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



## The Bread Guy (1 Feb 2007)

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

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*Committee says pressure on army reserves likely to create a problem in 2009*
BILL GRAVELAND, Canadian Press, 1 Feb 07
Article Link

A continued reliance on army reserve units to fill a growing need for fresh troops in Afghanistan could create a shortfall if Canada's mission is extended through 2009, the Senate committee on national security and defence was told Thursday.

Col. Art Wriedt, commander of the 41 Canadian Bridge Group, said as many as 220 soldiers are already in line to be rotated into Afghanistan in the first part of 2008, but 2009 "is going to be very problematic." He said that makes recruiting new reservists key.

There is no formal program for that, and the job has been primarily left to individual units. But since going to Afghanistan is voluntary for reservists, a continuation of the war could result in a dwindling supply of those willing to go.

It could also create training problems, said Lt.-Col. Tom Manley, commanding officer of the Calgary Highlanders, a reserve infantry regiment that is scheduled to send 90 of its 230 members to Afghanistan in 2008.

"With so many people leaving I have few people staying behind," Manley told the committee. "I will have almost no sergeants or warrant officers left behind and very few master corporals.

"It will be very difficult indeed to train my regiment to generate forces for the next operation (in 2009). I don't know what the answer is."

There are currently 2,500 troops serving in Afghanistan. Most rotations last about six months. For reservists going overseas it involves signing a contract, going through pre-deployment training and getting time off from current employers.

The committee was also told that once a soldier has served one mission in Afghanistan, he may not be eager to return right away.

"You start to see that almost everybody is going to have a medal on their chest before too long," said Lt.-Col. Bruce Jilkes, commanding officer of the King's Own Calgary Regiment.

"The forecast participation for reservists is increasing, yet our unit's historical contribution to operations is a large initial spike followed by a steady decline as everybody gets their tour in and no longer wants to go over."

Unlike regular force soldiers who can be ordered to head overseas every two years, reservists only go if they volunteer.

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

"We have been thinking along those lines. We're going to guarantee your job, but the other side is you would go wherever," said Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the committee.

"It would change the nature of the contract, and I assume it would change the number of people who would walk up and be willing to volunteer to join the reserves."*

Canada has pledged to remain in Afghanistan until 2009, but the government has yet to decide whether its contribution to the NATO mission will be extended past that point.


----------



## P-PLATOON (2 Feb 2007)

This would be great! I would be glad to volunteer, if I knew my job was being held.


----------



## Osotogari (2 Feb 2007)

Not that it's completely a bad thing to have job protection but it can be a double-edged sword as National Guard folks are starting to find out.  Their military status is coming up in job interviews, and with their operational commitments the reluctance on the part of employers to hire a Guardsman is starting to shine through.  Also, careful what you wish for.  Job protection in some contexts implies that like the National Guard you can be mobilized, unlike now where we can just about pick and choose.  Not that I mind, but let's be realistic here.  

I still think much of the manpower needs could be sorted out if the pre-training wasn't so ridiculously long.  14 months?  Give me a break.  If they need instructors to run summer courses, then put the word out. This early report date BS so they can have GDs and instructors in the schools is blatant lying to people.  Shorten the time commitment and use it properly.  Instructing on SQ and/or painting sea cans for 5 months is not training.


----------



## enfield (2 Feb 2007)

Job protection = a good thing. Definitely. 

Mandatory Service = Not so much. 

_The two do not have to go together._

Changing the terms of service would, in my view (and I work quite a bit in Res recruiting) diminish our ability to recruit new people, and would force out older members. One of our strongest selling points is that we _ won't_ make a soldier go anywhere. People - the public, applicants, their parents/family - are well aware of the experience of the US National Guard, and would associate any mandatory service requirements with the very negative NG experience in Iraq. Those of us inthe military have probably also heard of similar experiences in the British TA.

Applicants do not know or understand very much about the military - its simply a characteristic of the Canadian public. Potential recruits today hear the good stuff (pay, fun training, tuition reimbursement) and are happy. If they hear "and you will have to go overseas at some point, and will have to put your life on hold for a year and a half, but your job will be protected" they will get upa nd walk out of the recruiter's office. 

Everyone who wants to go to A'Stan is already going. Enforcing mandatory service would merely force out everyone else. And those who have already gone, or those who can't/won't go will simply quit. 

I will agree with Osotogari - shortening the pre-deployment training to a reasonable length will increase the number of volunteers and lessen the impact on Reserve units, since they lose people for quite as long. Shortening the pre-training period would mean taking that training and doing it somewhere else - say, improve unit training, or add more/better summer courses so that members are better prepared when the arrive. I alos believe that moving away from the 'Reserve Company' model, and returning to augmentees as the primary employment, would be better for the sustainability of reserve forces.

Other, more viable, solutions would be doing more induce ex-Reg F members into the Reserves, do more to retain Reservists after their tour (many quit, or go Reg F), and improving the training at the unit level. 
Or, even better - recruit more people into the Regular Force, so that reservists won't be needed so much.


----------



## alfie (2 Feb 2007)

Having been there done that myself (reserves and overseas) The volunteer aspect for deployment also ensures that those going actualy want to do the job and do it well. If we emulate the US system you may end up with those in country with less than positive traits. As well the burden would now fall upon the Reg force to screen out potentail problems. I wonder how long before political interference would get into that process.


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2007)

Interesting comments, so far.  Some Reservists want to go on tour, but only if they can volunteer?


----------



## CBH99 (2 Feb 2007)

I think if the Senate does move in the direction of guaranteeing a soldier's employment upon return, in addition to mandatory deployments - we're going to see a change in the number of people approaching the reserves.  The entire nature of the Army Reserve in Canada would change, and I think enrollment numbers would reflect that.

There have been a number of good suggestions so far.  There is no reason we can't guarantee our reservists' job status here at home, as well as keep their deployments voluntarily.


----------



## turretmonster (2 Feb 2007)

Then I guess we should also adopt the one Army, one standard in training way of thinking that our southern cousins have. If a class B(A) wanted to go on a deployment, would their job be waiting for them upon return? 
TM


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2007)

turretmonster said:
			
		

> If a class B(A) wanted to go on a deployment, would their job be waiting for them upon return?



CMP Instr 20-04 says "Yes..... but".  The member needs permission from the employing unit otherwise there is no requirement for the employing unit to hold the member's position.

Some employing units here in Ottawa will grant a Class B Reservist time for a deployment and will backfill the position.  Others won't.  There is a school of thought that says if you (the employing unit) can afford to let your Reservist go for a tour without a backfill, do you really need that position?

Mandatory service has risks.  I can see a scenario where a Class B (A) Reservist in a stressed MOSID is tasked to deploy (yes, provisions exist for this).  The employing unit can't find a backfill and decides that they can do without the Reservist and his position is eliminated.  This is the same workaround a civilian employer could use to "downsize" the position occupied by his deployed Reservist employee.

Catch 22.

In order for this to work, the Resrvist must have legislated and unconditional job protection, whether working Class B at NDHQ or as a civvy at Home Depot.


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Feb 2007)

One thing here, as a reservist who has had to turn down deployments and courses because of "Civilian" job requirements.

The "Job Guarantee" will never work. Never. Never. Never. Never.

There are so many ways that a Civilian boss can screw you; and when the civilian job puts the roof over your kids' heads, the decision is simple.

I have come to the conclusion that for a Reservist there are two windows of deployability. 

_One_ in a person's early twenties. Before the mortgage, kids et al. This is where 'we' are often seen, as the 'QL4' GD/driver/gate monkey on tour. 

The other is once the kids are gone, the mortgage is nearly retired and the "who cares I'll go work at WalMart" phase of Civilian career (self) management arrives.

Lucky indeed is the Reservist who can get a tour in between those two windows. I know some and I envy them a great deal.

The current state of affairs is a fortunate one for those of us who want to actually do something productive. But it is not sustainable. Not just because of the numbers required, or because of the knock-on affects pointed out by the LCol. There are only so many _willing_ to go and also only so many _able_ to go, after that the Reserve will be used up for a period until it re-generates. (Hmmm... perhaps that's why they call it a _Reserve_).

And _I bet you a dollar we will see just that_.. I surmise that by 2010 there could very well be a lot of red faces at Disneyland-am-Rideau when the Augmentee numbers come in anemic. 

TF 3-08 may very well be the "Toronto Brigade" but don't look for a repeat.

It is fundamentally disingenuous to think that in our society and in our economy that we can use the reserve, consistently, as a hiring hall.

Senator Kenny is sucking canal water up through his ring piece to think any law he and his colleagues can/will pass any law that will change the fact one iota.

The reserves can deploy a certain number of persons, only a certain number of times _and that's it_. 

No law will change that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2007)

We have protection of jobs for Reservists and National Guardsmen which can see legal action against employers. Canadian deployments seem to be for 6 months and would be far easier for an employer than are the 18 month mobilizations our reservists now face. One thing we are seeing now is that some employers wont hire reservists.


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We have protection of jobs for Reservists and National Guardsmen which can see legal action against employers. Canadian deployments seem to be for 6 months and would be far easier for an employer than are the 18 month mobilizations our reservists now face. One thing we are seeing now is that some employers wont hire reservists.



American society also sees military service as an honourable thing and a civic duty.  Canadian society less so (but that is changing).  I have seen excellent Class A soldiers quit the CF becasue they were forced to choose between going NES and losing thier civilian livelihood.  I have also seen the reverse, where a soldier chooses the CF (calls in sick to attend an ex/parade/etc.) and gets tanked by his civvy boss for it.

There are several threads on these forums, by some quite intelligent and experienced members, arguing that Reserve augmentation to deployed operations is unneccessary, and is done to fill a political agenda.  Yet this senator is stating that Reserve augmentation is both critical and unsustainable.  Who's really telling the truth?


----------



## GO!!! (2 Feb 2007)

IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.

Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.

For example, when an infantry unit requires drivers, signallers, gunners and experienced support weapon operators, and the only courses augmentees have is LSVW and a basic understanding of TCCCS - it takes the better part of a year to get them through the requisite courses and then some practical experience. Once all of that is done, _then_ the collective training can begin.

It would be downright foolish to send infantry augmentees into Afghanistan in the current operational context with a compressed workup training. They need the additional courses and training, and we often need it in the regs too.

In regards to legislated Reservist job protection, this seems to me like the PRes wants to "have it's cake and eat it too".

What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you _choose_ to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards. 

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Feb 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.



+10

It is called a quid pro quo - the cost of job protection is mandatory service.  Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you _choose_ to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?
> 
> I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

The Reserves are progressing with little steps, GO!!!  Full scale fitness testing in the Army Reserve starts in Apr 07.  That, in itself, should cull the herd a bit.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It is called a quid pro quo - the cost of job protection is mandatory service.  Sounds reasonable to me.



The tenets of Universality of Service are already aplied to the Res F WRT medical catrgories and employment limitations based on the common tasks standard.  Why not expand that to include deployability?  

However, the devil is in the details.  How do we compel Reservists to deploy while, at the same time, protecting thier civilian careers in a reasonable, acceptable (to the business community that employs the Reservist) and enforceable way?


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Feb 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.
> 
> If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.



There would be a short-term drop in numbers as the wheat is sorted from the chaff. There would, however, be an increase in numbers over a longer timeline as recruiting and retention improve with having an operationally focused (expeditionary and domestic), effective and relevant Reserve force. A lot of soldiers leave the Reserves because they become frustrated with class A "come when you feel like it" life. This is particularly true of soldiers returning from ops. 



> To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.


  

I agree. The PRes is not an employment agency. The government needs to get a reasonable return on investment, both from the individual reservist and the Reserves as a whole. We are heading down this road both domestically (with the TDBG's) and on expeditionary ops. The logical next step is firming up the terms of service to mandated parading, exercises and ops, with corelating job/education protection.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Feb 2007)

Haggis said:
			
		

> However, the devil is in the details.  How do we compel Reservists to deploy while, at the same time, protecting thier civilian careers in a reasonable, acceptable (to the business community that employs the Reservist) and enforceable way?



We somehow make it work for maternity leave.......


----------



## enfield (2 Feb 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.
> 
> Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.



Agreed - Reservists show up at Reg F units way behind the training curve, and require a lot more lead-up time to get them up to speed. At the same time, I think one year (or more) of pre-deployment training is unreasonable for a reservist. It limits the number who can volunteer and it cripples reserve units who lose their best people for even longer. 1 year of training time tells me that the Reserves are useless, since anyone off the street can be trained to be a good Infantry Private in one year.

However - 
I would suggest that returning to the augmentee system, and away from the 'reserve company' model,  would shorten the lead up time - no need to get reserve NCO's and Officers up to speed, or to get a new company used to working together. 

I'd also suggest making Reserve training better, so that troops show up better prepared. Perhaps make the courses longer, or harder, or open more opportunities for reservists to take Reg F courses.  'Graying' the line between Reg and Res, and getting more ex-Reg soldiers into the Reserves will help.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> It would be downright foolish to send infantry augmentees into Afghanistan in the current operational context with a compressed workup training. They need the additional courses and training, and we often need it in the regs too.


Absolutely - can this be provided over a longer period of time, earlier in a soldiers career? Can they be provided locally, in major cities, and maybe even in the evenings, so the reservists is still technically at home?



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> In regards to legislated Reservist job protection, this seems to me like the PRes wants to "have it's cake and eat it too".
> 
> What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you _choose_ to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?



Is the CF going to make up the income gap when someone quits a high paying job? What about self-employed people? Is it possible to write legislation that is so iron-clad it will be perfect, and no reservist will ever lose their job? Will employers cease hiring reservists? What about reservists who are police officer, firefighters, etc - can we steal from local emergency services?

Reservists _can_ be compelled to serve overseas - when Parliament declares an act of war. If the reserves are needed so badly, then Parliament can do so. When needed, Reservists have showed up in droves - to fight forest fires out west, to clean up Halifax after the hurricane and White Juan, to assist in the Manitoba floods, and to serve overseas. Frankly, in many units there's_ nobody _ left to go overseas. My own unit, a Res Inf unit, has two - TWO - sergeants left and no WO's. Two Lt's (one is the Adj), a couple Captain's, and Four MCpl's, two of them brand new. All Class A NCO's are teaching weekend BMQ's.  Everyone else is overseas, and whoever is left are filling normally Reg F positions in Gagetown, mostly teaching. The Reserves is not some pool of untapped manpower - everyone is working.




			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.
> 
> If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.



I agree with most of what you're saying - mandatory training nights and training events are a good idea. (Providing that there is a consistent quality to the training - if we start people's time with standing around on a training night, they will quit rather than be forced to show up. But this is a seperate issue). Drug testing, fitness standards all of that - excellent. I just think that forcing someone to go away for 1.5 years - and they will be away from home for that long - is unreasonable and cannot be good for the military or the reserves.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.



But Reservists aren't employed - one night a week, one weekend a month is a hobby, not a job. A Reservist does not cost that much money to train and retain, and even if only a small percentage go overseas, the CF is still getting a more cost-effective soldier than it would with a Regular. The CF has made very few promises to the Reservist, and given the reservist very little.

If the Military needs soldiers it can deploy whenever it chooses, the Reg Force should be expanded. The part time Army is a_ Reserve_ - for use, temporarily, in emergencies. Mandatory Overseas Service will empty the Militia faster than cutting off the pay. 

To add another angle to the debate: forget overseas service. What about jobs back in Canada? There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country, and not just as summer GD. Teaching BMQ, SQ, IBTS to Reg and Res troops, working on OR's, Maintenance Shops, Range Control, Staff jobs at HQ's, the Schools at Gagetown and many more key jobs that the Regular Force can't fill.


----------



## turretmonster (2 Feb 2007)

"There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country"

Thousands. 

TM


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Feb 2007)

> If the Military needs soldiers it can deploy whenever it chooses, the Reg Force should be expanded.





> "There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country"
> 
> Thousands.



Agreed to both.

I think that to some degree this stiuation is a manifestation of the old adage "Be careful for what you wish for ... you might just get it".

Is not the real issue that the Reserves have argued for an expanded role for so long... finally got it.... only to have the powers that be start thinking.... oh well, it's an instant Army... just add water.

It seems to me that now that someone has finally got to the issue of job protection it's coming at the expense of _having_ to realize that a real powerful, durable Armed Force is not a Regular cadre filled up with Reservists (a la Sweden) but a Regular Army with a Reserve 'cadre' thrown in.

Here's slender branch I'll crawl out on.....Reserve augmentees should be looked at not (so much) for what they do for the Regular Force but what they bring back to the Reserve force. 

Then, someday if the big balloon ever goes up, or when the 8.5 rolls through YVR, then the Reserve will be able to respond with a more credible Force.

Whilst I agree that today, a balloon _has_ gone up, I am concerned that this 'surge' will be regarded as future 'business as usual' model.

Compelling Reservists sounds to much to me like a Parliament that is too damn cheap to do the right thing. Starting down it is a slippery slope.


----------



## Cardstonkid (2 Feb 2007)

I think a problem exists in the way we structure the Reserve force. There are just to few of them to be expected to be a useful reserve to the regular Army. Many (Most?) countries Reserve Armies are larger than the Regular Army. Perhaps the problem then lies in the total number of Reservists able to deploy? If there were 200,000 Reservists (try not to fall out of your chair laughing) able to supplement a Regular Army of approx. 75,000 I think there would be far less worry about making service overseas mandatory for the Reservists.

As for Job protection I am all for it. I know there are great arguments on the other side but the truth that relying on the good will of an employer will not work to sustain the current operational tempo of the Reserve force. To help employers we could provide them with financial compensation through the Employment Insurance program. That would smooth some of the pain of losing a valued employee.


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Feb 2007)

> To help employers we could provide them with financial compensation through the Employment Insurance program.



Agreed.

More carrot, less stick.


----------



## Haggis (2 Feb 2007)

Cardstonkid said:
			
		

> I think a problem exists in the way we structure the Reserve force. There are just to few of them to be expected to be a useful reserve to the regular Army. Many (Most?) countries Reserve Armies are larger than the Regular Army. Perhaps the problem then lies in the total number of Reservists able to deploy? If there were 200,000 Reservists (try not to fall out of your chair laughing) able to supplement a Regular Army of approx. 75,000 I think there would be far less worry about making service overseas mandatory for the Reservists.



Interesting observation.  Other countries can depend on substantial voluntary reserve augmentation because they are drawing on a vastly larger and deeper pool.

The Army Reserve has an approximate trained effective strength of 13,000. Presently we have around 800 *Army* Reservists on non-operational (yet still essential) full time service. During the summer months, that easily triples (I'm referring only to instructors as those on BMQ or SQ are not yet part of the "trained effective strength" of the CF). The total percentage of *Army* Reservists on any class of full time service annually fluctuates between roughly 12% and 30%.

If we send, say, 500-550 Army Reservists on every TF from now until end 2009 (five rotos), that's 2,500-2,650 soldiers out of a trained effective strength of about 13,000 we will have  deployed 20% of our Army Reserve.   Can any other country with troops in Afghanistan claim this (outside the US)?


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2007)

More carrot, more stick are both needed.

If all you want is to wear a uniform and sometimes spend a weekend in the bush, don't join the Army.  If you never plan to employ the skills you're being trained in, don't join the Army.  If all you want is to spend one night a week drinking with your buddies, don't join the Army.

If you're going to deploy and employ your skills, come on in.  If you're going to train others to enable them to deploy, come on in.


If you're going to commit (and the institution of the CF is going to commit to you as well), come on in.


(And Haggis: Bang on about the numbers.  Add to that the significant number of Reservists already augmenting the CF on a full-time basis, and the Reserve contribution suddenly seems much more significant.)


(* Edit because I'm incapable of typing... *)


----------



## Groucho (2 Feb 2007)

Speaking as a current member of the TA (who served in the Canadian reserves) the way that people go on tours have changed since the beginning of the Iraq war! At first two or more people were mobilized for every one post that needed to be filled! 2/3 of the TA soldier past the checks at the Mobilition


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.
> 
> Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.
> 
> ...



I have to quibble a bit with this post GO !! .
Reservists do bring alot to the table both in a military context but also civilian experience. My experience is with US reservists but my comments I think will be valid in the Canadian context. Reservists have alot of military experience, maybe its not obtained from a full time stand point, but its still experience. For many reservists their civilian job experience can prove valuable in theater as well. US Army commanders in Iraq have had national guard troops under their command that were cops, construction workers, teachers, plumbers, electricians ect in civilian life. They were able to utlize these skills on a local level which enabled them to do things that the RA troops werent trained for. Also the reservists are older than our RA troops which has some advantages as well.

It is true that reservists need a period of workup prior to a deployment but as you pointed out so do the regulars.Since the CF is utilizing reservists as fillers ,I dont see why they cannot workup with the units they will deploy with. It shouldnt require a bunch of schooling to make a reservist deployable, if thats the case then there is a problem with the way you are training your reservists - which I doubt.

There is a tendency in the RA community to look down on reservists with a certain amount of disdain. I know I have been guilty of this on occaision. The reality is that the regulars and reservists are on the same team.They signed on to serve their country and they have to do it while balancing their civilian job with their military career. Not an easy task at all. I think a reserve Sgt is capable of leading troops just as they did at the armory. The people skills are the same. I imagine that his military skills are pretty good or else he wouldnt have been promoted. We dont usually question a reserve Lt or Captain's skills to lead unless he has done something to bring it into question. We all have our exceptions but I gotta say reservists when given half a chance will not let the side down.


----------



## kratz (2 Feb 2007)

If ARAF and NR members training and working under the "total force" concept are near to their RegF counterparts, why not the militia? What is the difference? I am not trying to be difficult, but if a reserve Bosn knows most of the CRRs and all you have to do is show him the ropes (pun   ) and what the differences are seem expediant compared to treating them as if they don't know the skills at all.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Feb 2007)

Kratz:

Size matters.  The Army Reserve parades roughly 5x the number of soldiers the Nav Res does (and Air Res is largely a full time creature); those number make the cost of training prohibitive, were all soldiers to do "the full meal deal".  instead, the Army has 3 levels of training: Essential (that the normal, part-time reserve force trains to); Minimum (which the Regular Force trains to); and Deployment (which Reg and Res train to prior to going overseas).

There's also a time consideration - we've expanded (and not always for the best reasons) the timelines for training, to the point where an individual requires considerable free time to progress in their military career.  All while trying to do the same in a civilian career, and trying to maintain a semblance of a personal life (family etc).

No easy answers to this one...


----------



## kratz (2 Feb 2007)

*dapaterson*

Quick respons, thank you. It's easy to see there would not be an easy or inexpensive answer to the issue.


----------



## vigillis (2 Feb 2007)

The reserves require job protection legislation, when we decide to go overseas.  I say decide because up to now that is the bargin, we volunteer for all service, be it courses after our mandatory first two, and we can volunteer for any taskings that come our way.  Why you ask, because that is the way the system was set-up.  We all know it some of us work with it and some of us abuse it, you want to stop it change the system.

If the powers that be wanted more PRes on Ops they would stop nickle and diming us on our training.  Yes I know everyone is hurting for cash, but these new training standards are a joke when it comes to the time spent learning your new trade.  It would be more profitable if we had job protection for training, which would allow us to train to the (shudder ;D) Reg force standard, and allow us more time to practice these skills.  Thus when the call outs come the training delta (someone hit me I used a DND catch phrase) will not be so big.   

Tax credits or subsidies can sooth the sting for employers over the long haul, not tickets to the Senators, I mean really who wants to see them! >


----------



## SuperTrooper (2 Feb 2007)

Job protection...whatever, I'll need wife protection!
She'll kill me faster, trust me.


----------



## vigillis (2 Feb 2007)

I hear ya brother!  :tsktsk:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Feb 2007)

Doyle RS said:
			
		

> If the powers that be wanted more PRes on Ops they would stop nickle and diming us on our training.  Yes I know everyone is hurting for cash, but these new training standards are a joke when it comes to the time spent learning your new trade.  It would be more profitable if we had job protection for training, which would allow us to train to the (shudder ;D) Reg force standard, and allow us more time to practice these skills.  Thus when the call outs come the training delta (someone hit me I used a DND catch phrase) will not be so big.



Agreed.  Getting 30 rounds to qualify PWT Level One is an embarrassing joke and IMO was a waste of a training day.  But it was "essential" training.   :  Yeah right.  Hit a piece of paper 25 times at 100 meters.  Pathetic.  
I am curious why it takes so long for work ups?  From what people coming back are saying doctrine is out the window and nothing stays the same for very long.  Do we have any information that any of the deaths in Afghanistan to date can be attributed to poorly trained reservists?  
I have seen repeatedly attempts to provide quality training be shot down by the RSS provided to a unit.  Generally, some excuse like "that form should have been filed six weeks in advance" or "WO So-and-so from Gagetown said you can't do that".  For many years I cynically believed that there was a Reg Force conspiracy to keep the Reserves looking incompetent and inept in the interest in job security.  
There is also a feeling that the Reserve don't exactly get (how to put this delicately?) the firebrand personnel from the Regs.  I don't think that it would be way out in left field to suggest that from time to time people who aren't cutting it back at home or are being punished get "buried" at some Reserve unit just to get rid of them for a couple of years.  Does anyone hold any illusions that RSS sent under those conditions have any interest in actually helping the unit they are jammed with?  



			
				SuperTrooper said:
			
		

> Job protection...whatever, I'll need wife protection!
> She'll kill me faster, trust me.



Also a very good point.  I have heard that from my own wife..."I didn't sign up to be an Army wife".  However, that was in response to hearing that a position on TF 03-08 would be potentially a one year work up with a deployment of nine months.  For me, my job is guaranteed.  However, for every day I am in training and not overseas, I am losing money.  I can juggle my vacation schedule to cover about half of a 3 month work up, but then it is out of pocket.  A year work up would see me losing my family and my house.  I'm a true believer, but not that dedicated.  

We (reservists) want to train and get as much skill and experience as we can.  A great many of us want to deploy to Afghanistan.  Please believe that every second of quality training we can get before we deploy we will jump at.  Just give us some equipment, a couple boxes of ammo and some training space.  We'll be there as needed.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Feb 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I have to quibble a bit with this post GO !! .
> Reservists do bring alot to the table both in a military context but also civilian experience. My experience is with US reservists but my comments I think will be valid in the Canadian context. Reservists have alot of military experience, maybe its not obtained from a full time stand point, but its still experience. For many reservists their civilian job experience can prove valuable in theater as well. US Army commanders in Iraq have had national guard troops under their command that were cops, construction workers, teachers, plumbers, electricians ect in civilian life. They were able to utlize these skills on a local level which enabled them to do things that the RA troops werent trained for. Also the reservists are older than our RA troops which has some advantages as well.


It has been my experience that _most_ reservists who are volunteering for deployments are unemployed, or marginally so. They have few military or civilian skills in most cases. That's why they have the time to be deployed!



> It is true that reservists need a period of workup prior to a deployment but as you pointed out so do the regulars.Since the CF is utilizing reservists as fillers ,I dont see why they cannot workup with the units they will deploy with. It shouldnt require a bunch of schooling to make a reservist deployable, if thats the case then there is a problem with the way you are training your reservists - which I doubt.


They do work up with their units as augmentees - and our workup training takes damn near a year too.   The problem is that we have one set of kit and training for deployments, and another for domestic training "getting back to basics" as we like to call it.



> There is a tendency in the RA community to look down on reservists with a certain amount of disdain. I know I have been guilty of this on occaision. The reality is that the regulars and reservists are on the same team.They signed on to serve their country and they have to do it while balancing their civilian job with their military career. Not an easy task at all. I think a reserve Sgt is capable of leading troops just as they did at the armory. The people skills are the same. I imagine that his military skills are pretty good or else he wouldnt have been promoted. We dont usually question a reserve Lt or Captain's skills to lead unless he has done something to bring it into question. We all have our exceptions but I gotta say reservists when given half a chance will not let the side down.


I am of the opinion that most reservists can be brought up to speed with the reg force during workup training. This is also a good time to evaluate whether they will be offered a position on the deployment at their current rank level - this often sees them reduced to a rank more fitting their experience, which is often on par with a very junior reg F counterpart. They just don't have the opportunity to get much.


----------



## GAP (2 Feb 2007)

Reserves may not last through Afghan mission
BILL GRAVELAND Canadian Press
Article Link

CALGARY — A continued reliance on army reserve units to fill a growing need for fresh troops in Afghanistan could create a shortfall if Canada's mission is extended through 2009, the Senate committee on national security and defence was told Thursday.

Colonel Art Wriedt, commander of the 41 Canadian Bridge Group, said as many as 220 soldiers are already in line to be rotated into Afghanistan in the first part of 2008, but 2009 “is going to be very problematic.”

He said that makes recruiting new reservists key.

There is no formal program for that, and the job has been primarily left to individual units. But since going to Afghanistan is voluntary for reservists, a continuation of the war could result in a dwindling supply of those willing to go.

It could also create training problems, said Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Manley, commanding officer of the Calgary Highlanders, a reserve infantry regiment that is scheduled to send 90 of its 230 members to Afghanistan in 2008.

“With so many people leaving I have few people staying behind,” Lt.-Col. Manley told the committee. “I will have almost no sergeants or warrant officers left behind and very few master corporals.

“It will be very difficult indeed to train my regiment to generate forces for the next operation (in 2009). I don't know what the answer is.”

There are currently 2,500 troops serving in Afghanistan. Most rotations last about six months. For reservists going overseas it involves signing a contract, going through pre-deployment training and getting time off from current employers.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Feb 2007)

Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.


----------



## Franko (2 Feb 2007)

Keep it civil troops...this thread will not degrade into a reserve bashing thread.

Regards

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## GO!!! (3 Feb 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.



No, after doing the better part of a year with reserve augmentees, my opinion of them as soldiers has changed significantly from this time last year.

Individual reservists are not the problem. Given as much training as we have here in certain parts of the Reg F, reservists have just as much aptitude, drive and soldier skills as their reg force counter parts. The difference is that they are denied the opportunity to train as much.

We have had a steep training curve as well, with the new radios, weapons and weapon platforms, vehicles, (no-one had any trg in mech ops), individual soldier kit and new TTPs to boot. After working with these guys for a year, I have just as much confidence with an augmentee watching my back as a reg force guy. I know he can do the job.

IMHO, the problem lies in the units that allow their members to be in leadership positions without any course beyond PLQ and LSVW driver. Maybe the money is not there for training, maybe the members don't see radios as sexy enough to show up for, maybe there are no radios to train with - I don't know about that part of it.

I do know that reservists, like reg force soldiers, are only as good as their training. Train long and hard, the chaff will fall out, and you will be left with a good unit, no matter where they came from.

As for the rank thing - the truth is out there. A 24 year old reg force MCpl in the Para Coy is a very different beast from a 20 year old MCpl in the RWR/RMR etc. Sometimes those individuals are better off in a position where they will perform well as a rifleman than struggle as a Jack.


----------



## darmil (3 Feb 2007)

Not all reservists are bums some are I will agree there.I'm a journeyman welder making 70 grand a yr.I'm taking time off to go over to Afghanistan. In my unit we have firefighters, cops, and electricians.JOB PROTECTION is the main reason you won't get the skilled troops overseas.I have no problem volunteering to weld LAVS or any other vehicle that was hit by IED or mine. 




edited for spelling


----------



## Meridian (3 Feb 2007)

Indeed, job protection is also something that has stopped me from enrolling PRes....  For me, it really is more of either all or none, primarily due to this.  My career is sufficiently advanced that I make a comfortable Captain's salary, and to put that on the line for voluntary service which is part time.. its just hard to justify, especially when my field is not very portable/a large job market.

There will be employers who fight it, but for the skilled and professional workers out there with major corporations, many of these companies have worked to hard on the PR front to risk legal issues regarding flouting job protection status.    Most of them are just unwilling to make much concession if the rest of the market is not compelled to do the same.  Job protection would help that.


----------



## scas (3 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## Meridian (3 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## Spartan (3 Feb 2007)

scas said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## c4th (3 Feb 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pretty sad view of your reservists GO.



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

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

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


----------



## darmil (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## PhilB (4 Feb 2007)

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

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

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2007)

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


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

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


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2007)

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

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

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


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## PhilB (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## lawandorder (4 Feb 2007)

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

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


----------



## garb811 (4 Feb 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Meridian (4 Feb 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

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



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

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


----------



## PhilB (4 Feb 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## edgar (4 Feb 2007)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## scas (4 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## Meridian (4 Feb 2007)

Question though:

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

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

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

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


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2007)

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





			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *More talk of making Reserve terms of service more binding, but with job protection (highlighted)....
> 
> ...That prompted members of the Senate committee to muse* about making service mandatory in return for guaranteeing a reservist's job *


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


------------------
*Muse, _v. & n._ ponder, reflect, _n. archaic_ a fit of abstraction.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Feb 2007)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I can't believe that all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth has been sparked by a committee's mere "musing."Imagine what an actual statement of intent would do....



But wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth is half the fun!   ;D
I think the big response in this thread is indicative of the frustration that many of us Reservists feel in that we want to serve in Afghanistan, but don't want to obliterate our personal lives in the process.  It's all well and good if you have a disposable job to say "I'll just quit, go on tour and get a new job when I get back".  
This will boil down to something that rests on an individual basis.  Casino Windsor let me go away for two summers for RESO 1/2 and 3.  Not because they were huge military suppporters or I was in a union.  I think they simply were allowing me to access the unpaid leave of absence program.  
Size of company, job description, skill set needed.  All things that cannot be addressed in a blanket policy about job guaranteeing.  I think the incentive idea was a better one.  
If someone was in a tight spot, maybe they could do the leg work on behalf of their company to look into getting someone on a temporary contract basis.  Find your own replacement profile, then ask the company if they would object to you looking into a temporary hire.  Let them draw up the terms of temporary employment, then you go try to find candidates for them to review.  It's your idea, you do the work.  If you don't create an administrative burden for them, you'll have a better chance.  Everybody knows the basic tenants of being a bureaucratic cog..."If it is different or difficult, it is bad".  Plus, while your replacement is doing his/her thing, the company gets a chance to have a free evaluation of a new employee and maybe ends up wanting to take them on full time.  (don't find someone who does your job better than you do  ;D )
If you get hurt and can't get back by the end of the temporary contract, that is the risk you take.  I guess that is why you want to have your SISIP/RARM all paid up before you go.  
I also acknowledge that there will be people who will use excuses of work/family issues to avoid having to feel pressured to go on deployment.  I think it is that reality that causes some to want to pursue mandatory deployment rules.  Certainly, the PRes is going to need to come up with some sort of "wheat from the chaff" plan of sorts.  
We are at a point in history where it is finally dawning on the broader population base that these conflicts are not going to go away like magic, and the oh-so-impressive blue helmets do not settle conflicts like Moses parting the sea.  By virtue of the fact that we are members of the Reserve, we are demonstrating that we have some sort of desire to serve.  If that is in the form of sand bagging, snow shovelling or walking around in the bushes for the 2010 Olympics then that is great.  Certainly the need is there.  But there is a need for a part time, expandable and activatable (if that is even a real word  ??? ) fighting force that knows that it is wearing an irregular patterned green uniform because it is training to go to some other place and kill people.  Perhaps it is time for a split in the Reserves?  Create a universal sub unit within all Army Reserve units that is DAG Yellow Minus.  People would not ask to be in said unit if they were not reasonably certain they would be in suitable physical shape, have sufficient skills to have relatively short work up times and have home and civilian situations that are problem free.  Who knows.  Something has to give.  
As the District Commander told us at the officers mess dinner this year "Call it augmentation, fill-ins or reserve support if you want.  Make no mistake, gentleman.  We are a nation mobilizing for war" (sic).


----------



## edgar (6 Feb 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

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



Are you suggesting our economic organization is equivalent to the Soviet command economy because I need a permit to rewire my basement? What colour is your herring?

Point is, the "cost of doing business" is paid for by the customers (that's you and me). It is effectively just another tax. The question is: is this tax paying for something necessary? If you want a job protection scheme, understand it is not free. Not free as in "beer", and not free as in "Live free or die". Satisfying your "social requirements" will cost in lost income, or lost opportunity, and before you demand this you ought to consider whether what your asking for is solving the problem effectively and efficiently.

Does anybody have a hard number of the additional soldiers we will generate for tasks longer than two weeks by enacting job protection? Here's my ballpark figure, based on the number of people I actually heard bitching about how they wanted to go but couldn't: about 2 pers per squadron. Multiply that by all the units and you could have maybe a bn group of odds and sods from all over. Take the cost to the taxpayers of paying all that class c and b and add to it the cost of enforcing job protection (hey maybe we could transfer some of the gun registry bureaucrats to run this). I claim that would cost more than simply raising another bn group of regs. 

Personally, I feel guilty because I am not sharing the risk. When I compare myself to Grandpa my six months looks pathetic to his five years overseas, clearly I am not pulling my weight, socially speaking. As I take steps to correct this, I find it is going to cost me a lot of money. I'm going to do it anyway, but it is entirely _m_y problem. If you want me to pay higher taxes, or pay more for my groceries (and less for my kids college fund) because _you_ want to go over, I must respectfully refer you to the reply given in the matter of Arkell v. Pressdram. _You_ can go deliver meals to elderly shut-ins if you crave public service.

Businesses who find some comparative advantage from hiring reservists, will do that. Businesses that have high employee mobility or turnover don't care what you do between gigs. The system works as it is. Changing it will benefit only a very few people, and a lot of people will experience a pain in the arse.

A further thought: I never saw a Reg Force character who couldn't make more money working in the "real world", so let's not pretend they don't pay a price in lost income for their service.


----------



## Meridian (6 Feb 2007)

Fair enough, a few more thoughts though:

1 - What is the actual cost of job protection, realistically.   Many employers can hire contract personnel or can use the opportunity to mentor/in-house develop their staff;  most companies are used to doing this for maternity and now parental leaves as well, so, does anyone have any real ballpark numbers as to how much the actual cost would be?

2 - Currently, the pers enrolled in the Reserves enrolled under a system that did not offer job protection, so it is therefore understandable that a vast majority of them would have no issue with the fact that there was no job protection once they were in, save for the 1-2 per unit (as suggested) who will complain/want more no matter what the conditions.

3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

> 3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?



That's good thinkin, all the arguments against militia job protection have probably all been made during a maternity benefits debate. I know for sure that the feminists complain that women are less likely to get hired than men because men don't (well didn't used to) want time off for babies. Did that turn out to be measureably true, and will shirking employers start to recognize army haircuts? How much extra did it cost the pogey office to administer maternity? How much extra hassle did that add to small business? I'm pretty sure there are more working mothers than militia in Saskatchewan, so militia job protection will cost less. As far as I can tell giving people maternity and paternity benefits through unemployment insurance has been pretty painless, so no more argument from me as to cost. 

But aren't reservists already eligible for pogey after a 9 or more month tour anyway? Summer tasks would be a problem maybe because they are too short to get enough weeks to collect. I never collected because I was always a student.

I am left with the issue of forcing an individual to support the war by rehiring a guy he maybe doesn't want anymore. Also, does a guy really "deserve" to go back to exactly the same job and income after taking a year off to do his own thing? Doing this for maternity doesn't bother me so maybe I should get over it.


----------



## Meridian (7 Feb 2007)

Personally, Id be more in favour of job protection when the military member is required by the forces to serve full time, rather than when the member has volunteered to serve full time.  Presumably the reserves is for people who want part time work, and the regs who want a full time career,  but the lines have been a blurrin'.    

I agree that if I volunteered for full time service (ie a tour), then why should my employer be forced to support my position ad infinitum?  But if I enrolled to serve my country part time, and, when I enrolled, it was under the expectation that - barring war, insurrection, needs of the Government, etc,  I would work part time and it wouldnt collide with my full time job, and then was called up, I would expect that that callup should be protected.

The nuance between volunteering and being voluntold I suppose is where this issue hits its greatest head.


----------



## Haggis (7 Feb 2007)

Meridian said:
			
		

> 1 - What is the actual cost of job protection, realistically.   Many employers can hire contract personnel or can use the opportunity to mentor/in-house develop their staff;  most companies are used to doing this for maternity and now parental leaves as well, so, does anyone have any real ballpark numbers as to how much the actual cost would be?



It's unrealistic to draw parallels between parental/maternity job protection and Reserve job protection. At some point in the lifespan of every single Canadian employee, he or she can be in a position to claim parental or maternity benefits.  This legislation benefits all 32.6 million of us.  Reseve job protection benefits 20,000 or so and only a handful of those will be in a position during thier lifespan as a CF member to invoke it.



> 2 - Currently, the pers enrolled in the Reserves enrolled under a system that did not offer job protection, so it is therefore understandable that a vast majority of them would have no issue with the fact that there was no job protection once they were in, save for the 1-2 per unit (as suggested) who will complain/want more no matter what the conditions.



Most Reservists join the CF at a time in thier lives when mobility and career are not concerns.  As they "grow up" these concerns become real, but thier desire and ability (as gained through training and experience) to serve their country is still there. I don't see your point.



> 3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?



Even though you are comparing apples and oranges, in comparison the cost would be negligible.  What's money, really, to the government?  It would be far less than paying off another Maher Arar, but require far more political intestinal fortitude.


----------



## c_canuk (7 Feb 2007)

> It has been my experience that most reservists who are volunteering for deployments are unemployed, or marginally so. They have few military or civilian skills in most cases. That's why they have the time to be deployed!



sure, and if we had job protection for those that volunteer, you would see more reservists doing just that, if you force mandatory tours on the reserves it's membership will plummet, the reservists that are already on tours would stay, but a good portion of their supporting staff would disappear and units would start crumbling.

there is no need to force reservists to deploy anymore than there is need start a conscription program. the benefit of job protection would only apply to those dedicated enough to volunteer anyway.

as for full time reservists being pushed to joining the regs, or being treated like the regs, we don't have a pension program though on is in the works but will not be the same caliber, get paid less, and don't have access to a lot of reg force perks, the trade off for that is we get to live where we want and volunteer for tours rather than getting voluntold.

the reserves are in a perpetual training cycle, we need the guys who live in their mom's basement that someone mentioned because are the guys who come in for a couple days every week and do all the regular wpn cleaning, vehicle preventative maint, canvas maint, go the day before an exercise to make sure all the resources are available and set up etc etc.

for example my unit right now is really hurting because 8 of the 10 class A guys who's only job is to do this work are all tasked out, either back fill for regs who are on the task force, or they themselves are deploying, now the unit has to use up regular training time when the rest of the unit is available to do all the maint that usually was taken care of by what I like to call the irregulars...  They are a very valuable resource, and it's now very appearant at the unit.

Forcing mandatory service on these guys, is just going to insult them as they are already volunteering, the rest of the unit is either students, or employed full time. the units are already hurting for staff and we can't recruit enough people to make up for turn over as it is, all mandatory service will do in my opinion is cripple the reserves.

Sure there will be some that won't deploy, but Job protection won't be something they can use. Even though they don't deploy they can still provide valuable service as back fill reg positions, instruct recruits, and maintain equipment. 

I'm currently backfilling in a reg position, and when I deal with my home unit on administrative matters I feel torn, the Unit really needs me back there, but the reg unit I'm in now needs me just as much... we're spread too thin as it is, and I don't think it would be in our intrest to make the reserves any less attractive to potential recruits.

It's not an issue of we want our cake and eat it too, it's a matter of if we volunteer to set our lives aside for 1-2 years to go overseas, the least the Government could do is make sure that it's their for us to pick up again when we get back.


----------



## Groucho (7 Feb 2007)

Been reading this post from Scotland with a bit of interest! If you allow me to spend my 2 pence! The TA that go over to Iraq and soon A'stan are not officially volunteers because of the way they are called up. The British Government has used part of the Army Act (1995 I think) to call up members of the reserves for active service!  This was to protect reservist's civ jobs!  If a reservist volunteered they would not get higher pay if they outgoings where higher that what they would made called up! 
 There was a number of changes in the TA after the first call ups went out. Yes a number of people quit but a great percent where people who had quit ( in some cases years earlier) but did not do the paperwork to clear or where going to quit anyway! We can be called up for up to a year once in three years ! I know a number of my fellow members of my unit (Scottish Transport Regiment RLC(V) ) who have gone on tours! We now tell people who wish to join about the call ups! It is a fact of being in the reserves
 There are 10 ways that people can be left out of the pot! The ones I can remember off the top of my head are:
 1)Single parents 2) Self employed 3) a carer 4) a student in FULL TIME study 5) an employee of a small business that would have a too great impact on  the business if they were to go!! 
You can get your name on a list of people who are willing to  be called up to go first ( But you have not volunteered but would go if called up)
 An employer can appeal an employee's call up and also ask for their employee to be returned before the end of the call up if they are needed! This goes to a committee that looks into each case! An employer can get funds from the British government to offside the costs of being in, training replacement worker(s)! If an employee does not get their job *OR SIMILAR JOB on they return the employee can get funds from the British government to take this to court! There has been a number of cases that after a period of time the employee has been let go because of various other reasons that the employee has taken that to court ( also with fund from the government) outcomes unknown to me!

 I thank you for letting an old (48th) Highlander to get his 2 pence in ( I think I have spent it) *


----------

