• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Clothing stores complaints

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
Halifax Tar said:
Your Stores Sgt defiantly does not have the authority to order a LCol or CWO out of a building, thats ridiculous.

But he does have a professional obligation to follow and enforce the rules and regulations governing the control and accounting of Material in the CAF, this includes clothing.

Having almost 21 years as a Sup Tech and more than haircut spent working a Clothing counter the abuse that is sometimes dished out is completely inappropriate.  I suspect any service trade in the CAF has to deal with this (HRA/FSA ect ect).  I blame our (The Supply Trade's) leadership for allowing this to happen.  Accountability is a wonderful thing.

I have told other POs and Chiefs that certain LS are no longer welcome at the stores office door before, outside of the most extreme circumstances.

So to sum up, order them out ? No.  Decline their request, if no entitled exists, yes.

Good post and points.  The door can swing both ways, and sometimes I'm sure the front counter folks have to deal with some arseholes.

On the other side of the coin, I've had to convince people that the item I need is part of my SOI, and it doesn't matter if it's July, yes I need my LPO CWWBs replaced, airplanes can fly north, I'm on the high ready crew and am expected to be able to go where I'm needed when I'm needed...and sometimes that is north (this is the conversation that ended up with the Sup Sgt and me having a chat in his office).

For the most part though, I've had nothing but positive visits to Clothing, personally and dealing with ALSE issues as part of my Sec duties.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
mariomike said:
When I was in a PRes service battalion, our Supply Techs had a simple saying, "Don't f*&^ with Stores."  :)

It's always good to keep the RQ/SQ and Chief Clerk on the "Christmas Card" list.  ;D
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
Good post and points.  The door can swing both ways, and sometimes I'm sure the front counter folks have to deal with some arseholes.

On the other side of the coin, I've had to convince people that the item I need is part of my SOI, and it doesn't matter if it's July, yes I need my LPO CWWBs replaced, airplanes can fly north, I'm on the high ready crew and am expected to be able to go where I'm needed when I'm needed...and sometimes that is north (this is the conversation that ended up with the Sup Sgt and me having a chat in his office).

For the most part though, I've had nothing but positive visits to Clothing, personally and dealing with ALSE issues as part of my Sec duties.

Don't take this the wrong way EITS, but there is nothing wrong with you having to prove you are entitled to something on your SOI.  SOI's are't owned or managed by Sup Techs.  For the most part they are owned and managed by occupations or environments, and there are probably close to 100 SOI's, and thats not including all the other MA Docs (Material Authorization Documents) like CFFETs, MAST ect ect ect.

We cant know every SOI its impossible.  And if you get the new OS/Pte or newly posted in person they might be very unfamiliar with the regions dominating SOI.

The other problem with SOIs, currently, is people love to bitch about them but no one (or few anyways) want to produce the staff work it takes to change them.  I have seen an SOI changed in 30 mins.  I just took a little conversation.

My time at FDU(A) was highly animated over the the couple of SOIs the divers are entitled too, and the poor management of them by *drum roll* divers...
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
???

If it's on my SOI...doesn't that = entitlement to the kit? What else would a scale of issue indicate?  The item manager decides who is entitled and what SOIs the item applies to.  Seems pretty simple.

*boots like TWB and CWWB apply to all pers posted to RCAF units (2 pr each).  They aren't on my platform/fleet specific SOI.

Item Managers...some of them are daft too.  The IM for the PRT (Pocket Rescue Tool) aka 'survival knife' we are issued didn't see why our Wing needed to hold spares and why couldn't people going flying borrow them from people not flying that day. :facepalm:
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
???

If it's on my SOI...doesn't that = entitlement to the kit? What else would a scale of issue indicate?  The item manager decides who is entitled and what SOIs the item applies to.  Seems pretty simple.

*boots like TWB and CWWB apply to all pers posted to RCAF units (2 pr each).  They aren't on my platform/fleet specific SOI.

Item Managers...some of them are daft too.  The IM for the PRT (Pocket Rescue Tool) aka 'survival knife' we are issued didn't see why our Wing needed to hold spares and why couldn't people going flying borrow them from people not flying that day. :facepalm:

I think you misunderstood me. The Sup Tech doesn't/might not or doesn't know your SOI.  So you having to show that its on your SOI is not a bad thing.  If someone came to me right now looking for a field kitting I would have to pull the SOI and do some research as I have no idea whats on there anymore.  Or if soldier X demanded something that he claimed was on his SOI and I was in doubt, well he/she can prove it or we can look it up together.

The old Web Query Tool made searching SOIs very easy... Alas one of DRMIS downfalls is its clothing application and its ability to produce things like an SOI.  Its a complicated TCODE that I need the power point for when I have to run it for my ships MAST.

Also Item Managers don't own SOIs.  Occupations and Environments do (For the most part).  Item/Supply managers exist to manage stock and replenish the stock in the CFSS.  IM/SMs def have a role to play in SOI but they are really only able to advise on stock availability. 

The time I watched an SOI change in 30 mins was to get All CLDVRs entitled to rucksacks.  Happened in 30 mins and was completed by a CPO1 (or 2 maybe) CLDVR with a few key strokes.  Was that the right way to do it ?  Nope.  Did he consult with the SM for Rucks ?  I doubt it, especially as all those outside the Army were being pull back at that point, but I digress... It can be that simple.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
396
Points
910
Ah, okay I'm on track with what you're saying.

Computers and new programs;  didn't they make everything 'easier'?  8)
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
Ah, okay I'm on track with what you're saying.

Computers and new programs;  didn't they make everything 'easier'?  8)

lol they sure did! lol
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,374
Points
890
I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...
 

gcclarke

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
dapaterson said:
I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...

I worked briefly on the DRMIS project (thankfully not doing any actual implementation), and I suspect the same bloody thing happened with Phoenix that happened with DRMIS: the government set up a contract, gave the contractor a set of requirements which they set about fulfilling... and then change the requirements, and then changed the requirements, and then changed the requirements, etc etc.

Hitting a moving target is difficult enough when we're talking ballistics. When we're talking programming, it's damned near impossible for things to turn out well.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
1,040
gcclarke said:
I worked briefly on the DRMIS project (thankfully not doing any actual implementation), and I suspect the same bloody thing happened with Phoenix that happened with DRMIS: the government set up a contract, gave the contractor a set of requirements which they set about fulfilling... and then change the requirements, and then changed the requirements, and then changed the requirements, etc etc.

Hitting a moving target is difficult enough when we're talking ballistics. When we're talking programming, it's damned near impossible for things to turn out well.

That's not what happened at all.  See the OAG report; they cut key pay processes, didn't test it, and generally dropped the ball on basic PM to make sure the project was 'on time and under budget'.  This was a case of people who don't know what they are doing managing a project ignoring the SMEs and delivering a broken project that ruined lives.

Totally different from DRMIS, which does what it's supposed to do, but we try and make it the all singing and dancing monkey and slap a bunch of custom front end on what's a pretty user unfriendly system.

Completely off topic though.

Managing the development of Phoenix
Overall message

1.21 Overall, we found that Public Services and Procurement Canada failed to properly manage the Phoenix project. Because of the Department’s poor management, Phoenix was implemented

    without critical pay processing functions;
    without having been fully tested to see whether it would operate as expected;
    with significant security weaknesses, which meant that the system did not protect public servants’ private information;
    without an adequate contingency plan in case the system had serious and systemic problems after it was implemented; and
    without any plans to upgrade the underlying software application after it was no longer supported.

1.22 Furthermore, we found that Public Services and Procurement Canada did not fully consult and involve other departments and agencies during the development of Phoenix to determine what they needed Phoenix to do or to adequately help them move to the new system. The Department did not completely and properly test Phoenix before its implementation, which is contrary to recognized practices for developing a system. Phoenix executives cancelled a pilot project with one department that would have assessed whether Phoenix was ready to be used government-wide.

1.23 These findings matter because the Phoenix pay system failed to meet the needs of users and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government’s pay processes. The project mismanagement resulted in

    the system’s failing to correctly pay tens of thousands of federal employees on time,
    government departments and agencies spending a significant amount of time and money trying to resolve Phoenix pay problems, and
    a system that so far has been less efficient and more costly than the 40-year-old system it replaced.

1.24 The building and implementation of Phoenix was an incomprehensible failure of project management and oversight.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201805_01_e_43033.html
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,509
Points
1,060
dapaterson said:
I am certain that IBM applied all the skill they learned in designing and implementing DRMIS into designing and implementing Phoenix...

And I wonder if anyone was actually managing them, from the client side, or did the client just assume that the big, strong, handsome consulting company could just sweep them of their feet and take away all their process sorrows, without any oversight?
 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
12
Points
180
Halifax Tar said:
I think you misunderstood me. The Sup Tech doesn't/might not or doesn't know your SOI.  So you having to show that its on your SOI is not a bad thing.  If someone came to me right now looking for a field kitting I would have to pull the SOI and do some research as I have no idea whats on there anymore.  Or if soldier X demanded something that he claimed was on his SOI and I was in doubt, well he/she can prove it or we can look it up together.

I don't know too many supply techs on Wings who are unaware of the 2 temperate and 2 winter boots for aircrew and techs. It's funny though, cause they sure know all the things they CAN'T give out off the top of their heads. Point being, individuals at the counter are applying what they consider to be their good judgement to navigate a situation when they should be in fact following policy. It doesn't matter if it's July, no one should have to justify why they need cold weather gear during that time frame if they're entitled to it. Sort of like when I had to cause a stink to get LPO'd summer boots in fall because the Sgt at clothing stores felt that I should be wearing cold weathers despite it being 10 degrees and an office worker.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
cld617 said:
I don't know too many supply techs on Wings who are unaware of the 2 temperate and 2 winter boots for aircrew and techs. It's funny though, cause they sure know all the things they CAN'T give out off the top of their heads.

I think you are proving yourself wrong here and providing support for my position.  Obviously the Sup Tech was wrong and didn't know your entitlements, which you received, correct ?  So whats the problem here, that you had to prove that you were entitled to something ?  As well do you really think the Sup Techs are out to stop people from getting what is on their entitlement documents ? 

cld617 said:
Point being, individuals at the counter are applying what they consider to be their good judgement to navigate a situation when they should be in fact following policy.

Are you a Sup Tech working the counter at clothing stores ?  How do you know this ?  If your Stores section is playing by their own rules it wouldn't be long before the leadership of that section was slapped back into line.[/quote]

cld617 said:
It doesn't matter if it's July, no one should have to justify why they need cold weather gear during that time frame if they're entitled to it. Sort of like when I had to cause a stink to get LPO'd summer boots in fall because the Sgt at clothing stores felt that I should be wearing cold weathers despite it being 10 degrees and an office worker.

I don't disagree with you.  The problem arises when very limited stock is available and you have to kit people out to go to a certain climate first.  They are the priority over those who just want to max out their SOI.  Look at the recent recall of rucks and sleeping bags.  If you aren't using it, we need it back because there are people who need them and cant get them.

As for LPO'ing footwear, its contracting and the expenditure of public funds.  There are checks and balances and purchasing clothing items is a big no no outside of certain circumstance, lack of stock and medical chits.  The Stores system making sure they are correct in going forward isn't wrong for doing its job.  What experience do you have with contracting I wonder ? 

Clothing stores isn't a buffet for members to come in an pillage.  We have a finite amount of money which in turn equals a finite amount of stores.  And that needs to me managed so that those who need the kit get it before those who don't, we could argue about this process but its not Supply who decides who gets what, when, surprise its your elements that deem what is the pecking order priority.  Congrats you had to prove you actually needed the kit, whats the problem ?  That Supply didn't take Cpl cld617's word at face value ?  The horror!

Its funny you bring up LPO because this has become a real problem in our supply system.  We have addicted too it and its just on time method of doing material management.  We need to move away from using our mastercard's for stores and get back into the business of stockpiling stores.  I now have LCMMs, Supply Managers and TAs telling me just to go out and buy parts that are supposed to be purchased and stocked by them at ADM(MAT).  If you don't know how bad that is then you don't understand how our logistical chain is designed and supposed to work.

Kind of derailed a little bit at the end. My bad.



 

cld617

Member
Reaction score
12
Points
180
Halifax Tar said:
I think you are proving yourself wrong here and providing support for my position.  Obviously the Sup Tech was wrong and didn't know your entitlements, which you received, correct ?  So whats the problem here, that you had to prove that you were entitled to something ?  As well do you really think the Sup Techs are out to stop people from getting what is on their entitlement documents ? 

The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
502
Points
910
cld617 said:
The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.

Well if your story is correct, and I have no empirical reason to believe its not, you ran into a bad Sup Tech or a Sup Tech on a bad day. 

I do disagree with you though, we should be kitting people to 100% of their SOI.  We should have stock on shelves and a good material distribution system that will ensure shortfalls are rectified quickly.  Lots of reasons why not, and all of them are out of the control of our Sup Techs. 
 

BDTyre

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
cld617 said:
The issue that I as a Cpl at the time was turned away because despite having and sharing both my entitlement and need for boots to the mbr at the counter, they felt that due to time of year I didn't need them now (their words). They acknowledged they were aware of the entitlement, they applied their sense of logic to solving a procurement problem, that is not Cpl Bloggins job. Eye in the Sky seems to have experienced the exact same issue, suggesting there is a trend here of folks trying to find solutions to problems which aren't theirs to solve. I agree it's not a supply techs job to give free reign to folks to collect their entire SOI, but when folks have to get their unit CWO's to send emails to other sections to get boots there's an issue.

And I had the opposite problem where the person behind the counter insisted I take the snow coveralls in August, two months before deploying, even when I told them I'm coming back in the spring and it doesn't get cold enough in Vancouver to need them.

And I still have them...worn zero times.
 

BDTyre

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Funny you say that, because I did need them...six months prior when it was -35 out! It took them that long to get them to me, and they never did get me a parka...only the pants!
 
Top