# Reserve Call Outs/Employment Full Time



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

Good day all:

Here is an idea that I had about the reserves a number of years ago.

In order to maintain some amount of conitnuity within the reserves, the CF should introduce service contracts much like the regular force.  Here's how it should work:

Reservists would initially join for two years with the understanding they would show up 80 per cent of training nights and 80 per cent of weekend training.  On those missed training dates, they would have to be excused either by making arrangements with their supervisors prior to the scheduled training or by phoning the unit in the event of an emergency.  This would cut down on NES soldiers and emphasize the point that the reserves is not just a hobby career.  If you want to join, you need to make some kind of commitment.

Upon completion of two years, they would be offered the opportunity to reenlist for three years with a monetary bonus and the attendance requirement of 85 per cent of training time.  Should a reservist not want to reenlist for three years, they would be offered to continue to serve indefinitly but without any type of bonus.

This would ensure that reserve units would get some amount of conitnuity in manpower or corporate knowledge within the unit.  A set of rules would have to be developed for those who would want to break their contracts.  Currently, other than wanting to be a soldier, there is no real incentive to attract people to the reverse nor to keep them in.

When I first joined the militia, back in the middle ages (1989), our battery gave out $100 dollars to the soldier who had missed the least training nights and weekend exercises.  It worked well until the unit decided that it was not fair as it was not an official CF or regimental policy.  As a result, there was no real reward for sticking around and being a good guy, other than the personal satisfaction in knowing you missed no training.

As per normal, your thoughts and comments.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## BKells (26 Mar 2005)

I don't like the idea of a contract for reservists. That's one of the big reasons people join. Case in point, university students who might do a tour or two but at some point will quit to have a career they've always wanted.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> I don't like the idea of a contract for reservists. That's one of the big reasons people join. Case in point, university students who might do a tour or two but at some point will quit to have a career they've always wanted.



That's ok.  There would be provisions in the contract for such a thing.  The contracts would be there as a guarantee for training attendance, retention incentive, and corporate knowledge.  How many times are reservists processed out for NES?  We used to have a bunch load because they would loose interest and there was no attendance mechanism to make them show up.

When a unit goes on a weekend excercise and you're a det commander of gun, the work load is made up for 7 soldiers.  When you end up working twice as hard because Bo and Luke didn't show up for training and you only have four people to do the job of 7, it becomes frustrating.  There is no recourse to get them to show up for training.  A contract does just that.

In addition, NES soldiers can be a killer of troop strength and a waste of money.  If you spend x-dollars training and kitting out a soldier only to have him be NES a year later with no recourse to get him in to train, you can only process him out.  At this point, your turn over rate has increased and your operational ability has diminished because the troop numbers are just not there.  In this day and age, reserve unit budgets are tied to the number of soldier you have on strength and the parade state for every training is looked at closely.  A contract could help solve some of these problems.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

I like the idea of a bounty that the Brits use to encourage full turnout.  If soldier attend 100% of their Reserve exercises, they get a reward at the end.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a bounty that the Brits use to encourage full turnout.   If soldier attend 100% of their Reserve exercises, they get a reward at the end.



And make it payab;e on 1 Dec - in time for Xmas shopping etc


----------



## JBP (26 Mar 2005)

Me and the guys currently on my BMQ course were talking about why we joined etc..

Most of us joined because either:

A.) Always wanted to do it/be in the army etc etc...
B.) Quite a few people wanted to "Blow sh*t up and do cool stuff like rappel out of helicopters!"...
C.) For the education reimbursement (Almost all university guys)
D.) Friend/Family suggested who was already in etc...
E.) Other...

I think something of that nature would be a great idea. Maybe change the contract lengths thought. Say 2 years for the start, takes most reservists almost that long to become fully trained really, then say a 1 year contract after that. THIS would make or break them, regular training, nothing super special. Maybe after that, a 3-5 year contract because if they've already been in 3 years, chances are they like it/know what they want to do... 

And different kinds of monetary incentives for the lengths. Maybe make the 2nd 1 yr contract optional.. "Okay Pte. Bloggins, you can choose a 1 year contract for $350.00, or a 3 year contract for $750.00 and these bonuses would be upon completion of your contracts!"...

?

Not too much money, but enough to make'm happy.

It may scare people away to be in a contract, but I think it would only retain/keep the people who really do want to be there and reward them. Also attract the people who really DO want to be there in the first place, that way you don't have to do so much weeding out?!?!


----------



## DBA (26 Mar 2005)

I think an incentive for attendance would be best since it would motivate those who can show up without penalizing those who can't. Something like in December members get $600 (or $50/month for those who joined 4 or more months prior) if attendance is above certain levels and notice or reasons were given when they couldn't make it. Has to be a sizeable sum or it's not enough to motivate anybody. For a recruit who joined in June getting $300 if they parade till the end of November on a regular basis is a nice incentive.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

The bonus amounts that I had in mind were more siezable.  At sign up, a reservist should be entitled to $2000 bonus to be paid out 50 per cent at the end of the first year of enlistment and the remainder at the end of the second year.  The bonus is there as an additional incentive to join.

For those on a 3 year reenlistment contract, it should be something like $5000, with 50 per cent at the end of the first year of the new contract and the remainder at the end of year two of the three year contract.

Although these sums may seem large, the questions to ask is this:  How much money does it cost to buy experience?

PJ D-Dog


----------



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> Maybe change the contract lengths thought. Say 2 years for the start, takes most reservists almost that long to become fully trained really, then say a 1 year contract after that. THIS would make or break them, regular training, nothing super special. Maybe after that, a 3-5 year contract because if they've already been in 3 years, chances are they like it/know what they want to do...



The reason the frist contract is two years is because it takes most reservists that long to get trained.  They would have something to look forward too and not have enough time to become disgruntled with the system.  Then get them when they are motivated and you have them for another three years along with bonuses.

Should they decide not to sign a contract, they can still stay on but would not be entitled to any bunuses.  It's a bit of an endentured servitude sitation but a contract is deal in which both parties benefit.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## George Wallace (26 Mar 2005)

PJ D-Dog

Those sums would be nice, I must admit, but they are truly out in left field.   It would almost be likened to "Welfare Fraud".   I could see bonus amounts of approx. $50 for each month, but to be handing out over $2K for a year, just to maintain "experience" is a little too far fetched.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those sums would be nice, I must admit, but they are truly out in left field.   It would almost be likened to "Welfare Fraud".   I could see bonus amounts of approx. $50 for each month, but to be handing out over $2K for a year, just to maintain "experience" is a little too far fetched.



Consider how much it costs to train a reservist.  Clothing, use of equipment, ammunition, fuel for vehicles, rations, quarters (when on base), salary (both the trainee and the trainers), any consumable that is issued i.e. cammo paint, toilet paper, pens, pencils, note books.

If you put the price tag on all of this, you will find that 2K is a drop in the bucket compared to all the costs the resources used to train one soldier.  The cost of military training is expensive.  Say for example, that the cost of training for one soldier is rounded up to 20,000 (basic to trade course completion) and you have a turnover rate of 15 soldiers every two years for 6 years, then the money you spent to train them was $900,000.  Again, the bonus would be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

I think PJ is on to something - I am interested to know what the attrition rate in Militia units is during the first year.  From personal experience, I remember our unit losing lots of guys after getting their trades training; this loss is a big waste of training dollars.


----------



## Canuck_25 (26 Mar 2005)

I like the idea, seems practical. The CF should also try to indroduce job protection for those who go overseas also. A lot of people i know dont join because of this, the risk of losing full time employment is too great.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Mar 2005)

The problem with Job Protection is that it is a coercive measure and will not engender good relations with civvie employers.  It appears that the US is finding this out right now.

I'd prefer to see a more proactive measure like a tax-break/reimbursement for the employer which gives them incentives to work with a Reservist's odd schedules....


----------



## DogOfWar (26 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The problem with Job Protection is that it is a coercive measure and will not engender good relations with civvie employers.   It appears that the US is finding this out right now.
> 
> I'd prefer to see a more proactive measure like a tax-break/reimbursement for the employer which gives them incentives to work with a Reservist's odd schedules....



good point infanteer. Alot of times in the states reservists are running into issues getting hired in the first place. Simply because the employer knows what will happen in the future. Tax breaks may appeal to the employers business sense.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (26 Mar 2005)

Good point, Infanteer, a tax break would be a great solution that could work in Canada.

PJ.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Mar 2005)

I think that the idea of a contract with a bonus provision for attending all training events would work wonders as a "carrot" for reserve units.   However until the government provides job protection legislation for reservists it's not fair to reservists to attend training events that may interfere with their primary income sources.

I think that a 'bonus' based contract would be easier to implement (until the government signs job protection legislation) and would provide a great incentive for reservists to earn a nice bit of additional cash to complement their devotion.

When I was in the militia back in the 1990's we had a big problem with retention and training turnout with soldiers that had less than 3 years in.   Those who stayed in past 3 years generally had the mindset that they were willing to sacrifice the time necessary to train effectively.   Those with less than 3 years it was hit or miss.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, in the Marine Corps Reserves attendance is required for all scheduled training functions.   Even if a Marine misses a scheduled event, they're required to make it up during some other time within 30 days of the scheduled event.   In our unit this usually means coming in on your own time during the week and doing some tasks with very little training value, ie. mowing the grass, working in supply, photocopying or shredding documents in admin, etc.   This is very much a "stick" rather than "carrot" approach to training attendance.

I think that such a system would be able to be implemented at a fairly low cost to the CFs if the pay scale was structured so that a reservist would have their class A pay divided between the monthly rate and the annual bonus.   Something along the lines of 15% of their annual reserve pay allotment could be awarded as an annual lump sum provided that they satisfied the attendance requirements.   That way there wouldn't be any new funding requirements to come up with bonuses for reservists.

Also, isn't the current educational reimbursement package contingent on the soldier attending a required amount of training events during a given year?   This could also be a great incentive for reservists to attend training.   Now comes the tricky part, how do you expand this bonus to include block MOS or career/leadership training rather than just a bonus based around a unit's training calendar?


----------



## Pte Cowden (26 Mar 2005)

I like the idea of a contract, on the other hand though... It might scare people away from the reserves, not everybody likes commitment. But then i guess that's a good thing, because it'd weed everybody out and only the people who really wanted to be there would join.

The idea of a contract could go both ways, good and bad. ???


----------



## JBP (27 Mar 2005)

My section Sgt said it cost approximately $10,000.00 per recruit for JUST BMQ. Ouch, and that's if they make it all the way through of course...

He also said on average, it's a 50% drop out rate. We started with 42, we now have 29!!!... Only half way through BMQ!

So, do I think a couple thousand is worth retaining a couple bumbs, sure. If it ends up saving us some coin in the end, maybe more $ for live-firing and actual training, I'd be all for it!


----------



## R031button (27 Mar 2005)

I don't know about other units, and other serials...but out of the 7 recruits my regiment sent on my BMQ course, three are still parading with the unit on a regular basis. That's pretty sad, I mean, think of the position the militia could be in if retention was at 60 or 75% instead of being under 50.


----------



## X Royal (27 Mar 2005)

Service contracts for the reserves is not realistic. To require a member to parade a certain % of the time would cause problems without legislation to protect their jobs. Shift workers can miss up to 1/2 the training weeknights. Worker working until midnight on Fri. misses bus for training weekend. Offers to drive upon their own (not acceptable). The two listed examples have both happened to myself. I was once even told to take time off from my full-time job to parade on Thurs. evenings. Time off of a *full-time job * = NO JOB. Flexibility in the reserves is a must. Having been both regular & reserve I have seen that the reg. force attitude of expecting 100 % turnout doesn't work in the reserve. The idea of withholding a % of the pay (as suggested by another member) to be used as a bonus for attendance would only serve to cut the pay of some of your older more experienced members & increase their release rates. I don't believe legislation will happen so flexibility on both the units & members parts is a must.

The reserves are comprized of more than students and Mon.- Fri. , 9-5 workers.


----------



## Spanky (27 Mar 2005)

Another incentive for hanging around could be a "tax free" designation for class A pay.   Most students get their tax refunded anyway, and   for us older guys, it might encourage some to show up a little more often.   If nothing else it would be a cheap "thanks for coming out".

The issue of pers not showing up is a problem.   I love the excuse, "Sorry warrant I can't make it on the weekend.   I have to work my part time job on Saturday." Um and the reserves would be....?


----------



## Spanky (27 Mar 2005)

X Royal.  We are faced with the same problem here in Windsor.  Lot's of shift work.  The unit has done a few things to make it easier.  We often have a late bus on Friday nights for those working afternoons.  Also we are finding that a lot of work can be done during the day if some guys can make it in before they go to their civvie job, or if their day off is during the week.


----------



## X Royal (27 Mar 2005)

Spanky said:
			
		

> The issue of pers not showing up is a problem.   I love the excuse, "Sorry warrant I can't make it on the weekend.   I have to work my part time job on Saturday." Um and the reserves would be....?



I to have heard that excuse in the past but could not give a good answer to the comment " But Sgt. I've been in for over 4 months and still not received any pay". If our young soldiers can not count on correct & on time pay can we really expect full commitment. Chances are they choose the part time job because they get paid when the should.

Spanky: It sounds like your unit is showing some flexibility.


----------



## Pencil Tech (27 Mar 2005)

"Also, isn't the current educational reimbursement package contingent on the soldier attending a required amount of training events during a given year?"

Actually, they only have to not be NES, that is, not miss 5 consecutive parades, so there is alot of opportunity for someone to milk this one - and it does happen.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Mar 2005)

Service contracts or bonuses or whatever carrot are all symptoms of the same old Government BS - they do not fund DND adequately and get it involved in too many activities that arn not really soldier skills orionted.

How to encourage more turnout?

Publish goals on attendance and actual tunrout in the press. Talk it up in the media. If reserves aren`t parading maybe the trg is too much too quick or crappy - I suspect some of both - I respect the regular standards but one size may not fit all in the long leadup to a mobilisation which may never happen as it did in WW1 and WW2. Our current methods of manning for tours seem to be more like Korea.

Equalise Pay NOW - not all would parade 100% so you would not get a full spend on the extra 15%. But it is something DND could say - we pay equal - like we do in the rest of the Cdn fed Service and we warmly encourgae Cdns to get involved. This would be an investment in Goodwill that may pay off far out of proportion to its cost.

Consider short tours to help reg force family harmony..... replace them with reserves who have doen a work up program and are on standbye......... SPREAD the WEALTH do we really need 180 day tours or is this another one size fits all policy. When I was with FMC tasking in the 1980s MANY reg force showed up for a 90 day tour and medal.......... ergo everyone gets a tour on Greenline and many more know what a deployment looks like...... I suspect this has been discontinued due to idea it takes more reinft flights. Spreading the wealth may allow more of the reserves brainpower - Sgts and UP to go over to see an actual operational area rather than concentrate the tourista expeirence at the lower levels.

Just a few ideas - you can't train an army without a few real carrots - sticks only work for the full time force. The bad actors will never get ahead anyways


----------



## pbi (27 Mar 2005)

Where the Educational Reimbursement is involved, I have always believed that there should   be a fixed "pay back" arrangement of so many mandatory training or ops days, with the individual required to pay back a percentage (or all...) of the difference. The current system of just insisting that the soldier not go NES is really pretty weak-it allows the individual to parade only once a month, which unless the unit is parading on weekends, is way below the standard expectation for a Res soldier. I don't think we are really protecting the investment that the public is making in offering a potentially excellent program that benefits the country, the Army and the individual.

As for a contract: I certainly understand the impulse, but I'm not sure we have the administrative horsepower to enforce it. The process of clearing a person off NES and getting them out of the Res is very labour-intensive: I know that in our Bde it consumes large amounts of admin effort that should be spent on those soldiers who are in and doing what the Army asks of them. Despite the effort, we still struggle with an NES rate that is too high in some of our units. If we could fire people out of the military as fast as civvy corporations seem to be able to, I could certainly see supporting a required attendance contract.

I am more of a proponent of the incentive program, both in the TA style "bounty", and in making a Res soldier employee an asset to a civil employer, not a liability. If a bounty "disadvantages" those who cannot attend as often..well, too bad. So does the Res pay system. If you attend more often you get more money. Those who can't (or won't...) attend training get less money, but generally speaking the people with restrictive "career" civvy jobs are normally already at a higher pay grade in the Res, having been in for a while, and are probably drawing more pay per training session anyway. In the end, what the Res needs is your time-if you can't give it, you can't expect to be treated exactly the same way as somebody who can. This is a problem, but it is a reality in any volunteer or part time organization with a training requirement: volunteer fire departments are a very good example of this. Lots of people join, thinking how cool it will be to scream around town in a fire truck, then they realize they can't (or won't...) make the weekly drill sessions, or turn out on the 2:00 AM calls, etc. and they go "NES". 

On the civvy job front, IMHO it is way better to have employers who let their Res soldiers go willingly than to have employers who resent the imposition and seek a way to get rid of the burden. (This is Canada, not the US, and I know that even they have a few issues...) I know that willing cooperation works: I attended our Regional CFLC Employer Awards ceremony the other night, and saw a wide selection of different employers receive the awards. Adding a tax incentive, or allowing the employer to "top up" Res pay instead of paying full salary during absence on Res duty, or favouring supportive companies in Govt tendering by making Res support a bidding requirement, are all possible alternatives. In the end, we probably need job protection as a final stick but IMHO it should be reserved for real emergencies.

Cheers.


----------



## MJP (27 Mar 2005)

> Talk it up in the media. If reserves aren`t parading maybe the trg is too much too quick or crappy - I suspect some of both   I respect the regular standards but one size may not fit all in the long leadup to a mobilisation which may never happen as it did in WW1 and WW2.



Lots of the training is already modularized for the reserve soldier and some that isn't is quickly becoming modularized.   As for a regular standard, some reserve courses don't included components found in a reg force course as it is now.   Plus some trades aren't as trained (through no fault of their own) as their Reg Force counterparts.   MP come to mind, but I'm sure a lot of the CSS trades have   huge deltas in actual training. 




> Equalise Pay NOW - not all would parade 100% so you would not get a full spend on the extra 15%. But it is something DND could say - we pay equal - like we do in the rest of the Cdn fed Service and we warmly encourgae Cdns to get involved. This would be an investment in Goodwill that may pay off far out of proportion to its cost


I'm sorry but that doesn't fly in my opinion.   I knew when I was a reservist why I was paid 15% less than my Regular Force counterparts and I accepted it.   The Reseve soldier has the flexibility to come and go as they please.   They can quit at anytime and have no obligation to attend training(although one could find himself on the NES list fast).   So in short they have control, that a Reg Force member doesn't have.



> Consider short tours to help reg force family harmony..... replace them with reserves who have doen a work up program and are on standbye.......



Been there and it doesn't work for the combat arms.   I'm doubtful it even works for a CSS type but I have nothing but second hand knowledge to back me up.   I know they were doing it quite extensivly for the Camp Mirage personel back when it was under Op Apollo.   I agreee with the new direction from the CLS and the addition of 18 reserve soldiers per company as it'll start to get more experience back down to the reserve soldier at all levels as it was being done during the Yugo/Bosnia timeframe.   That is a much better way to build on the relationship between Reg Force and Reserve, rather than dumping a new reservist into a spot every 2-3 months.



I like the idea of a bonus for attendance, but only throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the underlying issues, that others have brought up here.   The biggest is no legislation for job protection and no incentive for an employer to allow his Reserve soldier the time off.   They have the CFLC but I've noticed it's only the companies or organizations with lots of employees that really let their members have the time off they need.


----------



## pbi (27 Mar 2005)

> They have the CFLC but I've noticed it's only the companies or organizations with lots of employees that really let their members have the time off they need



And IMHO this is a real problem, even in the US. Small employers must follow the law in the US, but it can be hard for them. Picture the small machine shop, with only one welder. They bid on a contract, and he disappears on Res duty. They lose the contract, and maybe have to lay off or go out of business. In Staff School back in the 1980's I did a paper on Job Protection vs Incentives: on researching the situation in the US, I found that the greatest single reason for separation from a Res unit was "employer pressure". The worst offenders were IIRC small police and fire depts-they were mandated to have so many people on duty and had limited flexibility to adjust their platoon schedules. I don't know if it's still the same but USARNG or USAR folks I spoke to in Afgh mentioned similar issues.

Cheers.


----------



## chrisf (27 Mar 2005)

While job protection is nice, it's been my own experience that the worst offenders aren't the full time employed, as most of them are doing it primarily for the enjoyment, looking at the money as a bonus, but the students, doing it for no reason other then to pay for school (Not to paint all students with the same brush, as personally, I'm a student, and the only time I've ever missed a unit ex or garrison work has been because I was on a different ex, only really referring to the "jobbers").

Perhaps the best bet is the opposite of a bonus, perhaps say if you're not going to be able to come into the ex, don't bother showing up for the prep weekend or for the parade night before ex? Starve them for money... if you don't show up regularly, don't show up at all.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Mar 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that doesn't fly in my opinion.   I knew when I was a reservist why I was paid 15% less than my Regular Force counterparts and I accepted it.   The Reseve soldier has the flexibility to come and go as they please.   They can quit at anytime and have no obligation to attend training(although one could find himself on the NES list fast).   So in short they have control, that a Reg Force member doesn't have.



Hoo boy! What about pers who are reg force trained  and serving with the reserves? Big hole in your logic -- My opinion is

The Army has no basis, which I am currently testing via a redress which is now beyond the CDS, to pay anything other than 100% like the Brits and UK do. 

This is based on no current CF regulations accepts anything less than 100% compliance. So we are clearly left with an artificial training barrier that can never be breached. If we keep this glass ceiling - lets go back to restrictions on only non Anglo Saxon background pers in DND. You think the minister wants that? He probably wants more equal - equal.

The difference is sign up for long term and get long term opportunities - pay is a short term item for regs and reserves.

If we follow the logic of "I accepted 15% less in the reserves" - then lets restrict all pers not serving on contracts of less than 20 years to 15%less ----seems as reasonable as the other one.

So we`ll see and probably sooner rather than later.


----------



## MJP (27 Mar 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Hoo boy! What about pers who are reg force trained and serving with the reserves? Big hole in your logic -- My opinion is



My logic has nothing to do with training.   It's about choice really.   A Reg Force member has no choice if they want to go to work or not.   They have to go because they are paid a salary to show up and the negative reinforcer's for not showing up ensure that he does show up.   A Class A reserve soldier doesn't have that hanging over his head, he chooses when he will show up and do the soldier thing.




> The Army has no basis, which I am currently testing via a redress which is now beyond the CDS,.



BOO HOO you made the choice to quit or retire (I can't tell which from your blank profile...) from the CF and the uncertainty and you joined the Reserve force and the stability that comes from being a reserve only soldier.   The price of that stability is 15% pay cut regardless of training.     



> If we follow the logic of "I accepted 15% less in the reserves" - then lets restrict all pers not serving on contracts of less than 20 years to 15%less ----seems as reasonable as the other one.



Hardly they still operate in an uncertain environment as a Regular member and really don't have the choices a reservist has when it come to their job.




But we are really delving off topic here go to PM or start a new topic.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Mar 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that doesn't fly in my opinion.   I knew when I was a reservist why I was paid 15% less than my Regular Force counterparts and I accepted it.   The Reseve soldier has the flexibility to come and go as they please.   They can quit at anytime and have no obligation to attend training(although one could find himself on the NES list fast).   So in short they have control, that a Reg Force member doesn't have.



If you gladly accepted the 15 per cent less salary as a reservist, then good for you.   Personally, I don't know anyone in the reserves today who would want to continue to be paid 15 per cent less than the reg force.   I have often asked the question of why we were paid less and the answer was that reservists were not trained to the same level as a reg force soldier and that we were not held to the same level of accountability and responsibility.   Well, I begged to differ on that one as well.   In my last two years in the CF, I was the chief instructor for a prgram called ITMIS.   I was reserve as was the captain who I worked for.   We managed this system for the entire army both regular force and reserve.   We were held to the same level of accountability and responsibility as a regular force soldier since this was a national project.   In addition, our training actually exceeded our regular force counterparts in the air force, CFRETS and Navy.   We were class B-A soldiers and still paid 15 per cent less.

No one can make me believe that I was happy to accept that situation because I could come and go as I pleased.   On top of working full-time on base, I had to travel to my reserve unit and parade one night a week and every weekend ex or they would pull my contract.   I don't know any reg force soldier who would put up with that for very long (unless they are an RSS or something).   IF they won't equalize the pay, then they need to equalize it for class B service.

I like the idea of a bonus for attendance, but only throwing money at the problem doesn't solve the underlying issues, that others have brought up here.   The biggest is no legislation for job protection and no incentive for an employer to allow his Reserve soldier the time off.   They have the CFLC but I've noticed it's only the companies or organizations with lots of employees that really let their members have the time off they need.

In addition to no legislation to job protection is the leadership at local units.   Some of them have been there for 30 years and don't want to change the way things are done.   Also, a lack of dynamic training.   No one wants to show up for a parade night and sweep the floor all night because no bothered to get a training plan together.   I saw this for my entire 11 years in the CF.   The only time it didn't happen is when I was physically at the unit to make it happen.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## X Royal (27 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> If we could fire people out of the military as fast as civvy corporations seem to be able to, I could certainly see supporting a required attendance contract.



PBI you seem to want the best of both worlds. Civilian corporations may be able to get rid of people faster but they are also losers quite often in wrongful dismissal lawsuits, pay out of court settlements or separation pay. Reinstatement with full back pay is not uncommon. Also for it being easier to fire people you also gain the problem of them telling you "to stick the job up your *ss" and leaving on the spot with little or no recourse to yourself. Having worked in both settings I can honestly say the grass always looks greener on the other side until you get all the facts.


----------



## MJP (27 Mar 2005)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> If you gladly accepted the 15 per cent less salary as a reservist, then good for you.   Personally, I don't know anyone in the reserves today who would want to continue to be paid 15 per cent less than the reg force.




Sigh... I accepted it because I was able rationalize it...doesn't mean I liked it.   I heard the tired excuse that it was because I wasn't "as trained" as my Regular Force counterpart and rejected it personally.   I know many a reserve soldier that can fill the boots of a Regular force member.   To me personally it came down to choice and they fact I could choice to go to reserves or stay at home and eat chips.   You want 100% pay equity step up to the plate and sign on and get the uncertainty that comes with it.   After seeing the uncertainty that some of my soldiers and peers face in their day to day dealings with the military has left me with a jaded view on this particular subject.   Reservists aren't posted (unless by choice) away from their comfortable little zones.   They don't have to go on a last minute tasking to one of the training centers unless by choice...etc etc etc.   Now keep in mind I'm talking Class A here, Class B reserves is another ball game in some aspects but it still boils down to choice for me.   I think in your particular case you might have a point and they use to give domestic Class C contracts for things like that.   Why they discontinued it is beyond me....but I can where that sort of system can be abused.



> In addition to no legislation to job protection is the leadership at local units.   Some of them have been there for 30 years and don't want to change the way things are done.   Also, a lack of dynamic training.   No one wants to show up for a parade night and sweep the floor all night because no bothered to get a training plan together.



No arguement from me on this one.


----------



## turretmonster (27 Mar 2005)

Devil dog is one of the brightest guys I know and his journey to join the USMC could be a movie of the week considering the obstacles he had to overcome. The sad part of this whole story is he had to leave Canada and join the USMC to actually feel like a full mbr of a team due to his ill treatment as a PRes. The saddest part is we lost an exceptional Sn NCO in the process.

This 15% for the price of stability idea is silly as it doesn't exist. My CO tells me my job is moved to Kingston, I go. My CO tells me I'm off to nastyland, I pack my bags and I go. 

One Army, One team, or was everyone sleeping during that part of the CDS's briefing?

TM


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Mar 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> My logic has nothing to do with training.   It's about choice really.
> 
> BOO HOO you made the choice to quit or retire (I can't tell which from your blank profile...)
> 
> ...



Not a problem - our goals are the same


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Mar 2005)

Thanks for the nice comments there turretmonster.  But aside from that, you are dead on the money.  When the CO says "get on that plane, drink heavily and kick but at that working group" he means it and as a reservist, we can't say no.

The point some people are missing is that even though some soldiers are reservists, it does not mean they are beyond the reach of the QR&Os.  If you disobey a direct order, it's still disobeying a direct order and are subject to punishment.  If that Class A soldier doesn't show up for an ex when he said he would and gives no valid excuses, the next time he comes in an signs that pay sheet, he's yours and can be charged.

The problem is that many units won't charge a wrong doer for fear of loosing that soldier.  If he was that much of problem, then he's not that much of a loss.  Everyone involved with the reserve needs to start thinking outside the box.  Many units do but many don't.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## c_canuk (27 Mar 2005)

never understood the attitude "Reservists aren't contractually obligated to work, so those that do because they have the drive to want to should be penalized 15%"

If you don't work, you don't get paid, we also don't have the perks that go with a contract, or stability of future work, I won't have the oppurtunity to work till I go on course this summer. We don't have access to subsidized housing, mess food, free gym access, etc

Also because there is no protection for reservests to keep their civy jobs, in order to attend PLQ I had to quit my full time civy job. I asked them for time off to attend the course which would also provide signifigant value to the company, they said no.

I tried to appeal to their morality to support persons in the military ( office based in San Fransisco) and was told bluntly the only reason National Gaurds are allowed to keep their jobs was because of the US government and to basicly FOD.

They don't care about tax breaks or appearances, just about squeezing that last drop of value out of me before they toss me aside. It wasn't always this way but we've been bought by a huge international corporation called Alcatel.

I served 6 months in bosnia under a Reg Force Captain and it was the most satisfying work I'd ever done in my life which is by I've turned in my resignation, and put in my application for a componet transfer.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

OK

This whinning from a couple of you with bad attitudes is getting to me.  If you truly want to get that 15% you feel you aren't getting paid now, then you'll also have to start paying the same Rent, Rations, etc as the Regs when you go work on a Call Out.....  You can't have everything....the cake and eat it too.... You want the benefits, but don't want to pay the dues.   Grow up!


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK
> This whinning from a couple of you with bad attitudes is getting to me.   If you truly want to get that 15% you feel you aren't getting paid now, then you'll also have to start paying the same Rent, Rations, etc as the Regs when you go work on a Call Out.....   You can't have everything....the cake and eat it too.... You want the benefits, but don't want to pay the dues.     Grow up!



First:  from your tone, it is apparent to me that you have not served in the modern day reserves and can't identify with the actually problem.  If I am wrong, I will be more than happy to stand corrected.

Second:  we're not on this forum to tell people to be quiet about their views and concerns.  We're here to disucss those things that need correcting.  It's called being progressive.  If your interest is to tell people to shut up and stop complaining, then you should visit another thread where everything is rosie and you can think back to the good old days and collect your pension.

Third:  When I was on class B, I had to pay rations and quarters while living on base.  I may be wrong or it may have changed, but class B soldiers in excess of 180 days have to pay for quarters.  And yes, with 15 per cent less salary than my reg force counterparts.  Oh, and you have to pay mess dues as well.  Every summer I spent on class B on base, I was required to pay mess dues to a mess I never went too because we were too busy.  On top of that, I also had to pay yearly mess dues at my unit's mess.  So in effect, I was paying mess dues twice a year because I had too and I was still getting less pay than the reg force.

I am sick to death of the reg force attitude of how reservists are just pieces of trash and how they don't have any real bills etc....I heard this for 11 years.  I have heard the argument you presented here before as well.  It's not like reservists are not trying to serve their country, they are doing the best they can with what is offered to them.  And don't even think if coming back at me with the  old "you should have joined the regs instead" routine either.  The recruiting system is broken, reservists are not treated with the value they should be and under Canadian law, you can't pay someone in the government less money for doing the same job as someone getting paid more money.  Equal pay for equal work performed.  If the balloon goes up and the reserves are activated to class B and deployed, they would still be getting the same amount of money and doing the exact same job as the reg force counter parts.  That stuff is just wrong.  Enough said.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Mar 2005)

> you can't pay someone in the government less money for doing the same job as someone getting paid more money.  Equal pay for equal work performed.



But the argument would be that reservists, by not being a member of the reg force, are not doing the same job. 

PJ, I've heard of situations like you describe, and I do agree that it is a bit of a kick to the nuts, but at the same time I don't think it's prevalent enough to warrant a complete overhaul of the pay system. IMO that the pers in those situations should never have been on Class B, but on Class C instead. I myself would certainly never have agreed to work under those conditions. If such a position was offered to me, I would have asked for a class C contract and if they didn't have one, then they can go find someone from Battalion to do the job, since that IS what they get the extra 15% for. Sounds more like a leadership failiure than a failiure of the pay system.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

PJ D-Dog

I have been reading your bitter posts. 





> When I was on class B, I had to pay rations and quarters while living on base.   I may be wrong or it may have changed, but class B soldiers in excess of 180 days have to pay for quarters.   And yes, with 15 per cent less salary than my reg force counterparts.   Oh, and you have to pay mess dues as well.   Every summer I spent on class B on base, I was required to pay mess dues to a mess I never went too because we were too busy.   On top of that, I also had to pay yearly mess dues at my unit's mess.   So in effect, I was paying mess dues twice a year because I had too and I was still getting less pay than the reg force.



 If you paid Mess Dues twice, that is not my problem or anyone else's.   It is yours for not going back to your Unit and having them reimbursed. Your Problem not ours.

Your bitterness comes out even more with this post:



> I am sick to death of the reg force attitude of how reservists are just pieces of trash and how they don't have any real bills etc....I heard this for 11 years.   I have heard the argument you presented here before as well.   It's not like reservists are not trying to serve their country, they are doing the best they can with what is offered to them.   And don't even think if coming back at me with the   old "you should have joined the regs instead" routine either.   The recruiting system is broken, reservists are not treated with the value they should be and under Canadian law, you can't pay someone in the government less money for doing the same job as someone getting paid more money.   Equal pay for equal work performed.   If the balloon goes up and the reserves are activated to class B and deployed, they would still be getting the same amount of money and doing the exact same job as the reg force counter parts.   That stuff is just wrong.   Enough said.



Sorry buds, but many of us in the Regs have been there (in the Reserves) too.   Perhaps we were even worse off than you.   We, too, are sick to death of bitter Reservists stating this stuff (I am trying to be polite) all the time to make a case for themselves.   I know of many instances where people are working for the Government, Federal, Provincial and Municipal, are working  for less than they should be getting.   Life is a Bit*h.   Some of us tough it out, others run off and sulk elsewhere.   

Currently there is research being done (again) into the feasability's of a Pension for the Reserves.   There are lots of complications and hurdles to be covered.   The same can be said about Reserve Pay.   Many on this Board remember the day when they were paid twice a year.   Now, Reservists are enjoying more regular pay cheques.   The Reserve Pay System was modernized a few years back and will be changing again to come more in line with the Regular Force Pay System.   

Now I ask you, do you like it when you are working 24/7 for life as a Member of a Regular Armed Force and the guy next to you working (?) a fraction of that(part-time), with less experience and knowledge as you, is going to draw the same pay check?   It doesn't happen in the Building Trades, nor on the Assembly Line, nor anywhere that I can think of; but......I'll leave it to you.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Mar 2005)

Britany:   We tried that route but when you have 25 per cent of billets on the base filled by reservists because there are not enough reg force to do the job, Class C ends up costing too much.   You are right, it is a leadership failure in that case.

PJ


----------



## Infanteer (27 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now I ask you, do you like it when you are working 24/7 for life as a Member of a Regular Armed Force and the guy next to you working (?) a fraction of that(part-time), with less experience and knowledge as you, is going to draw the same pay check?



When a reservist infantry platoon goes out into the field to train, it digs in, conducts recce patrols, executes tactical planning according to doctrine and attacks and defends against OPFOR forces.   They do pickets, stand-tos, and are responsible to the universal regulations and orders of the Forces.

I fail to see how this is different?   I could hardly discern the difference when I hung around the Reg Force (where I hung around the Coy Lines and did some training and would deploy to the field) and the Reserves (where I hung around the Armoury floor and did some training and would deploy to the field to train).   A buddy just returned from a three year BE with the RCD's to my old Reserve unit and he said it was nothing but "3 years of Class B"....


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK ......
> 
> You can't have everything....the cake and eat it too.... You want the benefits, but don't want to pay the dues.     Grow up!



You highlight what I think is a pervasive, widespread and persistant misunderstanding of what the dues are

They are only - adherence to 100% of QR and O and CF regulations - same for regulars and reserves

Defenders of the country, in uniform subject to QR and O are only governed by this one set of standards.

Deployments and living inside the full time bubble bring with them access to camp community resources like PMQs (horrors of housing) - family support centers (good) deployment pay and pensions (not so good). Thats all. We already have everyting else in the civilian community. In short - your tax dollars already paid for your camp facilities which you equate as benefits and they are gouging you on PMQs.

To equate living in a run down base like Petawawa as a benefit works against highly educated people coming into DND`s deployable field forces.

Far better to deploy troops from across the entire spectrum of the Canadian population and build rather than weaken the views of the taxpayer for the pretend pseudo exclusive bargaining unit.

The regulars are the core - but the rest is still to be developed - I suspect its not managed readieness - its something as yet undefined that should be available to the Canada Comd / or the Joint Force through the Govt of Canada which has not yet happened - as in an integrated Army.


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Mar 2005)

> Britany:  We tried that route but when you have 25 per cent of billets on the base filled by reservists because there are not enough reg force to do the job, Class C ends up costing too much.  You are right, it is a leadership failure in that case.



And while I'm not sure of the exact extent, I can tell you that the same concept of ops is still being used. As always it boils down to money. On the other hand, I don't think even a class B over 180 days is neccesarily the same as a Reg F posting, not unless you're going to be doing it for 3 years.  Bottom line is that people are willing to do these "cheapskate" class Bs, and if that's what the market will bear, well, we have to stay competitive right? It IS still a part time job after all.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (27 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Now I ask you, do you like it when you are working 24/7 for life as a Member of a Regular Armed Force and the guy next to you working (?) a fraction of that(part-time), with less experience and knowledge as you, is going to draw the same pay check?   It doesn't happen in the Building Trades, nor on the Assembly Line, nor anywhere that I can think of; but......I'll leave it to you.



I do not have a problem with reservists getting pay equity with the regular force.   When they are in uniform, they should be paid the same amount.

I can only draw on my own experience discussing this with reg force soldiers (usually playing pokey chest in the mess) and their arguments have always been based on some of what you touched on in your quote.   But it always stemmed from some form of innane hatred of the reserves.   Granted, the reserves have their share of trash birds and they often send them off to augment the reg force.   The circumstances in which a reg force soldier performs his duties and that a reservist performs his are inherently different due, in part, to the structure of the organization.   The demands placed on todays reservists are different from what they were years ago.

If you take the reg force 24/7 better trained issue and measure it up against the reservist, who has to balance a civilian career with the training demands, going on course, family life etc...in the end they balance themselves out, although the issues each face are different.   Reservists have to essentially perform the same or similar functions as a reg force soldier but with many more handicaps than the reg force soldier.   These handicaps are imposed on him by a system that he cannot change.   

When I speak of essentially perform the same functions, what I refering too is the training standard that now exists in the reserve house.   In the artillery, when a soldier goes on a course, he is learning the same subject matter and needs to perform to the same school standard as a regular force soldier in order to successfully complete the course.   The difference here is that the amount of training time is reduced although the evaluation standard is the same as the regular force.   This standardization movement came about in the mid 1990s and it has been expanding eversince.   An example of this is the basic arty tech course.   In 1997/98 I was teaching this course to both reserve and regular force soldiers.   The course package was the same but the time in which to complete it was shorter.

The reserve system is not equitable for the reservist doing the job.   An overhaul is needed and this discussion can probably carry on for years to come.   Having said that, the preliminary steps still need to be taken to make it more equitable.   Standardization of training was one step.   Pay equity needs to be the next.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> When a reservist infantry platoon goes out into the field to train, it digs in, conducts recce patrols, executes tactical planning according to doctrine and attacks and defends against OPFOR forces.   They do pickets, stand-tos, and are responsible to the universal regulations and orders of the Forces.
> 
> I fail to see how this is different?   I could hardly discern the difference when I hung around the Reg Force (where I hung around the Coy Lines and did some training and would deploy to the field) and the Reserves (where I hung around the Armoury floor and did some training and would deploy to the field to train).   A buddy just returned from a three year BE with the RCD's to my old Reserve unit and he said it was nothing but "3 years of Class B"....



I must admit that PJ D-Dog does have a point in reference to Full time/Long term Call Outs, as for your example here also.   However, to generalize, these are the extreme cases and not the norm for most Reservists.   (Although, times are changing and more are filling Full-time roles.)

54/102 CEF

You have totally lost me.   Do you mean to say that Regular Force People serving in Petawawa must pay the dues of "living in a run down base like Petawawa as a benefit works against highly educated people coming into DND`s deployable field forces."?   Talking about misconceptions: 





> Deployments and living inside the full time bubble bring with them access to camp community resources like PMQs (horrors of housing) - family support centers (good) deployment pay and pensions (not so good). Thats all. We already have everyting else in the civilian community. In short - your tax dollars already paid for your camp facilities which you equate as benefits and they are gouging you on PMQs.


   Are you bringing up that old myth that we don't pay taxes and live in free housing too?   You need a little more research into how things are funded and who really pays.   You need to find out how much comes out of the Serviceman's pockets to facilitate these resources.



> Far better to deploy troops from across the entire spectrum of the Canadian population and build rather than weaken the views of the taxpayer for the pretend pseudo exclusive bargaining unit.
> 
> The regulars are the core - but the rest is still to be developed - I suspect its not managed readieness - its something as yet undefined that should be available to the Canada Comd / or the Joint Force through the Govt of Canada which has not yet happened - as in an integrated Army.



This has been a pipe dream since 1949.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> I do not have a problem with reservists getting pay equity with the regular force.   When they are in uniform, they should be paid the same amount.
> 
> I The reserve system is not equitable for the reservist doing the job.   An overhaul is needed and this discussion can probably carry on for years to come.   Having said that, the preliminary steps still need to be taken to make it more equitable.   Standardization of training was one step.   Pay equity needs to be the next.
> 
> PJ D-Dog



Although I chopped your post, I included a fragment, to reference the good points you put forward in itthe total post.   I agree with you on that one.  Good post.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (27 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF
> 
> You have totally lost me.   Do you mean to say that Regular Force People serving in Petawawa must pay the dues of "living in a run down base like Petawawa as a benefit works against highly educated people coming into DND`s deployable field forces."?



the only dues the regs pay is adherance to QR and O like all CF members   - and yes the creepy bases drive people away from the forces - unless they target unemployed pers from economically unstable re gions of the country then these look like oasis of stability vs. driving a dump truck in Gagetown   - but don`t flame me yet as I want to vastly improve your dire straits



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF
> 
> Are you bringing up that old myth that we don't pay taxes and live in free housing too?   You need a little more research into how things are funded and who really pays.



No - I am making the point that the regular forces are being gulled, correction have been gulled, into believing that what they have already paid for in their taxes is a benefit. The company town is a very poor trade off for full time soldiers and should be vastly improved. I would think no one would hold back from giving the Regs real money to buy a top of the line house and bull doze the bases. Loblaws can provide your Canex requirements.

And this also includes 100% pay for reserves


----------



## George Wallace (27 Mar 2005)

You should not have brought up CANEX, as they are not fulfilling their role to "Serve the Military" that they once did.  But tthat is another thread....


----------



## c_canuk (27 Mar 2005)

> This whinning from a couple of you with bad attitudes is getting to me.   If you truly want to get that 15% you feel you aren't getting paid now, then you'll also have to start paying the same Rent, Rations, etc as the Regs when you go work on a Call Out.....



I pay 450 a month for my apartment, on top of that I pay 100 for heat, 70 for lights, and 300 for food, a single guy livinging in the shacks pays 400 a month on average for all of that... and as a reservist I'm not allowed to live in the shacks unless I'm on callout, any call out long enough to not need to keep my apartment I have to pay rats and quarters and still get 15% less

do you mean while overseas? Reservists are required to maintain their apartment while overseas. yeah I don't have to pay for food when overseas, but I didn't think anyone did.



> You can't have everything....the cake and eat it too.... You want the benefits, but don't want to pay the dues.    Grow up!



I'm not POed about being paid 15% less because it's a policy created who knows when, I don't like it when I'm told that I'm not worth as much day per day that I put in, I only get paid days I work, how many reg force people get paid for weekends they don't work? I'm not saying this is a bad thing as they are on call 24/7, and as I'm waiting for my transfer into the reg I'm certainly looking forward to having the majority of my weekends to my self and not up to my neck in filth.

I'm not asking for all the perks that a Reg force member gets, just want for the days I do work, the same pay. I've just recently found out that the days I worked in class b and c for the most part don't count towards my pension 1 for 1 because only once have I been on contract for longer than 90 days.I've had different contracts butt up against eachother though.

even on Class C I always get bumped down from Cpl(4) to Cpl(1) and when I bring it up I'm told "Take it or leave it", of course I take it, then I get Regs mistaking me for another Reg and whine to me about how horrible the Res are, not like "US", I just grin and pretend I'm not offended cause it's not worth my time to deal with them when they find out I'm a "rag tag reservist"and try to take it as a complement to my proffesionalism.

for the most part we aren't happy about the situation, but don't activley whine about it, but if you ask us how we feel about it, or have a discussion about it, we may provide our opinion.


----------



## turretmonster (28 Mar 2005)

"Bottom line is that people are willing to do these "cheapskate" class Bs, and if that's what the market will bear, well, we have to stay competitive right? It IS still a part time job after all."

 I think you will find most long term Class B(A)'s and even some B's run from April 1 to Mar 31st or 365 days. Some are now even three years in order to keep thew right people in the right job to support the CF. They do the same PT, work the same hours at one job, then some train on Thursday nights and weekends with their Regts, do the same BET and get evaluated on the same scale as the Regs. 

 Just how is that a part time job again?

 TM


----------



## George Wallace (28 Mar 2005)

For extra reading, go to the Reserve Pension Thread.  It will cover some of the matters that are being brought up here also, and may prevent double posting of sentiments.  I to have had the 'pleasure' of working for much less and the disappointment of seeing my Callouts mean zero towards my Pension Buy Back when I joined the Regs.  There are many problems with the system if viewed from one side only.  Perhaps it would help to look at them from another perspective.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (28 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are many problems with the system if viewed from one side only.   Perhaps it would help to look at them from another perspective.



I don't see what the other perspective can be other than from the regular force side.  The reserve system was created during another time.  We are now faced with some very changing times.  The reg force needs to reserves to keep functioning.  That is a reality in today's CF world.  As much as some would not want to admit this, it is the truth.

The truth of the matter is that reservists are not getting their just reward for the support they give the regular force.  This is something that is painful to have to change.  Change management has been the biggest down fall of the CF.  I don't think the reserve situation that I was in or that turetmonster is in and that hundreds of other reservists are in is a unique case.  It is has been and continues to evolve as the norm in the present day reserve force.

There has always been a reg force vs rreservesmentality.  In my experience, this has stemmed from many reg force members needing to justify to themselves why they are reg force and not reserves.  It has to do with a need for soldiers to maintain their identity when faced with "outsiders" aka the reserves, coming in and taking what some may believe to be their cushy little desk jobs.

When I began this thread, my intent was to examine how we could more closely align the regular force and reserves in terms of contractual obligations.  In aaddition it was also to see if there is mmeritin developing such a system in order to keep the best people we can by offering them something of value to get them to stay on.  Every year, the reserves hhemorrhagea good number of people who would otherwise have stayed in and made a positive impact on the CF but who did not feel they could ever overcome any of the barriers currently in place within the system.  Many were also not able to rre-conciliatethe negative attitude they had to face on a daily basis from their reg fforcecounterparts who were supposed to be their ccomrades in arms.

Other than a full-time job, the question that bbegsto be answered is this:  what incentive is there left for rreserviststo carry on within the CF?

Food for thought....

PJ D-Dog


----------



## c_canuk (28 Mar 2005)

I don't think you will ever be able to get rid of the reg force vs reserve mentality, the fact of the matter is you will be placing people who are new to a group into the middle of a tightly knit unit, that will always cause some friction, but we can minimize some of that by making sure that even though res are part timers, nothing is spared in their training, and that there are no old school policies that discriminate against them.

I believe that there should be a break in period for a res entering a reg working environment, but it shouldn't last longer than necessary for a member to show that they are capable.

Providing motivation to be available for this training however is important and at the moment only the most dedicated make it to all trg events. It's a lot harder to muster up the drive to attend 3 weekends a month when you've been working all week as well.

Attendance bonuses and job protection could go a long way towards helping that. I know myself I'm teetering on the edge of getting out/joining the regs... I'm very useful to my unit where I am, but my civy job has forced me to choose which job I'll keep, if they were forced to keep my job like they are with our US National Gaurd employees I'd be able to stay with my current unit.


----------



## LowRider (28 Mar 2005)

> The truth of the matter is that reservists are not getting their just reward for the support they give the regular force.  This is something that is painful to have to change.



If you want what the Reg force guys are getting then join the regs!Otherwise stop complaining.Being in the reserves is part time,it's good pay for part time work,and they are very flexible when it comes to those who work full time civvie jobs like myself.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (28 Mar 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> If you want what the Reg force guys are getting then join the regs!Otherwise stop complaining.Being in the reserves is part time,it's good pay for part time work



Again, your quote exemplifies exactly the attitude that I am talking about.  How easy is it to join the regs?  I know guys who have been waiting nearly two years to get in.  I know reservists who had to wait a year just for their application to clear the reserve system and make it to CFRC for the component transfer and no one knows how long it will take from there.

Telling people to shut up and join the regs is not a productive response.  How about those reservists who have 20 or so years in and have consistently served on class B (A)?  Are you telling them to shut up and join the regs as well?  What kind offer will they get from the reg force.  Can you give us the answers needed so that we can apply the solution you are suggesting?  Can you tell us how to get into the reg force without having to wait up to two years to get in and still be able to make a living while we wait?  I'd like to hear your entire solution to this issue.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## LowRider (28 Mar 2005)

> Telling people to shut up and join the regs is not a productive response.  How about those reservists who have 20 or so years in and have consistently served on class B (A)?  Are you telling them to shut up and join the regs as well?



Yea im am,Anyone who has been in that long had full intentions on "making a career out of the reserves".We have plenty of those types at our unit who don't have a full time job but they just do the reserve thing,and have a part time/full time job.Some go reg force and others just don't wanna make the commitment.in any case don't expect to get chicken salad from chicken shit.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (28 Mar 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> in any case don't expect to get chicken salad from chicken crap.



What are you saying?  Are you saying that those guys on continuous class B(A) who've been around for a long time are crap?

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Infanteer (28 Mar 2005)

LowRider said:
			
		

> in any case don't expect to get chicken salad from chicken shit.



Well that was cute.

I would think that renumeration should be for the task done.  For example, an Infantry officer getting payed for being a Course Officer at a Training Center is performing the same duties and has the same responsibilities (and the end result is the same).  How you can conclude that one is "chicken salad" and one is "chicken shit" is beyond me.


----------



## MJP (28 Mar 2005)

PJ D-DOG
Well I can see we are at an impasse.  You want equal pay for Reserves and I see the extra 15% as a â Å“benefitâ ? for uncertainty.   Many of the points you bring up are valid and well you see the solution as bridging the gap and giving everyone the same base pay.  CEF brings out the point of equal pay for equal work and to a degree I agree.  I still maintain that a Reg Force soldier has to deal with much much more uncertainty in his environment than a reserve soldier.  But my view is my view and yours and mine obviously differ and we aren't going to agree.  I firmly believe that merely increasing pay is avoiding some of the real issues, some of which you and others have brought up.  So to steer it away from our differences I've highlighted some of the other key issues and in some cases solutions

1.	No real reserve pension as of yet.  I know it's being worked on but until it's established it always going to be a sore point for the minority of reservists that work almost exclusively back to back Class B.  

2.	Perceived misuse of Class B soldiers.  Using them for cheap labour so to speak.  I agree with Britney and the fact there is always someone willing to fill the spot and there is no quick fix.  Some of the discontent lies around pers that fulfill jobs that a Reg Force soldier would do or when their task load is high.  Maybe look at reimplementing Class C contracts again?

3.	No job protection legislation for reservists and no incentive for employers to release their employees for training.  I like Infanteers idea of a tax break for an employer and I firmly believe that reserves should have some sort of job protection.  Whether it is like the US model or some thing similar doesn't matter, we just need it.

4.	The point of training has been brought up a few times.  I have stayed away from the training aspect mainly because a reservist has no real control over the type of training offered to him and due to the nature of reserves it won't always be to the same caliber that his Reg Force counterpart can achieve.  The latter can spend weeks in the field at a time working on each individual aspect, while a reservist has a mandated 37.5 training days a year (give or take a few).  I know that brigade exercises have become much much better in the reserve world than what they use to be.  Plus I know they are trying to integrate them more into our BTE's and brigade ex's.   Simply put most Reservists don't get the training time and experience that a Regular force member attains in the same time span.  So the unit leadership has to make sure that training days are well planned and are important to the soldier.  Sweeping the floor or hanging out in the PL room sucks and shouldn't be the norm.  

5.	Full time days on some contracts don't equal one day when a member CTs, comes on tour with the Reg Force, or when it is applied to his pension.  This is a simple fix IMHO 1 Day Class B=1 Day Time Credited to Promotion.  This has to go hand in hand with point one.


----------



## CH1 (28 Mar 2005)

Actually, there is the job protection clause, & there used to be 3 & 5 year contracts. Class B used to pay almost the same as Reg. These things I do beleive, are still there, but the masters cost cutting, has put lots of things into the closet. At one time, Regs didn't have to buy combat insurance. We used to be looked after by the system. At one time Res F pers could opt to contribute to the CF pension plan. (the old 100% & early 60/40 plan).
Cheers


----------



## Haggis (28 Mar 2005)

CH1 said:
			
		

> Actually, there is the job protection clause, & there used to be 3 & 5 year contracts. Class B used to pay almost the same as Reg. These things I do beleive, are still there, but the masters cost cutting, has put lots of things into the closet. At one time, Regs didn't have to buy combat insurance. We used to be looked after by the system. At one time Res F pers could opt to contribute to the CF pension plan. (the old 100% & early 60/40 plan).
> Cheers



Legislated job protection does not yet exist, but is proposed under Bill C-55.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Bills_ls.asp?lang=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&ls=C55&source=Bills_House_Government#G.  Protection%20of%20Civil%20Employment%20of%20Reservists(txt)

If passed, it will only exist when a member is placed on active duty during an emergency.   If a Reservist volunteers for serve at any other time s/he is not entitled to job protection.   CFLC has made great progress in having job protection clauses entrenched into collective agreements and statements signed by employers indicating that they support thier citizen soldiers.

I've been around since the mid 70's and can say with some certainty that Class A and B service has NEVER had pay even close to being equivalent to Reg F.   Until 1998, Class A and B pay pates were set at 50% of Reg F rates, up from 45% a few years earlier.   In early 1998 pay rates jumped to 85%.   You must be thinking of Class C rates which are equivalent to Reg F.   In fact, Class C service is equivalent in all respects to Reg F service except that you only serve for a fixed period on a set task.

Currently a Reservist can serve for as long as his/her position number is valid.   No more ceiling except that the length of the contract cannot exeed the vaildity of the position.   If the position is renewed, the incumbent can be as well.


----------



## pbi (29 Mar 2005)

> Currently a Reservist can serve for as long as his/her position number is valid.  No more ceiling except that the length of the contract cannot exeed the vaildity of the position.  If the position is renewed, the incumbent can be as well.



The HQ offering the contract can limit the duration when the contract is offered: here in 38 CBG we used to offer three years but we have recently cut back to one year. And, as far as I know, the incumbent can't simply be renewed-they must compete against all other applicants at the end of the contract duration. 

Cheers.


----------



## Haggis (30 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> The HQ offering the contract can limit the duration when the contract is offered: here in 38 CBG we used to offer three years but we have recently cut back to one year. And, as far as I know, the incumbent can't simply be renewed-they must compete against all other applicants at the end of the contract duration.



True enough. I was speaking in a general term and was probably remiss in not pointing out that simply because a position  exists for three years doesn't mean that the holder has it for the entire term.  You can hire a new member every six months if you desire and are willing to put out the staff work to do it.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (13 Sep 2005)

thought i would share some funny moments from my exerpiences as a former res on long term call outs
I worked as a paper pusher at a HQ and worked at my  res unit at night and weekends. 

where I worked it was brass heavy  like most HQs and as the ranks got lower they thinned it out very  quick.

work detailslike  on clean up days at the base, always was run by  the section head who was lcol or maj, who answered to the COS a full col or a Bgen.

so life for a guy  like me who was a cpl it was different.

i was never taught what  what do when the general came in to the restroom and was waiting in line for me to finish, the building only had one  restroom per floor per sex. basic training did not cover that , or i missed that lecture. incase your wondering hurry up and get out of the way.

headdress came off once you got to work , did not have to wear it between buildings, temp offices and main buildings, so saluting was not a big thing, maybe a few times a day  as you walked around the base.  

I kept count one week how many  times I saluted in a day  at my  full time army  job,  it was less then 5 times,  went to my  res unit that night and it was headdress on all the time  unless I was sitting in my office working,  i saluted more then 30 times that  night as I went about my  duties. sometimes res units are more army  then full time army  units. i thought i should start charging for salutes. 

after being at the HQ for 2 years and doing my  job I went on my  CLC  at the RCR  battle school in petawawa. it was a huge shock for me, coming to attention for MCPLs and above, i forgot how many  times I forgot to call room as the drill staff walked in, i would just look up and think it is just a  mcpl and forget about it.

we seldom did parades at the HQ and it being so brass heavy, they could formed up platoons of majors and above, and they  would pick in advance who was to have various duties on parade because they had too many  sgts, wo's,sgt majors and a lot of cwo's running around.
a drill stadd asked me once when the last time as a cpl i gave drill and I looked at him and told it was lthe friday before the course started , i lined up the COS ( full col) and the MGen and the RSM at the HQ on the parking lot between coffe breaks and give drill.  told him till that  class I had never given a drill command in my life.  never had the chance i was busy working no time to give drill. I thought the Sgt was going to kill me for me being so flip with him. 

I guess my army  background was not typical of most res force or reg force members because HQ duties do spoil you for the the other side of the army.  I seldom worn combat uniforms, had more work dress then you could use on course locker inspection.  

Class BA callouts can be fun and educational.  I guess they are now getting fewer and fewer with budget cuts?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jul 2006)

There are certain positions in the Army Reserve (and other parts of the Primary Reserve) designated as full-time.  Many are for RMS clerks, performing administrative and finance duties.  Generally, such positions are announced, interested applicants submit their name via their chain of command, and if selected the individual will serve for a period of three years, with a possibility of one renewal for a second three year period.

There are other positions created on an as-required basis to meet specific needs: some are for relatively short periods of time (2-3 months), other for periods of up to two years.

There are positions at most rank levels; most full-time positions are for Cpls, MCpls, Sgts and WOs; among officers, Capts and Majs are in the most demand.

Beyond this, there are opportunities for overseas deployments; these vary depending on the mission, and the Land Force Area tasked to generate the soldiers for the mission.


----------



## Trinity (10 Jul 2006)

Why would want to be a full time reservist.

You get somewhat less pay than your full time reg force counterparts.
You're benefits are less (pension) or only available while on contract.

When your 6 month contract is up for renewal there is no guarantee you'll
get your position back so job stability is always looming over your head.

Being a Class B junkie.. isn't the best way to go.  

Take a class B, if you like it a lot, then look into the regular force.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Why would want to be a full time reservist.
> 
> You get somewhat less pay than your full time reg force counterparts.
> You're benefits are less (pension) or only available while on contract.
> ...



There could be a variety of reasons why.

However keep in mind that as a private (expect to be in that rank for at least two years) you probably won't get too many Class B opportunities other than summer tasks and training.  And as Trinity mentioned job security is an issue.  Contracts are all fine and dandy but you might have to bounce around a lot.  there aren't too many "secure Class B" jobs out there.

Also (anyone please correct me if I'm wrong) Toronto does not have too much of a military presence in comparison with places like Halifax or Ottawa for example where there are numerous job postings.

That being said you should still try the reserves out.  Itr's good way to see if teh Regular Force is for you.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2006)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are certain positions in the Army Reserve (and other parts of the Primary Reserve) designated as full-time.  Many are for RMS clerks, performing administrative and finance duties.  Generally, such positions are announced, interested applicants submit their name via their chain of command, and if selected the individual will serve for a period of three years, with a possibility of one renewal for a second three year period.
> 
> There are other positions created on an as-required basis to meet specific needs: some are for relatively short periods of time (2-3 months), other for periods of up to two years.
> 
> ...



There is no published limit to the number of extensions the incumbent can have, as long as s/he still meets all the prerequsites for employment  This is particularly true for members with a very specific skill set or detailed corporate knowledge of the business of their section/unit/directorate.


----------



## muffin (10 Jul 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Secondly, there is no published limit to the number of extensions the incumbent can have, as long as s/he still meets all the prerequsites for employment  This is particularly true for members with a very specific skill set or detailed corporate knowledge of the business of their section/unit/directorate.



I don't know if it is true for all comands - but here in Kingston for CommRes  and CDA etc - the Class B Reserves have to compete for any position that will be filled longer than 3 years...  and every 3 years thereafter.

I am not sure what the specifics are around it - this is new since I was in.


----------



## navymich (10 Jul 2006)

What are the Army and Air Reserves like for Class C billets?  For the Navy Reserves, if you are posted to a core crew billet on an MCDV, or any of the positions at Port Security Section, you are on a Class C contract.  All of the benefits of Reg F, without the pension of course....but they say it's coming.....


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2006)

muffin said:
			
		

> I don't know if it is true for all comands - but here in Kingston for CommRes  and CDA etc - the Class B Reserves have to compete for any position that will be filled longer than 3 years...  and every 3 years thereafter.
> 
> I am not sure what the specifics are around it - this is new since I was in.


All commands must hire reservists using the procedures outlined in CMP Instruction 20-04.  It's a national policy.

As I said in an earlier post a Reserve POSITION can exist for a maximum of three years. Any longer and it becomes a Reg F position.  A Reservist can be hired to fill all or any portion of the position's lifespan (3 X 1 year contracts, competed annually or one three year contract)  The Reservist's contract end date cannot extend beyond the expiry date of the position.

Example:  A Range Control position is established at CFB Somewhere for three years, expiring 31 March 09.  Cpl Bloggins applies for and is hired into this position for the duration.  Two years in, he does something stupid and is terminated.  Cpl Smith is hired to fill the same position, essentially finishing off the lifespan of Cpl Bloggin's position.  Cpl Smith's expiry date must be on or before 31 March 09.  Cpl Smith cannot work beyond that date in the ORIGINAL position.  If Range Control wish to extend his employment, they must first create a new position number for him to occupy for up to three more years.

Clear as mud???


----------



## geo (10 Jul 2006)

Taking into account the shortages at pert much all rank levels, the positions available to reservists will continue to be available to reservists for many years to come.

You have to be fit, good at what you do and meet the universality of service. Being available for deployment is a bonus.


----------



## Remius (10 Jul 2006)

No doubt.  But I have to agree that TOS for long term class B employement need to be changed.  Both to benefit the member and the employing unit as well.

Too many times I've seen reservists up and quitting because they didn't like the job they had only to bounce to another job elsewhere.  There should be a minimum time served in a contract and a penalty for those that breach that.  

With that caveat you could increase the 15% difference by some but not all.


----------



## artfuldodga (10 Jul 2006)

job protection would be nice. should be some kind of law that prevents employers from giving away your full time job somewhere just because you were on tour a few times...  i mean, employers could hire part time workers to fill your position while your gone, im sure thos part timers understand that their part time job would not be perm, could even tell them why the part time position opened up ie) we have a soldier away on tour ;P 

as for bonuses during xmas & whatnot, that would really boost my feelings towards the military! i mean... here, we get pretty much no work from december to like feb ... unless you are tasked away from your unit somewhere, so it kind of sucks.. they pretty much leave you high & dry  worse if you are a student & need your reserve pay to help you along, also... 

as far as i know, if you miss 3 trg days..  without a valid reason, you can get in alot of trouble... & if you are just a moron, if your unit doesn't respect you.. they could perhaps start the process of releasing you 

i know i was very sick once, believe it was a thursday night, and we had an ex that weekend... you could obviously tell i was not feeling well that night, so i told my sct cmd i wasn't feeling to hot & would like to get this weekend off (i never miss training) .. anyway, i had to wait like a day at a hospital for a checkup  suffering there haha... and in the end i slapped a photo copy of the doc's orders on my WO's door  & left cause no one was around, very uncool  

there are a crazy number of things that could be done, to keep reservists coming back to work 

also, as for trg schedules... i find aren't accurate at all, constantly changing ...  since i've been in, i don't think i've ever had a schedule that ever stuck to the dates  also making it hard for civilian employer to keep you around...   

friend of mine had to get laid off from his civilian job, to go away on a callout....  out of nowhere, the callout was canceled... and he had no job to go back to, yikes!


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2006)

Please don't use MSN speak


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jul 2006)

Haggis:  CMP 20/04 places the limit of six years in a position.  Para 4.9 reads (in part)

_With the concurrence of the employing unit, an extension to a period of Cl “B” Res Svc for the same mbr at the same rank against the same posn, which has not expired, does not require an additional notification msg.  The incumbent cannot exceed a maximum of six years in the same position without an additional notification message._

There are two kinds of full-time reserve positions: temporary and permanent.  Temp positions are lime-limited; permanent ones are not.  In theory, permanent full-time reserve positions are those in support of the reserve force; temp positions can be for almost any purpose.

Establishment management is a voodoo art all its own; there are numerous restrictions on the creation of positions (for example, Cols, Generals and CWOs all require detailed written substantiation for new positions), differences in Regular and Reserve positions management, and differences between part-time Reserve positions, permanent full-time and temporary full-time positions.  Sometimes I think the intent is to ensure full employment for all staff officers.


----------



## artfuldodga (10 Jul 2006)

GAP: if i don't speak correctly, simply ignore any of my future posts


----------



## Gunner (10 Jul 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As I said in an earlier post a Reserve POSITION can exist for a maximum of three years. Any longer and it becomes a Reg F position.



Haggis, this doesn't make sense or CMP policy is not being followed anywhere.  Is this for an established BA position or a casual position?



> Example:  A Range Control position is established at CFB Somewhere for three years, expiring 31 March 09.  Cpl Bloggins applies for and is hired into this position for the duration.  Two years in, he does something stupid and is terminated.  Cpl Smith is hired to fill the same position, essentially finishing off the lifespan of Cpl Bloggin's position.  Cpl Smith's expiry date must be on or before 31 March 09.  Cpl Smith cannot work beyond that date in the ORIGINAL position.  If Range Control wish to extend his employment, they must first create a new position number for him to occupy for up to three more years.



Same question.


----------



## Haggis (10 Jul 2006)

First, a caveat:  I'm posting from home so I may have to amend my responses in the morning when I have access to the DIN and my e-mail.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> CMP 20/04 places the limit of six years in a position.  Para 4.9 reads (in part)
> 
> _With the concurrence of the employing unit, an extension to a period of Cl “B” Res Svc for the same mbr at the same rank against the same posn, which has not expired, does not require an additional notification msg.  The incumbent cannot exceed a maximum of six years in the same position without an additional notification message._
> 
> There are two kinds of full-time reserve positions: temporary and permanent.  Temp positions are lime-limited; permanent ones are not.  In theory, permanent full-time reserve positions are those in support of the reserve force; temp positions can be for almost any purpose.



Permanent Reserve positions do not expire.  As *dapaterson* stated these positions are in direct support of Reserve activities (i.e. Bde HQ or Res unit clerk positions).   The fictcious positions I noted (that *Gunner* refers to) are Temporary positions, based on *dapaterson*s definition (and I should've made that clear).

Also, as  quoted from CMP 20-04, the incumbent can remain in these Permanent positions for no more than six years before the position has to be competed again (i.e. a notification message published).

Temporary Reserve positions have a life span of 36 months.  The incumbent cannot be held against a position that has expired. The contract end date must be on or before the expiry date of the position.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Establishment management is a voodoo art all its own; ....Sometimes I think the intent is to ensure full employment for all staff officers.



It does seem that way at times.  I deal with DFPPC quite often and have been a guest speaker for the O&E managers course.  They have a tough nut to crack.

One of the reasons behind these perishable positions is to ensure that the number of Temporary positions, those not DIRECTLY and SOLELY in support of the Reserve Force, do not cause the number of CF Regular Force positions (of which these Class B(A) and C are part of) to exceed thier posted strength ceilings. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Haggis, this doesn't make sense or CMP policy is not being followed anywhere.  Is this for an established BA position or a casual position?



As I said earlier, if a Temporary position is established for more than three years, conventional wisdom indicates that this postion is no longer "temporary" and must be a Reg F position, filled by a Reg F member.  HOWEVER, many of these positions are filled with Reserve "backfills".  The danger in these for the Reservist is that if a Reg F member becomes available s/he can be posted into the position, costing the Res F member the job.

How units get around this is to create a new position (with a new position number in HRMS), when the old one is about to expire, and "compete" the new position.

Lastly, as the line between Reg F and Res F continues to blur (most notably in the Air and Naval Reserves) it becomes harder and harder to find Class B or B(A) positions outside of units/Bdes which are solely and directly in support of either the Reg or Res F.


----------



## geo (11 Jul 2006)

.... which ties in with the CDS' vision of a soldier who is part time flowing to full time and back....


----------

