# Reservist Roles?



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2004)

From Britain
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/30/nta30.xml

They can't get Reservists to turn out.   Those that want to, have already and wont be available for another 3 years. As a result the Army is looking at restructuring the TA (Territorial Army - similar to our Militia)

This quote from a senior serving officer stands out:


> "If the proposals mean that the deadwood who dress up but do not deploy decide to leave, that will be a bonus."



Try this one on for size:

Reservists primary role - local emergencies and security - they reallly are only available when their local economy is not functioning normally and they CAN'T go to work.

Reservists secondary role - large scale international conflicts - when the World's economy isn't working and the Government converts ALL national resources to reestablishing global order.

Reservists NON-STARTERS in PEACE-SUPPORT garrison duties or for INTERNATIONAL emergencies or for DOMESTIC emergencies that require them to be deployed outside of their home region for more than 2 weeks on a voluntary basis.   They have to get back to their jobs - and to be honest - the economy needs them there.

Long term deployments and contingency forces DEMAND full-time soldiers.   Part-timers can't deliver what the Government needs internationally or domestically on the cheap.

If you do deploy Part-Timers on long duration duties and pay them like full-timers while deployed they are by definition Full-Timers that have been contracted for a short period.

So three classes of soldiers.  Career Regulars.  Short Contract Regulars.  Part-Time Militia.

Make the Short Contract Regular the point of entry into the CF.  Does well is offered a career.  Wants to get out but stay involved transfer to the Militia.

Militia direct entry would still be encouraged but unless the entrant was capable, able and willing to go for Regular training and accept a Contract posting they would never advance beyond Private soldier. Just like a volunteer Fireman that doesn't take anything more than  Basic Firefighting will never become a local Captain (or whatever their rank structure is).


----------



## Blindspot (30 Aug 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Militia direct entry would still be encouraged but unless the entrant was capable, able and willing to go for Regular training and accept a Contract posting they would never advance beyond Private soldier. Just like a volunteer Fireman that doesn't take anything more than   Basic Firefighting will never become a local Captain (or whatever their rank structure is)



Say goodbye to reserve regiments. Unless regulars are assigned to command, instruct and administrate reserve units? What's the incentive to be a reservist if you remain a private? Some civilian trades transfer well to military administrative or support roles. Why as a doctor or a lawyer would one want to become a reservist if it meant staying perpetually as a private?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Aug 2004)

What's the use of a Reservist to the Government if he doesn't take the training and is available for deployment?

I am not saying that a Reservist can't become a General.  I am saying that he can only become a General if he puts the same time-in that a Regular does.  The Regular would do it on a career plan of 20 years with full time service.  The Reservist could conceivably do it with short term contracts and training stints.

As to saying good bye to Militia Regiments, have we said good bye to Volunteer Fire Departments or the Coast Guard Auxiliary? Those are both locally recruited and organized.


----------



## 12alfa (30 Aug 2004)

Their problems are not ours to begin with.

We put names forward, less than 1/2 are picked up.

We deploy for less money than our reg force brothers, am I going to take a leave form my cive work for less money....no.
As I would think any reg force would deploy for less than his regular pay.

We spend most of our trg days doing mandated training, which we all know is not of much use in deployments.

In my trade (armoured)  we deploy as grunts (no offence), so we are to be re-trained for deployment, another time and money consuming task.

I would recommend taking a res unit(s) and tell them they will provide a coy/pt for the next rotation and then given the $ and support to do so. 
Anything less than the facts up front and no one is going to take time from his/her cive job. The "you might go" does not cut it in a res life, as i would think it would be in the regs.

We have no system in place, we are just attaching res to reg force deployments and hoping it will work out.

This needs a study or cive to spend millions of tax payers money to fix..........NOT!


----------



## CdnGalaGal (31 Aug 2004)

12Alfa said:
			
		

> We deploy for less money than our reg force brothers, am I going to take a leave form my civie work for less money....no.
> As I would think any reg force would deploy for less than his regular pay.


I suppose when you get into the higher ranks, we get less than our reg force counterparts. But I am currently deployed and I'm being paid the same as the Reg Force Cpl beside me doing the same job. Same rank, same IPC, same job, same pay.



			
				12Alfa said:
			
		

> I would recommend taking a res unit(s) and tell them they will provide a coy/pt for the next rotation and then given the $ and support to do so.
> Anything less than the facts up front and no one is going to take time from his/her civie job. The "you might go" does not cut it in a res life, as i would think it would be in the regs.


How about CAN'T go? Many reservists appreciate the flexability offered by this system. I'm a university student, and many of the guys at my res unit are students as well - or have full time jobs from which they cannot AFFORD to leave. The option to put one's name in for a variety of jobs or tour positions is more beneficial than being told you are going. Out of any one unit, if you give its pers a block of time and say "From XX to XX you will provide X number of people" I think you would have a hard time scrounging up the number of people you are looking for.

I do agree, though, that for courses or positions within Canada, a concrete answer should be given rather than a "ho hum yeah sure you're going - unless..." answer. It's rather infuriating to find out 2 weeks before a course that you are actually slotted to go - or are no longer going - and have to rush to accommodate for it.

As for the additional training required when reservists deploy, yes, I can see how that could be a problem. It's costly to conduct training for the reservists leaving, but it would be even MORE expensive to train the entire reserve force continually to deal with more than just the basics of their trades if they are never going to use it (ie go on tour).

One could completely revamp the entire training system, but... can we smell even MORE money burning?


----------



## ackland (31 Aug 2004)

CJ said:
			
		

> As for the additional training required when reservists deploy, yes, I can see how that could be a problem. It's costly to conduct training for the reservists leaving, but it would be even MORE expensive to train the entire reserve force continually to deal with more than just the basics of their trades if they are never going to use it (IE go on tour).
> 
> One could completely revamp the entire training system, but... can we smell even MORE money burning?



I see your point in your trade but as a combat armes reservist all you need to do to bring say an infanteer up to speed is train him as part of a unit to make it cohesive. He should already have the skills required he just need to refresh them. As for armoured well if the government would just train us on the same veh as the reg it would make this transition easier. Back in the day of the cougar many reservists went on tour and just needed to prove they could drive or gun or comand. Now with the lav'sand death of the Leopard it could be done once again if only more coyote course were offered to the reserves.


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

Here I go,

Have all reserve units in a particular brigade fall under the overall command of their respective reg force unit. For example all reserve infantry units in LFWA would be sub companies of the PPCLI. This would allow the PPCLI to mandate which tasks are to be assigned to which units of the reserves.

For example the RMR would specialize in Mtn Ops, The C Scot R and the S H of C would be amphibious........etc.

The reserve units would be given the funding and training syllabus to fulfill these roles AND they would be answerable to the CO of the PPCLI for their training and competency.

In some cases this may mean that the most snr rank in a unit would be a Maj. So be it, it seems ludicrous that a "Regiment" that only has 100 people on strength be commanded by a LCol.

This arrangement would also allow the PPCLI to know who they have in all of their "sub" units as well as the state of training and readiness of all personnel. The RSS assigned to the units would be answerable to the PPCLI, not the reserve unit CO, this would ensure a disconnect that allows untainted passage of information to the higher levels of cmd within the Regiment.

Yes this would mean the elimination of some senior Officer and NCO ranks but the Reserves are part of the Canadian military, not a social gathering of the old British Empire Club.

If we want better results from our Reservists we need to expect better competence from them not less.

Of course things like Job protection legislation and various terms of service options would be beneficial.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (31 Aug 2004)

Satelliteslayer, what the heck is CP-00?

Aside from that, you bring up some valid points.  The execution requires some work though, I think.  

To have the reserves actually train to fill requirements or shortfalls in the regular army would be a bonus.  However, I don't think that the CO's of 1, 2 or 3 PPCLI should be mandating Unit training.  To train a Unit in a role is one thing, to have one CO change it when he takes over because he sees a different need would be ludicrous.  Each area should be told "X number of airmobile, X number of...., and so on, and then each area can have units specialise.  That specialty would remain forevermore....

Also, the Infantry as a Corps, have personnel posted to Standards Cells.  These people are responsible to ensure that the training standard is being met by all units, regular and reserve.  While a CO is responsible for the standard of training, the actual verification of training standards are completed by each Corps Standards Cells.  The standard of training for reserve units should not be evaluated by any particular Battalion.


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

CP-00 is Cambrian Patrol 2000, a NATO patrolling competition put on by the UK. Very good training...

I agree with you regarding standards etc and it was not my intention that each Battalion CO can change a reserve units training our status at will.

My general intent is that we need to move away from reserve units being entities on to themselves, they should be plugged into the system and better reflect their potential role within the CF.

We still run a system for the reserves that is a hold over from WWII. The units have all of the structure in place to form a regiment and all that is needed is to get troops and train them., at which point the Regt will be off to the war.

This is arcane thinking in this come as you are era of conflict that we are in.

I believe that NDHQ would like to do a major over haul of the reserves but the fact is that many reserve units wield immense political power and have the ability to scare away any wayward bureaucrat that strays to close to their "club house"

What the reserves need to be relevent is a new structure and mandate. There are many very good troops and Officers in the reserve units, there are just as many snr NCOs and Officers that use the units as nothing more than an exclusive social club.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (31 Aug 2004)

> What the reserves need to be relevent is a new structure and mandate. There are many very good troops and Officers in the reserve units, there are just as many snr NCOs and Officers that use the units as nothing more than an exclusive social club.



On this we can certainly agree.  The reserves would get a huge boost if they were actually given a raison d'etre, and the equipment for them to train to meet a set requirement.


----------



## logau (31 Aug 2004)

The Army is like a cheap house - there are glass windows with radiators and polyethylene windows without. Those in the warm room tax the crap out of their cheap room friends to come in to their room. Then they tell the new comers that they are professionals when most wars are over in less time than it takes to get an apprenticeship or a degree. And they are up against Johnny the IED bomber who has no education and   big force behind him. Johnny makes the people in the warm room very uncomfortable.

Since there are two classes of windows sooner or later the cheaper window will fail or no one will want to sleep in that room. The cheap rooms will be hard to maintain. Sooner or later - likely sooner - the people sleeping in the cheap room will figure out they can get into a nicer room elsewhere for less hassle.

In the real world you get what you pay for - the Army can't kill off the reserves and it has no mandate to fund them properly. The government has given DND no mandate to fund itself properly.

Where does that leave the regulars? A thankless task in a craven department that fills their heads with nonsense that Canadians support them - they don't. The funding that DND gets shows this in spades.

As for what reserves should and shouldn't do - consider this

The USA has 257,000 troops deployed overseas.

Canada has maybe 3,000 of which half or a bit better are over worked and WAY Underpaid Combat Arms.

Do we matter?   :threat: Make my day   :


----------



## RCA (31 Aug 2004)

So the role of the reserves is to be a man power pool for the Reg F. If a reservist is non-deployable, too bad make him a civvy. And units are holding vessels for this pool.

And all this at 85% pay and no benefits. Open the flood gates, people will be beating to get in. You want to kill the reserves, then this would be the way to go.

Or this isn't what you mean. As to the social club analogy. That gets old pretty fast and really hasn't been true for quite a few number of years. 

As to the 100 man Regiments, What Reg F unit is up to strenght in Canada. There has been cases of Battery strengths within the RCHA at 50 or less at times. At one point, Firing Troop in Shilo was larger then any single bty within 1 RCHA.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2004)

First, a couple of minor observations:

1) The CBG and LFA commanders will probably want to retain the authority to task their reserve elements.

2) Unity of command requires that if the RSS are to be answerable to someone outside the reserve unit, then one of the RSS must be the reserve unit CO.

Anything proposed must have a clear and singular line of command authority from the armoury floor to the CDS.  IMNSHO, turning the reserves into regimental fiefdoms is not a satisfactory solution.

Now, what I see as the crux of the (ongoing) reserve role discussion:

The "militia" are citizens willing to train up in preparation, and be available over a sizeable chunk of their lives, to be called out - infrequently and only necessarily - during emergencies (Public Welfare, Public Order, International, or War).  Discretionary involvements in small conflicts, humanitarian missions, and ongoing peace support operations are not emergencies.

Infrequently and for short periods, it is acceptable and possible to surge some militia to meet unusual commitments without fully mobilizing or disrupting the militia.  However, under pressure to meet successive commitments in excess of resources, we have chosen to eat the seed corn year after year.  The militia are withering.

Some people continue to deny the true character of our militia (as described above) and seek to mutate it into some new category of citizen-soldier between "militia" and "regular".  We already have it, but we don't use it - the Special Force.  This is why I keep harping on the idea of mobilizing contingents under the Special Force.  Extraordinary military commitments require extraordinary, but limited, military mobilizations.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2004)

AMEN Brad...


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

Having recently come to the regular force from the reserves I would have to dispute your claim that the social club no longer exists in the reserves.

I will agree that it does not exist in the Jr ranks of the NCOs and Officers, however in the Snr ranks, with exceptions, the social club is strong in the reserves and I present the following reason why....

When a new troop comes into the reserves he, or she is very keen to perform, they want to take any course they can get and participate in any deployment or exercise they can... in short they want to be effective.

As people progress in the reserves they MAY become disillusioned, esp if they go on a NATO tour and come back to their unit. As they progress in rank and life takes over....job....wife/husband....kids...... they realize that they can no longer afford to go on any tours and very few excesses; however they do not want to give up on the Regt. they have many friends there and many memories but their emphasis changes to the social aspect of the Regt.

Since they are now in Snr positions they look at the unit from their own perspective and they will not entertain anything that would push them out, no matter how "ineffective" they have become because they are now into the "social club" scene.

You can deny it if you want, and maybe your unit is the exception to the rule, but I saw it in my unit and friends from other reserve units have expressed the same observations in their units.

The simple fact is that Reserves 2000 and MANY of the Honorary Colonels of various units. mine included put pressure on the powers that be in order to maintain the status quo at any cost.

The fact that the reserve units are a foot print in the community cannot be an excuse for them to NOT be effective as a unit. Take a very serious look at your unit.... for most reserve units only 25% of the members are deployable.....25%.

This is not to say that the reg force is all high speed and low drag..... the difference is that in the reg force, if you are not "deployable" it has career implications... in the reserves, you go back to the mess...

I now put on my helmet and hunker down in my fighting posn waiting for the onslaught.


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

Further to my last post I would submit this proposal:

I read this in the past and it made sense to me, the concept of having an "unlimited liability" reserve category. This posn would only be available to fully qual QL4 or QL5 as the case may be troops on a strictly voluntary basis.

They would contact the unit rep and put forward the request to serve on an unlimited liability basis. 

What would this do? many members have the ability to present themselves to DND on a long term commitment basis but still have a "real" job. They would be aware that if they signed up for this term of service they could be called up at any time to fulfill any role, be it deployment or training, with a short warning period.

This would allow the member and the military to take advantage of training opportunities and exercises that may not be available to the "limited liability" reservist.

While on this term of service the member would be paid 100% for any time spent at the unit as well as full med and dental and any other benefits that a reg force member would have.

The member would have to give 30 days notice of  their intentions to no longer partake in the program at which time they would revert to their old status.

Thoughts??


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Aug 2004)

First and for most what is needed too help the Reserves to become more effective is effective Legislation to allow the Reservist to go off and get effective and meaningfull training and be allowed to Volunteer for over seas Ops. with out the worry of job loss.

Case in point.
A freind of mine was a Police man with a force here in the Lower Maninland and he asked for a leave of absence to go over to Boania,they refused to let him go,he just quit and went, did his Tour and when he came back home got another job with another Police Dept.
This is one of things we need Legislation for to make us more effective but this will never happen untill the Gov. changes it Defence Policy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2004)

>for most reserve units only 25% of the members are deployable

Could you clarify?  Do you mean only 25% are available to pack up and go right now, or only 25% will show up if an emergency is declared and the militia are called?  What is "deployable", and how much of the militia should be "deployable"?

The "unlimited liability" reservist: someone who on short notice (what is short?) can and will pack up and go.  (Sounds like a job for full-timers to me.)  How many people should we hope to find who meet this criterion?

1) The unemployed: sure, why not?  (But why are they unemployed?)
2) The employed: anyone willing to blow off their job, or working for an exceptionally flexible employer.
3) The students: anyone willing to blow off a year of school.

Should the reserves consist of more than unemployed people?  (I hesitate to imagine how we could build any sort of reserve leadership by hoping to find people who can survive unemployed by choice for many years of their adult lives.)  How many people have a shallow commitment to their job or education?

I think maintaining a ULR (Unlimited Liability Reserve) List would be a real headache.  "Put me on."  Four months later: "Take me off."  Eight months later: "Put me on".  Etc.

I am curious to know what the "social club" reservist is.  Is this someone whose life is so pathetic the only thing he has to look forward to is one evening a week in the mess?  Is it someone who manages to skate along from year-to-year without any real unit duties?


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Aug 2004)

I'm attached to a A.E.F. and everyone who joins is told that you will be ready to move when needed and signs a form and excepts the conditions on joining and we are given a form as to how much time we would need to clear up our own Pers. affairs before being deployed.
I said 30 days but in  a real need I can go in 5 days.

Yes the old Militia Social Club still does live!


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

Brad

"Do you mean only 25% are available to pack up and go Right now"

Yes I mean that statistically, for a unit of 100 pers, only 25 of them will be deployable on call. Be this because of med/dent, fin, pers problems. Lack of primary quals, unable to lve work/school, etc, etc. Basically if you went in to any res unit on "Stand to" in September and asked "who is available to lve for a deployment in 30 days" how many hands would shoot up?

"unlimited liability"...(sounds like a job for full-timers to me)"
Well, count the number of people in your unit who put their name in for B?A contracts and over seas tours and you have a idea of the people available for said positions.

"should the reserves consist of more than unemployed people?" How many people do we have in B/A posn around the country......I mean come on the reserves could cripple DND if all the pers on Cl B?A contracts called in sick on the same day..... most Reg force pers don't realize how many reservists man posn in BORs around the country and NDHQ. If these people cane do a 20 yr career as a Cl B/A reservist I know there are many who would be available for an "unlimited liability" contract.

As for the on again off again flip flop of troops for contracts I am sure you will find that most people will take a contract when given to them and do what ever is required to keep it.

"I am curious to know what the "social club" reservist is,  Is this someone whose life is so pathetic the only thing he has to look forward to is one evening a week in the mess?........YES it is......

next question???


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Aug 2004)

I say 5% at max!!
We can't even deploy 1,000 Reg.'s at a drop of the hat,so what makes any one thing we could mobilise 25% of the Reserves at the drop of a hat?


----------



## Satelliteslayer (31 Aug 2004)

Just to be clear even though I am a member of the Reg force I am a strong proponent of the Reserves, having come from the reserves and worked as a Cl B/A reservist for more than three years as a Regt. Ops NCO, a BMQ/SLQ instructor in WATC etc.

I look on the reserves as a team... if you expect a lot from the players you will get a lot but you also have to give them all of the tools required to meet their tasks. A clear mandate from NDHQ, proper funding ( I mean lets face it, dollar for dollar the reserves are cheap, thats why we have them other wise we would all be Reg force).

Job protection legislation... I mean holly !@#$% lets drag this horse into the next millennium, every single Defence Review has stated this as a failing of the reserve  systen in Canada.

Finally, the reserves as a group needs to be better managed and utilized. They are a part of the Department of National Defence....a key part....when do we allow special interest groups to hijack DND ??


----------



## Torlyn (31 Aug 2004)

Heya...  Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.  Please, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, the reserves were created in order to have (from the gvt's POV) a larger pseudo-standing army post World War ?.  I believe that the purpose was should WW?+1 come along, they would be able to call up soldiers who were partially trained almost immediately...  For example, given the old method of war (I mean world wars, fought over huge areas, encompassing large, "regular" (ie. non-terrorist/guerrilla warfare) if we were to engage in WWIII, the gov't could call up ALL active reserve members, regardless of hardship for leaving work.  If you are needed to defend your country, you go.  End of story.  You agreed to enlist as a reserve member, but when it comes down to it, the government can make you go, right?

Reason I'm asking is that much of this thread seems to focus on the fact that these reservists are *ASKED* to volunteer...  And in the current politically-charged situations overseas, I would imagine many reservists aren't volunteering based solely on personal beliefs regarding current conflicts.

From experience, a family member is a Lt. Comdr with the Naval reserves.  He got an LOA from his place of employment (private company no less) for 1 year in order to continue his MARS training/duties on a MCDV.  He volunteered for this posting...  (Mind you, I believe that the majority of the MCDV's are staffed by Naval reserves...)  Now, he's the first to admit that he was much "rustier" than his regular forces counterparts, but he was able to catch on quickly, (ie. faster than if they trained a new MARS officer from scratch...)  If he were asked to go again, he would almost certainly have to say no.  He's got a wife, 2 kids, (nice cousins, still trying to convince them to go CF) and a great job...  HOWEVER, if we were in a conflict such as one I mentioned above (one that Canada needed to fight in, PLEASE don't respond politically, this is an example) he would be "drafted" and wouldn't have a choice.  If the gvt' demanded reserves to go regular, he'd either go full-time, or go to prison, right?  (I can't ask him, he's hiding in Quito somewhere right now.)

I'm of the opinion that if you join the reserves, you shouldn't be under any obligation to go one tours, UNLESS REQUIRED (to keep training up, etc.)  Face it, like it or not, the reserves (IMO) ARE weekend warriors, so should we really call them up, or expect a higher number to "volunteer"?  I signed up full-time knowing that I'm going to be risking my life on a semi-permanent basis.  Reservists (IMO) don't.

I don't believe that the three-tiered system mentioned above would work, for the logistical nightmares it would cause, but the way in which the CDN military is used has altered dramatically since the inception of the reserves...  I believe they are necessary, but should be used more for homeland security than any real intention of sending them abroad.  IE. if Toronto gets a few inches of snow this year, send in the reserves to dig them out.  

B.N.S.

P.S. Application went in for MARS officer, full-time...  MAN, there's a lot of paperwork, isn't there?


----------



## 12alfa (1 Sep 2004)

I can't speak of other units or other area's, but.

My unit does not have a "social club".When we were gearing up for that Y2k BS we had above 90% commitment to deploy within 24hrs, and more in 48hrs.

Most (99%) Sr nco's are committed to the Regt, and deploy to the field when needed. A large part of our Nco's work in G-town supporting the reg force.

Cpl's and below are generally students, after school they get work or a callout.

Having the system telling us when we expect to deploy and when we can return from deployment over seas unlike what we have now, (seen calling troops 1 week before their course),   does not work.

Telling a unit that they can send names and they will deploy in dates that don't change would boost the number of res's that would deploy, I count myself in this group.
As it stands now no one call tell me for sure if i place my name on the list if i will go, and when i will know if i will go. Does this sound like a good way to get anyone to put their name forward for deployments? I think not. Granted some have a flexable life, most don't.

"We still run a system for the reserves that is a hold over from WWII. " It (sys) was before WWII and works if properly funded, which it is not.

I recommend a system that the reserves have their own funds, and not part of DND's (now it can be drawn from by whoever for what ever).

A trg system that is the same as the reg force, and it's own equipment, that is used for res courses and deployments.

A system that has res's at the top looking out for our intrest, not a ex reg force person who has left the regs and now thinks he/she knows what is best for the reserves, most times they do not. 

A system that has our leaders are held to account for mis-spending of our funds. I don't think we would spend millions on refitting AFV's , then take them out of service.

A open system that we can all see how our tax dollars are being spent on our troops and equipment. And measures backed up by laws to enforce them if caught( outside the goverement) mis-using said funds, unlike what we have now in place.

All of this we don't have , and it's the reason for the mess we are in, it will not improve with out changes to the broken system now in place.
We can't or won't change what is in place, therefor we will not recover to what we all want, a res force that is deployable and well trained to support the reg's with the min funds.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2004)

The 25% benchmark for deployment in 30 days is in my limited (one unit) experience unrealistic.  The fraction will probably vary among regions.  At any one time the same, small, handful of people is interested in full-time contracts.  As time passes some of them return to school and get jobs and new ones join the pool, but it is always a small pool.  For a short-term emergency (eg. fire-fighting) larger numbers of people are willing to commit on short notice for short periods (a couple of weeks).

People on B"A"/B/C terms of employment are full-time employees.  Presumably they want to be full-time employees and if not employed by the army would be employed or in school elsewhere.  They should not be counted as a representative number of people available for "unlimited liability" contracts unless you assume they would just be cooling their heels somewhere if the army did not employ them full-time.

By the definition confirmed above, I have known very, very few "social club" reservists.  The overwhelming number of NCOs and officers I have known did/do useful work; of those that did not, none were mess dwellers.  Whatever they were, they weren't "social club" reservists.


----------



## Spr.Earl (1 Sep 2004)

IMO we should be like the Brits as their system is a hell of a better than the U.S..

In the U.K. every year all Reservists must complete their set standards in regards to their trade and physical tests to remain current, you must pass if you don't you are tagged non effective.
Also you get a Tax Free Bonus if you pass all which was about 500 lbs maybe more now.
This is a incentive to keep people ,may be we should do the same.
The U.K. Reservist's can walk over our's any day just because of their training and attitude.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Sep 2004)

Well, at the risk of poking the hornet's nest....    From 83-96, in my Regiment, the closest thing that I saw to a social club was Snr NCOs retiring from the Regular Force, and taking positions in our Regiment - TSM, BSM, Transport NCO, BQMS - the "plum" Senior NCO positions. Why couldn't they get filled by people within? Well - during those years, we seemed to focus our training/recruiting schedules around students. That, in my mind, isn't very smart - students graduate and move away. In those years, often - the people who could get away, either for callouts or courses -were, as Mr. Sallows pointed out - students, people who were unemployed, or people who didn't want to hold down a regular job. The years when my Dad was in - many Militia members were secure, permanent residents of the Community, that could be counted on to get away to courses, etc., and the employers' culture in those days, seemed to accommodate that. So, it was the "system" I guess, that created holes in the manning that were gladly filled by retirees (who had probably spent their years disparaging the Militia) who now wanted some semi-work to fill up their new found retirement hours. As they were ready to move on, there was ALWAYS another retiree coming down the pike, to take their place. (regardless of their quality, IMO - but that was the COs problem).

Now, I probably sound bitter, but it was frustration, more than anything. The "system" often prevented the best from progressing - chances are if a person was dependable and a leader in the Unit, then they were dependable and a leader at their civvie job, and not as likely to be given time off for courses, etc. The old boy network, which, admittedly, I was a part of, on a lesser level - did a good job providing employment for each other, as they retired. On the flip side, the individual usually (not always) was a benefit to the Unit, and brought a lot of experience.

Sorry for rambling, but this subject does tingle a nerve or two.....


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Sep 2004)

I think the reserves would be a more feasable option for permanent residents of a city if we had a job protection system as good as the US. Friend of mine has a full time job, and only has 4 weeks to do courses in the summer. He's losing money to take the time off to train, but has to pick and choose what courses so he can get back to work.


----------



## ackland (8 Sep 2004)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> I think the reserves would be a more feasable option for permanent residents of a city if we had a job protection system as good as the US. Friend of mine has a full time job, and only has 4 weeks to do courses in the summer. He's losing money to take the time off to train, but has to pick and choose what courses so he can get back to work.



I've heard that alot of employers in teh states won't toouch reservist because of the legislation down there any one know how true that is?


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2004)

In general I guess I have to side with Brad: he seems to be presenting the argument that is closest to what I recognize as "the facts". I base my comments below on eight years as a Res Inf soldier, three years on RSS under the old system (previous to LFCO 11-30 that integrated Regs into the Res units), and two plus years so far as COS of a Res CBG. There are so many targets in the preceding posts that I could go on for pages, but I'll restrict my comments to a few ideas.

"We should stop recruiting students and recruit solid community members. The Militia used to be full of them."

Disagree. Generally speaking, only younger people have the physical attributes to complete recruit training and then perform in the field to a useful standard in the positions such as rifleman, gun number, etc. Being in a rifle section is not a job for 35 year olds. As well, only young people have the time available for the heavy individual training burden needed to complete DP1. As well, it is extremely unlikely that a peson who is married, has kids and has established themselves in a job will be attracted to an entry-level position in the Reserve. In my experience, you get them when they're young, and then grow them into it so that Army Reserve life is a permanent part of their lifestyle. Those are the people who will stay, because Reserve service is such a deep love for them that they bend their personal lives to make it work. As for the idea that Reserve units were once full of "established citizens", that may have been true in the years following WWII and Korea when Reserve units tended to function as social clubs for wartime buddies, but it definitely was not the case when I joined in 1974. We were overwhelmingly based on student recruits. I see nothing wrong with that.

"We need job protection legislation"

Maybe, but be careful. Last year in our CBG we received a USARNG briefing team from 34 Inf Div, giving us a general overview of ARNG methods and issues. At that time, they expressed very grave concern over the time demands being placed on ARNG soldiers due to OEF and OIF. The Active Army is relying very heavily on ARNG and ARES soldiers, just as the other US services are relying on their respective reserves (in some cases as much as 50% of their deployed strength). They stated that they were already getting a reaction from their soldiers and from some employers. This is particularly true of smaller employers who cannot afford to lose their skilled employees, especially if the loss translates into loss of business. Medical Reservists, especially doctors, are complaining about the time away from their practices back in the US. While each state (and the Feds) have job protection legislation, they seem to prefer to gain the willing cooperation of the employer, as we do, because there is less impact on the soldier. In 1987 when I was in Staff School I wrote a paper on the idea of job protection legislation, and I researched the Reserve attrition situation in the US at that time. The biggest single cause of US Reservists leaving their units was employer pressure. So, I think that while we should certainly have JPL for emergencies, we should be careful about using it. It is far, far better to get the willing cooperation of employers, as the CF Liaison Council tries to do. In 38 CBG, during Op PEREGRINE (BC Fires) we got excellent support in all three of our provinces. Admittedly, this was for a deployment of only about three weeks in length.

"Reserve units should be done away with/made part of Regular units/commanded by Regulars"

It's probably worth remembering the three roles the CLS has assigned to the Army Reserve: to augment the Regular Army for operations, to provide a base for mobilization, and to connect with Canadians by providing an Army footprint in the community. To achieve any one, or all three of these requires healthy, functioning Reserve units with strong community profiles. Some of our units have that, some don't. Some  work at it, some don't. Try turning a Res unit into a puppy mill for the RegF, or denying Reservists the chance to advance, and you will have probably drive a spike right through what capabilities they do have now. Remember: the Reserve is voluntary and part time. They are there because they want to be, and because there are strong motivations to spend time away from family job and friends. Strip away the motivators and you will just increase attrition. Some people have used the parallel of the volunteer firefighter: it is apt.  While I attended Quantico, I was a member of  the VFD in the town I lived in. Due to the unique arrangement in our County, our stations were manned by the County's "paid men" (ie: "Regular Force") during the period 0600-1800, then by us ("Reservists') 1800-0600 and on wknds/stat hols. We owned the buildings, the trucks and all the equipment, and wore different uniforms from the paid men. I can tell you that the relationship was hideously bad, on several levels, and out of a department roll of about 80 people, there were some nights when we could barely man two out of our eight or so rigs. Very few people attended training sessions. I suggest that if you were to treat a Res unit in a similar way, you would get similar results. I offer the unsuccessful and unloved 10/90 experiment as an example. IMHO it is best to run things pretty much as we do now, with all full time staff, Regular or Reserve, under the command of the Reservists.

"It;s a big social club"

Yes, in some units it probably still is. But, I can assure you that this problem is a tiny shade of what it was when I joined in 1974, when hte Army Reserve did nothing of any significance except rot in the corner. Maybe some folks here lack the historical perspective to see how far we have come. However, there is one Reserve problem that existed when I joined, and still exists today, and that is the almost pathological unwillingness of some Reserve leaders to hold people accountable. I have seen too many examples of this. It is extremely frustrating, both for good Reservists and for Regulars posted in. From time to time it has become a morale issue with some our RegF folks if I hold them to the standard that is expected of professionals, but they can look around and see a Reservist of equivalent or higher rank just tearing the ass out of it. This, IMHO, must be fixed because it goes straight to the heart of professionalism and thus credibility. Are there incompetent idiots or corrupt people in the Regular Army? Yes! Plenty! But, odds are, they are more likely to be held accountable.

Cheers.


----------



## ackland (9 Sep 2004)

The point about holding people accountable is a great one. What needs to happen on that account is that it must be enforced from the top. At my unit we are starting to happen. We have a young LT who has been on extras for about 6 months. Good start. But he keeps stepping on his dick. Has he been charged no has any further action been taken NO. So as a senior NCO I was this young LT date Cpl and Do all sorts of other unprofessional things. What are the consequences? Nothing. What message does that give the NC Ms? 
 After the big mess left behind from the Somalia affair the politicians decided there was a leadership problem in the army. well it sure came down on the heads of the Snr NCO and MCPL's but where is the leadership from above? I rarely see it and the troops see it and I find that this is a big part of why the level of attrition is so high.


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2004)

TR: I think you're on to something there. While I believe that the majority of Reserve leaders are well motivated and try to do well against considerable obstacles, there are some who IMHO should be removed "_pour encourager les autres_" Tolerating dead wood only frustrates the good Res soldiers, disgusts the Regulars posted in, and generally weakens the credibility of the Res in general. But, again IMHO, it is a Reserve issue to fix: if the Regular Army steps in there will be hell to pay. Cheers.


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2004)

Yes-that's what I meant-"heck". You know-where the Devil has his CP. Cheers.


----------



## Simpleton (9 Sep 2004)

SuperSlug said:
			
		

> I think the reserves would be a more feasable option for permanent residents of a city if we had a job protection system as good as the US. Friend of mine has a full time job, and only has 4 weeks to do courses in the summer. He's losing money to take the time off to train, but has to pick and choose what courses so he can get back to work.



Do we really need job protection? I don't think it will ever happen given that reserves provide 25% of a deployed force without legislation. Why would any government see a need to bring this into effect. Now if the regular force couldn't obtain even 5% reserves - then you may see government interest.


----------



## ackland (9 Sep 2004)

Just out of curiosity whta's IMHO?


----------



## teltech (9 Sep 2004)

In My Humble Opinion


----------



## CanadianSIG (9 Sep 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> TR: I think you're on to something there. While I believe that the majority of Reserve leaders are well motivated and try to do well against considerable obstacles, there are some who IMHO should be removed "_pour encourager les autres_" Tolerating dead wood only frustrates the good Res soldiers, disgusts the Regulars posted in, and generally weakens the credibility of the Res in general. But, again IMHO, it is a Reserve issue to fix: if the Regular Army steps in there will be heck to pay. Cheers.



Agreed: but how do you fix it from a NCM level? 

Lack of accountability at the unit's leadership is one of our core members biggest frustrations. The seniors Cpl/MCpl/Sgts can hold the ranks accountable for the tasks we are given, and deadwood gets the message that either they cowboy up or hit the road; but no one seems to hold the unit's higher up's responsible. It seems that if the meager training checkboxes get checked then that is the end of their responsibility - there is no accountablity for a unit's readiness/effectiveness/etc... 

On of our challenges this year is to get a clearly defined role of our unit and a copy of the required training plan in the attempt to illuminate the shortcomings of our current 'exs' - shortcomings which are developing extremely hazardous habits...

example --- 
OC: your role is to provide comms
NCM: does that mean getting the truck there intact sir
OC: of course
NCM: well sir we've never done any convoy doctrine - ever... we think that might be important to ensure we have the skills/knowledge to know what to do in case the convoy gets bumped....

In the past we've just been met with that deer in the headlight look - hopefully this year will be different.

If anyone has any ideas on this subject please throw your loonie in... because we're running out of ideas.


----------



## ackland (9 Sep 2004)

CanadianSIG said:
			
		

> Agreed: but how do you fix it from a NCM level?
> 
> Lack of accountability at the unit's leadership is one of our core members biggest frustrations. The seniors Cpl/MCpl/Sgts can hold the ranks accountable for the tasks we are given, and deadwood gets the message that either they cowboy up or hit the road; but no one seems to hold the unit's higher up's responsible. It seems that if the meager training checkboxes get checked then that is the end of their responsibility - there is no accountablity for a unit's readiness/effectiveness/etc...
> 
> ...



Well do as we do at my unit. When given a task and no training plan from the OC, try and creat your own. We SGT sat down and figured out what the tasks for the year were and came up with our own training schedule to fit the needs. The OC gave us sh*t for going on our own but we got the job done and the soldiers learnt and enjoyed it. Instead of sitting throught the 100th lesson on hide and harbour routine. They had fun trying the new things and got into the spirit of being soldiers and not class room students. Take the responsibility for the short comings of higher and protect the soldier. that is the roll of Snr NCO's so do what needs to be done.


----------



## CanadianSIG (9 Sep 2004)

TR said:
			
		

> When given a task and no training plan from the OC, try and creat your own. We SGT sat down and figured out what the tasks for the year were and came up with our own training schedule to fit the needs. The OC gave us sh*t for going on our own but we got the job done and the soldiers learnt and enjoyed it. Instead of sitting throught the 100th lesson on hide and harbour routine. They had fun trying the new things and got into the spirit of being soldiers and not class room students. Take the responsibility for the short comings of higher and protect the soldier. that is the roll of Snr NCO's so do what needs to be done.



Tried all last year - only to have the plans deep sixed, or in the words of our Sgt 'sabotaged'... we're going to try it again but even the troops are beginning to ask why we are banging our heads against the wall so hard....


----------



## Freight_Train (9 Sep 2004)

TR said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity whta's IMHO?


I have found this online computing dictionary very helpful - http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/index.html
Greg


----------



## pbi (9 Sep 2004)

You guys are asking questions that take me back to my days as a Sgt and WO. It's disturbing (but, I suppose, not too surprising...) to see that this rubbishy wasting of Res soldiers time still goes on: it is a curse and IMHO one of the biggest causes of attrition. We have it in our Res Bde too: the Comd and I made a surprise visit to several of our units one night. What we found going on ranged from very good training with a back-up plan in place, to so/so training, to a bloody disgrace with very junior leaders being left to fend for themselves. Fortunately, neither the CO nor the RSM of the latter unit are in those appointments any longer.

What to do as an NCO/WO? (The following advice is aimed at Army Reserve-for Comm Res it may be different)

First, collar your officer and try to sort it out.This is a skill you MUST master as a WO/NCO. There may be problems you don't know about, or he/she may honesty be unaware. If you can't get together at the Armoury, arrange to meet at somebody's house, a Timmy's, a bar, something.... But first, give the officer a chance.

Next, if that doesn't work, go to your CSM/SSM/BSM. If that doesn't work (or if that person doesn't exist...) ask for an audience with the RSM. Finally (at least in our Bde anyway, I don't know about others...) get hold of your Bde RSM.

In the meantime, if you are left without training guidance at all, go and see the unit training officer. Ask them what BTS were assigned to your coy/bty/sqn. Get them to give you a copy of the Unit Operating Plan and take a look for yourself. Then, apply your knowledge and common sense as WOs/NCOs to set up proper training to achieve these assigned BTS.

In our Bde (again I'm not sure about others) all of our units are assigned specific BTS and other goals to achieve in the training year-the units must in turn come up with an Operating Plan that explains to the Bde Comd (and to their own people) exactly how this will be done. We post the Bde Operating Plan and the approved Unit Operating Plans on our website/shared drive. You should have a simillar arrangement in your Bde-check it out.

I am not so foolish and naive to think that this advice will solve every problem. But, unless you pursue all these steps to the best of your ability, you haven't done all you can do as WOs/NCOs to try to fix it. Remember-the young soldiers are depending on you: don't give up! Cheers.


----------



## ackland (10 Sep 2004)

pbi

Thanks for the advise. that is what we are currently doing at my unit. The problem is the OC is abit of a Nob. He once said, be it jokingly or not, in front of the troops " f*** the troops." What kind of leadership does that show. Our SSM is always trying to straighten him out but the CO keeps giving him a second and third chance and it keeps getting all mess up.

Things amy improve this year as our BC is now our RSS Capt.

Here's hopin for the future.


----------



## logau (10 Sep 2004)

here's an idea

Give total control of the Reserves to the Provinces

Regulars set the standards and the provinces do all the rest

If they are truly needed have the provinces pay them and support the National Army vs being a poor couisn of the underfunded National Army......

Ideas mes amis?

And no its not a trick question


----------



## pbi (10 Sep 2004)

> " f*** the troops



If this officer actually said this in the way you suggest, he should be removed. Of course, it sounds to me like the command climate in your unit wouldn't permit that decisive action. Get your RSM involved, or ask for an audience with the CO, which is a traditional right of every soldier (and a smart move for a CO who wants to keep problems "in house"). Respect is earned, not demanded, and an officer who says things like that sure isn't doing it. Good luck. Cheers.


----------



## CanadianSIG (10 Sep 2004)

Thanks for the advice folks - and we've already started down that road --- we finally have gotten one of our core members into the troop WO position and our new SM seems to be a together and approachable guy - so now it's just getting together to draw up the plans and run the gauntlet. 

I just do not know WHY it has to come to this - with that "bow wave" of RegForce retirements on the immediate horizon the Reserves are going to be called upon more and more to augment operations... you would think that Units/Brigade/Regiment would be doing everything possible to ensure that their troops are being prepared to the best levels they are able... and I can verify your opinion pbi that wasting a Res soldiers time IS the biggest cause of attrition - most of us join to be soldiers - we want to learn the skillsets - we want to practice those skills in a way that we can understand --- and the expectations are great - particularly from the new young recruits.

When an ex or training day fails to meet those expectations - well - mission fails...

Wish us luck and maybe we'll run into you out there someday


----------



## ackland (10 Sep 2004)

What comms regt are you with?
/


----------



## pbi (10 Sep 2004)

logau: 


> Give total control of the Reserves to the Provinces.Regulars set the standards and the provinces do all the rest



IMHO the Provinces would never go for that in 100 years. They have a sweet deal now. They already get the domestic operations support of the CF (mostly the Army, with an increasingly greater Reserve component) and they are guaranteed military support to maintain public order if they need it. For all this they are charged only incremental costs.

Imagine the reaction if Ottawa tried to download the cost of National Defense onto them! We'd just turn Reserve funding into another intergovernmental football like medicare. Cheers


----------



## GDawg (14 Sep 2004)

I've half jokingly discussed the idea of Canada adopting a Provincial National Guard system. We all agree that Alberta is the place to be, lots and lots of surplus $$$ and oil fields to protect from terrorists. If we keep getting Liberal governments in Ottawa I might wind up joining the Alberta Republican Army some day...hopefully I don't meet you guys going the other way in battle on the Saskatchewan frontier


----------



## pbi (14 Sep 2004)

Yes: It would be the Sask People's Army >. Just kidding, folks. Put that pitchfork down.

I assume that logau has the USARNG in mind. The states don't actually have "total control" of their ARNG units: there is a complex relationship between the state and the Feds. As well, the relationship between the ARNG and the Active Army is not necessarily what it could be (although OEF/OIF is probably changing that). When I was in Quantco, the ARNG wanted to get their own seat on the Joint Chiefs because they didn't believe that the COS of the Army represented them properly. I have also had an ARNG officer here tell me that the reportedly poor performance of ARNG units at NTC in preparation for the Gulf War was in fact a plot  by the Active Army to "prove" that they needed more Regulars, not more ARNG "round-out" units in the Active divisions. Hmmmmmmm-sound familiar? Cheers.


----------

