# Manditory length of service



## Fraser.g (5 Nov 2004)

With the reserve component of CFMG moving towards the PCP level for QL 3s so that there is a parity between the regular force Med Tec and reserve Med A, should there be a mandatory term of service after the PCP course. Say two years of class A service. 

The way things are now I can see a few pers taking the free training and then releasing on graduation. If we can not impose a mandatory length of contract then what are the other options?

GF


----------



## QORvanweert (5 Nov 2004)

I believe that a mandatory length should at least include QL1-3's and then after that they are free to make up their minds, I find that most troops drop out when they are doing their training and have nothing really against regimental life. And included with that would be the caveat of a financial re-imbursement when they get their QL4's. This would keep people in for another year at least..


----------



## LCISTech227 (9 Nov 2004)

I do not believe there should be a mandatory service contract for the reserves.  I don't think it is necessary... here's my thinking on this:  Why keep someone in the CF that does not want to be there?  A bad attitude taints everyone around them.  Unfortunately it is up to the units to deal with retention by making the training and the "army" life more attractive and make these ppl want to stay in.  I personally believe if someone wants out, then let them out ASAP, because the last thing I want is to deal with someone who doesn't care about what they're doing.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## starlight_745 (9 Nov 2004)

I thought the reserves was staying with the EMR standard?  Any word on restructure of the reserve Med Tech career courses?


----------



## Fraser.g (10 Nov 2004)

From what I have been told the EMR standard is a stepping stone and not an end state. As for how we are going to implement it...I have not been told from higher.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Feb 2005)

I do not beleive that mandatory service levels are useful for those who have just done their GMT and basic trade, I think anyone who wishes to go beyond this should make a time comitment and have the opportunity to serve with the parent RegForce unit so that the standards of Reserve Force professionalism for higher QL and rank levels will have some actual application to RegForce equivalents.  Many of our deployments now are only possible with reserve force personel, and this has been true for some time.  Making the cadre of the reserves a core of NCO's trained to RegForce standards and experienced in RegForce practice can only have the effect of giving a reserve that actually can fill out RegForce units, without scaring off the more casual reservist who may have selected the reserves out of a reluctance to commit to a long term with the CF.  The reserves have two manpower problems, keeping enough bodies to do the job, and getting enough qualified and experinced NCO's to train the unit.  Mandatory service for all might dry up the influx of bodies, but service for those who wish to advance can give us a core of professional reserve soldiers that can raise unit training levels, and ease RegForce staffing problems.


----------



## Radop (19 Feb 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I do not beleive that mandatory service levels are useful for those who have just done their GMT and basic trade, I think anyone who wishes to go beyond this should make a time comitment and have the opportunity to serve with the parent RegForce unit so that the standards of Reserve Force professionalism for higher QL and rank levels will have some actual application to RegForce equivalents.



First off, how much money does it take to train a reservist to the same level as a reg force pers.  Basic and trades training cost serious money and to loose these people costs real money that we could have used on other things.  If a reservist has to sign for 2 years lets say with a minimum of 60 training days then we can get some of that money back.  Each course after that should cost one year of service so as to pay back the military for services rendered.  Far to often the reservist thinks that they are doing the military a favor by getting trained.  They then get out and put these things on a resume.  Things like SFA costs companies serious money and if they can get someone else to pay for it, it is cheaper for them.



			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Many of our deployments now are only possible with reserve force personel, and this has been true for some time.   Making the cadre of the reserves a core of NCO's trained to RegForce standards and experienced in RegForce practice can only have the effect of giving a reserve that actually can fill out RegForce units, without scaring off the more casual reservist who may have selected the reserves out of a reluctance to commit to a long term with the CF.


  

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but there have been augmentation by the reserves but we have not been dependant on the reserves for our commitments in the regs.  Our tour to Afghanistan (Kabul Roto 0) had about 60 reservists out of 2500 soldiers that were deployed.  Warehouse had the most and they served as dispatch riders because we could not get enough sigs to do the job on that level and keep up with the actual hard comms positions while keeping up with the next rotations.  Do I think the regs are over streached?  When we had to do Bosnia, Afghanistan (including Mirrage) and Haitti all at the same time, yes we were.  Now with only Afghanistan being our major commitment, no we aren't.  We still take reservists with us to gain experience and learn how we do things in the Regs.  Our unit employs 30-40 reservists for 354 day contracts and give them courses and experiences that they would not get in their home units.  This is not because we cannot meet our commitments though.  We try to take 2 reservists with us on each of our deployments if possible.



			
				mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> The reserves have two manpower problems, keeping enough bodies to do the job, and getting enough qualified and experinced NCO's to train the unit.   Mandatory service for all might dry up the influx of bodies, but service for those who wish to advance can give us a core of professional reserve soldiers that can raise unit training levels, and ease RegForce staffing problems.


Any reg force member does (at present time as it is changing) 2 x 3 year BEs followed by an IE and then IPS or CE if they qualify.  The first BE is compulsory and after that time, the individual and military has the right to deside if they are going to re-engage.  If anyone desides not to sign, the member is released.  The same thing happens at the second BE.  The IE allows you to serve up to the 20 yr mark (soon to be 25).  At any time, we can request to release but must give 6 mos notice.  I feel that a similar system could be adopted by the reserves that would actually improve the commitment of the pers in the reserve and make it a much more effective system.


----------



## Marti (23 Feb 2005)

This issue was discussed with some visiting CFMG brass during Ex Active Edge last summer as way to justify the cost of putting reservists on a reg force QL5. The answer that came back was that there was no legal means of enforcing such a contract. The example was given of reg force signal operators being recruited in large numbers by civillian firms right off their trades training (hopefully someone can confirm/deny this claim) with impunity from any consequence reguarding their contracts. The official line was that if it's not possible to enforce reg force contracts, there's no hope for the reserves. 

Regardless of the above, I'm inclined to agree that it's impossible to enforce mandatory service within the reserves. There will always be the excuse that civillian commitments, like employment, conflict with training and the army can't rightly expect to take precedence over these without legislation that protects civillian employment while a member is abscent on training. It's very common for members to miss training because of a conflict with work and it's a legitimate excuse. If mandatory service was imposed in the reserves, there would be nothing to stop a member who wanted to release from using this excuse indefinately. Effectively, the member in question would just be waiting out the term of engagement a burden on our administrative system.


----------



## Radop (23 Feb 2005)

Marti said:
			
		

> This issue was discussed with some visiting CFMG brass during Ex Active Edge last summer as way to justify the cost of putting reservists on a reg force QL5. The answer that came back was that there was no legal means of enforcing such a contract. The example was given of reg force signal operators being recruited in large numbers by civillian firms right off their trades training (hopefully someone can confirm/deny this claim) with impunity from any consequence reguarding their contracts. The official line was that if it's not possible to enforce reg force contracts, there's no hope for the reserves.



To break a contract in the regs, you have to give 6 mos if you are beyond your BEs.  If the person wants to get out before his BE is up, then ottawa must approve it otherwise if he leaves, he is AWOL and can be arrested and detained for trial and must serve his remainder of his contract or will be released for 5f.  Lately, Ottawa has said they will not allow anyone on a BE to release until their contracts are completed.  So far, the only ones that I saw get out were forced out because of discipline problems.



			
				Marti said:
			
		

> Regardless of the above, I'm inclined to agree that it's impossible to enforce mandatory service within the reserves. There will always be the excuse that civillian commitments, like employment, conflict with training and the army can't rightly expect to take precedence over these without legislation that protects civillian employment while a member is abscent on training. It's very common for members to miss training because of a conflict with work and it's a legitimate excuse. If mandatory service was imposed in the reserves, there would be nothing to stop a member who wanted to release from using this excuse indefinately. Effectively, the member in question would just be waiting out the term of engagement a burden on our administrative system.



There are other options such as finacially commiting the person to their contract, miss minimum requirements and you would be required to pay your portion of the training cost similar to RMC officers when they break their contracts.


----------



## Fraser.g (23 Feb 2005)

Radop said:
			
		

> There are other options such as financially committing the person to their contract, miss minimum requirements and you would be required to pay your portion of the training cost similar to RMC officers when they break their contracts.



To be honest I had not considered that option. I think if we had the JAG chew on it for a while they could make it fly. IMHO

GF


----------



## Marti (24 Feb 2005)

"Lately, Ottawa has said they will not allow anyone on a BE to release until their contracts are completed."

Seen. Thanks for sorting that out.

"There are other options such as finacially commiting the person to their contract, miss minimum requirements and you would be required to pay your portion of the training cost similar to RMC officers when they break their contracts."

The problem is that there will always a legitimate excuse available to get out of parading. I know of lots of people who can't attend exercises because they work weekends. If a member can't make training requirements because of work comitments, they shouldn't be punished for it. This is the loophole that would get members out of meeting requirements for a mandatory term they don't want to serve. The only way to effectively enforce this sort of thing would be if there was legislation that allows members to miss work for training. It would get rid of the loophole, but that's opening a huge can of worms...


----------



## Fraser.g (24 Feb 2005)

I know all about pers that try and get out of parading for one reason or another. Perhaps if the contract was in parade hours instead of years it would be better.

The Dutch Conscripts I worked with in Yugo back in 92-93 had the option of 1 6 month tour or the 1.5 year service contract. Perhaps we could do the same.

Just another idea

GF


----------



## Radop (25 Feb 2005)

I was in the reserves in the 80s and the same discusions were going on then.  I don't know the simple answer and don't know if there is one.  I brought this up in another forum and they said that amounts to conscription.  I told them I signed a contract and I am a volunteer soldier!  Their are hard feelings on both sides of the ledger.  We have to find something though as some of the reserves we are getting working with us in the regs are just not meeting basic requirements of the trades.  I am in comms and I realize the requirements are vastly different between our two trades.  Yet, without sigs comms don't get through and people can die.  You don't do your job, people can die.  I can go on with most trades in the forces and the same thing comes up.  We do need something to make the system work and get people trained to the same level as reg force soldiers while keeping the standard high.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Feb 2005)

One of the great problems for non-student reservists is balancing reserve force commitments and civilian job requirements.  I think firm action on the part of the federal govt to force employers to allow reservists to honour their military commitments without fear of losing or damaging their career prospects.  The US strongly supports its National Guardsmen, Canada asks for voluntary co-operation from a business comunity that largely could care less.  If we want mandatory service commitments from the reservists, I would wholeheartedly support that commitment if the Federal govt would match that commitment with legislation seeing that reservists not suffer economical for their service.  For a lot of us, we had to stop serving, when no longer students, and unable to give the time required to remain a fully trained and operational soldier.  It is just not in me to be a "Saturday night soldier", its pretty much neck or nothing.


----------



## Radop (22 May 2005)

Like I said, no easy answers.


----------

