoC in turn hammers everyone.
Probably makes those OCdts less likely to report wrongdoing in the future.
Quote from: ExRCDcpl on March 05, 2018, 23:13:48
Actually, it was the DCdts himself that caught cadets leaving the grounds wearing jeans being the last straw, after several warnings and reports of cadets being in town in such since the new dress regs came down in September.
Post by: Mike63 on March 06, 2018, 02:20:28
I spent 7 years working at CDA, and I can tell you I wore jeans to work every day. The only times I didn't was when we had to go to RMC Currie Hall for either lectures, presentations or our yearly orientation days. Basically the only reason why I chose to wear jeans and a t-shirt each day is because a certain LCol once told one civilian guy 'jeans aren't allowed to be worn by civilian employees, don't do that again', I kid you not, that is exactly what he said! From that day forward, I wore jeans and t-shirts with little sayings on them, mostly sarcastic that I got from a website called Road Kill T-Shirts.
I did that for a couple of reasons, one; he can't tell us civilians what to wear or not, there is nothing in our collective agreement about any dress code. Secondly, I wore them to spite him not wanting us to wear them AND, for about two weeks, I made it a point to walk around his office door hoping that he would see me and say something (eh, bit of a **** disturber and fighting the establishment, but for 27 years of svc, I did what they asked, I went where they sent me, all without questioning any order). Also, even though I was in a "Higher HQ" as they like to call themselves, I was always behind a desk providing customer service to CAF mbrs only via email or on the phone. No one ever came to my office looking for help (well those that worked in the bldg did), so nobody ever seen what I was wearing.
I'm fully retired now and don't have to concern myself about that kind of stuff anymore. I have always worn jeans, I only have maybe 3 pairs of dress pants and two suits, don't like them!
Post by: LunchMeat on March 06, 2018, 06:21:12
The age of heightened sense of entitlement.... what a wonderful time we're living in.
Guess what kids, it's 4 years, and then you have a decade of guaranteed employment and you CAN wear whatever you damn well please off duty.
Actually, it is a "real charge".
Like lots of people on here, I've used it a few times. 129 reflects the fact that it's the responsibility of the chain of command to maintain the "good order and discipline" of the organizations they lead. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of seemingly small things in unit life which, in a civilian environment, might be considered meaningless, petty, or "harrassment" (a grossly overused term IMHO). But, in military life, these things detract from the "good order and discipline" of a unit and must be dealt with swiftly and strictly. Just because "many" people think 129 is a "coverall" doesn't in any way lessen its legality, legitimacy, or usefulness in running a good unit.
I'm not a lawyer, but again IMHO the laying of 129 as an alternate charge is no less legitimate than the Crown in a civilian case laying an alternate or lesser charge, such as manslaughter as a lesser charge to murder.
While the wearing of jeans is the current issue, perhaps it should be seen as a symptom of a larger problem – College leadership failure.
In 2016, the CDS ordered a SSAV because of "a spotlight on issues of harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour, potential suicides, mental health, fitness, alcohol and drug abuse." The report (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/20170329-rmc-ssav-report-final.pdf) was published last March, with Gen. Vance accepting every one of the report's recommendations.
Of note here, the report stated that "Dress Standards at RMC are a major bone of contention… particularly 'walking-out dress' and the use of dress as a punishment." The CDS noted (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/29/as-review-of-royal-military-college-uncovers-significant-problems-top-soldier-pledges-to-act.html), "What part of wearing a ceremonial uniform downtown on a Friday night to have a drink with your friends would directly relate to your ability to be a good warrior leader or a good infantry officer? ...It's a rhetorical question, because there is none."
Yet, this ongoing fashion crisis shows that RMC leadership is essentially telling the CDS to go **** himself.
This isn't really surprising though. Cadets all take courses on leadership, and every year Cadets ask why the evidence-based principles of good leadership they are taught aren't practiced by RMC's military staff.
Maybe MilCol's "leaders" need to dust off Leadership in the Canadian Forces: Conceptual Foundations (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/dn-nd/D2-313-2-2005-eng.pdf) (Hint: Ch 5 and 6)
With thanks to Professor Al English
Statements that were given by Cadets in this incident are incorrect. They are incorrect because they provided no context. This is because they came from Cadets who A) have their own agenda to push B) don't know what goes on outside their own bubble.
I'll give you some examples:
1. "Cadets were ordered to go on parade improperly dressed" They were ordered to go to a parade but the parade was ordered by the Cadet Wing themselves (As I said earlier) so Cadets ordering Cadets, the staff did not order the Cadets to parade in the cold improperly dressed.
2. "Cadets have been removed from Academics to focus on French Training" This is correct but doesn't give any context. RMC has four pillars: Academics, Military, Physical Fitness and Bilingualism. Graduation requires passing all four pillars and not just the ones someone feels like passing. We had numerous Cadets that have been failing Physical Fitness and Bilingualism Pillars and have made no effort to improve themselves in either Pillar. A couple of Cadets in particular have never passed a fitness test in four years at RMC and a couple of fourth years had XXX profiles (even after 4 years and over 400hrs of instruction). The decision was made to remove them from Academics temporarily and give them an intensive six month period of additional instruction with their only job to be meeting the requirements of one of the Pillars they are deficient in.
The Chain of Command was not required to do this, in fact, the Commandant has the power to simply release them for failing the training; however, it was decided to give these Cadets a one time deal as a way of transitioning to the new Regime which is reaffirmation that success is required in all four pillars to be successful at RMC. Normally any additional time in the program (i.e. more than four years of education subsidization) requires the Cadet to pay for this themselves. We waived this requirement for these Cadets and they will be receiving additional instruction, free of charge and still be allowed to complete their degree afterwards without any financial penalty.
We've hired additional fitness instructors, we are bringing in Nutritionists to monitor the diet of these Cadets, we have brought in additional Second Language Instructors. We are doing our due diligence to ensure these Cadets are given every opportunity to succeed. The message is clear though, the expectation is that every Cadet will be successful in All Four Pillars as a condition of graduation.
Quote from: Journeyman on March 06, 2018, 10:30:03
I agree this was a problem in the past, I won't comment too much on this but it is changing. Part of the problem is there was a "make it up as we go" attitude amongst the Training Wing Staff. Policy is being written as we speak including Terms of Reference for all the Staff.
The new Squadron Commanders Terms of Reference/Position Requirements are interesting and include:
FORCE Test Standard Requirement: Gold
Must go through a interview process like they do for CFLRS instructors
Merited in the top 25% of their respective Branch/Corps
Positions have been up-ranked as well, every Squadron now has a Warrant Officer and I can personally say the Warrant Officers/Petty Officer 1st Class we have are high quality.
The CDS is well aware of everything that is going on at the College and that's all I will say on that.
Post by: QV on March 06, 2018, 11:07:41
Read my original post:
https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127537.msg1523697.html#msg1523697 (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127537.msg1523697.html#msg1523697)
We've hired additional fitness instructors, we are bringing in Nutritionists to monitor the diet of these Cadets, we have brought in additional Second Language Instructors. We are doing our due diligence to ensure these Cadets are given every opportunity to succeed. The message is clear though, the expectation is that every Cadet will be successful in All Four Pillars as a condition of graduation....
This goes back to one of my other posts in another thread about the BFT and dragging people across the finish line. So at RMC there are these cadets that need all of this extra training and hand holding to meet the minimum standards ... are these the kind of people you want in leadership positions? What ever happened to some self discipline? Future leaders in the making.
Quote from: QV on March 06, 2018, 11:07:41
Agreed and as I mentioned this is a one time deal. Next year Cadets who fail to meet the minimum standard will be removed and they are aware this is happening. Consider this the transition year.
...A couple of Cadets in particular have never passed a fitness test in four years at RMC...
Wow. Really? WTF was going on there?
Quote from: pbi on March 06, 2018, 11:35:49
Good question, part of the problem is it's never been a big issue before. There has always been maybe 5% of fourth years that had trouble in one of the Pillars, usually in Second Language and maybe a couple with fitness. Starting in 2011 though, the number of Cadets unable to meet the standards steadily climbed from 5-10% to a high of 35% in 2015. Which the SSAV identified as a major issue.
I remember being a Cadet and having maybe 20 people on supplementary fitness training when I was here, I was shocked to see 30% of the student body on SPT when I got here. Something like 50-60% of first year Cadets are unable to meet the minimum standard of physical fitness at RMC.
We can no longer recruit people that meet the standard so something needed to change. This could partially explain the morale problems at the school so we've had to make drastic changes.
Post by: Pusser on March 06, 2018, 12:38:30
You don't think that "conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline" should be a real charge? Causing disruption or lacking discipline should be OK? Really?
Post by: ModlrMike on March 06, 2018, 12:40:04
For reference, here's a link to the standards: RMC Physical Performance Test (https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en/training-wing/rmc-physical-performance-test-joining-instructions)
I find it truly remarkable that 30% of candidates can't meet these standards.
Holy smokes RMC sounds like a train wreck. Or was a train wreck and its slowly getting cleaned up but it seems like some cadets prefer the carnage. How or why on earth did they pass the interview process?
No pt test in 4 years?
I know of two Mcpls who were separately almost charged for letting their FORCE test lapse (as in they were a month late doing it) and its not because they're out of shape but because they were so busy.
I hope these new changes work but if they don't I can see us just giving these kids their free degree and dropping all this "silly military crap" to become military officers.
Based on what you've quoted, the CDS is not saying that there should be no dress code or that everybody should be able to wear jeans downtown. He's simply saying that perhaps a dress uniform is over the top. There was a time that junior Mil Col cadets had to wear actual dress uniforms downtown on the weekends and they looked really out of place in the King's Hotel in Victoria. Taken in context, dress trousers and open collar shirts for all cadets is incredibly progressive compared to what it used to be.
Post by: medicineman on March 06, 2018, 13:04:33
Quote from: Pusser on March 06, 2018, 13:02:35
When I was rowing up in Victoria, you could tell what year the RRMC cadets were by what they wore off campus...
Post by: sandyson on March 06, 2018, 13:12:50
This is a foolish response but by god does this sort of attitude make me angry:
"We waived this requirement for these Cadets and they will be receiving additional instruction, free of charge and still be allowed to complete their degree afterwards without any financial penalty."
Not only are the cadets not suitable for leadership, neither are the people making that decision. Here in the private sector, if you want to be generous you pay for it. So! Since you're so generous (with other people's money) you pay for it. GD governments think money just happens.
Quote from: Sandyson on March 06, 2018, 13:12:50
You have to take into consideration that the college has been in flux for the past several years, trying to find its place again. The position of DCdts has changed 4 or more times in as many years and with it so have some of the standards wrt the college requirements - pillar system or just education or more military elements, less military elements. It has resulted in a small number of cadets being lost in this weird flux and these are the ones who are having issues (with French at least). This is what I've been told by a cadet acquaintance in 3rd year and another in 4th. If the college were to give them the boot the resulting redress would have likely resulted in them being given their college degree and commissioning. So the school is doing whatever they can to fix the mess that some of these students are finding themselves in through no fault of their own.
...Starting in 2011 though, the number of Cadets unable to meet the standards steadily climbed from 5-10% to a high of 35% in 2015. Which the SSAV identified as a major issue...Something like 50-60% of first year Cadets are unable to meet the minimum standard of physical fitness at RMC.
This is dismal. Are there no physically fit young people out there, or do fit young people have no interest in joining as officers?
These days, the recruits tend to have very powerful thumbs .... :)
Post by: Downhiller229 on March 06, 2018, 15:21:14
This is a bit ridiculous... By the way don't forget that RMC grads are the model officers in the CAF...
I'm incredulous on two fronts. Mainly that some of those affected went to the media to complain. And two that these kid's lives are so strictly regulated. What happens when they get let loose into the wild and actually have to fend for themselves after they have had every waking moment of their existence planned for them down to their attire?
What's the incentive in going to that school anyway? From what I hear I wouldn't want to send my kids there?
For what it's worth I commend everyone involved with the school, it's an impossible task. It doesn't seem much maturity is being developed there... I guess to each his own.
The CAF strikes again with the amazing media portrayal, luckily we had the GBU-raft to balance this one out.
Quote from: Downhiller229 on March 06, 2018, 15:21:14
Maybe it's the free education with a pay cheque and four years earned toward a pension?
Nah, that's cray talk. I'd send my kids just for the fun of watching them run around in an organ grinder's monkey hat for four years. You can't buy memories like that.
I'll rephrase that. Why go to RMC when you can go civy-U or better yet for pilots go to Seneca and be a captain at 20 years old.
The prestige doesn't impress anyone anymore, so why put yourself through that.
Pilots have no prestige?? :o Quick, look out your window. Is the street full of guys in coveralls and Buzz Lightyear helmets? If so, you better run. Those are fighter pilots. ;)
I'm not sure your last statement is true.
I started my commissioned service with only a high school diploma, obtaining my degree many years later as a senior Major, through the University Training Plan for Officers at two civvy universities. I have no dog in the RMC fight.
That said, I think that being a graduate of RMC still holds a certain attraction and even prestige. Being a graduate of that institution is an achievement. They aren't automatically better officers than those of us who came up by other routes, but they are by and large good officers in my experience.
As for "putting yourself through that", maybe it is the willingness to put up with some suffering, sacrifice and pressure to get what you want, which is (or should be) the status of a commissioned officer in the CAF. RMC isn't just a place to get a degree: there are lots of easier ways to do that. The degree is just a step on the way to a larger goal: to be a good officer.
And that seems to be the crux of the debate here: are the protesting cadets demonstrating the traits of good officers, or of entitled whiners who picked the wrong career?
I actually find this quite interesting. And to be sure we're on the same page a lot of my good friends are RMC grads and I hold nothing against the institution itself. I just think the potential issues it has aren't necessarily looked at in the right order.
So you pose the question about wether those cadets are officers we want in the military because of the behaviour they have displayed. So are those undesirables a product of the system or are they the only ones we can get through the door? Someone referred earlier in the thread that there was a problem with cadets meeting the fitness standard. Again is that representative of society as a whole or does it show that RMC isn't necessarily an institution where people flock to.
On one side we are trying to pretend that it is the gold standard by which we want our leaders trained, on the other we allow programs like Seneca to be developed which basically says "screw you guys we just need pilots and now!"
So it's hard to try and justify this whole dog and pony show when you have conflicting messages like that.
While I've said several times I don't condone going to media, what can they do if they are trying to get change or bring attention to what they believe is unfair treatment and the CoC refuses to listen. I know there are policies against going to the media but I've heard civilians wonder out loud what the CAF is afraid of if they think they are right.
Maybe they should use the system the way it's meant to be used, and realize that not everything in life is going to result in the immediate gratification that they've been raised with.
That's part of the issue and a reflection of the immaturity and inexperience. Yes, the system works slowly. That's the reality. Just because you really want something and you feel it is a right and just cause/argument, doesn't mean it's going to happen right away. Thankfully they are in a training system and have the chance to learn all of this.
what can they do if they are trying to get change or bring attention to what they believe is unfair treatment and the CoC refuses to listen.
Ombudsman?
"Members of the Defence community must first use existing internal review mechanisms (e.g., the Canadian Forces grievance process, the public service grievance and complaints process, etc.) before the office can initiate a review or begin an investigation."
Looks like some reached out to a lawyer. The lawyer spoke to the media,
"Fowler currently represents multiple cadets at the college who have reached out to him about the loss of privileges."
Who said the CoC didn't listen? Listen doesn't automatically mean "agree". Maybe they listened, but they considered the complaint and have decided to stick with their principles.
Sounds like marriage. :)
I actually find this quite interesting. ... So it's hard to try and justify this whole dog and pony show when you have conflicting messages like that.
This is Canada, so unless there's a war on, nobody "flocks" to anything to do with the military. They never have. It will always be a minority who choose a military career, and an even smaller slice of that who choose to become officers.
So are those undesirables a product of the system or are they the only ones we can get through the door?
According to what Humphrey Bogart has been telling us from his insider perspective, they appear to be products of a system that has fallen into a very bad and almost rudderless state, but is now being salvaged. I recently had the privelige to speak to one of the classes there on a topic of recent military history. I was very impressed by the calibre of the cadets I met, and of their thirst to learn more about their profession.
On one side we are trying to pretend that it is the gold standard by which we want our leaders trained, on the other we allow programs like Seneca to be developed which basically says "screw you guys we just need pilots and now!
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at with this comparison. Seneca College is a community college, run on business lines, which is mainly involved in teaching technical skills to civilians. RMC is an institution for training military officers as completely rounded professionals, of which technical skill is only a small part. I don't see the relevance of what Seneca College does or doesn't do in comparison to RMC: it's apples and oranges.
Ahh so you agree with me then.
Are you aware that out of high school I can choose to go to Seneca college to become a CF pilot. Earning commission at 18 years old and becoming a captain shortly after earning my pilot wings at ~21 years old? So are the Seneca officers a lesser caliber then the ones who spent 4 years at RMC? How do you justify spending 4 years as an officer cadet when you could be a 2Lt and a captain years before someone who started RMC the same day as you? It has to be difficult to motivate people to go in that environment when you give out such a sweet deal on the other side. So yeah it's apples and oranges but not according to the CAF
Quote from: Downhiller229
How do you justify spending 4 years as an officer cadet when you could be a 2Lt and a captain years before someone who started RMC the same day as you?
- If you have access to funds to pay for the Seneca route, good for you.
- 4 years of pensionable time = ability to retire from the CAF sooner with a 27 year career, ahead of the Seneca method.
- Networking. It's been often observed, RMC graduates are better networked than DEO.
The pros and cons of an entry plan are highly individual, based on the choices a young person has available to them.
Quote from: kratz on March 06, 2018, 23:34:05
Seneca is paid education, 100% pensionable time from time of enrolment and given a commission following BMOQ which takes place before their first semester of school. By the time they go for their last year of school they are winged captains.
So are those officers the same as RMC grads? If so there needs to be more incentive, pay or otherwise to get the top candidates to attend that institution. On top of the changes in culture that are being made.
I'm not trying to bash the institution, and i will reiterate that I do not support the method of protest of the cadets. However it really brings out the unfortunate reality that the prestige doesn't quite cut it anymore.
Post by: winnipegoo7 on March 07, 2018, 00:24:56
**edit -someone beat me to it
I think you're ill informed. Seneca occurs under the CEOTP entry. The deal is you go to basic as an OCDT and get commissioned as 2lt upon completion of basic. Then you do PFT. Then you do 1 year subsidized training at Seneca as a 2LT. Then you do more pilot training and then back to Seneca.
The time at Seneca is full salary as a 2LT. It is pensionable and you can network with all the other pilots at Seneca. It is a very quick way to become a qualified captain pilot. much sooner than an RMC pilot.
These Seneca guys are going to be the next generation of RCAF leaders. If you want to be a pilot Seneca is the way to go.
From the RCAF website:
The new Continuing Education Officer Training Plan (CEOTP) – Pilot program has been designed to graduate a winged pilot with a Bachelor of Aviation Technology degree in just four years. That's three years less time than it takes for a student to achieve the same qualifications at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=rcaf-and-seneca-college-accelerate-military-pilot-training/hrhjdzop
Quote from: winnipegoo7 on March 07, 2018, 00:24:56
Yet another reason that I'm p*ssed that I'm too old to do the cool stuff they've come out with more recently than the MkIII boot's initial issue :)
While I've said several times I don't condone going to media,
Reeeeeally?
Yes but, as I pointed out (not very effectively, it seems...), RMC is just one way to produce officers. I did not come up by that system, and I made it clear that RMC officers are not automatically better officers just because they went to that institution. When I graduated from the Infantry School, my peers around me on the parade were OCTP, OCTP(M), DEO, CFR, RESO and Mil Col. Nobody was automatically a better officer just because of their commissioning program. That isn't my argument.
I would argue that Seneca and RMC are still apples and oranges. A limited program to address a particular shortage of officers with a specific technical skill is not in any way the same as an institution which was created to shape the whole officer as a professional.
Now, whether RMC has done a very good job of that, or not, is a good question. Haaving spent the last decade in Kingston as part of the military community, I have had my doubts. Humphrey Bogart and others have confirmed some of these doubts. But good people are working to fix the place, and produce officers who have the character and discipline to be leaders, not just technicians.
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 07, 2018, 08:25:47
And pretty much any moron can fly a plane......few and far between are good leaders of men/women.
Post by: AK on March 07, 2018, 08:57:35
I'm assuming that Seneca students don't have compulsory language classes?
Bilingualism points make a big difference in career paths these days.
Quote from: Bruce Monkhouse on March 07, 2018, 08:25:47
:nod:
It's a technical skill on its own, and many nations employ varying structures of non-commissioned members to do so -- the technical side does not need officership, many (myself included) would argue. Nothing special about t, just exacting with little room for error, but that's it.
It kind of seems like you actually do condone going to the media, as long as it is the course of last resort. In response to "the civilians you heard wonder out loud," the CF has nothing to be afraid of, but it expects people to follow the rules.
The problem with every Tom, Dick and Harry having the opportunity to jump in front of the camera is that many of them are misinformed, uninformed, or just have an axe to grind. Think of the membership on this board. If we take a cross section of board membership and give them media privileges - do you think accurate information is going to get out? Or will it be contradictory, poorly researched, or possibly even inflammatory?
In the CFNIS, we deal with sensitive often serious cases. Often, media lines need to be drafted and the PAO in consultation with the case manager is the vetting authority for those lines. Would I want every MP with access to the information to be able to speak to it in front of the camera? Absolutely not. Often they aren't privy to all the available information in order to make an informed opinion. As I've seen here, too many people have an axe to grind and come out swinging without all the information, or choose to release selective information in order to influence opinion.
If the OCdts are truly unable to effect change - to whit - jeans, in their institution, and they feel they need to use the media as a cudgel, I would suggest they instead take their release and give themselves the privilege of wearing jeans all day, everyday.
Post by: MAJONES on March 07, 2018, 12:40:54
Seneca Program and NCM pilot discussion now in separate thread.
RMC and dress code discussion in this thread.
I posted what I've heard others or civilians comment on but it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the decision. Sometimes trying to read between the lines doesn't work. I am saying that I don't support going to the media. If mbr's have concerns, there are other legal avenues that can be taken. I'll say it one more time. I don't support violating ANY regulations.
Post by: Haggis on March 20, 2018, 11:11:38
Quote from: AK on March 07, 2018, 08:57:35
Indeed bilingualism is important, more so as one increases in rank. It's quite probably much more difficult to find and fit in SLT in Toronto after school hours than it is to receive it at RMC.
Para 5.1 of CEOTP DAOD (5002-6) reads: "5.1 Professional development policy, which includes second language requirements, is set out in DAOD 5031-8, Canadian Forces Professional Development." So, in very broad terms, the requirements to meet all other criteria of the Officer General Specifications (OGS) remain.
Like NCM SEP focuses on the Red Seal trades, the Seneca training seems to be focused solely on the technical skills of being a pilot. Everything else required by DAOD 5031-8 is left up to the individual, supported by his University Liaison Office.
And I guess RMC students simply don't get the same lecture they give in BMQ. Paraphrasing of course, "If you're not authorized, don't speak to the media about anything. And/but if they approach you, this is what you're allowed to say..." It was pretty clear.
Paraphrasing of course, "If you're not authorized, don't speak to the media about anything. And/but if they approach you, this is what you're allowed to say..." It was pretty clear.
Sounds like good advice for anyone wishing to avoid career suicide.
Reminds me of something I read many years ago. ( The language could use modernization, but I believe the message is still true. )
"If you work for a man, in heaven's name work for him. If he pays you wages which supply you bread and butter, work for him; speak well of him; stand by him, and stand by the institution he represents. If put to a pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart's content, but as long as you are part of the institution do not condemn it. If you do that, you are loosening the tendrils that are holding you to the institution, and at the first high wind that comes along, you will be uprooted and blown away, and will probably never know the reason why."
Just my opinion but when loyalty is earned it's precious.
When bought by a pay check it's not that valuable.
No value also leads to no guarantee it will last.