"New" Uniform Question ?

[Hack]

Originally Posted by Area51

The new uniforms are friggin crap...

Everyone is talking about how they tear, buttons pop off, seams unravel, stitch work unravels. Galls has a white edged flag - Unitech has a yellow one, galls polos have a flag - unitech does not.. both uniforms are different colors of blue...

A "reel genus" dreamed this one up...

Here in Alabama the 100% cotton uniforms being worn in humidity that is similar to a fish tank...

Just think another 5 - 7 years then we will have a new design. The next time it will most likely be snow parkas and pink rabbit ears...

Now don't be giving those executive staff ideas like that.

[bigredd]

Originally Posted by sparkyCG

Well, policy says staff must wear the approved uniform. bdu pants are approved for sort, dct and bus operations. as for everyday wear as a correctional officer, your gonna catch flak and the ones shooting at you are in the right

"policy says..." I'm not trying to wear mint green cargo shorts, just NAVY BLUE BDUs !
Where does it say that approved source = approved uniform? And, again ... was the "approved source" requirement negotiated by the Union ?
I do appreciate the comments AND accept the advice ... but I need hard info.
(If you couldn't tell by now ... I HATE taking "no" for an answer)

Stay safe

here ya go. i agree with you fully and will stand shoulder to shoulder to fight these bastards, but, make sure you have all you need to fight. you wanted hard evidence. here it is and it also answers your question about the union.
you can read and down load this off of cpl33.info. sorry man.
article 28
Section h. Uniforms for all staff will be in accordance with policy, and only those staff occupying positions outlined in policy will be eligible for a uniform allowance. Policy will not be changed or implemented until negotiated with the Union.

Section i. Any additional uniform items, when appropriate for health and safety reasons, will be negotiated at the local level.

1. the dress uniform will be worn on specified posts agreed to by the parties at the local level. On all other uniformed posts, ties will be worn with the long-sleeved shirt, sweater, or blazer. Employees will have the option of wearing a tie when wearing the short-sleeved shirt; and

[Crosstimbers Okie]

If any cocktaster writes anyone up for wearing an unapproved uniform. Take it to arbitration and make them prove that it didn't come from an authorized vendor. When appealing disciplinary action before an arbitrator, the burden of proof is on the agency--and the punishment has to fit the crime. I.E., the disciplinary action, which includes the punishment, must be taken for "just and sufficient cause."

What is a fair punishment for wearing the wrong pair of pants? Termination? Seven days off without pay? A letter of reprimand? A verbal reprimand? I bet every institution's union should be able to find an example of the cocktasters protecting one of their own with minimal punishment for acts much more serious than wearing the wrong pair of pants. Precedent they call it. And it is binding.

Does anyone believe that BOP cocktasters are capable of proving that your pants didn't come from a vendor unless you are a complete retard?

[JFordBronco]

I got on the Dickies website and ordered some of the "industrial" type pants, I believe that is what they were, they have the little pocket on the leg - the right one - and no pocket on the others. I am gonna try to wear it if my damn shirts ever come in

[gijanetexas]

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

If any cocktaster writes anyone up for wearing an unapproved uniform. Take it to arbitration and make them prove that it didn't come from an authorized vendor. When appealing disciplinary action before an arbitrator, the burden of proof is on the agency--and the punishment has to fit the crime. I.E., the disciplinary action, which includes the punishment, must be taken for "just and sufficient cause."

What is a fair punishment for wearing the wrong pair of pants? Termination? Seven days off without pay? A letter of reprimand? A verbal reprimand? I bet every institution's union should be able to find an example of the cocktasters protecting one of their own with minimal punishment for acts much more serious than wearing the wrong pair of pants. Precedent they call it. And it is binding.

Does anyone believe that BOP cocktasters are capable of proving that your pants didn't come from a vendor unless you are a complete retard?

So you're saying they like to eat roosters?

[sparkyCG]

you wanted hard evidence. here it is and it also answers your question about the union. you can read and down load this off of cpl33.info. sorry man. article 28
Section h. Uniforms for all staff will be in accordance with policy, and only those staff occupying positions outlined in policy will be eligible for a uniform allowance.

Bigredd, I had read that in my copy of the agreement. Obviously we’re talking about uniformed positions here. I simply want to know what , exactly, is “in accordance with policy.” ? Is it navy, all-cotton, so called class B trousers ? (my BDUs are navy and 100% cotton) Or is it one of the trousers purchased from one of the “approved” sources ? Their descriptions of what they are supplying are closer than the garments they are actually selling.

Policy will not be changed or implemented until negotiated with the Union.

I understand that. But WAS IT ????? Particularly the mandatory source issue ???

If any cocktaster writes anyone up for wearing an unapproved uniform. Take it to arbitration and make them prove that it didn't come from an authorized vendor. When appealing disciplinary action before an arbitrator, the burden of proof is on the agency--and the punishment has to fit the crime. I.E., the disciplinary action, which includes the punishment, must be taken for "just and sufficient cause."

What is a fair punishment for wearing the wrong pair of pants? Termination? Seven days off without pay? A letter of reprimand? A verbal reprimand? I bet every institution's union should be able to find an example of the cocktasters protecting one of their own with minimal punishment for acts much more serious than wearing the wrong pair of pants. Precedent they call it. And it is binding.

Does anyone believe that BOP cocktasters are capable of proving that your pants didn't come from a vendor unless you are a complete retard?

CrosstimbersOkie, I’ll be more than happy to volunteer for the arbitration case ... IF I know for sure that we are NOT actually required to wear trousers purchased from some fictional and so-called mandatory source. And I mean NOT required by formal agreement between BOP and the Union. FWIW anyone can see that BDUs , even navy ones, are not from one of those sources.
OTOH ... I HAVE worn grey BDUs in my Facilities position for several years. There’s a precedent for you. I’m also not particularly thrilled with being reprimanded repeatedly ... only to later find out that I was NOT in the “right”.
So, I guess what I'm seeking is a definite answer that this "mandatory source thing was done without negotiating OR truly was formally agreed on. ???
Take a look at the posts above and see how many of us bought something different. It would be nice to have navy trousers and just leave it at that. And to tell 'em to stuff it; what I'm wearing fits within policy.

Stay safe

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Originally Posted by gijanetexas

So you're saying they like to eat roosters?

Kind of. Actually, they just kind of let them lie in their mouths a little bit. They don't actually eat them.

[GUNNER]

Originally Posted by Crosstimbers Okie

"they just kind of let them lie in their mouths a little bit".

Only until the swelling goes down.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by GUNNER

Only until the swelling goes down.

Then afterward need a strong soap to clean up with.

[sk8nut]

I agree that the pants are terrible. They are cut funny, tight on the legs, have a karate ghi crotch sewn in them, tight on the rear, and whats with the maternity waist stretchy thing? The shirts are more comfortable but, cheap. Mine started falling apart on me also.