Senate Committee: Reserves to be Pressed to Meet AFG Commitment by 2009

[scas]

With all the reserve regiments in Canada.. I don't really see it being as hard pressed as is said. I was from a reserve Regiment that has been sending no less than 5 guys on every tour since 2003. And theres still guys that want to go but have been told no, or have been slated for courses and what not. If you actually go around and ask I'll bet that dozens of hands from all over each brigade will jump at the chance.

 

[Meridian]

I think part of the issue that was being raised, at least in the article, was that there wasn't enough senior NCMs left around within the Res World to train all these people who want to go....

 

[Spartan]

With all the reserve regiments in Canada.. I don't really see it being as hard pressed as is said. I was from a reserve Regiment that has been sending no less than 5 guys on every tour since 2003. And theres still guys that want to go but have been told no, or have been slated for courses and what not. If you actually go around and ask I'll bet that dozens of hands from all over each brigade will jump at the chance.

It may not affect the unit on a large scale with the few augmentees model - but when you're sending 20+ of your unit (many of whom are PLQ +) I'd figure that the impact is far larger.

 

[c4th]

Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.

I hate agreeing with GO just as much as the next guy.  But quite frankly he is right on this one, and is giving reservists far more of a benifit-of-the-doubt then is discussed on a daily basis at the soldiering level.

Am I the only one that thinks it is slightly hypocritical to be asking the private sector to protect jobs when the CF doesn't even protect its own Class B jobs?  Res HQ's at every level certainly have no trouble filling those deployment vacated jobs with eager unemployed replacements.  Job Protection for reservists is an Officers Mess/HCol debate that makes it to political levels with increasing frequency as that is where the PRes influence as always has lay.  Yes, Reservists fill a gap.  Contrary to historical Defence policy, the strategic solution is to reduce the gaps, not increase the fill. 

Since, job protection is not likely to happen any time soon there are other solutions.  These may include increasing a Reg Force soldiers BE to 5 years, so that they can actually get through the training cycle and to battalion for pre-deployment training, tour, and decompression before their contracts expire.  Another solution is to bypass CFRC and offer the PRes BE's or modified BE's with the posting benefits to transfer the Reg Force if they are soldiers the BN's want to keep.  The augmentees are contracted for at least 17 months (Some are pushing 20) as it is, and Volia, the job issue is solved. 

 

[darmil]

The thing is if your going to extend a reserve contract why bother with reserves, just have regs.Having a reg BE being 5 yrs sounds better than 3 yrs.We need JOB PROTECTION this needs to be push even more by the provincial governments.
So you have smart skilled people not just bums that live in there mommies basement.The thing about the reserves  BE's have to be easy as being on class "B" if you want a posting to a battalion, it's yours in a week not a year.CFRC is brutal, to me it seems that the government is lying about getting more troops. Cause if they where serious they would put more effort in than just some shitty ad on TV.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Remember though, recruiting is in a large way about getting people to apply.  The deeper the pool to choose from, the better the candidate is.  They don't want to be in a position where they feel compelled to consider someone who is mediocre, when they might have gotten someone better had they applied. 
Around our place, the Man always posts in the paper "Now accepting applications for 20-25 new constables".  We know bloody well that only about 6 to 10 will actually be hired.  But if you say "Now hiring six" then people might not bother applying. 
Some brainwave needs to come up with a good TV show or movie that is all about the CF.  Then you might see some decent numbers turn out.  Then the rest of us can say "we were Army, before Army was cool". 
(and yes, I think Army is already cool)

 

[PhilB]

I completely agree with GO on this one. I was a reservist on TF 1-06 and now having only been home 7 months I am set to start work up trg again. I think what we have is a chicken and egg scenario. Most reservists are not concerned with the length of the deployment, but with the length of the workup training. I agree with GO, there is no way reservists have enough experience to deploy to Afghanistan without a decent workup. I also agree with what he is saying about reserve leaders, at a private/cpl level there is much less of a gap between reserves and regs, a gap that can be filled with a long workup trg. At a leadership level the gap is huge. That being said does a reservist who just recently returned from a tour to Afghanistan need the same length of workup as a new troop with no operational experience? I dont think so. As more reservists get more relevant  experience (I'm sorry Cyprus, Golan, later Bosnia roto's do not prepare a soldier for the Afghan theater of operation) workup can be shortened, but if reservists dont get that experience because they think work up is to long then how can it be shortened? Just my 2 cents.

On the idea of legislated job protection I am very skeptical. I think that in order for legislation to work there needs to be large incentives to corporations to employ reservists. It is all well and good to tell a company that they have to protect the job of a reservist that is deploying, but there is nothing telling a company that they have to hire them in the first place. If there were large corporate tax and EPP benefits to hiring reservists, coupled with job protection for deployments, coupled with mandatory deployments (within reason, an American model where some NG are away more than they are home is not acceptable IMHO) I think we would have a decent workable system that would be acceptable to most. If any of the above elements are missing I think the system will fail. If you remove the benefit for corporations then reservists will not be hired (as we see in the U.S), if you remove deployment job protection we are in the same boat as we are now, and if you remove mandatory deployment then what is the point of all of this? It is all well and good to protect a job but as many people have mentioned above they still would have difficulty deploying for domestic reasons. If we enact all of the legislation we are talking about but still dont have enough reserves deploying then what is the point? Just my thoughts.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[muskrat89]

reservists will not be hired (as we see in the U.S)

  I keep reading this, posted by people who (to the best of my knowledge) reside in Canada. What are you basing this on? Experience? Anecdotes from friends and acquaintances? Media reports? I have no doubt that it exists, but I have been working in the US for well over a dozen years, in 2 states on opposite sides of the country, and for several companies - and have NEVER seen, nor heard, of this occurring.

Again, not saying it doesn't happen. I'm just saying that based on how often I hear it stated on this board, it is far more widespread that what I have seen or heard - actually living and working here.  ???

 

[tomahawk6]

I dont think companies not hiring reservists is very wide spread. I just saw a press article last week about it.
In the US the mid to large companies I think can spare an employee for a year or so. In the US I think if we are going to use reservists we might look at 6-9 month deployments which would impact their financial circumstances alot less than 18 month mobilizations. Here is an article about some businesses that go beyond the letter of the law.

http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2003/04/07/story7.html

In the Canadian context I think a law protecting a reservists job should be sufficient as your deployments are for 6 months plus a work up period the impact should be manageable. But the small employer will still have to hire a temporary replacement, not a huge problem.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This is about where I roll out my usual whine:
1) The Reserve Force is for extraordinary contingencies of an extremely intense and/or brief nature.
2) Immediate responses and ongoing commitments are the domain of the standing Regular Force.
3) If an immediate response is expected to become an ongoing commitment which will exceed the capability of the Regular Force to sustain, either the Regular Force must be expanded or a Special Force created for the duration.

 

[PhilB]

I am basing this off of the NG guys I worked with on Roto 1. From what they said they didn't put that they were in the guard on resumes because employers took a negative view on the guard, in terms of employability. Does this happen all over the U.S.? Is it widespread? I dont know. I do know that right now, at least in the places I have worked, being in the reserves has been seen as a positive. It has been an asset on a resume and I have experienced no negative attitudes. All of that being said I think in a lot of places in Canada, where there is competition for jobs, having legislated job protection and mandatory deployments with no incentives to companies is just a recipe for disaster. Tomahawk, keep in mind the differences in nationalism between Canada and the US, regardless of length of deployment (and remember the average tour is from 12-18 months commitment, between work up and deployment) why would a company hire a reservist who will be taken away from them when they could hire another person who has no restrictions? I think with a little bit of incentive companies would be more than willing to hire reservists, in fact it might be an even bigger asset to have "reservist" on your resume, but without? Who knows.

 

[tomahawk6]

I agree with you and thats why I think reservists deserve alot more respect than they get. In the US there are NG/reserve officers that have to take their military education on their own time in evening classes when they get off their "day" job. Then they have to find time to take residence courses and the residence portion of their senior service schooling. So there is alot of sacrifice in both free time and time off from their civvie job.The best tool a government can offer an employer is some type of tax credit to offset the added burden that a reservist puts on their employer.As has been previously mentioned usually a reservists military training and experience is a bonus for the civilian employer. I guess if I had to try a career as a reservist I would be a cop, firefighter or other local/state/federal employee.I suspect that is also the case in the Canada.
ON arrse I have chatted with a McDonalds manager who is also in the TA and he says that his company is a great supporter of his part time military career.

 

[lawandorder]

I'm a reservist, go to school full time at a Post Secondary Institute and have a part time civilian job.  I have my paperwork for an upcoming Roto and am starting to fill out all the forms.  I am lucky in the sense that the union which I belong because of my civilian employment has built in to our latest contract job protection.  I can take a leave of absence with my job guaranteed to me on my return for either Reserve or Regular Force Service.  I was even able to do this for my Lengthy QL3 this summer.  While I will be leaving my job probably for good If I deploy, the option is there in my contract to return if I fill out the appropriate paperwork before hand.  Why do we need incentives or legislation for our Reservists and job protection.  I understand that not all Reservists are students and actually have not just jobs but Careers.  But shouldn't companies and corporations just say "Hey Joe, you'll have your job back when you return."

On the topic of Mandatory Tours, you'll first have to actually make the reserves more of a commitment.  Right now you only have to come in 1 out of 4 parade nights in order not to go NES.  Not to mention you can pretty much pull pin whenever you want.  Sure it won't look good on a resume but there is not much from stopping a reservist from quitting after 8 months.  I've seen in all over the place. 

 

[garb811]

I can take a leave of absence with my job guaranteed to me on my return for either Reserve or Regular Force Service.

  You sure it includes Reg Force service, and if so, is there a time limit?  ie.  I can't see them guaranteeing you employment while you do your 25...

 

[Meridian]

.  I am lucky in the sense that the union which I belong because  Why do we need incentives or legislation for our Reservists and job protection.  I understand that not all Reservists are students and actually have not just jobs but Careers.  But shouldn't companies and corporations just say "Hey Joe, you'll have your job back when you return."

A very large proportion of us in the civilian sector do not have collective agreements or unions (nor would they be welcome) in our professional lives.

Also, parental benefits in Canada would be much similar to those in the US (I would think) without the mandated job protection that we have here in Canada. So nice as it would be to ask industry to do it for us, it doesn't seem like industry cares.

 

[PhilB]

Also, parental benefits in Canada would be much similar to those in the US (I would think) without the mandated job protection that we have here in Canada. So nice as it would be to ask industry to do it for us, it doesn't seem like industry cares.

I couldn't agree more. That is what I was saying in my post about levels of nationalism in Canada and the US. I suppose that if you are employed as a fireman, LEO, other government agency it might be a different story but many reservists I know are not employed in those fields. At the end of the day profits and the good of the company seem to come first been civic mindedness.

 

[edgar]

Consider what job protection is. Fundamentally it is just a way to spread the risk of unemployment for part-time soldiers returning from tours. This is fair in a general sense because we all benefit from their service, but the question is who else should pay the premiums for this type of unemployment insurance? Is it fair that the risk is taken only by the business people? Is job protection the most cost-effective way to generate forces?

My personal solution to the problem was just to quit my job and get a new job later but even this simple a solution costs the businessman time and money, hiring and training a new guy. With job protection this cost remains plus he has to fire the new guy, or keep a redundant employee, if the new guy has a union. Remember, the role of a business is to be efficient and to create a profit for the owners. (If you have a problem with that we should have another discussion about free enterprise, and how we defeated the Soviet Union.) As it stands now business bears the cost of employees taking tours out of a spirit of public service, and it comes out of the surplus they have created by being efficient in other areas.

Inefficient, unprofitable businesses fail, and then the job is gone anyway. Are we also proposing employee protection legislation to compensate businesses for losing some of their best employees for extended periods? The risk obviously has to be spread further, ie to the taxpayers. So maybe we extend unemployment insurance to cover this situation, with the premiums coming out of DND's budget? This still doesn't remove the administrative burden from the employer as he still has to find a new guy and train him, and now do the pogey paperwork as well.

Here is the cheapest solution for the taxpayer. First, take all the money, and paperwork that would have been used to create a bunch of jobs for the likes of CUPE to administer an expanded pogey system, and hire some more reg force. Second, continue to use the militia to lift keen citizens out of the mire of their crappy dead end civvy jobs by giving them life skills and interesting tours that also top up bank accounts, and sometimes even gives them marketable job skills. When they get home, the University will still be there, and Burger King will be happy to see them back. In other words, we don't have to fix this system, it as efficient as it is going to get.

There are a number of people (like me) who want tours but their jobs and family situation prevent it. To paraphrase Joseph Heller: 'This war is important. Somebody has to do tours of Afghanistan for their country. It doesn't have to be me.' Forcing the business people to pay a tax to support my habit is unfair, and forcing the other taxpayers to pay is inefficient. If you give up a $100,000 dollars a year to be in the show for $100 a day that is entirely your problem. As far as the taxpayers are concerned, stay in your job, and we'll take your $30,000 of tax money and pay somebody else to train for it full time.

If you want to go, join the Regs, or work it out with your boss. The patriotic thing for your boss to do is run an efficient business, create wealth, and pay his taxes so the Govt can hire more full-time soldiers. Sorry, I feel your pain, but you have to sort out your priorities. 


PS Having re read my post it seems I've also made the argument that efficiency requires the wealthy to risk their money while the poor risk their lives but that is a separate and much older issue, eh?

 

[scas]

As Phil was saying, job protection is a good go, but as he also stats, that companies won't hire reservists. YA Canada in Chatham, for example had to call the head office for permission to allow me to work, because I was a reservist. NOt only that, but as a reservist they stated that I was ineligable for the benifts package, because "military members are not covered". This was in 2004/5, and from conversations with others, they got the same deal, or told them that they weren't, military.

 

[Meridian]

Question though:

Im my current line of work, there is no requirement for me to claim military service, and thus there is no need for me to -tell them- that I am PRes (which Im not, but you get teh drift).

It certainly would not fill holes in my resume (as it is part time work, besides the fact that I have no holes), and as such, I wouldn't even need to declare it on a Security Screening Form if one was necessary, which for a large majority of employers, I should think it isnt.

So just why would you have to declare you are reservist from the get-go, especially if you expect to be discriminated against because of it?
Get hired, then tell them.

As far as the businessman shouldering responsability.. well, this is what society is about. We don't have free markets, if you think we do, you're nuts.  We have combination markets.  There are tons of minute legislative rules out there that push societal requirements on business all the time - think about permits.  Its a cost of doing business.

 

[Journeyman]

I can't believe that all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth has been sparked by a committee's mere "musing."

More talk of making Reserve terms of service more binding, but with job protection (highlighted)....

...That prompted members of the Senate committee to muse* about making service mandatory in return for guaranteeing a reservist's job

Imagine what an actual statement of intent would do....


------------------
*Muse, v. & n. ponder, reflect, n. archaic a fit of abstraction.