'In the early 2000s the Army attempted to come up with a Unified Field Theory, not for physics but for camouflage uniforms: they wanted one pattern that would hide troops in the woods, city streets and the desert. The uniform designers and engineers came up with 13 patterns for testing. But before the results were in, a general went ahead and picked a pattern—one that was not even among the 13 agreed-on contenders. “The new camouflage performed so poorly in Afghanistan that in 2009,” Roach notes, “the Army spent $3.4 million developing a new and safer pattern for troops deployed there.”
Meanwhile the Navy currently wears blue camouflage as its working uniform. “I asked a Navy commander about the rationale,” Roach recounts. “He looked down at his trousers and sighed. ‘That's so no one can see you if you fall overboard.'”'
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/author-mary-roach...
I was an engineer and had 'non-camo' uniform, and only wore camo in the field or on exercise.
People who's job was primarily 'in the field' though (e.g. the Army) didn't have that, and would wear camo as their uniform 90% of the time (the exception was formal dress uniform for parades etc.)
Shirts and ties and pressed trousers look sharp at the start of the day but are much less practical and look creased and worn by the end of a shift.
IMHO, that's a pretty disrespectful take that seems to be founded on stereotypes.
The real reason is probably more along the lines of: they work for a big organization, big organizations force "standards" decisions on the grunts that don't make sense in a lot of contexts, and for a multitude of reasons there's no will to change them once made.
No one I knew that I worked with preferred blues over BDUs. One would wear blues only if absolutely required.