# Reservists Job Protection Superthread



## elcope

Could someone direct me to a website which describes the law which protects reservists from losing their jobs when called up on extended periods of active duty.

Thank you for your help,

Ed

Reply to:

elcope@aol.com
or
edward.cope1@usarc-emh2.army.mil


----------



## John Nayduk

Here‘s the link.

 http://www.parl.gc.ca/PDF/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-17_1.pdf


----------



## Jarnhamar

Eh?

I thought only the US had that kind of legislation??


----------



## Sharpey

We do to, but there is fine print involved. Volunteering for UN etc... is not classified as a call out. If the manure hits the wind making device and Canada declares war then CALLS UP it‘s Reserves, in other words demands, then gear up as your job is protected for up to a year after your return I beleive it is.

Stuff like Ice Storm or Roto 13, no, you and the rest of us are SOL. This is an ongoing battle that will never be one.


----------



## elcope

Thank You for your prompt reply, But the bill C17, that I looked at mostly contains stuff about bioterrorism.

Do I need to keep reading?

Ed


----------



## SNoseworthy

Refer to Section 13, Part 7 of the bill:

285.02 
(1) If an officer or non-commissioned
member of the reserve force is called
out on service in respect of an emergency, the
officerâ€™s or memberâ€™s employer shall reinstate
the officer or member in employment at the
expiry of that service.

(2) The officer or member must be reinstated
in a capacity and under terms and
conditions of employment no less favourable
to the officer or member than those that would
have applied if the officer or member had
remained in the employerâ€™s employment.

(3) An officer or member who wishes to be
reinstated must apply to the employer for
reinstatement within ninety days after the
expiry of the officerâ€™s or memberâ€™s actual
service or service deemed extended by virtue
of section 285.03.

(4) The employerâ€™s duty to reinstate an
officer or member does not apply in the
circumstances prescribed in regulations made
by the Governor in Council.

(5) The procedure for applying for reinstatement
is that prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

285.03 If, immediately following the officerâ€™s
or memberâ€™s service, the officer or
member is hospitalized or is physically or
mentally incapable of performing the duties of
the position to which the officer or member
would have been entitled on reinstatement,the period of hospitalization or incapacity, to
a maximum prescribed in regulations made by
the Governor in Council, is deemed for the
purposes of this Part to be part of the period of
the officerâ€™s or memberâ€™s service.

285.04 On reinstatement, an officerâ€™s or
memberâ€™s benefits, and the employerâ€™s obligations, in respect of remuneration, pension,
promotion, permanent status, seniority, paid
vacation and other employment benefits shall
be in accordance with regulations made by the
Governor in Council.

285.05 Any agreement or arrangement
between an employer and an officer or
member respecting reinstatement continues in
force, except to the extent that it is less
advantageous to the officer or member than is
this Part.

285.06 During the one-year period following
an officerâ€™s or memberâ€™s reinstatement,
(a) the employer shall not terminate the
officerâ€™s or memberâ€™s employment without
reasonable cause; and
(b) if the employer terminates the officerâ€™s
or memberâ€™s employment, the onus, in any
prosecution under section 285.08, is on the
employer to establish that the employer had
reasonable cause.

Check page 75 in the PDF for the first page of the section, if continues on from there.


----------



## RoyalHighlander

By DAN PALMER, EDMONTON SUN

CAMP COURCELETTE, Bosnia-Herzegovina -- Some of Canada‘s reserve soldiers want civilian job protection when volunteering for overseas tours as the military uses more of them to relieve the strain on regular troops. 

"Personally it would be a bonus. I know a lot of guys who would come over here if they had job protection," said Sgt. John Hertwig-Jaksch, 24, a reservist from the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, one of the roughly 120 reservists making up Delta Company of the 1 Princess Patricia‘s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group. 

Hertwig-Jaksch graduated from the police and security course at Grant MacEwan College before coming here and wants to be an Edmonton police officer. Delta Company represents the first time in nearly 10 years reservists have deployed as a complete rifle company in an operational theatre. 

"This is the start of a trend," said military spokesman Maj. Tim Lourie, adding the next few rotations in Bosnia will have a similar reserve element. 

Col. Peter Atkinson, in charge of the Canadian task force in Bosnia, said the regular force of full-time soldiers needs the part-time reservists to help the military keep up with its commitments abroad. "We can‘t maintain the operation pace on our own," said Atkinson. 

U.S. National Guard and reserve soldiers have job protection to keep their positions available at civilian companies when they return from an operation, say officials. 

Cpl. Dan Demers, 20, said there‘s an advantage to relying more on reserves for older missions in places like Bosnia. 

"Not only is it less pressure, it decreases the workload for the regular forces in cases where there‘s an emergency," said Demers, also of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, who was engaged in emergency medical training at NAIT before coming here. 

John Fraser, referring to a defence minister‘s committee that‘s now looking at reserve soldiers, said it‘s better to investigate tax incentives for employers rather than legislation for job protection. 

Fraser‘s concern is some businesses might not hire reservists knowing jobs would have to be held while the part-time soldiers are on tours. 

"Some might not hire reservists if they had to do this," said Fraser, speaking at Camp Black Bear in Bosnia. 

"We‘ve been impressed with this contingent," said Fraser. 

Hertwig-Jaksch said that if employers wouldn‘t hire reservists that would be discrimination, which he can‘t see Canada putting up with. 

However, the Canadian military already has the Canadian Forces Liaison Council to help reservists and their employers. It encourages businesses to hire reservists by pointing out that the part-time soldiers have more to offer because of their military background, say officials.


----------



## RoyalHighlander

Just a point of interest, in the US, most companies have a plan in place for those that are reservists, and thewy keep thier job. Some even continue to pay wages to those who get called up. Those employers that dont, risk  any govt contracts they may have..


----------



## Jarnhamar

Down side i can see with that is an employer simply not giving a reservest a job or passing them up for someone else not in the military because they dont want to have to hold the job position for someone who leaves for a year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Maybe if they ever get this to fly in Parliment, they can include a clause making it illegal for employers to ask if you serve in the Reserve. Similar to it being illegal to ask about race, religion, etc on applications. Just a thought. Can‘t see the current regime doing it though. Don‘t want to upset their corporate sponsors. The other problem is that labour codes and hiring practices are a Provincial and Territorial responsibility, if I‘m not mistaken.


----------



## Pikache

Hmmm... Doesn‘t the employer have a ‘need to know‘ of where else you are employed?

If he asks you to work on a certain day/night and you are doing stuff w/ army, what are you suppose to say, a lie?


----------



## Marauder

> Down side i can see with that is an employer simply not giving a reservest a job or passing them up for someone else not in the military because they dont want to have to hold the job position for someone who leaves for a year.


As opposed to any Joe Bloggins off of civvie street who can take 6+ months off for paternity leave after banging the wife and cranking out a rugrat? IIRC, the Liberals are looking to extend maternity/paternity leave up to year if they get their way. 

Different reasons for an absence, but the end result is the same; a job slot goes unused, and the person who temporarily vacated it is still getting paid. If anyone proposed to stop hiring women of an age where they could become pregnant, that business would be *out* of business by the end of the week. But, since the troop wants fulfill himself by soldiering instead of changing nappies, no dice. And that is bullsh!t.

I await the flames from those "more enlightened" than I.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Good point about the maternity leave thing i didnt even consider that.
It sure is bull**** but it doesnt stop the fact that a lot of people are ignorant about the military.

The average employer would probably see some kid whos only work experience is mcdonalds and the militia and think about everything going on in the world and figure ‘hey its not worth it‘ and just pick someone else.

I think 1 or 3 (maybe both) RCR tried doing something with paternity leave for the guys. They had a considerable number of male soldiers take time off for the leave. I think thats one of the reasons reserves were taken into the battalions for back fill.


----------



## RoyalHighlander

Just an interesting anecdote, about being in the military. When I arrived in Calgary years ago, I was looking for work. Well what i had done for many years was drive transport. Well this one job came up and I appplied for it. It came down to 4 people in the end. And in the end I  got that job. one time I asked him, why me, as 2 others semmed to have the back round also to fill the postition. Well he told me that he had been a Major in the CF, and my qualifications were just as good as the other 2. his deciding factorwas that I was EX military, and that we had to look out for our own.
Allmost like being a Free Mason huh??? LMAO


----------



## muskrat89

In the US, employers have more than a "plan" to keep reservists - it‘s the law. Law aside, I have never seen an employer in the US turn away, or resent and employee because they were in the Nat Guard or Reserves. I think they actually feel like they are doing something patriotic. In Canada, I never (apparently) got treated different for being a Reservist, but definitely it would be nice if some education for employers went along with any legislation....


----------



## Jarnhamar

I still doubt this will fly. Theres no real requirement for it. In the united states units/soldiers from the reseres are called to active duty. They have to report and have to leave their job. They have no choice so it makes a good balance. They have to go so their jobs have to be safe for them to return to.
In canada units will never  be called to active duty and soldiers agument the regular force through choice. Since they are not being make to go over seas why should their job be held for them.


----------



## ender

First off, we do have some job protection.  If we are called up in case of a war of disaster, we now have job protection.  It‘s recent legislation, snuck by after Sep. 11th.

I‘m not sure if job protection for reservists would be advantageous.  Some companies might not hire you if you are a reservist.  Given strong anti-military bias in Canada, job protection might be the excuse they need not to hire you.

It is impractical to tell soldiers not to tell prospective employers that they are reservists.  I am looking at spendig my fourth summer with the military this summer.  My only other job was a stint at the the grocery store which I quit so I could take a tasking.  My resume would look pretty blank if I left off my military experience.

Some major employers have made voluntary deals whereby they will grant military leave.  I think this is the way to go.  Mandatory leave for all reservists might do more harm than good.


----------



## NMPeters

It‘s not legislation yet. Bill C17 has just gone through it‘s second reading in parliament. That happened either last week or the week before. It still has to go through a third reading before a motion passing the legislation is made. If and when this does pass, this legislation will only protect the jobs of reservisits if they are called to duty through an Order in Council. It does not protect them should they wish to volunteer for an operational rotation. That is why the Canadina Forces Liaison Council (CFLC) is there promoting support for the Reserve Force. And even though the US has its legislation, they are finding that employers are engaging in prejudicial hiring practices and they have formed an organization called ESGAR (I think) - Employer Support to the Guard And Reserves (something like that). In fact, the CFLC molded themselves after this organization.

Interesting, though, considering the numbers that are being thrown around for reserve augmentation to Afghanistan is 20% for Roto 0. I can only imagine what will be required for Roto 1.


----------



## Eowyn

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Our main problem seems to be retention.   Unlike in the USNG, Canadian reservists can clear out any time they want.   If I remember right, reserve units lose on average 14% of their personnel every year.   That means a regiment of 300 would have to recruit 42 new soldiers every year just to break even.



On part to retention, especially for the Support trades, is the length of the courses.  Unless you are a student with the summer off, it very hard for the troops to get trained.


----------



## mdh

I"ll second Eowyn on that point. Without real job protection it's difficult to expect reservists to take several weeks off at a time and maintain a professional career.   However the militia is trying to address that problem by offering training in two week blocks - the only down side is that it takes forever to get qualified for your MOC, since CAP-R, for example, requires three, two week blocks.   I think the Army National Guard does it differently by staying with a two week training system in the summer - along with the one or two weekends per month. Perhaps Major Baker has some insight on how the Guard trains - I would be interested in getting more details on how we compare in accommodating working folk, cheers, mdh


----------



## dutchie

My understanding in the US is that employers are required to provide time off for troops going on course, ex, or Ops and hold their job for when they return- this doesn't happen here. I have lost a number of civvie jobs due to my Army job.


----------



## zerhash

that would be a good idea which would help the recruiting and support of our military. it increase attendence in reserve units also

i personaly need this to help me with keeping my jobs. hard to take a tour or go on course without worrying if youll have your job at the end of it


----------



## NavyGrunt

In Canada most provincial governments do have agreements- Alberta provincial government workers are granted 6 mos a year if needed(no Q's) and more as required. I just call the Chief and tell him Im leaving.......


----------



## NMPeters

S Baker. I had heard, however, that there are a lot of employers in the U.S. who won't hire people who are members of the NG or Reserves because they don't want to take the risk of having to lose them for training or duty which is why you also have an organization called ESGR (Employer Support for the Guards and Reserves). Is that biase really that prevalent among employers there?

Also, to answer your original question, funding does have a lot to do with it as well. There is only so much money in the Army well, so units are only funded up to a certain percentage of their authorized strength. I don't know what that percentage is, off the top of my head. Hopefully this will change soon if the Government makes good on its promise to fund an additional 3000. That, however, does not address the recruiting, training and retention issues previously mentioned. It's really difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for the simple fact that we do not have any historical imperical data to compare things too.


----------



## Gryphon

You didn't put it on your CV?

But I wholly agree that Canada needs some sort of Job Protection for us reservists...

any one know what we could do?


----------



## NMPeters

I can fully understand the small businesses having a hard time with it.


----------



## Ty

NMPeters said:
			
		

> I can fully understand the small businesses having a hard time with it.



Does anyone know if the law in the US requires an employer to maintain a salary (or portion thereoff) for a person on National Guard duty?  
I'm unsure how a small business would have difficulties with allowing military duty and maintaining employment.  Perhaps we're talking about the hardships imposed by "filling the gap" or re-training?  If so, does the US subsidize any initiatives to support employers in theses tasks?


----------



## pbi

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Am an an active duty officer so I can say for 100% certainty that ALL employers follow the rules 100% of the time. However I think it only makes sense to do just that, no company wants to be labled as a firm that does not hire or support reservists.



SBaker: My impression from talking to these individuals over in Afgh, as well as indivs from 34 ID and the Wash ARNG in CONUS is not that employers do not follow the rules 100%: they do, as far as those rules go.  But the rules , as I understand them, only cover punitive actions directly attributable to ARNG or Res service conflicts. They do not, as far as I know, talk about punitive action that is taken ostensibly for other reasons (and thus escapes the legislation). I am certainly not suggesting that all or even most employers are guilty, but the comments I have heard seem to come from a cross section of ARNG and Res pers.



> As for asking deployed National Guard and Reservists about their pay and job security while deployed, I am sure that the answers are quite entertaining  I for one do not feel bad for them at all...that is their duty to go where they are required to go, whether they agree with it or not. I have gone several times, too bad, don't sign-up, the days of "Southern Comfort" National Guard service are long gone.



IIRC this issue also surfaced during the first Iraq war, at which time numbers of ARNG and Res pers were upset and even surprised at the idea of having to go overseas on combat operations. At the time I believe this was attributed to less-than-frank recruiting methods which enticed people to join the ARNG or Res on a "job" basis, emphasizing benefits over service. ( A technique not unknown in Canada). Cheers.


----------



## Simpleton

gryphon664 said:
			
		

> You didn't put it on your CV?
> 
> But I wholly agree that Canada needs some sort of Job Protection for us reservists...
> 
> any one know what we could do?



I think the 'argument' that employers, especially small ones, would resist legislation is a red herring. I have heard many times that you wouldn't get a job if the reserves had job protection and the only thing you could do was eliminate that reference from your resume. 

That is all bunk.

A few years back (quite a few now) the government introduced a program known as maternity leave. The howls and cries were the same as what we hear about this. For example, "This will directly impact on a young woman getting a career opportunity", or "Training will be held back from women in case they get pregnant and leave" even "Women will never hold a senior position because if they have children they won't have spent enough time in the company" and the solution "You cannot ask for gender, age or marital status on a job application".

Guess what? The sky didn't fall. Women are rising through the ranks of business - most are never denied a job because they may take time off to have a child (I say most because I am not positive about the ratio). If any woman feels that she didn't get the job there is legal protection for her.

My question is, "How is legislated job protection for Reserves any different in principle"?


----------



## pbi

Simpleton said:
			
		

> I think the 'argument' that employers, especially small ones, would resist legislation is a red herring. I have heard many times that you wouldn't get a job if the reserves had job protection and the only thing you could do was eliminate that reference from your resume.
> 
> That is all bunk.
> 
> A few years back (quite a few now) the government introduced a program known as maternity leave. The howls and cries were the same as what we hear about this. For example, "This will directly impact on a young woman getting a career opportunity", or "Training will be held back from women in case they get pregnant and leave" even "Women will never hold a senior position because if they have children they won't have spent enough time in the company" and the solution "You cannot ask for gender, age or marital status on a job application".
> 
> Guess what? The sky didn't fall. Women are rising through the ranks of business - most are never denied a job because they may take time off to have a child (I say most because I am not positive about the ratio). If any woman feels that she didn't get the job there is legal protection for her.
> 
> My question is, "How is legislated job protection for Reserves any different in principle"?



The difference, IMHO, is the political constituency for the issue. All women (potentially) can be mothers at some time in their lives: people see reproduction as a biological imperative. The rights of women, and the careers of professional women, are also issues that have powerful support bases. Protection of the family appeals to both right and left ends of the spectrum, for different reasons. It wasn't too difficult to drum up support for this measure. As well, it relieves employers of messy liabiilties arising from fetal deformities, miscarriages, etc.that could be attributed to the workplace.

Service in the Reserve, at least in Canada, IMHO lacks the broad political support that measures such as maternity/paternity leave enjoy. Service is voluntary, is engaged in by a tiny minority of Canadians, and is probably not well understood by political "movers and shakers" who get bills passed. Many people in the RegF still do not even understand the issues facing the Res, let alone the general public.

If we want this legislation, we will have to convince Canadians (especially small employers) that it is in their interests to give Res soldiers time off their jobs without repercussions. I do not think this is impossible, and given the increased profile of, and support for, defence issues in Canada in the last  few years, the Govt might do it. What is lacking is the political will.

Finally, as I have mentioned, Res soldiers should be careful of what they ask for. If job protection were granted, the military would almost certainly demand a _quid pro quo _ from the citizen soldier: "_we call, you come_". Are all Res prepared to accept that? If so, great. If not, better think it over first. Cheers.


----------



## Rick Goebel

PBI wrote:

"If we want this legislation, we will have to convince Canadians (especially small employers) that it is in their interests to give Res soldiers time off their jobs without repercussions."

I am both a former reserve infantry officer with over 31 years of service AND a small employer.   I am, in fact, the former commanding officer and the current civilian employer of Eowyn (who has contributed to this thread).   I took her on as a civilian employee when I was her army reserve CO.   I am very aware of the value her reserve service has added to her overall value as an employee.   I am also very aware of the value the military reserves have to our society as a whole.

This said, however, when she is gone I have to do both my job and hers.   If she were gone for World War III (or even Gulf War I), I would surely hire someone else (albeit less competent) for the duration. If she were gone for two weeks training a year every year for many years (as I was), I would just suck it up and do the two jobs.   If she were gone for nine months (including pre-deployment training) for compulsory service on ROTO 39 somewhere, I'd be pissed.   Had I known of this possibility at the time I hired her, I simply wouldn't have.   Similarly, when I hired her I expected training absences of not more than two weeks at a time.   I might have hired her if it were likely to be three weeks or possibly even four.   I would not have hired her if the likely training periods had been more than that.   All businesses, even the smallest, are geared to handle the absence of employees for around two weeks at a time.   More than that creates a real strain on a small business.   Small businesses are the growing sector of our economy.   Army staff MUST realise that courses for reservists cannot routinely run for months at a stretch.   Similarly, the politicians must realise that public support for any military operation will decline as time goes on if the threat is not seen to be very significant.   This is true whether legislation exists or not.


----------



## Rick Goebel

S_Baker wrote "I guess the people who didn't think they would be deployed overseas haven't read history books"

Actually, if they were Canadian and read the history books they'd know they were safe.  Even in WW I and WW II, when Canada conscripted civilians, reservists weren't forced to serve overseas in combat.  The vast majority volunteered to do so, but they weren't compelled.

pbi wrote "Res soldiers should be careful of what they ask for. If job protection were granted, the military would almost certainly demand a quid pro quo from the citizen soldier: "we call, you come"."

When I joined the militia, I thought (incorrectly) that I could be compelled to go.  I suspect that this is the case with many who join.

I don't think it would be entirely fair to change the rules for those already in, but I also don't think it would hurt recruiting any to add the compulsion to serve in a national emergency now


----------



## 48Highlander

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> When I joined the militia, I thought (incorrectly) that I could be compelled to go.  I suspect that this is the case with many who join.



You CAN be compelled to go.  You're right in that your chain of command can't order you to go overseas, however, if a serious enough situation ever arose, parliament could vote to mobalize all reserve personnel for deployment.  It's unlikely, but it's still a situation in which you'd be "compelled to go".


----------



## LowRider

I really don't think that legislated job protection is the answer.This would just encourage more employers not to hire reservists.It's hard enough to get a job with that on your resume now!
I think a better approach would be for the federal government to offer incentives to companies who hire reservists,such as tax incentives and prefence towards obtaining government contracts.


----------



## Meridian

I semi-inquired regarding this with my employer, a so-called "leading IT provider".

While they apparently have no "formal corporate policy" they do have many reservists in their "ranks" and it is corporate policy to consider all special circumstances. They stated they would look at using LWOP if projects and workload permitted.

Whatever that means.


----------



## bossi

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> ... I don't think it would be entirely fair to change the rules for those already in, but I also don't think it would hurt recruiting any to add the compulsion to serve in a national emergency now



(chuckle) There's no need to "change the rules" (i.e. ya might want to re-read the fine print on the enrolment document ... it used to go something like this):
"... I hereby engage to serve for an indefinite period of time, including the length of an emergency and for one year thereafter if my services are so long required."


----------



## Simpleton

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> ... If she were gone for nine months (including pre-deployment training) for compulsory service on ROTO 39 somewhere, I'd be pissed.  Had I known of this possibility at the time I hired her, I simply wouldn't have.



Rick,

What if she decided to start a family of five children - say a newborn every two or three years. Each time she had a child she would be gone for a year. Had you known that she was inclined to have a large family would you simply not have hired her? Wouldn't that action be illiegal?

My apologies, but I think your attitude is one of limited thought. As a reservist deploys for longer and longer period of times this could be seen as an opportunity to expand your workforce. Many people, with qualifications, are seeking piecemeal work and they would be able to cover your reservist each time they depart. Then, if you require a surge capability, you could bring them back as required.

There are many ways to accomodate, but focussing on the 'narrow' view that if they are to be away so don't hire them is an antiquated view of the modern global environment. Businesses that are willing to change to the evolving modern workplace appear to be the businesses that will succeed in the long run.


----------



## Meridian

Simpleton, good points - ones that I may use for my own employer, if it is ever needed. As a consulting company, they tend to be a bit more narrow minded and focussed on current projects... but Summer is usually a slow time for us, given our major client is the government.


----------



## Arctic Acorn

I was recently present for a briefing on the Army Transformation and the LFRR by a Major at LFAAHQ. Part of the transformation is a pretty radical shift of the role of the Reserve Army soldier. 

In a nutshell, we were told that the Army has to be able to deploy up to two battlegroups anywhere in the world continuously for up to six months, and that we have to be able to begin doing that by 2006. That translates to 6 battlegroups at three different readiness phases. (2 at no-notice to go/2 training to replace the high-rediness guys/2 just returned, and on rest and recuperation). The reserves, I was told, will have a major part to play in this. 

The plan is to have Area-based reserve-only company groups based within each area (excepting CFNA). No RSS staff or anything...all reservists from the CO to rifleman bloggins. They will do the same training as their regular-force counterparts (all at the CMTC in Wainwright), and will be an integral part of these battlegroups through these three readiness phases. 

When the Major told us this, he immediatlely got swamped with questions relating to mandated job protection legislation and liability issues. He didn't really have an answer for us. Essentially, trial and error is going to dominate this project for quite some time. 

 :dontpanic:
T.A.


----------



## Northern Touch

Temperate Acorn said:
			
		

> I was recently present for a briefing on the Army Transformation and the LFRR by a Major at LFAAHQ. Part of the transformation is a pretty radical shift of the role of the Reserve Army soldier.
> 
> In a nutshell, we were told that the Army has to be able to deploy up to two battlegroups anywhere in the world continuously for up to six months, and that we have to be able to begin doing that by 2006. That translates to 6 battlegroups at three different readiness phases. (2 at no-notice to go/2 training to replace the high-rediness guys/2 just returned, and on rest and recuperation). The reserves, I was told, will have a major part to play in this.
> 
> The plan is to have Area-based reserve-only company groups based within each area (excepting CFNA). No RSS staff or anything...all reservists from the CO to rifleman bloggins. They will do the same training as their regular-force counterparts (all at the CMTC in Wainwright), and will be an integral part of these battlegroups through these three readiness phases.
> 
> When the Major told us this, he immediatlely got swamped with questions relating to mandated job protection legislation and liability issues. He didn't really have an answer for us. Essentially, trial and error is going to dominate this project for quite some time.
> 
> :dontpanic:
> T.A.



Great, trial and error, just the solution to solve things.  Although it will probably provide a greater opporitunity to for reservists to get overseas tours, without any growth in the military, will there actually be enough Regs AND reservists (who can get time off work) to actually keep those 6 battle groups at there phases of readiness?

Without any job protection, many experienced and senior reservists won't even bother going overseas, especially when they are most likely earning a lot more money with their current job.  I think job protection in some form is critical and doable for the reserves.  How can we ask people to serve their country but not give a little back to them and protect their job when they are overseas serving their country.

The thing is the US and Canada have different views on our militaries.  It is obvious that the American public supports their military (maybe not the war in Iraq, but they have supported their military very well over the years) especially with the needed funding and such, so it is much easier for their employers to accept a legislation which does protect NG volunteers jobs.  Well here in Canada, IMHO most employers would take a "well who gives crap if your in the reserves" attitude.  Not all, I'm sure some do see it as favourable, I'm just talking about on the aggregate.  

I don't think we can ever expect a huge turn around from our government, expecially considering how many of our Prime Ministers actually have military experience.  Bill Clinton was the first US president NOT to have any military experience, while we haven't had a leader with military experience SINCE 1963!  (John Defenbaker, http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blpms.htm) and even then, he was only a Leautenant from 1916-1917 (http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/p/pmdiefenbaker.htm)

It'll take a leader that has first hand  experience to get some real changes in place.


----------



## BDTyre

My employer -thanks to me!- has a military reserve policy.  When my asst. mgr. found out I was joining, he contacted our head office and two weeks later a military reserve leave policy shows up.

The long and the short of it is that if I go away for up to a year, they are required to return me to my previous position or one most like it and ensure I am, at a future point, returned to my previous position.

Reserverists are also allowed to take three months off for training with no threat to their job security.


----------



## Meridian

My employer just scares me a little - as a consulting agency, apparently they tend to take the road that "sure, you can go away, but when you come back, if we have no projects for you, we will keep you around for a few weeks, but if there are no projects, sorry!"

I guess I'll cross that road when I come to it.

Plus, do I really want to work for an employer who would screw me for serving my country?


----------



## bossi

Meridian said:
			
		

> ... Plus, do I really want to work for an employer who would screw me for serving my country?



Good point, especially since I lost my job when I got back from Afghanistan ...
(and the best part is - my employer ... was the Army)


----------



## Meridian

A bit of a catch 22 there....


----------



## vangemeren

> Good point, especially since I lost my job when I got back from Afghanistan ...
> (and the best part is - my employer ... was the Army)



I don't quite get it?  ???


----------



## Rick Goebel

Simpleton wrote:

"Businesses that are willing to change to the evolving modern workplace appear to be the businesses that will succeed in the long run."

I assume that your small business is doing well with this philosophy and I congratulate you.   As you tell other small business owners of your success, I am sure that more and more will adopt this philosophy and prosper accordingly.   Soon, with proven records of success, such businesses will leave dinosaurs like me far behind.   However:

Your point that a woman could take every other year off for maternity leave and that there is nothing I could do to prevent it is well taken.   I must say, though, that one instance of government interference in business is not adequate justification for yet more interference.

Further, the government (as far as I know) does not itself make women pregnant.   Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.   Army staff officers decide on individual training policies like duration of courses.   DND staff and the Treasury Board control regular force manning levels and Cabinet decides on international commitments.   Allowing government to force employers to make up for inadequate regular force manning to meet perfectly predictable operational tempo is just not reasonable.   It is letting the government   take the easy way out rather than forcing it to match regular force resources to actual continuing defence needs.

Reserve forces should exist to provide a "surge" capability for the military when unusual events occur.   The world wars were certainly examples of such unusual events.   The need to create a brigade for NATO duty in Europe in the 50s was such an event.   Even the start of the current heavy operational tempo back in the early 90s was such an event.   The government was caught in the midst of trying to cash in a "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war by reducing our 10 infantry battalions (including the Airborne) to 7 (and then 6)  at the same time as we reached a peak of having four deployed major units (two in former Yugoslavia, one in Cyprus and one in Somalia and, yes, I know that the one in Cyprus was sometimes not infantry).   It was reasonable to heavily use reservists to get over this hump which could not reasonably have been foreseen.   More than a decade later, it is not reasonable that the regular force has still not been restructured (meaning increased rather than decreased) to meet current, continuing requirements.

I do believe that it is good to have at least some reservists on most deployments in order to provide operational experience for them.   It should not, however, be an operational necessity.


----------



## bgreen

Bossi...,

Very sorry to hear about your loss of your callout.  When I returned from Bosnia the private school where I worked refused to honour their commitment to me and laid me off claiming there was a decrease in enrollment which wasn't true.  Fortunately the school board offered me a position in another school.  Now I am low man on the totem pole as the new guy but it is a great new school.

I have listened to some really competent people speak about the dangers of job protection legislation for reserves.  How reserves won't be hired, how they will be denied promotions, how they will be viewed as liabilities to big and small companies.  This thread was covered in the LFRR loop back a year ago and there were some novel ideas put forward like tax credits and advertising promotions given to employers who supported their country and allowed reservists to accept tours.  

If you haven't experienced losing employment as a result of service to your country you probably can't imagine the importance of this argument.  Trail and error simply won't do.  Even our CF doesn't get it as our Battle Captain was asked to go on a second tour to Bosnia but his full-time employer the CF refused to let him go and then only agreed by telling him if he went he would lose his Callout.  Go Figure.  I think we have lots of work ahead of us in this area.

BG

PS Hang in there because something better will be there.


----------



## Simpleton

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> Further, the government (as far as I know) does not itself make women pregnant.  Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.  Army staff officers decide on individual training policies like duration of courses.  DND staff and the Treasury Board control regular force manning levels and Cabinet decides on international commitments.  Allowing government to force employers to make up for inadequate regular force manning to meet perfectly predictable operational tempo is just not reasonable.  It is letting the government  take the easy way out rather than forcing it to match regular force resources to actual continuing defence needs.



Rick,

Very good points. Thank you. I stand corrected.


----------



## pbi

bgreen wrote: 



> This thread was covered in the LFRR loop back a year ago and there were some novel ideas put forward like tax credits and advertising promotions given to employers who supported their country and allowed reservists to accept tours



IMHO, this is by far the preferable way to go: make a Reserve employee an asset, not a liability. In other words, if the employer cooperates he benefitsNow, we already know about the s\intangible skills and attributes that Res (or RegF) people acquire in their service are assets to employers (far more so IMHO than most technical skills acquired in the military which have a shelf-life). What we could do is go a step beyond this and take measures such as tax incentives, wage top-ups, preference in bidding on Govt contracts, etc. that would make having a Res employee more attractive.

Too expensive? Not really, if you consider the return to the country in a more effective Res capability. As well, let's be realistic and remember that the number of Canadian citizens willing to volunteer their time to be soldiers will always be proportionately small. I remain skeptical and wary of a purely "stick" approach to employers in a country with our political culture. 

Rick Goebel: you wrote:


> Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.





> Reserve forces should exist to provide a "surge" capability for the military when unusual events occur.



But, I would argue, the political situations that lead to the requirement to activate Reservists are not always fully predictable. It may also not be an option for the Govt to avoid using Res, if it finds itself faced with a situation that it cannot manage within its existing force structure for whatever reason. A good (domestic) example of this is the increasing (and, I say, appropriate...) use of Res for response to overwhelming civil emergency: these calls cannot normally be predicted. While an employer in the affected city will probably let the Res go for duty, what about employers   of Res in distant cities, as happened during OP PEREGRINE, or OP ASSISTANCE? Thus far we have relied on the good will of employers, but I suggest that is a time-limited thing: before too long they may start wanting their employees back.

These situations that require unexpected surges in manning can affect all nations, regardless of the size of their Regular armed forces: look at the desperate manning situation the World's Most Powerful Nation is currently in. Simply expanding the RegF does not guarantee we will not need Res at unforeseen times. So, what will constitute an "important" surge requirement for Res full-time servicevice a "frivolous" one ? This, IMHO, would come down to defining what the national interest is in each case(which we should probably be doing anyway, but...)



> The world wars were certainly examples of such unusual events.



Yes, but we can advance the argument that neither of these wars (particularly not WWII) were actual "surprises". In the case of WWII, there were clear warning signs of some sort of impending conflict for several years before the outbreak, which is why all the players (including Canada, to a lesser degree) began rearming in the mid-late 1930s. Since these wars could have been (and to a certain extent were..) foreseen, does, it delegitimize the use of the NPAM   in them (as part of the CEF/CASF, I mean....)?

Cheers.


----------



## Rick Goebel

pbi, I absolutely agree that domestic emergencies like the forest fires in BC last year, the Halifax hurricane and the great Ontario/Quebec ice storm are valid uses for reservists.

I would have to ask, though, how many civilian lives were lost or injuries incurred and how much property was destroyed or damaged because we relied on volunteers under our current system rather than compelling service with job protection?

Yes, employer support is greater in the immediate vicinity of a problem.   Indeed employer support is time-limited.   I mentioned before that our regular force should be restructured and increased.   So should our reserve force.   A emergency service volunteer rate of 5% of 30,000 militiamen provides far more people than the same rate in a militia of 15,000.   Obviously, doubling the number nationally would proportionately increase the numbers near the fire, ice storm, hurricane or whatever and increase the local support factor.

Doubling the size of the army reserve would be a burden on the taxpayer.   Why, though, should the employer of an individual reservist carry an additional burden when the government chooses not to impose that burden on all taxpayers?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

And let's not forget those civie workers doing the same stuff, during emergencies. 

Triple time ($150-200 / hr), 5 star hotels, restaraunt meals, 8 hr days, etc, all billed to the gov't.

or

Reservists at $85.00/ day, sleeping on gym floors, eating IMP's and 16 hr days.

Thanks for coming out.


----------



## pbi

recceguy said:
			
		

> And let's not forget those civie workers doing the same stuff, during emergencies.
> 
> Triple time ($150-200 / hr), 5 star hotels, restaraunt meals, 8 hr days, etc, all billed to the gov't.
> 
> or
> 
> Reservists at $85.00/ day, sleeping on gym floors, eating IMP's and 16 hr days.
> 
> Thanks for coming out.



This can work both ways. Most of our domestic emergencies, especially in the smaller communities, see hundreds of local volunteer firefighters out working hard to save their towns, villages and farms. In many cases these volunteer firefighters must leave their civ jobs and are paid little (or nothing) by the municipality as compared to the soldiers who work beside them who are getting pay, plus allowances, plus R&Q and travel costs. The VFFs work out of their homes, not out of "five star hotels". It's all relative.

If you expect to see Army Res Ptes paid the same as unionized hydroelectric workers or police constables, forget it: that isn't likely to happen anytime soon and its probably an unrealistic goal. If Res are going on domestic ops just to get the cash (which I do not generally believe, having been involved  in launching Res on domestic ops...) then IMHO perhaps they are motivated the wrong way. Cheers.


----------



## mdh

Did anyone else see the MND suggest he was going to take a closer look at job protection legislation for reservists? I believe it was on CTV News last night.  It seemed to be a passing reference more than a policy pronouncement but it might be a significant development.

cheers, mdh


----------



## GAP

I believe this is provincial area of responsibility, so while he could encourage it, he could not mandate it. (duh...I think)

It would be great if something could be worked out. The US has something similar, but again, I think it goes state by state


----------



## Haggis

GAP said:
			
		

> I believe this is provincial area of responsibility, so while he could encourage it, he could not mandate it. (duh...I think)
> 
> It would be great if something could be worked out. The US has something similar, but again, I think it goes state by state



There are a bunch of threads discussing this topic already.  One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.  Even with all the benefits available to the employers, they know that they will have to release said Reservist (and protect his/her job) time and time again for tours.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Haggis said:
			
		

> There are a bunch of threads discussing this topic already.  One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.  Even with all the benefits available to the employers, they know that they will have to release said Reservist (and protect his/her job) time and time again for tours.



Whilst unfortunately this is true in some cases, for the majority, it is not.

I'm a firm believer that job protection legislation and service contracts for reservists should be introduced hand-in-hand in order to make the CF's reserve system more effective and a true force multiplier.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

would be nice if it happened, but not too likely, no government ever seriously looks at it. too bad for the troops


----------



## muskrat89

> One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.



I concur with Matt Fisher. I have worked in the US for 15 years, and have never seen this - either at my own companies, or at the companies of friends and aquaintances. I have never even heard 2nd- or 3rd hand accounts of it (friend of a friend of my sister's boyfriend). Haggis, I have to dipute "many", at least based on my own experience. Maybe the phenomenon is localized, or worse in certain segments of industry?


----------



## GAP

What could logically be expected of employers of today in the way of keeping jobs open for guys on training or tours?


----------



## Hot Lips

Doesn't Alberta have that type of legislation in place at present?
I thought I recalled hearing that in the news a while back?
Certainly would be nice for reservists to have one less hurtle...

HL


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Doesn't Alberta have that type of legislation in place at present?



No. The Alberta Government may have a policy for government jobs, but civvie employers are not compelled to grant military leave.


----------



## JasonH

This would be incredible news if it turned out that it would come around.  In BC anyways.

Haveing just gotten married and moving into a town house I'm rather stuck at my job makeing 14 an hour in a warehouse and I'd like to try my hand at the reserves once I'm done school in the fall.  Keep the updates coming please, much appreciated


----------



## Chummy

GAP said:
			
		

> I believe this is provincial area of responsibility, so while he could encourage it, he could not mandate it. (duh...I think)



While I think employment law can be a provincial area (probably it falls under s.92(13) of the Constitution - property and civil rights), it also could be federal under the regulation of commerce (s.91 (2)), or maybe the catch all Peace Order and Good Government of s. 91 generally. The feds have an Employment Equity Act, but the provinces also have, eg. BC Employment Standards Act. Even if I'm wrong about the dual way to characterize this area (employment law), the Federal government could encroach a bit on a provincial power in this area because the encroachment is small, and is incidental to National Defence. Defence is, of course, an exclusively federal area (s. 91(7)).


----------



## Jarnhamar

In the US, reservists get put on active duty or called up or whatever.  In Canada when a reservist applies for a tour it's completely voluntary.  Isn't that a different circus?


----------



## Spring_bok

Absolutely,.  There is a big difference between active service and volunteering for the experience.  In the US when one is put into active service it is the governments decision and therefore job protection applies.  In Canada a reservist alone makes the decision to deploy therefore why should the employer keep the job open?  Especially in small business it is not practical or economical for the employer or the business.  If one works for an employer that can accommodate this than great, however make it law and you are flirting with discrimination.  My 2 cents.


----------



## Spanky

If job legislation is enacted, then, possibly, reservists will no longer be in a position to only volunteer.  They may be told to go.  Not done since WWII I realize, but things could change.  In terms of small companies, I realize the difficulty, as well as the reservist who runs his/her own business.  What do the smaller companies do when someone goes on a maternity leave?  Could not the same principle apply?


----------



## Hot Lips

Spanky said:
			
		

> If job legislation is enacted, then, possibly, reservists will no longer be in a position to only volunteer.  They may be told to go.  Not done since WWII I realize, but things could change.  In terms of small companies, I realize the difficulty, as well as the reservist who runs his/her own business.  *What do the smaller companies do when someone goes on a maternity leave?  Could not the same principle apply?*


  Great point...ought to be workable...in a similar fashion...yes?

HL


----------



## darmil

Watch and shoot.


----------



## Spring_bok

Spanky said:
			
		

> If job legislation is enacted, then, possibly, reservists will no longer be in a position to only volunteer.  They may be told to go.



This sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse.  It is possible however complete reserve units(not to be confused with composite units made up of just reserves)  would have to be deployed.


----------



## Gunner

Spanky said:
			
		

> If job legislation is enacted, then, possibly, reservists will no longer be in a position to only volunteer.  They may be told to go.  Not done since WWII I realize, but things could change.



The government can do this now through an order in council, even without the proposed job protection legislation (hence it is currently possible).  In reality,for the forseeable future it won't happen unless there is a significant global event requiring mass mobilization of western countries (hence it is not currently probable).


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Spanky said:
			
		

> If job legislation is enacted, then, possibly, reservists will no longer be in a position to only volunteer.  They may be told to go.  Not done since WWII I realize,



Canadian reservists were never ordered to serve actively in the Second World War or any other time I am aware of.


----------



## Old Sweat

Michael,

I second your comment, especially as it pertains to service outside the country.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> Canadian reservists were never ordered to serve actively in the Second World War or any other time I am aware of



But do you know anything about history? 

I think ordering Canadian reserves to duty is a good idea.  I'd like to see both individuals and whole regiments called up. Or perhaps even platoon or company size.
"Your regiment/brigade WILL provide X amount of soldiers for this tasking/tour"

Lets face it. Reservists get a hell of a lot of money thrown at them in the form of taskings, courses, live fire shoots etc.. Lots of money is put into training us.  Some part time soldiers turn around and contribute some sit back and rake in the cash while never leaving their comfort zone.

In a perfect world a Canadian reserve regiment should be able to be called up to active duty. Obviously anyone who is in or has worked with the reserves knows this is a VERY long time away.  We should still be able to order reservists to fill qualified positions.


Some current disadvantages.
Reservists who put their lives on hold for a year are not guaranteed (for lack of a better word) a position on tour.  While I suppose this ensures a form of quality control it also means the reserves applying for tours and long taskings are the "class B commandos" like myself who have no other career. Sometimes you may get a good troop, sometimes your going to get a burger flipper.

If reservists were forced to service and a job protection thingie was passed then employers could (and probably would) discriminate against hiring reserves.  I've actually had this done to me, during an interview the guy said he liked me but he wasn't going to hire me because he's had reservists work for him before at they upped and quit at the last second because they were "ordered" to go on such and such a tasking. I don't blame him, I've known quite a few reservists to pull this stunt.
Part time commandos, me for example, fill our a resume and can't help but list army crap as experience and job references because we don't have much else. Makes it very easy for an employer to shit can the job application.

I still think reserve regiments should be able to order it's soldiers to attend 6 month or year taskings such as gate guard duties, duty in mature theaters like Bosnia or supporting the battlegroup in Afghanistan. This way your not getting guys who have nothing better to do. I realise some guys DO have careers school and well to do jobs but in my experience they are the exception over the norm when it comes to these kind of taskings.


----------



## Spanky

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> This sounds like you are putting the cart before the horse.  It is possible however complete reserve units(not to be confused with composite units made up of just reserves)  would have to be deployed.


Not at all.  Why enact job protection legislation if you are not going to use it.  I understand the Order in Council process, but can not that process be amended?  Times are different now than 60 years ago.  Is it written in stone somewhere that the Order in Council can only be utilized in situations of total war.  I understand that an Order in Council does not require a job protection program, but having one in place may make it more politicaly palatable.


----------



## Aislinn

On the federal level there are laws in place to protect the jobs of reservists who are called up in times war war or national emergency. My husband is having a tough time right now, though, trying to get leave from his job for training. He actually works for the feds and even though they have regulations in place to help employees who are also reservists, they seem disinclined to go by them. Employers seem to be more concerned out of what happens to them if employees go away, then in what employee reservists want or need. 

Cheers


----------



## the 48th regulator

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Absolutely,.  There is a big difference between active service and volunteering for the experience.  In the US when one is put into active service it is the governments decision and therefore job protection applies.  In Canada a reservist alone makes the decision to deploy therefore why should the employer keep the job open?  Especially in small business it is not practical or economical for the employer or the business.  If one works for an employer that can accommodate this than great, however make it law and you are flirting with discrimination.  My 2 cents.



We allow Job protection for Maternity leave, which promotes the development of our population, why can we not do it for the defense of our nation?

dileas

tess


----------



## Haggis

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I concur with Matt Fisher. I have worked in the US for 15 years, and have never seen this - either at my own companies, or at the companies of friends and aquaintances. I have never even heard 2nd- or 3rd hand accounts of it (friend of a friend of my sister's boyfriend). Haggis, I have to dipute "many", at least based on my own experience. Maybe the phenomenon is localized, or worse in certain segments of industry?



"Many" is a relative term; clearly you and Matt have more exposure to US reservists than I do.  But living in a border community I have heard this anecdote several times in the recent past from serving and former USAR and USARNG members.  It could be localized and I hope it is.


----------



## Hunter

I'm curious - what are everyone's ideas on what would make a sensible piece of legislation?  If you were asked to give input to the steering committee for the (hypothetical) Reserve Employment Protection Act, what would you your ideas be?

I would like to see an act that guarantees the jobs of Reservists who volunteer for overseas duty, from the beginning of work-up training to the return to the civillian world.  I don't think it would be reasonable to guarantee time off a job security for those going on course or on exercises, I think that should be left up to the individual and the employer.  

As far as jurisdiction, I think it could be passed as federal lagislation and then it would be up to the provincial governments to opt out.

What are people's thoughts on this?


----------



## Sapper41

Ghost,

First of all I don't think Class B commandos should even exist, Class B back fills are a crutch for both the army and the member.  Hopefully in the near future we can move back and forth between reg and reserve with minimal restrictions.  Unless you have a plan, shake the class B thing and get a life you'll be better for it in the long term.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, but class B junkies need to wake up and smell their future ie no job security, no pension (is it 2007 yet?)  Maybe Alberta is different but my unit members are very well motivated to achieve civilian career success and are more interested in courses and overseas tours than long term class B contracts.  Those that want to serve full time join full time and are doing quite well.

As for ordering whole units for gate guard, wow that sounds fun!  Don't sell the abilities of reservists so short.  I am in favor of job protection for reservists for courses and deployments on a volunteer basis only.  I work for a city and it took about a month to get leave for Afghanistan.  It's hard not to rock the boat at work and it has been mentioned that I need to sort out my priorities.  So I would welcome more support but doubt that small companies would want to hire a reservist knowing they could leave whenever they felt like it.

All you junkies can fire at will.  :warstory:


----------



## TCBF

There are Canadian reservists who don't want their current employers - usually 'citizens of convenience' whose loyalty is NOT to Canada - to even know they are IN the military.

Even after WW2, there were Cdn servicemen who had their jobs 'stolen' and nothing was done about it.


----------



## Spring_bok

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I think ordering Canadian reserves to duty is a good idea.  I'd like to see both individuals and whole regiments called up. Or perhaps even platoon or company size.
> "Your regiment/brigade WILL provide X amount of soldiers for this tasking/tour"


Where do you draw the line.  Some reserve taskings at CMTC are being planned for 3 year contracts.  Do we order people to do this too?  Or do we only order people to to do the sexy jobs like going overseas?  I ask this because CMTC put out the call last year for 300 reservists for the spring serial and they only got 100.  Should they have ordered people to leave their civy jobs for 5 months. No they just pushed the tasking to the reg force instead.  Lets see what would happen if they had 300 positions overseas for the reserves.  We would have plenty of volunteers I am sure.


----------



## Haggis

Sapper41 said:
			
		

> First of all I don't think Class B commandos should even exist, Class B back fills are a crutch for both the army and the member.



Class B positions are supposed to exist strictly to support Reserve training and administration.  However, with the eliminiation of non-operational Class C positions on 31 Mar 03, Many Class C jobs that support solely Reg F or combined Reg F/Res F training and administration were arbitrarily converted to Class "B".

As a result, you now have Class B members employed at places like NDHQ who don't do a lick of work in support of the Res F.  (Shouldn't those Reservists employed in the new "operational HQs" of CEFCOM, CANSOFCOM and Canada Command be on Class C?) What's the option?  Eliminate Class B and backfill with Reg F?



			
				Sapper41 said:
			
		

> Hopefully in the near future we can move back and forth between reg and reserve with minimal restrictions.



Res F employment policy was last massively re-written in December 2004 (last re-write was in April 1993).  Don't expect any major revisions any time soon.



			
				Sapper41 said:
			
		

> Maybe Alberta is different but my unit members are very well motivated to achieve civilian career success and are more interested in courses and overseas tours than long term class B contracts.  Those that want to serve full time join full time and are doing quite well.



Alberta is prosperous, unlike other areas of Canada (parts of northern and Eastern Ontario and the Maritimes).  Many Class B commandoes have found Army/CF jobs that prevented them from losing thier houses, families etc. until economic fortunes turned around in their areas.  Even they are as well motivated as your Alberta bretheren,  but, in some areas, those fortunes never turned and the Class B members stayed Class B and became valued members of their units, brigades and communities.

Long story short, the Army needs Class B's to do the "unit" jobs.  The CF needs Class B's to do the "CF" jobs.  (Remember the Naval and Air Reserve have proportionally far, far more members on Class B and C than the Army Reserve.)  Otherwise, Reg F members will have to be pulled from the line to do those jobs or the jobs simply don't get done.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Canadian reservists were never ordered to serve actively in the Second World War or any other time I am aware of.


You're speaking solely of the army reserve?


----------



## larry Strong

Hunter said:
			
		

> I'm curious - what are everyone's ideas on what would make a sensible piece of legislation?  If you were asked to give input to the steering committee for the (hypothetical) Reserve Employment Protection Act, what would you your ideas be?




It would likely have to be in some form of monetary value, bet it tax breaks or credits of some sort. As the bottom line for most companies is the "Almighty Buck" no matter how employee friendly they would like you to think they are.


----------



## Spanky

What should (could) the legislation look like?
1)Tax breaks/credits for businesses affected.

2)Time off would be required for annual 2 week excercise

3)Time off for career courses

4)Time off for staffing the courses

5)Time off for up to a year for operations, 

6)Employers would be given a six month notice

7)Reservists would REQUIRED to attend these events

Requiring reservists to staff and attend courses would allow the regulars to attend to their own needs in terms of leave, quality of life etc.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Screw the tax break- impose penalties, tax surcharges on any company and prison sentences on company officers that fail to comply and ditto  for union officials who attempt to obstruct. Employers are not given tax breaks for complying with human rights legislation, they damn well shouldn't get a tax break for any sort of reserve/military service legislation.


----------



## Spring_bok

Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?  Since when did  getting time off from one job to do another become a right.  I could never understand how some reservists suffer from a false sense of entitlement just because the serve in our forces.   Someone please enlighten me.  I was a reservist many years ago and joined the reg force so that I could soldier full time, not just when it was convenient for me.  As far as tax breaks go it is a good idea maybe.  What other incentive does a civilian employer have for holding your job for as much as a year and a half.


----------



## Sapper41

Haggis,

I don't question the need for class B staff outside of summer taskings, I just think it's not in the best interest of our soldiers.  Having learned  from experience (the hard way) young reservists need to think of their future.  When the Army continues to 'lay off' reservists working at WATC over Christmas so they don't have to pay leave it should be a heads up for all our soldiers.  I don't think it's disloyal but you need to look out for number one, as a reservist you need to be your own life/career manager.

Again we can't have the government come in and hammer employers into protecting our civilian jobs.  We need to build relationships with employers not make them the enemy.  So forget penalties and legislation, awareness and an expanded CFLC is the answer.


----------



## Chummy

Whiskey601, while my knee jerk reaction was to agree with you re "screw the tax breaks", the problem is that this will do nothing to encourage them to hire reservists, or discourage them from avoiding hiring reservists. Sure, you could make it illegal to discriminate against a person for being in the reserves, but an employer in many cases may still ostensibly not hire someone for another reason, when being a reservist is the actual reason for not hiring. I think in this case, maybe it is better to use a carrot than a stick. At least, it would be worth thinking about carefully before dismissing the idea. 

Spring_bok, I don't think he said it was a human rights issue, but rather was illustrating that we don't use tax incentives to get corporations to comply with legislation. Or at least, we shouldn't.


----------



## Cloud Cover

-Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?

No, its not a human rights issue, its a corporate social responsibility issue (CSR). Why is CSR just restricted to respecting human rights, protecting the environment etc. Providing employees with an opportunity to contribute to the defence of the countries in which profit is earned is not to much too ask of any corporation, and that is why there should not be a tax break.


----------



## larry Strong

Well if its a *corporate* social responsibility issue (CSR), the corporations won't ever do doodle squat, especially when it will interfere with their bottom line.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

I don't see why job protection for active service for reserve personnel shouldn't be mandated by federal law.  We protect jobs for maternity leave as a duty to the state, we protect jobs for jury duty, a task that can easily exceed time lost for a tour, as a duty to the state.  We even mandate the hours of operation during election day to assure the duty to the state as a voter, even though advance and absentee balloting options make that a moot point.
      If you want to retain trained quality personnel, you have to make it possible to retain those of us with the drive and ambition to succeed in the civilian world as well.  I had to make a choice between continuing to serve my country, and supporting my family.  At the time I became most valuable to the army I served, I was forced to leave it.  Had their been job protection legislation in place, the retention problem of the reserves would be gone, and the money spent on training would begin to show its worth.


----------



## Gunner

Supporting reservists volunteering for overseas service could come under CSR.  Good point Whiskey.  CFLC has been very proactive in approaching corporations and obtaining their voluntary support. If you are a reservists and are having trouble obtaining time off for training or operations, contact your CFLC representative and see if they are able to assist.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?  Since when did  getting time off from one job to do another become a right.  I could never understand how some reservists suffer from a false sense of entitlement just because the serve in our forces.   Someone please enlighten me.



Ok I will take some time to enlighten you.  Since when did serving ones nation become a "Job" ??  Maybe that is where the crux of it lies.  It is not a "Chore" it is a duty.  As a reservist we place our lives in two lines of duty, serving out nation to defend it's principles, on a part time basis.  We then serve our nation as active members of the working population, generating money to provide for the strength of our nation, and on top of that,  paying taxes on what we have earned.

The least we can get in return is the protection of our full time employment, once we serve our duty aiding our undermanned "regular" army.

Enlightened yet??

dileas

tess


----------



## Spring_bok

I am 





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Ok I will take some time to enlighten you.  Since when did serving ones nation become a "Job" ??  Maybe that is where the crux of it lies.  It is not a "Chore" it is a duty.  As a reservist we place our lives in two lines of duty, serving out nation to defend it's principles, on a part time basis.  We then serve our nation as active members of the working population, generating money to provide for the strength of our nation, and on top of that,  paying taxes on what we have earned.
> 
> The least we can get in return is the protection of our full time employment, once we serve our duty aiding our undermanned "regular" army.
> 
> Enlightened yet??
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess


Thank you very much for that twice the citizen explanation, I  hope it all works out for you.


----------



## the 48th regulator

It sure did, for over 15 years,

Thanks for asking, I am glad I helped to enlighten you.

dileas

tess


----------



## pbi

Where is Tomahawk6? Maybe he (or one of our other posters wth knowledge of US Res legislation) can post the Title that covers the prtotection of Res jobs. I understand that there is both Federal law (Army Res) and State law (ARNG) covering this issue.

I have heard, from a US Army Res officer in Afgh, that one's civvy job is not necessarily protected in every case: I believe it has some relation to "compulsory" vs "voluntary" full time duty. As well, I believe that some states permit the employer to terminate employment if the job disappears as a result of restructure.

While I highly respect the opinions of Matt and others, I do not think we can dismiss the issue of employer resistance: I have heard about it from a number of US sources over the last couple of decades, usually with reference to smaller employers. These sources include serving mbrs of the ARNG and Res from WA, MN and other states, as well as US military publications I researched while writng a paper at CF Staff School in 1987.

I doubt that the resistance is as widespread as it would be in Canada, but I believe that it definitely exists.

Cheers


----------



## jbeach95

In Canada, the "Public Safety Act, 2002" (which came into force in 2004) amended the National Defence Act requiring job protection for compulsory emergency service by reservists (no job protection for non-emergency service).

Bill C-7 (Public Safety Act, 2002):
http://192.197.82.11/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=3
-see Part 13 (G)

Other Links:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1375
http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/pubs/media/alliance/1Q_2002_e.asp


----------



## Chummy

This bill was passed and became law. Annoyingly, the text of the passed legislation on the government website just reads "amended" for each of the sections. I tried finding the sections referenced in this legislative summary of the bill (s. 285.03 to 285.13, which I had assumed are the sections added to or amended in the National Defence Act), but these sections do not appear in the online NDA. I then tried keyword searching the NDA in case they'd renumbered it or something. 

If anyone else is looking for the exact wording of the legislation, the bill as passed can be viewed here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-17/C-17_3/90173b-7E.html#36

scroll all the way down to Part VII, and you will need to click "next" for the rest of it. 

I wonder why it does not appear in the NDA... I don't recall this being repealed, so assume the NDA online is just the "last consolidated version". Assuming these provisions were not repealed (I didn't dig that hard), the general lesson there is, beware of publicly posted legislation, as it may not be up to date. 

The interesting thing is that, at a quick glance, the definition of "emergency" doesn't seem to catch a natural disaster, if the reserves were called up for that reason.


----------



## John Nayduk

Has anyone heard anything more on this?


----------



## aluc

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155592215611&call_pageid=970599119419


Protect home interests of reservists
Aug. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM

For many Canadians it still comes as something of a shock to find out that their soldiers are or have been engaged in actual armed combat in places like Afghanistan and the tattered remnants of what used to be Yugoslavia.

It comes as a double shock to those people to find out that many of the men and women who are doing the killing and dying are not professional full-time soldiers but reservists, who hold down regular jobs as automobile mechanics or government clerks and learn their soldiering at weekend drills and at summer camp.

For Montrealers, that reality was brought home all too literally this month when the remains of Cpl. Jason Patrick Warren of the city's own Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada were shipped home in a flag-draped coffin after he and a comrade were killed by a suicide bomber in Kandahar.

Nor was Warren the only reservist to have given his life in the service of his country in the current Afghanistan campaign. Bombardier Myles Mansell of Victoria and Lt. William Turner of Edmonton — both killed in a bomb explosion — were also reservists.

In fact, Maclean's magazine says fully 13 per cent of the 2,300 soldiers serving in Afghanistan are reservists.

Given the Canadian government's reliance on reservists like Warren and Mansell and Turner, then it would be logical to presume that Ottawa has taken all the necessary steps to defend vigorously the home interests of reservists while they are overseas. But that, unfortunately, is not the case.

Employers — even government employers — are frequently not very enthusiastic about their workers' weekend soldiering, Maclean's reports, often making it difficult for reservists to get off the time they need for training and other activities.

And when employees volunteer for overseas deployment to a hot zone like Afghanistan, their bosses are less than co-operative in guarding their jobs for them. One soldier returned from a high-profile civilian outreach program in the villages around Kabul to discover that he no longer had a job with the Ontario government.

Reserve soldiers in other countries have far better protection and support than their Canadian counterparts. U.S. law, for example, requires employers to protect reservists' jobs. Britain compensates employers whose workers volunteer for active duty.

All Canadian reservists have is a law that requires employers to protect their jobs if they are called up for compulsory service, something that hasn't happened since World War II. There is no legislated protection for reservists who volunteer for overseas service.

Canada should do better. The government continues to find new work for our overstretched armed forces, which is bound to create a need for even more reservists to enter active duty.

Both the government and employers should work together to make sure our men and women in uniform have the same kind of job security that mothers on maternity leave have, for some of the same reasons.

Both mothers and soldiers, after all, are performing a vital and volunteer service for the nation.





Just wondering if anyone out there has faced any problems with their civvy employers? I haven't had to ask yet, but I will have to very soon, and based on the CFLC (employer support of for the reserve force) briefing I attended, it appeared that we do have at least some support.   How was the problem rectified? And was the CFLC effective  in helping you obtain a leave of absence for training exercises?


----------



## Beezer

Not just the civilian world. The CF itself.

Roughly 15 guys from my unit, maybe 30 or so from other units and I were on class B for 18 months with 25 CF Supply Depot here in Montreal. We were doing forklift work, inventory and whatever other warehouse jobs. I had to fight tooth and nail to get some time off. We were never compensated with CTOs. The only time off I got was when I was sometimes allowed to come in mondays at 1000 and that is only because a MCpl took the heat for us...every time. In the defence of 25 CFSD they didn`t allow a handful of reservists to go on a 7 day exercise.

When you have a 20 weekend PLQ course or a 12 weekend Drivers course  or a 7 weekend PSWQ course, to complete as a pre-requisite for your leadership course that makes for long 7 day weeks that can easily turn into 14 days straight. 

I know being on class B you belong to the unit that employs.  I know it works against 25 CFSD because they need us on the ground to work and our CTOs would cut into their time but in the bigger scheme of things wouldn`t you agree that as an infantry soldier I have the moral obligation to continue training with my unit and to develop as an infanteer?


----------



## cplcaldwell

I see from your profile you are a fairly junior member. The only advice I can give is get your training and your tour(s) now. Chances are, You will not have another window open up to you until you are in your forties. 

Once you finish school things close down real quick. Family, rent/mortgages all add up to make things sticky. Chances are you will not find a civ employer amenable to your situation. Chances are, if you get into the regular life of kids and payments that hopping around from job to job to get training is too risky (Wanna bet the house on that leaf?)

CFLC and units do as good a job as they can, the point is in this country there is precious little support for reservists, and I doubt that will ever change. Oh and as far as things like VG, consider your summer vacation spoken for the next _<insert_length_of_military_career_here>_ years.


----------



## Korus

That's the problem I'm running into now. I finished school last year, and 2 days after my last exam was on a plane to start predeployment training. Did a roto, came back and got a Civvie job where I've been working for the past 2 months. Being an engineer, it's hard to jump jobs, as you need to gain experience before anyone really wants to hire you.. I lucked out and got a really good job, but now that the summer is almost over and the unit is about to stand to, things are going to get just a little bit hectic. Definatley don't think I'll be able to swing anymore full time career courses in the military for a while. It kinda sucks.

On the flip side, the CEO was pretty impressed with my having been on a tour, so he may be flexible after I've put some time in at this company..


----------



## Beezer

I wasn't`t really talking about myself since I have already started a transfer to the reg force but rather for all the reservists that were in the same boat as me at 25 CFSD. 

In 18 months, between a class B at 25 CFSD and working at my unit I have racked up over 90 days of work. That`s unpaid, free and without compensation. At $120 a day that`s a lot of money. That`s just me. There were over 40 reservists working there doing more or less the same thing. 

There has to be something in place to support the reservists. How do we expect those on civi street to support us when some CF units don`t?


----------



## aluc

> Oh and as far as things like VG, consider your summer vacation spoken for the next <insert_length_of_military_career_here> years.



I figured as much. That's the plan for now.....basically use all my vacation time for training, instead of vacationing. I guess going up north during the summer on an ex is just like camping......but a hell of a lot more demanding! My GF will love that .....


----------



## Dissident

I am a little weary of the federal enacting a law to protect reservist employment, or other consideration.

 Talking to national guard members down south, they mention that some employers will discriminate when hiring, base on someones status as a reservist.

Although, the British way mentioned above, where an employer gets compensated from the government when an employee goes overseas, might e worth looking into.


----------



## rogsco

Beezer said:
			
		

> I wasn't`t really talking about myself since I have already started a transfer to the reg force but rather for all the reservists that were in the same boat as me at 25 CFSD.
> 
> In 18 months, between a class B at 25 CFSD and working at my unit I have racked up over 90 days of work. That`s unpaid, free and without compensation. At $120 a day that`s a lot of money. That`s just me. There were over 40 reservists working there doing more or less the same thing.
> 
> There has to be something in place to support the reservists. How do we expect those on civi street to support us when some CF units don`t?



Free? Unpaid? Did your Cl B pay cheque stop while you were training with your home unit? Members on Cl B who choose to continue parading with their home unit do so of their own choice (I did too when on Cl B). I never considered it "free or unpaid" since I was getting paid 7 days a week. I didn't expect CTO since it was my choice to work with my home unit, not a requirement. My civy job has not once given me a CTO for working a weekend with the CF nor have they paid we for weekends I didn't work for them despite being a FT employee.


----------



## cplcaldwell

Dissident's point is well taken. Sometimes we look south of the border and wish we had what they had. It is quite true _from my experiences talking to American reservists _ over the years that they are 'pre-discriminated' quite often. It is also true that employers flaunt the law and find a reason to fire a reservist going on course or on ex. These excuses can be 'lack of work' or 'downsizing' but no matter what it is called it's tripe.

 Let's face it, a lot of company's cannot afford the disruption of losing a staff member for a month (or more).

IMHO there are only three alternatives, make your military job the most important (live on Class 'B' and take whatever else may come up), take what you can get on Class 'A' or the odd summer 'B' (what I do as much as possible), or join the Regular Force (been there too..) Other than that, it's a vocation for life but it's _only a part time job_.


----------



## DJ

Octavianus said:
			
		

> It comes as a double shock to those people to find out that many of the men and women who are doing the killing and dying are not professional full-time soldiers but reservists, who hold down regular jobs as automobile mechanics or government clerks and learn their soldiering at weekend drills and at *summer camp*.


  

  

I'd like to see somebody in uniform call it summer camp....


----------



## geo

best advice to new reservists is to set their priorities......
1. Family
2. Employment
3. Reserves
If you forget your priorities...... it'll all come tumbling down like a big house of cards and you'll have nothing!...

Just a word to the wise.

With respect to being hired... yup, some potential employers will discriminate if you talk to them about future deployments and military leave - before you get hired.

With respect to time off for courses - you have to paint the rosy picture. Make him understand that you are taking leadership training. Something that HE will benefit from in specific and pertinent ways

With respect to having time off from your «Cl B employer to "work" with your unit.... yup, they don't want you to go out, risk getting hurt or coming back to work dog tired and not giving them your 100%.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

I have been rather fortunate with my current employer.  My boss has been more than happy to allow me to leave a little early Friday nights for exercises, and never schedules me for weekends.  Like stated above, I haven’t had any sort of real vacation in 4 years.  All my vacation time has been allocated to Training exercises, whether it be concentration or Kodiak Strike (which got cancelled this year, but opened up some more training for me within the regiment)

Do I regret any of it?   Not a chance.  I have taken full advantage of weekends off to spend time and do activities with the girlfriend, and I have been lucky enough to have her support my military career as well.

I have recently put my name in for a tour and am currently waiting on our Ops Warrant to let me know when one is available to me, but I don't think my job would be waiting for me when I return.  I spend a lot of time thinking my decision over, and what will happen when I get back.  I have a good job right now (A career really.  It's what I went to school to do), and the risk of losing it is almost 100% if I leave for PDT and the tour afterwards, but it's something I have always wanted.  I have been weighing in the pros and cons of my decision.  This is unfortunately something many Reservists in the same situation as me have to deal with.  I have heard mixed information about how US Reserves have it.   Some say that there is no discrimination at all, and others say there is.   If we had the same laws here in Canada, I'm certain it would be the same.  It all comes down to the employer really.  If they really want to get rid of you for leaving on tour, regardless of any job protection laws, they will do it.   There will always be an excuse (as stated above...lack of work or downsizing)

That's just my 0.02 cents CDN or 0.0178109 USD


----------



## bubba

Heres one for ya the other side of the coin.I was away working with my civy employer on an official leave of absance from my unit.The CO at the time decided that she wasnt happy with me missing parade nights so at her discretion she canselled it.I happen to be out west at the time unaware of what was going on.Then the wife calls me saying that the cheif clerk in Sydney called and said there sending the mp's to get my kit or i would get an nes release.So i call the unit to see wtf is goin on and basically thats what was goin on,i make arangements to get some time to come home an get it sorted out.Needless to say im done with the mo because i was basically told its the moltia or my civy job.There was no reason for me to be treated that way, 3 un tours 4years reg,mechanic in the mo lots of courses and good assesments.Any way not trying to hyjack the thread but theres always 2 sides to a coin.


----------



## cplcaldwell

I've seen this as well Bubba. It's often the case when people have to travel or get shift jobs. 

I am sorry to hear that your CO was so hard-assed about it. I have been given leave a couple of times for work and for compassionate reasons, I am grateful for it. I think that sometimes the units have to balance the amount of time that they can get out of a troop and what they get in return. 'Course I don't have all the facts, but with your Reg experience it seems that the unit is getting the short shrift. 

Too bad about them. But like Geo said above keep the priorities straight. 

Crappy as it looks in your case this might be the only thing you can do right now


----------



## GAP

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I have recently put my name in for a tour and am currently waiting on our Ops Warrant to let me know when one is available to me, but I don't think my job would be waiting for me when I return.  I spend a lot of time thinking my decision over, and what will happen when I get back.  I have a good job right now (A career really.  It's what I went to school to do), and the risk of losing it is almost 100% if I leave for PDT and the tour afterwards, but it's something I have always wanted.  I have been weighing in the pros and cons of my decision.



But have you actually approached your employer with the possibility? Some employers recognize the added value of someone who has gone out and proven themselves in real crisis management, and the maturity they bring back to that employer, as well as loyalty for being there afterwards. 

Might be worth sounding out...they might surprise you.


----------



## Shamrock

To add to Dissident's bit

There could be a lot of potential for employers to refuse employment because an individual is a reservist if a law was passed, but I think there has to be something put in place to protect reservists.  Some unions permit unpaid or pay-equitied time-off for reserve training, but not everyone has that kind of (or any) union.  Something a little softer than the American system, perhaps a Monday Morning Bill or something -- protection from disciplinary action for coming in exhausted on a Monday with bits of green in their eyebrows (or blue cam paint if they're in the navy).  Of course, civi employers aren't the only boneheads, as Bubba points out.

Someone out there know how to initiate an action like this, and/or what's wrong with my reasoning?  I'd be interested in putting something like this forth.

_Edit: Grammur_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dissident said:
			
		

> I am a little weary of the federal enacting a law to protect reservist employment, or other consideration.
> 
> Talking to national guard members down south, they mention that some employers will discriminate when hiring, base on someones status as a reservist.
> 
> Although, the British way mentioned above, where an employer gets compensated from the government when an employee goes overseas, might e worth looking into.



I always liked the idea of hiring a active reservist gets you a tax deduction for your business. Certainly anything that helps the companies bottom line helps the Militia. The money to do so should come from the Treasury Department not the Department of Defense, as it is a net benefit to Canada as a whole.


----------



## cplcaldwell

GAP said:
			
		

> But have you actually approached your employer with the possibility?



Yes and this is the kind of thing that CFLC can be a lot of help with. 

The unit may step up as well, there's nothing like a light colonel having a chat with your boss to make an impression. This goes a lot to how your unit runs and what the old man's attitude to this is (I wouldn't go button holing him for a visit, but I would, next time I talked to Ops, bounce the idea off of them "Say WO, I don't know if my civvie boss would be up to this, and I'm committed to the tour, but I have a great civ job, can someone help me work on my boss on this thing? ")

It's a very political exercise but don't throw the baby out with the bath water, not just yet.


----------



## Shamrock

Colin P said:
			
		

> I always liked the idea of hiring a active reservist gets you a tax deduction for your business. Certainly anything that helps the companies bottom line helps the Militia. The money to do so should come from the Treasury Department not the Department of Defense, as it is a net benefit to Canada as a whole.



And given the qualities & training most reservists bring to an employer, they're getting paid to take on an outstanding employee.  Win/win.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> But have you actually approached your employer with the possibility? Some employers recognize the added value of someone who has gone out and proven themselves in real crisis management, and the maturity they bring back to that employer, as well as loyalty for being there afterwards.
> 
> Might be worth sounding out...they might surprise you.



I actually have, in a way.  I didn't tell my boss that I put my name in for a tour, but I brought the possibility of putting my name in for one.  He put it rather blunt.  My position within the company unfortunately cannot go un-attended for such a long period of time, therefore if I were to leave for a tour he would unfortunately have to replace me.

I am not as worried about finding another job.  I work in the IT field.  It's just that I have it good where I am (Im in charge of 9 people, company pays for my cell phone, gas when I travel, expenses etc etc)  I have become well established and already opened the door for myself in terms of advancement within the company and my career ahead.

It's something I have been, and will be thinking long and hard about until I get a call saying "there is a spot for me in work up training for roto X".  If I do decide to take a tour I understand it will be a complete life changing experience in terms of family and employment.


----------



## GAP

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I actually have, in a way.  I didn't tell my boss that I put my name in for a tour, but I brought the possibility of putting my name in for one.  He put it rather blunt.  My position within the company unfortunately cannot go un-attended for such a long period of time, therefore if I were to leave for a tour he would unfortunately have to replace me.
> 
> I am not as worried about finding another job.  I work in the IT field.  It's just that I have it good where I am (Im in charge of 9 people, company pays for my cell phone, gas when I travel, expenses etc etc)  I have become well established and already opened the door for myself in terms of advancement within the company and my career ahead.



You're right and your boss is right. I worked for both Digital and IBM (contract) and "out of sight, out of mind". They have to operate that way, but there is a lot of consideration on their part if you go and come back looking for work. Having worked your way up to that position, it would be hard to walk away from it. Better you than me  ;D


----------



## aluc

Colin P said:
			
		

> I always liked the idea of hiring a active reservist gets you a tax deduction for your business. Certainly anything that helps the companies bottom line helps the Militia. The money to do so should come from the Treasury Department not the Department of Defense, as it is a net benefit to Canada as a whole.




I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is what the government does when a company hires a summer student, is it not?  I know that there is some sort of subsidy  for summer students, because in most cases it is kind of an inconvenience for companies to hire fresh students on for the summer. When I was a summer student, I believe something like half of my pay was subsidised by the government. It sounds like a viable idea for the reserve force.


----------



## Mindbender1234

In reply to rogsco's post:

Even if Beezer's pay was still coming in while he worked on the weekend does this mean that he should have to work every weekend for the rest of his contract?  I know some will say it's an extreme example, but when day-staff at the unit gets a CTO come hell or high water when they work a weekend or an evening then why shouldn't he?  Also, I know personally that certain units will tell their members that they must continue training with the unit if they want to be put on a class B (*cough cough* see beezer's avatar).  My civvie job doesn't pay me for weekend ex's, but the army does, which means I'm not working for free.  Do you think that someone in the Reg's would be tickled pink about doing a 1 weekend on/1 off for 6 month on a PLQ without being compensated somehow?

Back to the main thread.  Don't forget also that sometimes in the States employers will sometimes abolish positions to get around the law of guaranteeing a job.  So if you were a widget manager and went to Iraq there might just be a widget supervisor in your place when you get back.

That's just my two-cents.

P.S.  I would suggest that Beezer stage a picket line in the Depot seeing as his unit has about 2 dozen guys working there...


----------



## TMM

Octavianus said:
			
		

> I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is what the government does when a company hires a summer student, is it not?



Definitely not in Ontario, which is where I hire and fire. There are some programs for at risk youth but nothing for summer students. There are a few programs such as NSERC, OITC and New Hires but they are for post secondary students.


----------



## dglad

TMM said:
			
		

> Definitely not in Ontario, which is where I hire and fire. There are some programs for at risk youth but nothing for summer students. There are a few programs such as NSERC, OITC and New Hires but they are for post secondary students.



Not true, actually.  The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities has a program called SJS (Summer Job Service), which, among other components, provides a $2 per hour wage subsidy to employers to hire youth (15 to 24 yrs old) between April and September.  In Northern Ontario, the minstry for which I work, Northern Development and Mines, delivers the program on MTCU's behalf (in fact, I'm the manager responsible for overseeing delivery of this program in the North).  In other parts of the province, it's delivered by Job Connect, other agencies, or the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.  More info is available on the MTCU website at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/brochure/summerjobs.html.

This is, of course, a provincial program.  However, a similar program at the federal level, for which the federal government subsidizes a replacement employee for a business for a Res F member on an operation, to some percentage or some fixed hourly rate, could easily be designed and would, frankly, cost peanuts.  The catch, of course, would be that the employer would have to enter into a contract with the government whereby they guarantee the Reservist's job upon his/her return to Canada, or else forfeit the subsidy. That leaves an employeer a choice between losing a Reservist temporarily and getting assistance backfilling the position, losing them permanently and getting no assistance (and gambling that the replacement employee will work out over the long-term), or dissuading the Reservist from ever leaving.  It's not an unreasonable set of choices, and probably more palatable for employers because, let's face it, they will tend to bend farther for good employees whom they wish to retain and less so for marginal employees.  So, Reservists who do good work for their civilian employers will be more likely to be taken back when they return; Reservists who aren't as valuable in their civilian jobs, for whatever reason, are more likely to be faced with deciding between their civilian and military careers.  This is, all-around, a more collaborative approach to the issue than something as "simple" as outright legislated job protection.


----------



## 735_winnipeg

I faced this when I first signed up.  My previous civy employer wouldn't give me the time off to go to BMQ/SQ in Shilo.  His words to me was he can't give me time off cause it would be too expensive for the company to re-train me again once I got back.  The company was downsizing at the time too, so I think it was an excuse for him to not hear my case.  So I told him that I still choose to go to BMQ/SQ and to expect my letter of resignation soon.  That was back in 2004.  I still talk to people there and they said that the company has gone down in people and quality.


----------



## Sig_Des

When it came time to go do my QL3's in '05, I had a choice...Civvy employer, or go on my trades course.

My employer would just not give me the time.

I chose my 3's....gave up a decent civvy job. Found out last January that the company I worked for had been taken over shortly after, and had a large number of layoffs. I then started working class B.

In the end, I'm not going back to civvy-street until I retire. Component transfer into the regs in process.

For me, it was the right choice. Possibly not for others. It depends on the situation. In my case, it worked out well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My 2ic has been a career Bombardier in the Militia for over 20 years, in his real job he is a supervisor of 30+ people in the Hydro business, he can’t get time off to upgrade, I suspect he will be retiring as a Bomber, but he is used to it now and the Snr NCO’s respect his experience.


----------



## 735_winnipeg

if there was provincial or federal laws that sided with reservists then i would still be a reservist now.  but the truth is that i can't survive on class A days all my CF time, that's why i made the decision to CT to regs as soon as i was medically cleared in feb 2006.  i made my choice, other than being in Borden i have no regrets rejecting my civy employer before.

sig_des, hope you get process soon.  what trade are you going into?  sigs?


----------



## JBP

I'm doing the same right now... CT for Sig Op... 

So this is music to my ears really, I hope to god they do speed things up, I applied through the recruit school bypass but I don't care if I get that or not, I'll do BMQ/SQ over again, doesn't matter, this is for my career so... No biggy. 

Hope to join reg force ranks soon...


----------



## Sig_Des

735_winnipeg said:
			
		

> sig_des, hope you get process soon.  what trade are you going into?  sigs?



I am going Sigs with a skilled transfer process.... Hoping to cash in on that big 2-0


----------



## lostrover

Legislation to protect reservists is necessary in this country.  The dregree to which it is done should be in questions.  Few civilians have employement that restricts them from being able to partake in a few evenings a month and perhaps one weekend a month, thus Cl A training should be the responsibility of the employee/soldier.  Time should be permitted off for annual training (aka Milcon or what ever its called now).  As reservists are not "called up" for active service her ein Canada without and order in council, the legislation should also protect thos whom so choose to be active for situations such as the Manitoba Floods, Ice Storm et al.... regardless of where they are situated within the country, as these are events that have a direct impact on the Canadian economy.  Time off for training , ie courses is something that should be dealt with between an employer and the soldier, and the soldier has to capitalize on the benefits to the employer.  Most joing the reserves at a young age and and still in school and sans spouse/children (well now that is changing alot), thus thew ability to get there trades training is readily available.  We all need to work, thus once school is done one needs to make the decison, wether the military is going to be #1 or if there civilian career will be.  If you choose the militray route, then in most cases the regular force will be the best option, or should one desire to contiune serving, then the civilian carreer and staying in the reserves is the answer.  The Reserve Forces bring a whole new skill set to the military, one that cannot be found in the regular force.  I recall one of my sections from years ago................and electrician, plumer, carpenter,accountant, nurse, and 3 students (engineering and of coursethe others were in arts).  The reserves need to take a look at whom they have as CO's and whom they have as soldiers, rank althought very important should hold little value in getting the job done.  A LCol whom has spent his carreer on CLB, versus a Cpl whom has even taught the LCol in civy world, and manages a company strengh of employees, yet when donning a unifrom is just a Cpl, although a SME in some areas, there skill sets are not expolited becuase the CO has never lived in the real world.  Spending some days telling officers how its done and others saluting them and playing batman.  I made my decision years ago, got messed up pretty good had a medical category, once that was over with tried to "again" join the regular force...........but at the time cbt arms was the only thing open, thus i made my decision and rucked up and went out into the civy world, and still contributed to the CF for an additional 9 years after that.  If it was really needed, yes i would leave my wife and daughter, and don a uniform again, but that will never happen still such time as individual units get tasked to provide a plt or coy for an operation, and that will never happen without proper legislation.  My confusing rant is done.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Your last sentence summed it all up nicely.


----------



## lostrover

frag format

legislation is needed

but the governmwnt till make it bohica legislation, and will talk about it till all my hair is grey before it happens


----------



## Lost_Warrior

> The reserves need to take a look at whom they have as CO's and whom they have as soldiers, rank althought very important should hold little value in getting the job done.



Of course it should hold value in getting the job done.  The Cpl, although successful in civie life has nowhere near the experience in commanding soldiers and military tactics that a Col wold have.


----------



## The_Falcon

quote]Few civilians have employement that restricts them from being able to partake in a few evenings a month and perhaps one weekend a month, thus Cl A training should be the responsibility of the employee/soldier[/quote] 

This is a little off, there was an article in the Globe and Mail (it was posted on workopolis, so it was either the Globe or The Star), a while back describing how only 40% of Canadians work the traditional 9-5.  Thats 60% of Canadian who do shift work or work irregular business hours.  That can definetly restrict someone in partaking in a few evening a month let alone a weekend (especially for shift workers).  Also to consider that a great deal of reservists are also in school, which has its own demands, which can include study time, traveling time (There was one girl who travelled from Waterloo for the last 4 years), and sometimes another job.  

On another note, I myself was biased for a position because I am reservist.  I was in a job interview, and they asked about my reserve commitments, I explained (1nite/week, 1 wknd) and I added that my regiment was fairly understanding about members not parading all the time due to civy jobs. They didn't budge and said as long as I was in the reserves, I wouldn't be an acceptable candidate.


----------



## big bad john

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/3636591p-4204530c.html

Unfinished business
Canada's part-time soldiers deserve job protection when they serve their country 

Wed Aug 16 2006

By Bob Bergen



STEPHEN Harper's Conservative government seems refreshingly bold with its outspoken support for the Canadian Forces and long-range plans to acquire desperately needed ships, planes and vehicles after decades of neglect. 
But, it's time for the government to do something concrete now for reservists risking their lives daily in combat in Afghanistan and on duty elsewhere in the world. 

The government should introduce job protection legislation that will guarantee reservists get their former jobs back when they return from places like Afghanistan, Haiti, Croatia and Bosnia where there are not enough regular forces to do the job. 

This is an issue that has been bandied about for far too long and which has been punctuated with half-hearted measures by previous governments that paid lip service to the well-established need. 

Primary reservists are civilians who voluntarily take paid part-time military training around 30 to 45 days a year, usually one night a week and on weekends, depending on their courses. 

There are about 300 reservists among the 2,300 Canadian troops currently taking part in Operation Archer, Canada's contribution to the war against terror in Afghanistan.    
Cpl. Anthony Boneca -- a reservist who was killed in Afghanistan -- was typical of about half of Canada's 24,000 primary army, navy, air force reservists who are students. 

Reservists like Boneca are either finished school or are able to take time off from their studies for extended periods of military duty overseas. He was on his second tour in Afghanistan. 

Unlike Boneca, the rest of the reservists hold full-time or part-time jobs. 

The issue for them is getting time off for work-up training with the regular forces and then a six-month deployment and still having a job when they return. 

This is a serious matter that is being addressed at the highest levels in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization with Canadian Maj.-Gen. Herb Petras now in the lead. 

On July 7, Petras, who is Canada's Chief of Reserves and Cadets, assumed the chairmanship of NATO's influential 20-nation National Reserve Forces Committee (NRFC). He will serve both roles concurrently. 

One of the most critical issues the NRFC will tackle is the re-integration of reservists into their respective communities after overseas deployments or, more simply, ensuring that reservists get their old jobs back. 

There was a five-day Employer Support for Reservist Conference on just this issue in Ottawa in May and June of last year, which included Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Poland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Latvia, Italy, Germany and Australia. The fifth such conference will take place in the United Kingdom in 2007. That's how important this is internationally. 

The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are leaders in this because they have instituted legislation that requires employers to re-instate their reservist employees after protracted military duty. 

But, what has Canada done? 

In 2002, as part of its Anti-Terrorism Plan, Jean Chrétien's Liberal government introduced the Public Safety Act to protect reservists' jobs if called up for compulsory emergency duty in the event of insurrection, riot, invasion, or armed conflict. 

In 2004, the Act received Royal assent, but the regulations that would bring the amendments into force were not approved by cabinet. 

Even if they were, they would have done the reservists now fighting in Afghanistan absolutely no good at all. They were not called up, they volunteered. As a result, they would not be afforded job protection under the Act. 

In fact, a compulsory call up of Canadian reserves hasn't taken place since the Second World War. 

Let's call a spade a spade here. Canada is at war in Afghanistan and the fact that reservists fighting alongside the regular forces aren't afforded the job protection contemplated by the Public Safety Act is appalling. 

To its everlasting credit, the Canadian Forces Liaison Council acts in support of the Department of National Defence in absence of such legislation. The Council is a volunteer organization of prominent business leaders who work with Canadian employers encouraging them, of their own good will, to allow reservists in their employ to deploy abroad and re-instate their jobs upon return. 

The council has the expressed support of about 4,700 employers nationally and claims about a 90 per cent success rate when dealing with businesses reluctant to give reservists their jobs back. 

But, you don't have to know many reservists at all before you meet good ones who have left the military because they had to make a choice between their jobs or overseas deployments because there is no job protection legislation. 

Canada has a moral obligation to reservists risking their lives serving their country that goes far beyond goodwill. 

They deserve meaningful job protection legislation and they deserve it now. 


Bob Bergen is a Research Fellow with the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute in Calgary


----------



## c4th

lostrover said:
			
		

> legislation is needed



I would argue that legislation in not needed in the least.  I've said it before, but legislation will serve absolutely no one except to possibly garnish a few votes for a few politicians, with the possible exception of incleasing the number of CT's from unemployed reservists to the reg force.

The end result of Legislated job protection is that the business owner is being asked to pay an increased share of Canada's defence and foreign policy and continuing military neglect by providing the deployable military with cheap available reservists.  The majority of Canadians including the majority of civilian employed reservists work for small businesses.  It will come as no surprise that in most cases the expenses and the value of these businesses are their employees.  A small IP business owner once told me when we were discussing this topic that the cost of hiring, training, and probation of a new employee is nearly equivalent to one years salary.  Doing some research about a decade ago, I discovered that personnel agencies bill up to 40% of a first year full time salary for each placement.  An employer, when hiring any reservist, especially a "protected" one, runs a significant risk in doubling their HR expense on that one employee.  If there is any benefit to reservists it will be a negative one, as it will highlight in every employer's mind the risks involved in hiring them.  I would be willing to wager a years salary on this simple premise:  No civilian employer who cannot absorb the costs of replacing a deployed reservist is going to hire one and stay in business.

I see two possible alternatives for legislation.  The first being that reservists need to take responsibility for their lives by setting some realistic priorities as opposed to winging on to everyone who will listen about job protection.  If the priority is overseas service then realize that military service is being chosen over civilian employment.  To ask a business owner to pay for this choice in a market economy is absurd.   If the priority is to secure long term civilian employment and providing for home and family then buggering off for 12-16 months may not be the best way to meet this priority.  As it sounds from many posts and many discussions in real life, if the priority is to protect a cushy Class B position for the rest of a reservists useful life while collecting the increased pay and allowances, then bad luck.  Why we keep the same reservists Class B is beyond me.  IMO any reservist on Class B longer than one year should either be enrolled to the reg force or returned to Class A for a period of no less than 12 months, but I digress.

The other alternative is to conscript small business owners into overseas service.  Thus a business owner would at least collect the benefit of a tax free salary, allowances, and a medal or two.

I suspect that those in government actually realize what the costs of Job Protection Legislation is and also realize that the votes of the business owners outnumber in every riding the vote of the few reservists.


----------



## dapaterson

Why not mix the carrot and stick?  Non-refundable tax credit of $500 per week to the employer while the reservist is away from their civilian job.  Restrictions on approval authorities for this (probably restricted to the LFA or higher, as I can see potential for abuse), but it would be realtively simple.

Providing employers with an economic incentive would encourage their support, offset some costs they incur (though they would be avoiding the reservist's normal civilian salary), and provide tangible evidence to the soldier that they are valued.

Of course, this would have to be tied to stronger terms of service for the Reserves - the CF would require much more control over soldiers than is currently asserted.


----------



## GAP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why not mix the carrot and stick?  Non-refundable tax credit of $500 per week to the employer while the reservist is away from their civilian job.  Restrictions on approval authorities for this (probably restricted to the LFA or higher, as I can see potential for abuse), but it would be realtively simple.
> 
> Providing employers with an economic incentive would encourage their support, offset some costs they incur (though they would be avoiding the reservist's normal civilian salary), and provide tangible evidence to the soldier that they are valued.
> 
> Of course, this would have to be tied to stronger terms of service for the Reserves - the CF would require much more control over soldiers than is currently asserted.



I don't think it has to be that high, but would have to be eligible only when attached with a copy of reservist's orders


----------



## TMM

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Providing employers with an economic incentive would encourage their support, offset some costs they incur (*though they would be avoiding the reservist's normal civilian salary*), and provide tangible evidence to the soldier that they are valued.



Someone has to do the job of the person who has left and will need to be paid to do it.

I'm a civi, an employer and I have mixed feelings on this. On civi street, part-time employees do not get the same benefits as those who work full time. For large companies with several people in one department, extended leave would not cause major problems, but for a little guy like me, with a core staff of 4 people, in a technical field, having someone leave for 6 months + would be a massive headache.

I could see protection similar to parental leave, for a clearly defined period of time.

At some point though I'm thinking that one needs to decide between civi and military paths.


----------



## dapaterson

TMM said:
			
		

> Someone has to do the job of the person who has left and will need to be paid to do it.



Yes, of course - but  I was highlighting the cost avoidance of not having the reservist's salary to pay while they are deployed.  Adding to that some tax credit (my $500 per week was deemed too generous by GAP - he must work for the Canada Revenue Agency  ) helps offset the disruption.  Admittedly, it's less than perfect for smaller companies like yours, self-employed people, or those employed in the not-for-profit sector.

But I'd much rather have people griping that the system in place isn't perfect vice the current situation of having  no system in place.


GAP:

I think we'd need to get the Department of Useless Government Form Creation (DUGFC) engaged to provide an employer with something to make their accountants happy - a posting message would have most Certified Accountants scratching their heads and looking confused...


----------



## John Nayduk

I've always said that if they can give new parents time off, they can do the same thing for reservists.


----------



## GAP

dapaterson said:
			
		

> GAP:
> 
> I think we'd need to get the Department of Useless Government Form Creation (DUGFC) engaged to provide an employer with something to make their accountants happy - a posting message would have most Certified Accountants scratching their heads and looking confused...



Yeah, you're right...it just has to be something official that does not involve reams of paper, but shows the employer that the employee is not slacking off and gives him the right to collect $$ while he is away.


----------



## c4th

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Non-refundable tax credit of $500 per week to the employer while the reservist is away from their civilian job.



And does the DND budget pay for this or do taxes go up?


----------



## GAP

c4th said:
			
		

> And does the DND budget pay for this or do taxes go up?



realistically a sub category under DND Human Resources, or something.


----------



## armyvern

Just my 2 cents worth...

Employers are already obligated by legislation to hold positions for their female employees for up to 1 year while they proceed on maternity leave.

Why can't legislation be passed to obligate employers to do the same for ResF personnel proceeding on Operational taskings? This would cover work-up trg, deployment and thier well-earned TO after the tour.

Vern


----------



## TMM

ArmyVern, I do like something similar to the mat/pat leave. If a reservist were deployed, I would have no problem using EI to top up their deployment pay up to civi levels. If going that route though, the same requirements that exist for leave/EI claims regarding hours worked would have to be followed.


----------



## Shamrock

However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.


----------



## GAP

Shamrock said:
			
		

> However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.



You are always going to have some of that. The idea here is to at least get the employers begin to recognize that there is life beyond their workplace, and people do want to do other things. Right now, employers know from nothing about the reserves (generally) and totally dismiss it when it comes to their employee. 

The states already had generated a culture of employers knowing that the jobs have to  be kept.


----------



## Echo9

A few notes here:

1.  Most larger employers don't have problems with reservists taking a year to a year and a half to do a tour.  They already have procedures in place for maternity leave, which they are legally bound to honour, and they will typically honour them.  The key is that the soldier has to give about the same notice as maternity leave- 6 months.

2.  In a lot of cases, the problem lies more with the reservist- not doing things with enough time.  Sometimes this can't be helped, goodness knows I've seen enough speedballs over the years where an augmentee is required for 6 months starting next week.  But, in most cases, the 3-6 month lead time is feasible these days.

3.  In a lot of cases, soldiers make their case at the wrong level.  A low level manager is much more likely to say no than someone higher in the food chain.  This is one of the areas that CFLC can help.  Again, timing is the key thing.

4.  Any program, whether it's carrot or stick is going to have problems with adoption with small employers.  Kinda stinks, but it's reality.  While the $500 per week tax write off is a no brainer for a large company, it's likely not rich enough to overcome the barriers that exist for a shop with less than 10 people, and each person has that much less replaceable.

5.  Short leaves of 2 weeks are also usually not a big issue- it's really like normal vacation.  One thing that I've encountered is that employers are often comfortable with leave without pay for courses, if you're concerned about all of your vacation days being used to attend courses.

6.  the biggest difficulty is getting the 6-8 weeks that seems to be standard course length these days.  To my mind, one of the most important hurdles that we face these days is reducing that time away from the unit while still maintaining the key content.  Not so much an issue at the QL3 level, big issue when you're trying to get those 22 weeks of training over 5 courses to get someone from MCpl to WO.

7.  The worst civ employer is multitudes better than the average non-res unit class B employer.  Yes, I get that you're being paid out of one budget to do one job, and not to parade with the home unit.  Yes, I understand that the focus needs to remain there.  But jeez!  It's like pulling teeth to get anything- half day CTO after an ex weekend, courses, sometimes even simple permission to parade during periods where there was no conflict.  I've even had permanent class B members volunteer for Op Tours and get denied.  There are some very good class B employers, but they are usually the exception.

and last of all...
8.   Dave: get back to work you lazy bugger!  Posting on this site in mid afternoon!  There's some good standing around that you're missing out on at the puzzle palace...


----------



## MPIKE

Shamrock said:
			
		

> However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.



Now are their problems really Ours?  I understand the point that keeps being brought up about discrimination etc.  But really we are not operating on the same scale as our counterparts to the south??  we are not mobilizing whole town units which creates the a massive hole in a employer's manpower.  I just can't buy into that the few augmentees or class A reservists are a large enough to warrant a systemic problem for employers?..

I wish I could remember the comments made by a QOR SSM at the 33 Bde conference this year where he valiantly tried to argue the points in this thread.  Unfortunatley, if you were there you might agree that they seem to fall on deaf ears..


----------



## Shamrock

I don't follow.  What were the points he was arguing?  That there should be protection or not?  To what degree?  Can you paraphrase?


----------



## dapaterson

Echo9 said:
			
		

> and last of all...
> 8.   Dave: get back to work you lazy bugger!  Posting on this site in mid afternoon!  There's some good standing around that you're missing out on at the puzzle palace...



Nah, all the good standing spots by the windows were taken...


----------



## Haggis

PIKER said:
			
		

> I wish I could remember the comments made by a QOR SSM at the 33 Bde conference this year where he valiantly tried to argue the points in this thread.  Unfortunately, if you were there you might agree that they seem to fall on deaf ears..



It's all about "picking your battles" and "knowing thy enemy" (not that LCol Kilby would be considered an enemy) but, from the LCol's perspective, the MWO's arguments were invalidated from LCol Kilby's experience in dealing with Reserve augmentees for operations, and the MWO was going to lose.

Other threads have dealt with the challenges and benefits/liabilities of preparing Reservists for deployments.  The over-arching theme seems to be that you need six months of pre-deployment time just to administratively prepare a Reservist to deploy.  If his/her administration DAG was sorted out prior to arrival at the deploying unit, you could easily pare that down to 75 to 90 days of good, solid soldiering before being declared OPRED and getting on the plane/BHS.

However if the Reservists continue to arrive at the mounting base without basic kit, I cards, shots, dental etc. etc. we cannot TRAIN them to deploy any faster.

Apologies for the tangent, but until we get a better grip on Reserve administration the timeline to deploy Reservists will remain extraordinarily long and we will continue to ask employers to accommodate our shortcomings.


----------



## Kunu

How about this for another component of the carrot/stick approach:

As everyone knows, the federal government is a major customer for businesses across Canada.  Sooo...after a given date, if companies wish to be eligible to receive contracts, they must have a policy of job protection for reservists that meets certain benchmarks.  

Thoughts?


----------



## geo

.  Most larger employers don't have problems with reservists taking a year to a year and a half to do a tour.  They already have procedures in place for maternity leave, which they are legally bound to honour, and they will typically honour them.  The key is that the soldier has to give about the same notice as maternity leave- 6 months.

Problem is that most of the reservists work for some of the smaller employers.... and they don't all have the staff to fill the gap... therefore they have to hire out.... so what do they need the reservist for anymore?... no win situation IMHO


----------



## armyvern

Well another part of the problem is the fact that although employers already do this for women proceeding on maternity leave, they are legally obligated to do so.

A *legal obligation * on their part to do the same for ResF members would go an awful long way to creating at least a 'peace of mind' on job security once the Reservists tour is complete. Sure, incentives are always nice, but let's face it most employers are not going to hold a posn unless they are forced to do so.

To those very few employers who already do this willingly and without incentives...praise and big Kudos. Most employers raised one heck of a stink when they found out that maternity was increasing from 6 months to one year and that holding of the posns was mandatory. Do you honestly think that they're now going to roll-over and do this for our ResF members without being forced to do so via legislation?

If that were the case and they were willing, we wouldn't have ResF members now having to make what sometimes amount to be civilian career-ending decisions in order to serve their country deploying operationally.


----------



## probum non poenitet

msnoddon said:
			
		

> In reply to rogsco's post:
> 
> Also, I know personally that certain units will tell their members that they must continue training with the unit if they want to be put on a class B



This is an illegal order (unless the Class B employer is also the home unit).
This sounds like an abuse of authority redress waiting to happen.


----------



## GAP

Interest take on the issue just came out today in Defense News



> Employer-Support Award No Mirage for Vegas Casino
> By Samantha L. Quigley
> American Forces Press Service
> http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=483
> 
> WASHINGTON, Aug. 17, 2006 – While competing for its share of the tourism market on the famed Las Vegas Strip, the MGM Mirage hotel and casino has earned something perhaps just as valuable: employee approval.
> The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, a Defense Department agency, has announced that the MGM Mirage is one of 15 recipients of the 2006 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. The award publicly recognizes employers, nominated by employees serving in the National Guard and reserves, for exceptional support above the requirements of federal law.
> 
> Several MGM Mirage employees nominated their employer for the Freedom Award, Jeff Ellis, chief financial officer of corporate benefits for the MGM Mirage, said.
> 
> “We had seven or eight employees that sent in nominations. I don’t know which one was the one that got us the (award),” he said, adding that MGM Mirage officials are pleased with the recognition. “They’re very happy that (the employees) felt strong enough about our policy to actually nominate us for these awards.”
> 
> The MGM Mirage’s policy includes continued full pay and benefits for any employee called to active duty, Ellis said. “Whatever benefits they’ve selected as an employee, we continue them,” he said.
> 
> Of the hotel and casino’s 70,000-person workforce, about 110 are members of military reserve components, Ellis said. They work in positions ranging from security and information technology to management. Twenty-four of those employees currently are benefiting from continued full pay and benefits as they serve on active duty in their respective services.
> 
> “We don’t want them to have to worry about their family or their loved ones that they’ve left behind,” Ellis said. “We want our employees, our people that are called to active duty, to really concentrate on what they’re doing over there.”
> 
> ESGR will present the Freedom Awards to all 15 recipients during a ceremony Sept. 21 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, in Washington, D.C.


----------



## Donut

CFLC has a similar program, I've just never seen it reported outside of DND publications.  A PAFF issue, among many which I understand are about to adressed.

Paraphrasing another site user, there is a duty incumbent on business in this country to allow for the defence of this country.  This duty has been neglected, as has most of Canada's military commitment in recent years, some could say century.  Those companies that do not support reserve force employment need to be seen as delinquent, as shirking a duty.  Does DND have an obligation to make it reasonable for companies to meet this duty? absolutely, but it needs to be seen in that light, not in the "pay them off" terms.  

DF


----------



## c4th

Haggis said:
			
		

> Apologies for the tangent, but until we get a better grip on Reserve administration the timeline to deploy Reservists will remain extraordinarily long and we will continue to ask employers to accommodate our shortcomings.



Admin is only a small piece of the puzzle.  DAGing any soldier and kitting them for operation can be done in a week.   Prepare yourself for longer timelines as we move into more complicated deployments that require a higher level of training.  If the Reg Force is doing 8 or 9  months (compared to 3 months 10 years ago) the PRes augmentees are not likely to be able to deploy in a shorter time span.


----------



## c4th

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Paraphrasing another site user, there is a duty incumbent on business in this country to allow for the defence of this country.



In fact some might say that it is an incumbent duty of citizens to allow for the defence of the country. Since there is no thread arguing conscription to increase the 0.002% of the population that is currently serving in the CF one has to assume that voting and paying taxes is an adequate contribution to Defence.

The first and probably last duty of business in this country is to make money.  This in turn generates tax revenue and may even employ more residents who will then pay taxes and spend money thus repeating the cycle.  This is economics and this makes Canada a going concern.  No one should need reminding that is is taxes that pays for National Defence and foreign policy, not reservists.

Realistically though, besides a few journalists hawking letters and a few reservists who haven't found themselves yet, who really cares?  Of the literally hundreds of reservists I have known who have deployed, I think I can name one who was actually fired for training instead of going to work, and one other who deployed and lost a position at his work that was going bankrupt anyway.  The vast majority are students, unemployed, or were employed at jobs they could not care less about returning to.  It is truly the minority that actually takes a leave of absence from their place of work.

Do reservists miss out on training because of civilian employment?  Sure, lots in pretty much the same way that reg force soldiers miss out on training to fill taskings, and miss out on tours due to postings.  For the reservist it is called choices. For the Regs it is called exigencies of service.

Don't count on the government or business to solve the problems of a few reservists who cannot accept the consequences of their choices.  In short, from a military viewpoint, legislation will have no effect on who, how many, or how we deploy.


----------



## big bad john

I thought that this article was pertinent on the subject.

http://feeds.msn.com/content/framesite/frmredir.asp?m=http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/canada/article.jsp?content=20060814_132006_132006

August 17, 2006

That's gratitude

Reservists are serving their country -- and risking their livelihoods

CHARLIE GILLIS

When the call came through, Paul, a master corporal in the Canadian Forces reserves, was coated in camouflage, soot and a sheen of sweat. But the 35-year-old soldier from Toronto figured the message must be urgent, so he rushed to find out what was wrong. "It was my office telling me I had made a mistake filling out the forms for my leave," he recalls, noting that he was miles away from the nearest land line -- a pay phone at the base offices -- at the time. After weeks of trudging through the brush near Meaford, Ont., as part of his training for active duty, he was near the end of his tether with an employer who failed to grasp what he was trying to accomplish in the reserves. "I was totally exhausted, I hadn't eaten in two days," he says. "Here they were calling me over some stupid problem with paperwork. It definitely was not cool."

It would get worse. Paul -- who asked that his identity be withheld because he was speaking without the army's approval -- lost three days of pay because of the paperwork foul-up. Then, in a decisive exchange upon his return, the head of the Toronto finance company where he worked cornered him for a face-to-face conversation. "You were one of our best employees," the executive said ruefully, "until you got into this silly army thing."  

  



Paul quit the firm three weeks later -- "I knew at that moment that I couldn't stay" -- and found another job. But stories like his are playing out with increasing frequency throughout Canada's army reserves, as the so-called "weekend warriors" who back up the country's 62,000-strong force of regulars are drawn into the all too real world of gun battles, ambushes and roadside bombs. Fully 300 soldiers in Afghanistan, or 13 per cent of Canada's 2,300-strong contingent, are part-time troops who do their training on weekends, holidays or leaves granted by their employers. With just 2,700 more regulars ready at any given time to go on rotation, the forces are leaning ever harder on the 23,000 civilian soldiers back home to fill out missions, or to plug gaps left by departing regulars.

That means they are leaning on the firms and institutions that employ reservists. To accept a six-month deployment like Afghanistan, a reserve soldier must spend another six months training, bringing his entire commitment to a full year. And while there's nothing compelling part-timers to serve in danger zones, most join with the idea of participating in some sort of mission. As one soldier interviewed by Maclean's put it: "If you don't want to see a little bit of action, then really, why sign up?"

The result, inevitably, is friction between reservists and their bosses. Leo Desmarteau, the executive director of the Canadian Forces Liaison Centre, a joint civilian-military body which works to mediate these differences, estimates the number of soldiers seeking assistance in workplace disputes has increased from roughly 30 per year before the mission in Afghanistan to more than 100 last year. Most cases are easily settled, he says. "We encourage reservists to have a clean, clear break from their work situation before they go on tour." But some are not.

One officer interviewed for this story returned from a tour in Afghanistan in early 2004 to find that his job with the Ontario government had been given away. He had tried to extend his leave by six months to complete his mission, a highly touted initiative which involved civilian outreach in the villages around Kabul. But a manager back home who was eager to promote another employee denied him, and filled the job in his absence. By the time he got back to pursue the matter, his union membership had lapsed and -- as if to add insult -- the army itself decided it no longer required his services.

With no medical or dental benefits, and no one to help him fight for his job, the soldier (who also sought anonymity) sank into despair. "I'd always thought the military was supposed to be a kind of large family," he says. "Now I felt like I was being cut adrift." Only after a colonel who had known him in Afghanistan intervened did he get another assignment with the military, and even then the whole experience left him jaded. "I know some guys come home to worse troubles, like post-traumatic stress," he says. "But to come back and be treated like a piece of crap is pretty traumatic, in itself."

Not surprisingly, the issue has become a hot one in the military community, especially since the death in Aghanistan of Cpl. Anthony Boneca, a reservist from Thunder Bay, Ont. Soldiers and family members, conversing on unofficial military websites like Army.ca, say Boneca's passing illustrates the risk part-timers are undertaking for their country at great cost to themselves. Others have called on Ottawa to act on the findings of a 1995 commission urging legislation that would force employers to keep jobs open for those on training or tour. "My husband is having a tough time right now trying to get leave from his job for training," wrote one woman in late May. "He actually works for the feds and even though they have regulations in place to help employees who are also reservists, they seem disinclined to go by them."

Many critics point to measures taken in other countries, saying Canada lags badly. The U.S. has laws forcing employers to protect the reservists, they noted, while Britain compensates employers whose workers volunteer for active duty. Australia, too, provides more than $800 per week to companies who release workers for military service, and bans discrimination in the workplace against reservists. Canada, by contrast, has done little more than pass legislation guaranteeing jobs in the event reservists are called for compulsory service. Considering that hasn't happened since the Second World War, it is something less than a grand gesture. "To my thinking, we have a moral obligation to these guys," says Bob Bergen, a research fellow with the Calgary-based Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute. "We can do better."

So what route should Canada, with its limited means and wholly voluntary reserve force, take? Desmarteau warns that U.S.-style laws, which forbid employers from firing reservists, lead to workplace discrimination, pushing those soldiers off hiring lists and limiting their chances for promotion. "We've seen this in other countries," he says. "It's a very real problem." Other critics argue that compensating employers would put extraordinary and possibly unnecessary strain on the public purse. These are the choices now facing Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, who has committed to expanding the reserves by 10,000 troops -- and who publicly agrees with the need to protect their civilian jobs.

Officials in O'Connor's office say the minister has asked his department for advice on the issue, and hopes to bring forward a new approach later in the year. "The ultimate goal," says a spokesman, "is to help with the recruitment and retention of reservists in the Canadian Forces." Whether that's soon enough to help soldiers like Paul -- already working up the nerve to ask his new bosses for time off -- remains to be seen. Canadians may consider the lives of their soldiers precious beyond value. Those soldiers' livelihoods appear to be another matter. 

To comment, email letters@macleans.ca


----------



## John Nayduk

With more reservists wounded on OP MEDUSSA, I hope that this issue won't be forgotten.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yesterday on the News (Global I think) they showed a piece talking about how reservist come back from a tour to no job and they showed an exercise back east where the military took Employers out to watch the reservist in action and the interviews with the Employers showed they were very impressed with the dedication of the soldiers.

All good, I think it’s time for a private members bill promoting some sort of financial incentive to hiring and supporting reservists. Even the NDP would be hard pressed to vote against such a bill and the impact to the Government would be minimal and could help defray the costs of supporting a reservist.


----------



## GAP

Wouldn't something like this be nice....

Starbucks’ Military Employees Get Special Blend of Support
By Samantha L. Quigley American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=733

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7, 2006 – Starbucks didn’t just wish then-Army Capt. Matt Parkinson well when he was activated to serve in Iraq as part of the Washington National Guard. 
Instead, the company went above and beyond what the federal law requires employers do for activated reserve-component personnel, Parkinson said. The company made up the difference between his civilian and military pay and maintained his benefits while he was activated, between November 2003 and February 2005. 

He said his supervisors and friends within the company offered him any support he needed, whether it was personal or job related. 
More on link


----------



## big bad john

http://www.thewhig.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=216509&catname=Local+News&classif=

'Peace of mind'; Senator Segal aims to protect reservists' jobs 

Brock Harrison 
Local News - Wednesday, October 04, 2006 @ 07:00 

They've been called Weekend Warriors, and Senator Hugh Segal wants to make sure they've still got a job during the week if they go to war. 

The Kingston Conservative senator is working to provide a measure of job security and peace of mind to Canadian Forces reservists who want to volunteer their services overseas, but are held back by concerns about keeping their civilian jobs. 

"Canada has yet to provide even the peace of mind for these men and women serving in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or elsewhere, that their jobs, their livelihoods and their ability to provide for themselves and their families will be intact upon their return home," Segal said in the Senate last week. 

Employers who refuse to return a military reservist to his or her job upon returning from a tour of duty would be breaking the law, if Segal gets his way. 

Segal is calling for his colleagues' support in urging the Canadian government to reconsider a section of the Public Safety Act that was left out of the bill when it was adopted into law in 2004. 

The section, which would amend the National Defence Act, obliges employers to hold the civilian jobs of reservists who are called to duty in an emergency, an instance that hasn't occurred since the Second World War. 


It was left off the bill at the time because it would have required extensive consultation with the provinces since job security is under their jurisdiction. 

But Segal wants to go a step further. This time, he's asking that all reservists who serve on deployment be protected - those who are called to and those who volunteer. 

According to Segal, reservists are often faced with a troubling dilemma when contemplating whether to volunteer their much-needed skills with the Canadian Forces. 

"Do I serve my country or do I step back and not risk my current employment?" Segal said. "Unfortunately, some employers, including government employers, are less than enthusiastic about their employees' requests for unpaid leaves for training or overseas service purposes." 

In Afghanistan, 13 per cent of Canada's 2,300-member contingent are reservists who volunteered their services, leaving their civilian lives, and jobs, behind. 

Maj. Richard Gower, spokesman for the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, a military agency that advocates job security and protection for reservists, says reliance on reserves is on the rise with 23,000 able soldiers ready for action. 

"It's becoming more and more evident that there will be a greater call," Gower says. 

With that greater demand comes the expectation that problems with civilian jobs will increase. Gower says the agency deals with about 100 such cases a year. 

"At this point, indications are that because reservists are volunteering in larger numbers, the numbers of cases we have will go up," he said. 

The situation isn't unique to Canada, Gower added. Most NATO countries, including the United States, Britain and Australia are relying increasingly on reserve soldiers. 

"Reservists have become an integral part of international operations these days," Gower said. 

Canadian Forces have operated under a "total force" policy in 1987, under which reservists are trained to the level of their regular force counterparts. 

This means civilians who sign up as reservists must complete six months of training to be considered on par with regular force troops. Couple that with a typical six-month tour of duty, and reserves are looking at a year of unpaid leave from their jobs. 

Critics of the legislation say it opens the door to compulsory service and could make reservists unpopular in the workforce. That is, employers would be reluctant to hire civilian soldiers knowing they would be left with a staffing gap if the soldier chooses military duty. 

"There is an argument that maybe soldiers wouldn't get hired because they would leave, but there was a time when women of child-bearing age weren't [hired] either," said Rosemarie Brisson, a policy adviser for Segal. "Now we have maternity leave." 

CFB Kingston's reserve unit, the Princess of Wales' Own Regiment, has a number of its soldiers working as police officers, teachers and in other civilian jobs, says spokesman Lt. Steve Dieter. 

He says employers have been "very supportive" of soldiers who request leaves for training purposes. 

"It's not the same as going on deployment but it still shows employers recognize that the military part of a person's life is just as important as the civilian part," Dieter said. 

The liaison council has instituted an annual awards program that recognizes Canada's most reserve-friendly companies. 

Windsor's Daimler Chrysler was named the most supportive company in Ontario in 2005. 

"It's the right thing to do," said Daimler spokesman Ed Saenz. "These people are making great sacrifices to protect our freedoms, and they deserve a level of accommodation for that." 

bharrison@thewhig.com


----------



## 17thRecceSgt

Well, I say its about time.

Now let's see if it happens.

So, about the "employer's won't hire Reservists" stuff...wouldn't that be a form of discrimination?

Question # 3 on Application Form for "Company X".

~ Do you now, or ever plan to, serve the CF in the Primary/Communications/Naval/Air Force Reserves?~

 :

Good article though, atleast the issue is making some noise.


----------



## The_Falcon

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Well, I say its about time.
> 
> Now let's see if it happens.
> 
> So, about the "employer's won't hire Reservists" stuff...wouldn't that be a form of discrimination?
> 
> Question # 3 on Application Form for "Company X".
> 
> ~ Do you now, or ever plan to, serve the CF in the Primary/Communications/Naval/Air Force Reserves?~
> 
> :
> 
> Good article though, atleast the issue is making some noise.



Technically yes its discrimination.  It happened to me, in a job interview I said I was a reservist, and asked if there were any policies in place regarding the reserves.  I was told I would have to leave the reserves to be considered for the job.


----------



## Journeyman

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> I was told I would have to leave the reserves to be considered for the job.


Just curiousity, (if you don't mind info sharing), but what sort of job where you applying for?


----------



## Haggis

It's always useful to do some research on the company you're applying to.  That way you can tailor your resumé by inserting/deleting military experience/qualifications/references as required by the politics of the prospective employer.

I tell my troops to do this before they use me as a reference.  Usually I will only act as a reference if the soldier is applying for police/security/government type jobs.


----------



## The_Falcon

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just curiousity, (if you don't mind info sharing), but what sort of job where you applying for?



Communications Officer in the Toronto Eaton Centre's security dept.


----------



## Journeyman

Hmm...I thought Mr (Timothy?) Eaton was a big fan of CF Reserves. I dunno - - not my strong suit.


----------



## The_Falcon

Well the Eatons Centre is managed by Cadillac Fairview, and it was thier security.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be nice if the government stepped up to the plate and gave them the same treatment as they do for visable minorities.


----------



## keaner

I always put my military background/experience/training on my resume when applying, but I wouldn't reccommend showing any current affiliations. Civvies just don't get it...


----------



## Bobbyoreo

I hope this happens. I've had to choose a few times now and the forces always win!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Where is the manditory "If you want to go on tour/work class C why not just join the regs!"?

Something like this job protection would be great for both reserves AND the regular force. With something like this in place, 'checked out' reservists with professional jobs would be able to augment the regs much easier thus increasing the over all quality of guys showing up for tours.

I've been turned down for jobs because of being in the reserves (and i've also GOT jobs simply for being in the reserves).

I've heard people suggest just not mentioning your in the reserves however many reservists who put a good amount of class B time in ONLY have the reserves as work experience.  It's a catch 22.


----------



## Lost_Warrior

I have been fortunate to have a boss who has given me a week off here and there for training, and has allowed me to leave early Friday nights to attend weekend training exercises, but an overseas tour would be too much and I would be let go.

Here's hoping I guess...


----------



## Sig_Des

As I've posted in the past, it got to a point where I made a choice between a really good civvy job and the military, specifically my res Ql3's. I made the choice, and have been wearing the uniform every day since. No regrets

But then, I'm a single guy with nothing but the regular responsibilities (or lack thereof) so it was easier for me. This kind of legislation would definitely be of great benefit to reservists in general.


----------



## V

Has anyone in a Union asked for time off to go overseas or on a course.  Kind of interesting to see what the policy is.  I guess one of my concerns is if they publish this diatribe in their Union newsletter, will it reflect their policy of serving in the Canadian Military.  Kind of a rhetorical question.  

Cheers,

V


----------



## Danjanou

V said:
			
		

> Has anyone in a Union asked for time off to go overseas or on a course.  Kind of interesting to see what the policy is.  I guess one of my concerns is if they publish this diatribe in their Union newsletter, will it reflect their policy of serving in the Canadian Military.  Kind of a rhetorical question.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> V



Yeah I did oh about 1990-91 IIRC City of Toronto CUPE. You should have seen the look they gave me. Needless to say no tour for me then. Mind I did get togo to Milcon or whatever ti was called using up 2 weeks of my vacation  :


----------



## The_Falcon

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Yeah I did oh about 1990-91 IIRC City of Toronto CUPE. You should have seen the look they gave me. Needless to say no tour for me then. Mind I did get togo to Milcon or whatever ti was called using up 2 weeks of my vacation  :



Things of somewhat changed as thier is now a City of Toronto (for all employees, exempt and unionized) Policy allowing paid time off for summer concentration.  Only catch is they expect reimbursement if the ex falls on days you are scheduled to work.  I believe there is a thread about this particular topic around somewhere.  The police seem to be the most reserve friendly organization with the City of Toronto.


----------



## V

Presently, I am trying to establish legislation to enable those that are employed by my employer to go overseas and return to work with at least their present position.  When I asked for permission for service overseas they stated that it "better not be for Afghanistan".  They stated further that because I am volunteering to go overseas that I am not entitiled to return to my present job.  In short, I loose my seniority, position and pension.  I mentioned that those that go on maternity, paternity, and jury duty are all essentially voluntary.  Currently, those that set policy are considering my argument.  All I am asking for is to be able to return to my job after serving my country.  If need be I will take this argument to my MP.  For those that are in the same predicament look at your policy and procedure manual for maternity, paternity , and jury duty.  I will keep those that are interested up to date.  

Cheers,

V


----------



## Danjanou

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Things of somewhat changed as thier is now a City of Toronto (for all employees, exempt and unionized) Policy allowing paid time off for summer concentration.  Only catch is they expect reimbursement if the ex falls on days you are scheduled to work.  I believe there is a thread about this particular topic around somewhere.  The police seem to be the most reserve friendly organization with the City of Toronto.



And who do you think bithced and whined to get that added?  Enjoy your next Stalwart Guardian on moi brother  8)


----------



## The_Falcon

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And who do you think bithced and whined to get that added?  Enjoy your next Stalwart Guardian on moi brother  8)



Ah seen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

OPSEU has paid and unpaid military leave written into our collective agreement.


----------



## exsemjingo

That is good, but it shouldn't need to be subject to collective union agreements.  If our government wouldn't have to fight for it every step of the way, some sort of blanket federal legislation allowing reservists to go on tour might be a good idea.


----------



## dglad

Actually, the Ontario government has military leave entrenched in legislation (well, technically, in regulations).  The General Regulation (R.R.O. 977, 1990) to the Ontario Public Service Act specifies, in section 67:

_A deputy minister may grant leave of absence for not more than one week with pay and not more than one week without pay in a year to an employee in his or her ministry for the purpose of Canadian Forces Reserve training._

So the OPSEU CA is simply recognizing what is required by law (I know it says "may grant".  However, in application, a DM would have to have justification for not granting the leave, or it will just result in a grievance.  For example, someone in a key position with no available backfill might be reasonably denied, but just denying it on a whim is going to have it end up in front of the Grievance Resolution Board, for no good purpose.)  Moreover, based on the same Regulation (section 70) the Ontario government can grant substantial periods of discretionary leave without pay--generally, up to two years, but with adequate approvals, up to five years.  Notably, Bill Davis, when he was Premier, signed a policy specifying that military leave was a justifiable reason for granting up to five years of leave (this is a policy, mind you, which, unlike regs or legislation, is relatively easy to change.  But it hasn't been since Davis enacted it).  As a result, I had no difficulty getting a year of leave to deploy to Bosnia.  But even with all this legislative support, my boss was excellent about it, so much so I nominated him for CFLC award.

I hasten to add that I fully acknowledge that few Canadian employees who are Reservists, especially in the private sector, enjoy this sort of leave support.  I absolutely wish it was otherwise.


----------



## darmil

> Has anyone in a Union asked for time off to go overseas or on a course.  Kind of interesting to see what the policy is.  I guess one of my concerns is if they publish this diatribe in their Union newsletter, will it reflect their policy of serving in the Canadian Military.  Kind of a rhetorical question.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> V



I have I'm in the international brotherhood of boilermakers union 146 Edmonton.A week ago I went to my union to get info about getting leave for a tour.I spoke to the union shop rep who is a Brit.I told him I'm in the reserves and was wanting to go over seas.He said no problem and told me his son served in Afghanistan in the Royal marines, he even showed me pictures of his son in Kabul.He told me to make sure my dues are paid before I go and when I get back to Canada back to work that easy.



> I guess one of my concerns is if they publish this diatribe in their Union newsletter, will it reflect their policy of serving in the Canadian Military.  Kind of a rhetorical question.




My union is Canadian/American HQ is in Kansas city every few months I get a news letter from the HQ talking about jobs and things that are going on.It  had an article about veterans of the Iraq war getting out of the army or marines and becoming boilermakers.At the beginning of the Iraq war they had a story on a army medic that was a boiler maker apprentice that was on the frontlines.

I hope they do publish stories on reservists that are trades people.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

I think we are forgetting who runs companies.....the owners not the unions please. Ask your boss, the one not in the union they decide not the union dude. It would be nice if the government legislated some form of protection but that will be very hard in this country.


----------



## nsmedicman

This article speaks about legislation that the Nova Scotia NDP are proposing to protect the employment and benefits of reservists.

And it's from the NDP.....who would have thought.....

Makes me wonder if the right hand knows what the left is doing. ;D

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/538968.html


----------



## darmil

But in my union they find me the jobs shop or field.


----------



## 3rd Horseman

MikeH,

  Too bad, you are in a pickel then in that form of a union system.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> MikeH,
> 
> Too bad, you are in a pickel then in that form of a union system.



 Many trades, such as electricians, ironworkers, etc, work from their Union Hall. The skilled trades don't work for a specific company. Contractors come to the hall with a request and the Union slots the workers by seniority, skill and trade level, amongst other criteria. The Local knows where all the work in the province is at at any given time and it save guys driving around willy nilly looking for work. The Union also administers the vacation, pension and benefit plans.


----------



## nowhere_man

Yea Darrel isn't a bad guy (though Harris his son can be annoying sometimes) he was in the navy for a few years so he's not militarily inept like most NDPer's.


----------



## geo

well.... let's see how this baby flies thru the NS legislature.
Once / if legislated, other provinces can consider a "working" model.

Reminder that Resservist legislature is a two sided knife..... 
Employer will take "that" into account when giving job applicant due consideration.... which means that they may not hire the reservist OR they may limit his advancement - a bit like women were limited to the lower jobs because they would eventually ask for maternity leave...........


----------



## Trinity

geo said:
			
		

> well.... let's see how this baby flies thru the NS legislature.
> Once / if legislated, other provinces can consider a "working" model.
> 
> Reminder that Resservist legislature is a two sided knife.....
> Employer will take "that" into account when giving job applicant due consideration.... which means that they may not hire the reservist OR they may limit his advancement - a bit like women were limited to the lower jobs because they would eventually ask for maternity leave...........




 There is another twist to this.

 If this goes through, if a reservist was asked to go over this substantially frees them up from obligation.
 How many reservists signed up knowing that they know they cannot be deployed.  I love the fact as a reservist
 that I could decline a mission (not that I would decline and I have even gone on Op Assistance for 3 months).. however...

 Having legislation like this could change the face of reserves POSSIBLY.  With more job security and benefits the government
 could make the move through legalisation to be able to call up reserves as needed for non "aid to civil power" or "war act"
 scenarios.  

 Personally... I like the idea.  How many reservists are still in because it's a decent paycheck during the summer or its just
 a fun thing to do?  How much of a different mindset is there in the reserves because of the ability to decline ops or refuse
 unless under the current conditions?

 I know people who won't go on ops in the reserves but does this make them a bad soldier considering that's the 
 current system and rules they are obliged to follow?

 I know its a slight variation of the thread.. but none the less... a very interesting question.


----------



## geo

If you're employable, you're deployable.....  any person on class B should be in that position.

We're dealing here with a provincial legislation so the powers of persuasion of NS will be limited.  A federal law could provide the compliantemployer with a series of "tax breaks" that would allow the employer to deduct the replacement's salary, possibly something for the training expense needed to do a decent handover,  possibly deductability of group insurance benefits for the spouse & kids while the reservist is away.....

Lots of ideas............


----------



## Donut

BC Ambulance Service, and CUPE 873, have reached an agreement wrt leave for military deployments.  Unlimited in duration, with protection of both seniority and comparable position, is the word I've gotten from the VP (though not seen in writing yet).  With the attrition we're facing in the BCAS due to retirements, it's a win-win situation, as far as I can see.

DF


----------



## Donut

Geo, I understand from Rumint that such a policy was being considered...Oh, that three year B/A position you've got...might include some time in KAF.

DF


----------



## Spanky

In some situations, it's good to have union support when you go to an employer to ask for time off.  I know that with my union, you cannot negotiate your own terms.  If one were to go to the employer for a leave of absence not spelled out in the collective agreement with or without pay, and plan on having a job without lost seniority when you return runs the risk of having fellow union members laying a grievience.


----------



## DSB

I like the idea.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well job protection/security have always been an NDP thing.  The crazies on the left somehow think that if people are treated with respect and given security they're more productive and it is better for everyone.  What a crazy leftist idea  :warstory:  I mean it isn't as though other countries, which we border, have tougher job protection legislation for their reservists ...

(I used to be an NDPer - until they got on that whole Canadian soldiers are terrorist bunk)


----------



## geo

US legislation isn't perfect and many US reservists are coming back to their employer to find that their job isn't.......
Some reservists & NG have been activated a couple of times & the employers contend that the multiple deployments weren't what they agreed to.....Legal stance - nope, but "sue me"..... NG & Res are now being "screened" (screwed) at the initial hire date


----------



## NL_engineer

Spanky said:
			
		

> In some situations, it's good to have union support when you go to an employer to ask for time off.  I know that with my union, you cannot negotiate your own terms.  If one were to go to the employer for a leave of absence not spelled out in the collective agreement with or without pay, and plan on having a job without lost seniority when you return runs the risk of having fellow union members laying a grievance.



You should always go to the union first as they OWN the contract; as it is between them and the employer.


----------



## darmil

Trust me the union I work is going to be around for awhile look up boilermakers.Don't forget I live in alberta.


----------



## Osotogari

I would urge everyone to keep track of any organization (labour or otherwise) who advertises that they support the troops, and then we should get together somehow and figure out how to make them put their money where their mouths are.

A couple of unions here in Edmonton as well as the Alberta Federation of Labour have done exactly that and I would like to see if they are willing to make the really easy first step of ensuring that reservists on their rolls don't loose any seniority if they go on course or on tour.  After that, veterans' affairs and CFLC should make themselves available to trade unions to help with transitions for regular and reserve guys so that people can take advantage of any benefits to cover off training or other things like that.

PM me if anyon'e interested, I sit on the board of directors of my regimental association and I think all of our associatons and honouraries could get this off the ground.


----------



## V

I have received a verbal approval from my employer to go on a tour with a "with out prejudiced Leave".  Um ya.. without prejudice.  Anyway, I think I'll believe it when I see it.  I didn't go through my Union, I went through human resources.  It does seem to be on the level.  They stated they have never had anyone ask to go on a tour before so I guess this sets a precedent.  I have not been told if I will be returning to my present job though.  Keep you posted.

Cheers,

V

Thanks for all of the input.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Reservists in Canada don't need job protection.

When we go on tour it's volentary, compared to the states.
Job protection is a double edged sword. It might save MY job for me but it might also mean 10 other reservists DON'T get hired because their employer doesn't wanna deal with it.


----------



## geo

Flawed...

You are right, legislation forcing employers to let a reservist go is a double edged sword that will ensure reservists will need to conceal their weekend activities when they fill out job applications and start out in a new job.

The only way to get it "palletable" for employers is to make it worth his while.  Give him something and make it a win, win situation.
- Give you a leadership course while you are away (employer will benefit)
- Give him a tax credit to write off/deduct the salary of the person he hires to replace you while you are away (including cost to train this replacement)
- Give him a tax credit to allow your wife and kids to continue on the company health insurance plan.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks Geo

Big problem with hiding ones reserve service is that in many cases, myself as an example, military experience is basically ALL i (a reservist) have to bring to the table.  If I couldn't count on that then I'd have a pretty spartan resume from the last 10 years.

Unless the reservist is in a career type job I can't see the employer really caring about a leadership course. I agree it IS a good thing to have but in the greater scheme of things it probably doesn't make much of a big deal.
I don't understand how tax breaks work BUT i do know having them is better than not having them   More money in your pocket is always better.
I think a big incentive would be playing on the public support for the Canadian Forces. It's crazy how much support we have. I can't go anywhere without seeing a flag now, seeing support the troops pins and stickers or having someone recognize me from the local news paper and coming up to me shaking me my hand and thanking me.  Companies could get a LOT of good publicity if their seen "supporting the troops".  Getting recognized is good for business (and promotions).  I'm sure with a little work between regiments, businesses/companies and the local media, everyone could benefit.


----------



## geo

companies love to get free publicity (as long as it is positive) but no company likes to finance same said publicity.

Business/companies (same thing BTW) and Reg'ts.... unfortunately, there are so few senior leaders in industry who have any kind of military training / background that they don't know enough about it to form any kind of opinion.


----------



## V

Reservists don't need job protection.  What's the point in being in the reserves if you can't be deployed or take courses?  I would hope that reservists shouldn't have to need job protection.  Sort of like how Canada doesn't need the draft or to call up reservists unless there's a declaration of war.  Anyway, I understand your point but "I didn't get dressed up for nothing".

  Cheers

  V


----------



## armyvern

V said:
			
		

> Reservists don't need job protection.  What's the point in being in the reserves if you can't be deployed or take courses?  I would hope that reservists shouldn't have to need job protection.  Sort of like how Canada doesn't need the draft or to call up reservists unless there's a declaration of war.  Anyway, I understand your point but "I didn't get dressed up for nothing".
> 
> Cheers
> 
> V



Because they have families too. Are you insinuating that Reservists who signed the line "get dressed up for nothing" if they believe they should have some sense of job security?

I'd think not. I think they'd like to be assured that when they come back from that deployment or course their job will still be waiting for them so that they can continue to feed their familes. 

Sure, it would be nice if they didn't need job security...ie every company employing them in Canada actually supported soldiers who served their country and held their place for them, but the mere fact that this discussion is occuring is evidence that that is not the case. Welcome to the real world.


----------



## V

What are you taking about?  Read the posts...


----------



## armyvern

V said:
			
		

> What are you taking about?  Read the posts...



So, you were talking with your _sarcastic_ voice?


----------



## Zorno

There are some interesting comments on the subject of job protection, and general reserve policy issues from the Senate Committee on Defence in their latest report to parliment

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf

good read


----------



## Fishbone Jones

V said:
			
		

> Reservists don't need job protection.  What's the point in being in the reserves if you can't be deployed or take courses?  I would hope that reservists shouldn't have to need job protection.  Sort of like how Canada doesn't need the draft or to call up reservists unless there's a declaration of war.  Anyway, I understand your point but "I didn't get dressed up for nothing".
> 
> Cheers
> 
> V





			
				V said:
			
		

> What are you taking about?  Read the posts...


V,

You're either being a very sarcastic troll, which would make me unhappy......to your detriment, or you truly don't understand the situation. Which is it? If the former, I'll take it from here. If it's the later, please explain your thoughts why Reservists don't require job legislation. And please, try be a little clearer in the process and your response.


----------



## geo

Given that V has not gone to the trouble of filling out a little bit of info in his background convinces me that he is trolling and has nothing of value to contribute.

Prove me wrong & say something that is backed up with fact.


----------



## V

Look, if you read my posts you would understand.  I'm on Roto O5.  I was trying to get time off from my employer and I was having trouble.  I have since sorted it out, hopefully.  I'll being going to Shilo in April.  That is why I want information about Shilo.  What do you want Geo.  If you can't be trades qualified your useless to your regiment.  IS that enough to add.  The I didn't get dressed up for nothing was from Braveheart.  It was suppose to be funny.  I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions.  

  V


----------



## Osotogari

My whole perspective on this matter isn't so much swirling around job protection as it is in ensuring that people can pick up where they left off with unions and/or professional associations.  Employers aren't going to get on board with job protection, or else if it's forced on them they won't hire any reservists.  Job protection is a pipe dream for us and it's becoming a nightmare in the US & A.  

If unions and professional associations can help with ensuring that you don't loose out on anything when you come back I'm happy.  I would be happy returning veterans didn't loose seniority and got back on with their benefits and/or didn't loose accreditiation; that would be an excellent first start.  That way returning vets can find work faster.

Also, I can't let certain remarks I've read here stand.  If all you're going to do is go on full-time courses and tours then you might as well be regular force.  That's not meant to be confrontational, it simply a statement which I believe to be fact.  If you want to go through the balancing act of family and career that is being a reservist then so be it as well.  Granted, you need to finish your trades training in order to contribute, but people who do their training and continue to show up aren't the problem.  


The problem, as I've said before elsewhere is the approach to manning for tours.  If they're being serious and recognize we're on a war footing then they should activate the reserve force.  The whole "who wants a tour" thing isn't sustainable.


----------



## V

I agree with you on the who wants to go on tour thing isn't sustainable.  However, activating the reserves for Afghanistan will never happen.  I think it would be political suicide.  The situation that I was in with my employer was if you leave you can't come back.  They changed their minds and I have received a verbal approval.  Although, I want it in writing.  There are some things that employers do have to give you such as jury duty, maternity leave, and paternity leave.  There are far more people taking mat/pat leave than those that are going to Afghanistan.  The concern regarding hiring reservists might be the same as hiring a recently married couple, or in the case of jury duty a homeowner.  The rational behind an employer not hiring a reservists because they might go on tour seems difficult to comprehend.  In a perfect world I believe that part-time soldiers should have the same rights as others.  

Cheers,
V


----------



## Jarnhamar

> However, activating the reserves for Afghanistan will never happen.


Reminds me of people saying our tanks will never see active duty again.



> I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions.



Yup.
NO ONE sees to be understanding your posts.  What does that tell you? 

Looks like you're the only one in step Jonny


----------



## V

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Reminds me of people saying our tanks will never see active duty again.
> 
> Yup.
> NO ONE sees to be understanding your posts.  What does that tell you?
> 
> Looks like you're the only one in step Jonny



ESL? and ya SEEMS spell check, bottom right. Flawed...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Even with spelling errors you understood my post. That's still one up on your posts brother 

Points still remain the same.
Job protection legislation would hurt reservists attempting to get jobs.  In my opinion it's not _currently_ worth it.


----------



## V

Zorno said:
			
		

> There are some interesting comments on the subject of job protection, and general reserve policy issues from the Senate Committee on Defence in their latest report to Parliament
> 
> http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf
> 
> good read



Cheers Flawed.

Take a look at this from Zorno.  It's a long read but a good one.  It talks about how thin we are stretched.  I found the discussion of comparing our defence spending with the Netherlands, Australia and a couple of other countries interesting to say the least.  Unfortunately, its like three hundred pages.

V


----------



## geo

V said:
			
		

> Reservists don't need job protection.  What's the point in being in the reserves if you can't be deployed or take courses?  I would hope that reservists shouldn't have to need job protection.  Sort of like how Canada doesn't need the draft or to call up reservists unless there's a declaration of war.  Anyway, I understand your point but "I didn't get dressed up for nothing".
> Cheers
> V





> Look, if you read my posts you would understand.  I'm on Roto O5.  I was trying to get time off from my employer and I was having trouble.  I have since sorted it out, hopefully.  I'll being going to Shilo in April.  That is why I want information about Shilo.  What do you want Geo.  If you can't be trades qualified your useless to your regiment.  IS that enough to add.  The I didn't get dressed up for nothing was from Braveheart.  It was suppose to be funny.  I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions.
> V



V,  as you make additional posts, you are starting to make sense but, IMHO, that 1st one was vaguely precise - which is why so many people called you on it.  Not looking for a fight - just looking for a good read & discussion in which I /we can jump into.

CHIMO!


----------



## Zorno

V said:
			
		

> Cheers Flawed.
> 
> Take a look at this from Zorno.  It's a long read but a good one.  It talks about how thin we are stretched.  I found the discussion of comparing our defence spending with the Netherlands, Australia and a couple of other countries interesting to say the least.  Unfortunately, its like three hundred pages.
> 
> V



The two previous reports from the same committee (same length) are also quite good


----------



## old medic

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2168

Québec Unions Join Forces to Support Reservists

NR-06.091 - December 13, 2006



> City of Québec – Today, Commodore Margaret Kavanagh, Commander of the Canadian Forces Health Services Group, and Mr Jean Fournier, Provincial President of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council for Quebec, presented certificates of appreciation to employers and union representatives of ambulance and paramedic services in Quebec for their support to Canadian Forces Reserve Force members.
> 
> Ambulance and paramedic services’ employers and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) signed a collective agreement in June 2006 ensuring job protection and seniority for Canadian Forces Reservists working with these emergency services who may be called to deploy for military duty, at home or abroad. Other unions, such as the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) and Travailleurs associés syndiqués de la Beauce, incorporé (TASBI), followed suit.
> 
> “This is truly a great moment for the Canadian Forces and its healthcare services,” said Commodore Kavanagh. “Union support, initiated by the FTQ, for medical Reservists in Quebec will allow the Canadian Forces to have a pool of military healthcare specialists available to help the injured on missions, at home and abroad.”
> 
> The agreement is the result of early discussions pursued by Mr. André Vézina, Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of 55 Field Ambulance, a Reserve medical unit based in the City of Quebec, with the FTQ and other union representatives.
> 
> “In practical terms, the agreement will allow emergency healthcare responders to be available for Canadian Forces training opportunities and gain valuable experience on military operations,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Aline Préfontaine, senior healthcare Reservist in Quebec. “Of course, it also most importantly provides peace of mind to Reservists deploying with the Canadian Forces by insuring that their civilian job will wait for their return.”
> 
> The presentation took place at the Officer’s Mess of the Saint-Malo Armoury in the City of Québec.


Edit -  Also see: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2165


----------



## Chummy

Just an addendum to my post. The page has been moved (my guess is that they had mislabelled it the first time and fixed it, given the numbering). It is now here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2331613&Language=e&Mode=1&File=202 

For convenient reference, here is the relevant text: 
**    *     *  *
*
PART 13

R.S., c. N-5

NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT*

	74. The definitions ``emergency'' and ``Minister'' in subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act are replaced by the following:

``emergency''
« état d'urgence »

	``emergency'' means an insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, whether real or apprehended;

``Minister''
« ministre »

	``Minister'', except in Part VII, means the Minister of National Defence;

	75. The portion of subsection 16(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

*Special force*

	16. (1) In an emergency, or if considered desirable in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter or the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party, the Governor in Council may establish and authorize the maintenance of a component of the Canadian Forces, called the special force, consisting of

R.S., c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60 (Sch. I, item 14)

	76. Subsection 31(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a) and by replacing paragraph (b) with the following:

      (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter; or

      (c) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party.

**   *   **

*PART VII

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT*

Interpretation

Definitions[/b]

	285.01 In this Part, ``employer'' and ``Minister'' have the meaning prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
*
Reinstatement*
*
Employer's duty to reinstate*

	285.02 (1) If an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force is called out on service in respect of an emergency, the officer's or member's employer shall reinstate the officer or member in employment at the expiry of that service.

*Nature of reinstatement*

	(2) The officer or member must be reinstated in a capacity and under terms and conditions of employment no less favourable to the officer or member than those that would have applied if the officer or member had remained in the employer's employment.

*Officer or member must apply*

	(3) An officer or member who wishes to be reinstated must apply to the employer for reinstatement within ninety days after the expiry of the officer's or member's actual service or service deemed extended by virtue of section 285.03.

*Exception*

	(4) The employer's duty to reinstate an officer or member does not apply in the circumstances prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
*
Application procedure*

	(5) The procedure for applying for reinstatement is that prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
*
Hospitalization or incapacity*

	285.03 If, immediately following the officer's or member's service, the officer or member is hospitalized or is physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of the position to which the officer or member would have been entitled on reinstatement, the period of hospitalization or incapacity, to a maximum prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council, is deemed for the purposes of this Part to be part of the period of the officer's or member's service.

*Benefits and obligations on reinstatement*

	285.04 On reinstatement, an officer's or member's benefits, and the employer's obligations, in respect of remuneration, pension, promotion, permanent status, seniority, paid vacation and other employment benefits shall be in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council.
*
Agreements or arrangements*

	285.05 Any agreement or arrangement between an employer and an officer or member respecting reinstatement continues in force, except to the extent that it is less advantageous to the officer or member than is this Part.
*
Termination without reasonable cause*

	285.06 During the one-year period following an officer's or member's reinstatement,

      (a) the employer shall not terminate the officer's or member's employment without reasonable cause; and

      (b) if the employer terminates the officer's or member's employment, the onus, in any prosecution under section 285.08, is on the employer to establish that the employer had reasonable cause.

*Administration and Enforcement*

*Reinstatement Officers*

	285.07 (1) The Minister may designate any person as a Reinstatement Officer to assist in the administration and enforcement of this Part, and shall issue to a Reinstatement Officer a certificate of designation.	

*Powers and duties*

	(2) The powers and duties of Reinstatement Officers are those prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
*
Requests for information*

	(3) A Reinstatement Officer may make reasonable requests of an employer for information relating to the reinstatement of an officer or member.

*Offence and Punishment*

*Offence*

	285.08 (1) Every employer who contravenes section 285.02 or 285.06 or a regulation made for the purpose of section 285.04 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
*
Additional order*

	(2) A court that convicts an employer of an offence under subsection (1) may, in addition to any other punishment that it imposes, order the employer to pay to the officer or member affected an amount that the court considers reasonable in the circumstances.
*
Special case*

	(3) The failure of an officer or member to perform the duties of their position during a period when the officer or member is being assisted by a Reinstatement Officer is not reasonable cause for terminating the officer's or member's employment.

*Offence*

	285.09 Every person who fails to comply with a reasonable request made under subsection 285.07(3) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
*
Minister may prosecute*

	285.1 The Minister shall institute and conduct a prosecution under section 285.08, without cost to the officer or member, if the Minister considers that the circumstances warrant a prosecution under that section.

*Time limit*

	285.11 Proceedings may be instituted under section 285.08 or 285.09 within, but not later than, one year after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose.

*General*
* 
Inconsistency with other laws*

	285.12 In the event of any inconsistency between this Part, or regulations made for the purposes of this Part, and any other law, this Part or the regulations prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
*
Consultation*

	285.13 In the implementation of this Part, the Minister

        (a) shall consult with the provincial governments; and

	(b) may consult with any persons, associations, bodies and authorities that the Minister considers to be in a position to assist the Minister.

**   *   **


----------



## John Nayduk

I still say that if they can get new parents a year off for every new baby, they can protect a reservist's job for a year while he or she serves our country.  We can and have fought and some have died but we can't protect our jobs?  BS I say.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A carrot and stick approach will work better, it costs money for an employer to let a employee go for periods of time, the employer is suffering to allow for the greater good, so give them a break on some taxes or similar to sweeten the pot.


----------



## geo

Recce...
two incidents.
1.  Guy goes off for the weekend and breaks his leg skiing - goes back to work, boss signs his cast and everyone in the office will gather round to hear the story.

2.  Guy goes off for a weekend FTX and breaks his leg while conducting his training.  goes back to work & has to face the boss,  gets a load of crap and gets the message that it's one or the other - sleep on it...........

Fair................ no but, do you want to work?


----------



## John Nayduk

I'm not talking about time off for a weekend FTX. I'm talking about protected time off for tours.


----------



## TCBF

"I used to be an NDPer" - Zell_Dietrich

- We are flabergasted.  Who knew?

 ;D

- No doubt, the NDP have studied closely the problems inherant in such legislation where it currently exists in the USA and elsewhere, and have concluded that such legislation would be more trouble than it is worth.  Therefore, they are proposing it.

- As for the alternate issues: Employers who 'let go' reservists for being reservists should be outed on this and other forumns where we can engineer unbearable pressure to either 'Canadianize' or go out of business.

- Any takers?  Who will be the first traitorous ex-employer to feel our wrath?


----------



## GO!!!

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about time off for a weekend FTX. I'm talking about protected time off for tours.



Oh no - if reservists have job protection, then there is absolutely no reason for anything but *mandatory attendance* at all unit trg events, with disciplinary action against those who are AWL.

Your job is protected, so why can't you come out and play?

I agree this would be a huge step forward in employing Canadian reservists, the ability to call up needed technicians for deployment, and making a strong case for standardised training accross the board. 

It would also make it abundantly clear to all prospective applicants that deploying would no longer be optional - but a matter of due course, and an integral part of your job as a member of the militia. 

Conversely, the reserves would benefit by actually being able to coerce troops to parade on designated nights, with the various levels of leadership benefitting as well (Lt. commanding a platoon, instead of a section). The initial exodus of individuals who do not want to serve would probably be made up for in spades by people who were previously put off by the prospect of being unemployed after a deployment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Oh no - if reservists have job protection, then there is absolutely no reason for anything but *mandatory attendance* at all unit trg events, with disciplinary action against those who are AWL.
> 
> Your job is protected, so why can't you come out and play?
> 
> I agree this would be a huge step forward in employing Canadian reservists, the ability to call up needed technicians for deployment, and making a strong case for standardised training accross the board.
> 
> It would also make it abundantly clear to all prospective applicants that deploying would no longer be optional - but a matter of due course, and an integral part of your job as a member of the militia.
> 
> Conversely, the reserves would benefit by actually being able to coerce troops to parade on designated nights, with the various levels of leadership benefitting as well (Lt. commanding a platoon, instead of a section). The initial exodus of individuals who do not want to serve would probably be made up for in spades by people who were previously put off by the prospect of being unemployed after a deployment.



Quit being so condesending. All Reservists aren't shiftless wastes of skin. Many have answered the call, while many Regs have tried to avoid it (until the tax breaks and Timmies came into play )


----------



## GO!!!

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quit being so condesending. All Reservists aren't shiftless wastes of skin. Many have answered the call, while many Regs have tried to avoid it (until the tax breaks and Timmies came into play )



Hey - I'm the first to admit that reservists can be seamlessly integrated, given a sufficient time to train with their new units. I doubted it until I saw it, but after 7 months, they're ready to go!

All I'm saying is that you have to take the good with the bad - the good being your protected job, the bad being the fact that you may be deployed against your wishes for an operational requirement - which you knew when you signed up. 

Why is it unreasonable to expect that someone with legislated job protection should be mandated to participate in training events? Are'nt we better off with 100 guys that show up than 200 that exist only on paper?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why is it unreasonable to expect that someone with legislated job protection should be mandated to participate in training events? Are'nt we better off with 100 guys that show up than 200 that exist only on paper?



It's not, and we are. However, you could've summed up your original post (two up) with your last sentence above, Not the post you started with


----------



## GO!!!

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's not, and we are. However, you could've summed up your original post (two up) with your last sentence above, Not the post you started with



Right.

*You* are the one who persists in finding a militia-hating bogeyman under the bed in every one of my posts.

Just because _I_ write it does not mean it is intended to subvert and trivialise one component of the CF.

Why don't you try reading posts objectively, responding to the contents of the post instead of the writer.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Gentlemen, you are in agreement here.................


----------



## The Bread Guy

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

*Gov't embraces job security issue*
Joe Couture, Regina Leader-Post, 25 Jan 07
Article Link

Reservists in Saskatchewan will soon be free to serve their country without fear of losing their jobs.

The Saskatchewan government announced Wednesday it will work with the Opposition to develop legislation to ensure job security for reservists who volunteer for duty or training, protection which is not currently offered in any province except Nova Scotia.

Brad Wall, the leader of the Opposition Saskatchewan Party, announced last week he would introduce private member's legislation concerning the issue, and now the government is officially getting behind the idea.

"We really support this issue. We think it's an important job that's done in our society and we're committed to ensuring that Canadian Forces reservists in Saskatchewan are afforded job security," Labour Minister David Forbes said Wednesday on the phone from a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial labour ministers in Fredericton, N.B.

Wall said it's a positive move for the government to get behind the idea, as long as certain key principles are included, specifically employment protection, protection of student status, and protection of seniority for union members.

Forbes said it may be possible for something to be done at a national level, so he plans to raise the issue at the labour ministers' meeting. Wall said he encouraged Forbes to do so, noting a newspaper in New Brunswick recently featured the story of a reservist who had lost his job with a Crown corporation in that province because he volunteered for duty.

"If it gets national attention and other provinces look at this as well ... that's very positive," Wall said.

The government may choose to support Wall's private member's bill or introduce legislation of its own. Forbes said he's not sure when the government will have a concrete plan in place. He hopes to move as quickly as possible, but also wants to ensure that all bases are covered, he said.

Forbes said his department will be consulting in the next few weeks with stakeholders including the chamber of commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Federation of Labour.

Wall said his office is already consulting with stakeholders, including employers. He added he hopes that compensation for employers who face interruption might be considered. A private member's bill cannot introduce initiatives that require budget spending, so if compensation is included in the bill, the legislation will have to be introduced by the government.

Forbes said both parties were lobbied by the same reservists group in December, and he thought the idea was a good one at that time, and asked his department to look at it.

In response to a suggestion that the Opposition "got the jump on" the government, Forbes conceded that would be a fair assumption. However, he said his party is not embarrassed by having not raised the issue first.

"This is the role of the Opposition -- to bring forward ideas," Forbes said. "I think the key thing is, if we focus on what's best for the reservists and job security, that's No. 1."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Read it this morning, it's good that the Reserves are finally on the Radar, but if they handle it poorly it could become a problem. I would to see that hiring a reservist becomes a benefit to a company, through grants, tax breaks etc.


----------



## PhilB

I agree, if you look at the situation in many states in the U.S. job protection legislation can be a mixed blessing. Right now, at least in Calgary, having service experience is seen as an asset. I wouldn't want the fact that I am a reservist to hinder me from getting a job.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PhilB said:
			
		

> I agree, if you look at the situation in many states in the U.S. job protection legislation can be a mixed blessing. Right now, at least in Calgary, having service experience is seen as an asset. I wouldn't want the fact that I am a reservist to hinder me from getting a job.



As much as I'm for job protection in principle, you're right - some Reservists in the US say companies (esp. smaller ones) won't hire them if they know they'll have military commitments.  Agreed that tax breaks, $ for hiring replacements, etc. may be better way to go.


----------



## GO!!!

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Forbes said both parties were lobbied by the same reservists group in December, and he thought the idea was a good one at that time, and asked his department to look at it.



I thought you were not permitted to lobby Government at any level when you were a member of the CF?

Can I form a lobby group to push for better benefits?


----------



## The Bread Guy

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I thought you were not permitted to lobby Government at any level when you were a member of the CF?
> 
> Can I form a lobby group to push for better benefits?



Good point - I haven't seen rules in writing, but it makes sense in principle.

Would that sort of restriction also apply to, say, honourary colonels, or Regimental Senate members who are not members of the CF?  I think these would also count as "Reservists" lobbying, even if they're not officially enrolled Reservists?


----------



## GUNS

Before jumping on the bandwagon, I would have to see the fine print when and if this government initiative comes to fruition.

As stated earlier, some employer's will consider having a Reservist in their employee as a hindrance. The incentives to the employer will have to be substantial.

It's a policy that's long over do but will come with problems both for the employer and the Reservist.


----------



## KwaiLo

Having worked in both salaried and hourly positions I don't see how this would be a detriment to a company.  Of course it would need to be planned right, but given that it is both the ruling, and opposition parties in agreement I'm betting it will be.

I hope I don't get a kick in the rear for this, but I don't want to see tax breaks or other financial incentives as part of any law.  I don't want to see Reservists discriminated against, or for, available positions in the workplace.

With some flexibility on the part of the company, as well as the Reservist, I don't see this as something that can't work well.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well it is a real cost for an employer when their employees disappear for extended periods of time, helping to cover that cost will help prevent discrimination.


----------



## karl28

This is something that should of happened long ago . I just hope that this can be a nationwide statement for Reservist .   I am a firm believer that if a Reservist wants to serve there country they shouldn't have to worry about losing there job while serving there country  here is hoping that its something that can catch on


----------



## Spartan

I read that something similiar is in place in NS. Anyone know what the feedback has been from that province or how it is setup?


----------



## 1feral1

GUNS said:
			
		

> ....some employer's will consider having a Reservist in their employee as a hindrance.



Isn't it considered a hinderance by some already. 

Over the years back in Canada, I heard many horror stories about Militia guys being harrassed by management (this included smaller private companies and the federal/provincial government) about weekends, courses and annual Milcons. One friend of mine was once even referred to as a Boy Scout! Another was told his Militia time was as important as much as flipping burgers at McDonalds.

I think thats a jack attitude, and hopefully any protection will be welcomed. I call this move long over due and coming of age.

Regards,

Wes

I was glad to get out of there!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> . One friend of mine was once even referred to as a Boy Scout! Another was told his Militia time was as important as much as flipping burgers at McDonalds.



Arrrrgh just reading that caused an instinctive desire to throat punch somebody!!!!


----------



## Spartan

According to local information news station CJOB
http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?src=loc&mc=local&rem=57406
Manitoba will be following Sask and NS.


----------



## gcros

Here's the press release from the MB Government web site.

http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=1081

January 31, 2007 

MANITOBA MOVES TO PROTECT RESERVISTS' JOBS WHILE THEY SERVE


Labour and Immigration Minister Nancy Allan announced today the province will be taking steps to protect reservists’ civilian jobs and benefits when they serve their country.

Amendments to the Employment Standards Act will be introduced in the upcoming session that would ensure reservists civilian jobs and benefits will be waiting for them when their service is completed.

“Our province respects reservists in Canada’s armed forces and values the important and often dangerous job they do,” said Allan.  “Reservists who leave their jobs to perform military service should be able to return to their civilian jobs after service.”

Minister Allan noted the Labour Management Review Committee made up of business and labour representatives will be asked for its advice in consultation with stakeholders on the details of the changes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Sorry, folks, my bad - already being discussed here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/56502.0.html

One more up to the plate - when's it Ontario's turn????  

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

*Updated labour rules promise job protection, unpaid leave*
CBC News online, 31 Jan 07
Article Link

Workers in Manitoba could find new job protections and more unpaid sick and family-related days when the province revamps its Employment Standards Code, the first such update in 30 years.

Labour Minister Nancy Allan said Wednesday that the province will introduce a number of amendments to the code in the upcoming legislative session. The changes are expected to come into effect April 30.

"We decided what we needed to do was have a major review of the legislation," she said.

*Manitoba hopes to follow Nova Scotia's lead and help reservists with legislation that protects their civilian jobs and benefits while they perform military service.

"They deserve job protection," Allan said. "They're risking their jobs and they're risking their lives, and so I think that they deserve to have their jobs and their benefits in place when they come back to Canada."*

The province also hopes to protect young workers by restricting work hours for those under 16 years old, as well as introduce legislation prohibiting those under 18 from working alone at night.

Other changes to the code include:

    * Better statutory holiday pay for part-time workers
    * Three new unpaid days off for illness or family responsibilities
    * Three new unpaid bereavement days
    * Termination notice rules that are graduated, based on workers' years of service

Some employers have already expressed concerns about the graduated termination notice rules and the unpaid days, said Shannon Martin, Manitoba director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

"Depending on your years of service, you may have to give an employee up to eight weeks notice before terminating that employee," he said Wednesday.

"On the other hand, an employee, regardless of their terms of service, still only has to give two weeks notice."

_Unpaid leave could worsen labour shortage: Martin_

Martin said with Manitoba's labour shortage, the addition of more unpaid days off could be bad news for business.

"The vast majority of them already offer their employees flexible time to address their family needs. What they take exception to is when government imposes those demands on them," he said.

"Being forced to give employees unpaid leave, you're only going to add to the fact that we have a productivity problem."

Allan countered that other provinces with labour shortages offer the same amount of unpaid leave to their workers, and both employers and employees have managed to cope.

"If your employees know that if they're having a problem in regards to coming into work — because they have a sick child or they have a serious illness in the family — they can be honest with their employer and explain to their employer that they need a day off and they don't have to phone in to work and lie," she said.

"I think it'll be a healthier work environment for both the employer and the employee."

Details of the changes to the code will be reviewed by the province's Labour Management Review Committee, a group made up of business and labour representatives.


----------



## The Bread Guy

One more up to the plate - when's it Ontario's turn????  

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

*Updated labour rules promise job protection, unpaid leave*
CBC News online, 31 Jan 07
Article Link

Workers in Manitoba could find new job protections and more unpaid sick and family-related days when the province revamps its Employment Standards Code, the first such update in 30 years.

Labour Minister Nancy Allan said Wednesday that the province will introduce a number of amendments to the code in the upcoming legislative session. The changes are expected to come into effect April 30.

"We decided what we needed to do was have a major review of the legislation," she said.

*Manitoba hopes to follow Nova Scotia's lead and help reservists with legislation that protects their civilian jobs and benefits while they perform military service.

"They deserve job protection," Allan said. "They're risking their jobs and they're risking their lives, and so I think that they deserve to have their jobs and their benefits in place when they come back to Canada."*

The province also hopes to protect young workers by restricting work hours for those under 16 years old, as well as introduce legislation prohibiting those under 18 from working alone at night.

Other changes to the code include:

    * Better statutory holiday pay for part-time workers
    * Three new unpaid days off for illness or family responsibilities
    * Three new unpaid bereavement days
    * Termination notice rules that are graduated, based on workers' years of service

Some employers have already expressed concerns about the graduated termination notice rules and the unpaid days, said Shannon Martin, Manitoba director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

"Depending on your years of service, you may have to give an employee up to eight weeks notice before terminating that employee," he said Wednesday.

"On the other hand, an employee, regardless of their terms of service, still only has to give two weeks notice."

_Unpaid leave could worsen labour shortage: Martin_

Martin said with Manitoba's labour shortage, the addition of more unpaid days off could be bad news for business.

"The vast majority of them already offer their employees flexible time to address their family needs. What they take exception to is when government imposes those demands on them," he said.

"Being forced to give employees unpaid leave, you're only going to add to the fact that we have a productivity problem."

Allan countered that other provinces with labour shortages offer the same amount of unpaid leave to their workers, and both employers and employees have managed to cope.

"If your employees know that if they're having a problem in regards to coming into work — because they have a sick child or they have a serious illness in the family — they can be honest with their employer and explain to their employer that they need a day off and they don't have to phone in to work and lie," she said.

"I think it'll be a healthier work environment for both the employer and the employee."

Details of the changes to the code will be reviewed by the province's Labour Management Review Committee, a group made up of business and labour representatives.


----------



## rmacqueen

On a side note, I was talking with an officer about this a couple of months ago and he pointed out how, if this were passed federally, the flip side could well be mandatory service like we are seeing with the reserve units in the US.


----------



## Haggis

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> On a side note, I was talking with an officer about this a couple of months ago and he pointed out how, if this were passed federally, the flip side could well be mandatory service like we are seeing with the reserve units in the US.



Employment Standards laws are within the purview of the provinces.  The federal government has shown little stomach for imposing federal job protection legislation, favouring the voluntary support approach through the actions of CFLC.

Mandatory service is already possible under the NDA through the passing of an Order in Council.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I find it amazing that the reserves are even on the Provincial radar, I think overall this will be a good thing with some problem areas, but also lays the groundwork for a national system to protect jobs. This is how healthcare came to be.


----------



## Haggis

Colin P said:
			
		

> I find it amazing that the reserves are even on the Provincial radar, I think overall this will be a good thing with some problem areas, but also lays the groundwork for a national system to protect jobs. This is how healthcare came to be.



Reservists are on the POLITICAL radar because it is fashionable now to be seen "supporting the troops".


----------



## Donut

I've been trying to figure out where to post this, and there's a couple of dozen threads that mention it, but none are definitive.  Would it be possible to merge some of the poignant ones into an "Info Only" thread? and perhaps sticky it in Canadian Politics?

Here's the Letter of Agreement between CUPE 873 (Ambulance Paramedics of BC) and the BC Ministry of Health, Emergency Health Services Commission:

Preamble:

A)  The parties recognize the importance and mutual benefits of CUPE members serving with the Forces.

B)  The employer is willing to grant leaves of absences to employee's serving with the Forces.

In consideration of the above, the parties agree to the following:

1)  An unpaid leave of absence will be granted to employees for service with the Canadian Armed Forces.

2) "Service" is defined as any training, deployment on peacekeeping missions, active duty during an armed conflict or war and/or a domestic emergency requiring military assistance.

3) For the duration of such leaves as captured above, the employee's date of hire and/or service seniority will not be adversely affected, and the employee will continue to accrue seniority and continuous service will not have been deemed interrupted.

4) This agreement will be in effect from the date of signing for the duration of the September 11th, 2004 MOA and 12th collective agreement.

5) Article 32.02 of the 12th collective agreement will apply to this agreement.

6)  Either party may amend this agreement through article 8.05 of the 12th collective agreement.


Signed April 3 2006.


Any typos are mine.

DF


----------



## charlesm

Here is the agreement between the BCGEU and the BC Government in the 14th Master Agreement.

20.14 Canadian Armed Forces
(a) Employees who participate in activities related to the
Reserve Component of the Canadian Armed Forces may be
granted leave of absence as follows:
(1) With Pay - where an employee is required to take
annual training with Her Majesty's reserve forces
provided any remuneration from the Government of
Canada is remitted to the Employer;
(2) Without Pay - where an employee participates in
a program of training for the purpose of qualifying for a
higher rank; or
(3) Without Pay - where an employee, as a delegate,
attends meetings of service associations or conferences
related to the Canadian Armed Forces.
(b) Any remuneration received from the Government of
Canada for the purpose of activities related to the Canadian
Armed Forces may be retained by the employee when on
leave of absence without pay, or where they choose to use
part or all of their annual vacation entitlement for these
activities, or where they elect to take leave of absence without
pay for annual training as stipulated in (a)(1) above.


----------



## noneck

Does anyone have the Federal Leave policy for PSE's and Govm't  employees that are also CF Reservists?

I am looking for the actual amount of paid time off for training, and policy for LWOP for Operations and longer term training.

Any help would be appreciated. I have looked on the CFLC site , however it isn't clear as to what you are allowed.

Cheers
Noneck


----------



## Donut

If you find it, could you please post it here: 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58333.0.html

so we can establish a one-stop-shop thread for these things?

DF


----------



## dapaterson

For federal public servants, CFAO 203-6 provides some guidance.



> GENERAL
> 2.     Granting of leave for military purposes is governed by a collective
> agreement entered into by the bargaining agent and the Treasury Board, or
> by Treasury Board Regulations, depending on the person's occupational group
> and type of employment.
> 3.     Civilian Personnel Administrative Order (CPAO) 6.28 provides that
> requests by DND employees for leave for military purposes shall be approved
> where authority exists to do so, other governmental departments are not
> obliged to grant this leave as the authorities are permissive rather than
> mandatory.



http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/203-06_e.asp


----------



## GAP

Here is the response I received from the MND a couple of days ago

Dear xxxxxx:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning job protection for members of the Reserve Force. I regret the delay in replying.

Reserve Force members must balance college and university studies or full-time employment with their military responsibilities. They gain military skills by working full or part-time with their home units, attending courses, exercises, and serving Canada for extended periods at home or overseas. Participation by reservists in Canadian Force missions at home and abroad are strictly voluntary. 

As part of its response to the events of 11 September 2001, the Government of Canada amended the National Defence Act by adding a section on Reinstatement in Civil Employment. This provision will require employers to protect the civilian jobs of reservist employees if they are required to serve in a non-voluntary capacity in the military in the event of a declared emergency, as defined by the National Defence Act. Canada has not experienced such an emergency since World War II.

Legislated job protection for other than emergency situations has been considered. However, our research indicates that compulsory job protection may not be the best way to assist reservists. In fact, such action could work against our Reserve Force members, as businesses could manage their hiring practices to prevent employing them. Members would then be forced to choose between full-time civilian employment and their desire to serve as members of the Reserve Force. Thus, in the absence of a defined emergency, voluntary job protection is the preferred option in Canada. 

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council plays a strong role in gaining support from Canadian employers for Reserve Force members. That support enhances the availability of reservists for military duties and encourages businesses to grant leave, without penalty, to reservists who volunteer to serve or to deploy on overseas missions. As well, the Council works to identify the benefits, such as leadership, commitment, and experience that members of the Canadian Forces bring to an organization. A positive approach to working with employers should help the majority of our reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen in the long run. 

While in most cases the voluntary process provides support for the majority of our Reserve Force members, there are occasions where employers cannot retain individuals who have deployed. Accordingly, we are now promoting other initiatives such as providing better access to federal Public Service and full-time Reserve job postings and providing increased opportunity for members to transfer to the Regular Force. 

Thank you for writing and for your interest in the Canadian Forces. 

Sincerely,


The Honourable Gordon J. O'Connor, PC, MP
Minister of National Defence

MCU2006-08377


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can take a year without pay as a Federal employee as long as your boss supports it.

Education leave is for one year and can be extended (article 54)

There is one day of "Volunteer leave" 


Look at Article 55.01 of the agreement. Employer at their discreation can grant leave with or without pay for other reasons not outlined in the agreement. (Seems to be a catch all clause, they can do it if it means avoiding bad PR or something)

At the end of the agreement there are MOU outlining agreements for employees working at various jobs that don't fit the norm, including DND. Given enough pressure and the right government, an MOU could be made between the Treasury Board and DND in regards to Federal Employees who are reservist and are going on deployments, exercises. I couldn't see anything else in the agreement, but check the Treasury board for any existing policies, which would not be in the agreement itself.

Don't bet on this being a priority with PSAC, they are busy giving money to the Labour congress to march with Hezbollah supporters.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

From the OPSEU Agreement:

ARTICLE 28 - LEAVE - MILITARY SERVICE
28.1 A Deputy Minister may grant leave of absence for not more than one (1)
week with pay and not more than one (1) week without pay in a fiscal
year to an employee in his or her ministry for the purpose of Canadian
Forces Reserve training.


Edited to add:

Various Ministries have also given long term LOA so Reservists can deploy.


----------



## Donut

Colin, my union (CUPE) gives money to the same causes (hezb'allah, etc) , it doesn't mean the individual locals aren't supportive, just that the national execs are a bunch of asshats.


----------



## Vinny

Guys (and Girls) I just want to bring up a point for discussion on the job protection front 

In principle I would love to see job protection for all of our reserve soldiers BUT be careful what you wish for . in places where that do have job protection for reserves there has been a backlash towards these reservists in countries have this protection in place.   Employers have not hired Reservists because the Employers knows that he has to protect the job of his employee citizen soldier.  I would just be careful because this has hurt reservists.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Donut

Please not in this thread... preferably it becomes an Info Only,

and it's been discussed to death in others.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Colin, my union (CUPE) gives money to the same causes (hezb'allah, etc) , it doesn't mean the individual locals aren't supportive, just that the national execs are a bunch of asshats.



I sent the asshat's a nastygram about that very subject and my displeasure, still awaiting reply to my e-mail and follow up e-mail!  :


----------



## PO2FinClk

Unsure if this is relative tot he original question:


			
				CFAO 203-6 said:
			
		

> 2.     Granting of leave for military purposes is governed by a collective
> agreement entered into by the bargaining agent and the Treasury Board, or
> by Treasury Board Regulations, depending on the person's occupational group
> and type of employment.





			
				CPAO 6.28 said:
			
		

> LEAVE FOR FULL-TIME MILITARY SERVICE
> 
> 4. The Commander of Command/Group Principal may grant leave without pay (LWOP) to an employee for up to three years on call out for full-time service with the Canadian Forces.
> 
> LEAVE FOR SERVICE WITH RESERVE FORCE
> 
> 5. The types of service, time limits, approving authorities, and pay and leave entitlements that shall be granted under this order are shown at Annex A.


----------



## Haggis

From CMP Instruction 20-04:

"2.16 Reservists who are Federal Public Servants 

The conditions and procedures to be followed by employees of the Federal Public Svc of Canada who are eligible to elect to receive their civilian salary during a period of Res F duty are contained in CFAO 203-6 and associated civilian administrative orders (for DND employees, CPAO 6.28 applies)."

You may also want to check the Treasury Board of Canada collective agreeements (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/siglist_e.asp) to see if your specific collective agreement has any provisions for military leave.


----------



## GAP

Reservists won’t lose jobs
Thu Apr 5 15:07:00 CDT 2007
Article Link

Military reservists sent oversees won't risk losing their jobs while they're away serving their country, thanks to new provincial rules passed today. 
The Employment Standards Act already offers unpaid leave and job protection to new parents or people who have lost family members. On April 30, the rules will apply to reservists sent into active duty in places like Afghanistan and Bosnia. 

Manitoba has about 700 reservists and half hold civilian jobs.    
End


(Mod edit to clarify thread title.)


----------



## GUNS

Manitoba :cdnsalute:


----------



## reccecrewman

It would be awfully nice to see this in each and every Province. Hopefully Manitoba just opened the gates for the rest to follow through.

Regards


----------



## medic_man17

Saskatchewan just recently passed something similar to that to protect civilian jobs of those individuals wishing to go on tour and i believe it also covers time off for training.


----------



## MikeM

Good on Manitoba, perhaps the title of the thread should be modified to not mislead people 

However it's good to see the provinces get on board with legislation like this, I wonder how long it will take Ontario to get up to speed  :


----------



## Donut

If someone has the actual details, could they post it here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/58333.0.html


----------



## orange.paint

Wow
Penisions,job retainment,makes me wonder why the heck I do this full time.

(Not a slam,I'm serious)


----------



## C/10

too bad i had to quit my job in Alberta to go on 1-08   

hopefully this trend catches on quickly elsewhere


----------



## lostrover

very misleading without any soucre to back it

Without an actual link to Manitoba's Employment Standards Act, detailing the actual provisions of the changes to the act, the papers article is pretty much useless.  I just spent 2 hours perusing and searching the changes comming in force on 30 April 2007 with respect to the act.....no mention in the least of anything relating to service with the CF.    Should anyone find any relevant information, please post er up.


----------



## GAP

If you want more detailed information send an email to the dept of labor or the minister


----------



## Haggis

The news article says that the protection extends to Reservists "sent" on active duty.  I wonder if they are covered if they "volunteer"? This could mirror the Federal legislation that only covers Reservists if they are *involuntarily* deployed.

If that's the case, it looks good on paper and in press for the Manitoba government but is essentially useless to the soldier.


----------



## lostrover

News release from the Govt of Manitoba website (www.gov.mb.ca)

April 5, 2007 

MANITOBA INTRODUCES LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PROTECT RESERVISTS' JOBS WHILE THEY SERVE


Legislation that would protect the jobs and benefits of civilians who are in the reserves and leave for extended periods to serve their country was introduced by Labour and Immigration Minister Nancy Allan today. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act would ensure reservists’ civilian jobs and benefits would be waiting for them when their service is completed.

“We commend those employers who honour informal commitments and support their workers who serve in the reserves,” said Allan. “Reservists who leave their jobs to serve their country should feel secure knowing that their right to return to their civilian jobs is protected by law.”

The demand for reservists is growing with Canada’s commitments abroad.  Up to 20 per cent of some overseas deployments consist of reservists.  Since 2000, more than 4,000 primary reservists have been deployed for Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti and other international hot spots.  Manitoba has approximately 700 reservists, about half of whom are employed in civilian jobs.

The minister noted the Labour Management Review Committee, made up of business and labour representatives, was consulted on the issue and gave unanimous support to the proposal.

The Employment Standards Act already provides unpaid leave and job protection in the areas of maternity, parental and compassionate-care leave. Recent amendments to the code that take effect April 30 will provide unpaid leave and job protection for family responsibilities, illness and bereavement. 



I have sent an email requesting further clarification on the issue, and the actual wordings of the act.  They can be contact at the fol:
Telephone: 204-945-3352 or
Toll free in Manitoba 1-800-821-4307
Fax: 204-948-3046
E-mail: Employmentstandards@gov.mb.ca



Lets hope this doesn't prove to be "essentially useless to the soldier".
Those in Provinces with similar act already in place, should take the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the acts, no sense having soldiers make foolish mistakes based upon misleading or misguided information.


----------



## AcornsRus

I'm trying to get clarity from someone about this.  Does anyone know about Reservist job protection in NS? Upon reading the provincial Canadian Forces Reservists Protection Act, it all comes down to the meaning of the word "required."

"An employee, who has been employed by an employer for at least one year and is required to be absent from the employer's civilian employment for purpose of service, is entitled to an unpaid leave of absence upon"

Canadian Forces Reservists Protection Act  - CHAPTER 13 OF THE ACTS OF 2006
http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/3rd_read/b080.htm

Apparently this is suppose to come into affect this summer.  Any input?


----------



## PuckChaser

My only input would be a hope that this makes it's way into the House of Commons and becomes Federal law. RegF pers are getting rundown with all these roto's, and you have tons of reservists that would like to do a tour, but can't because they have a good civilian job that they would have to quit.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

my guess would be that required means career courses bmq,sq,dp1, and things such as dom ops/aid of the civil power stuff, not guys who volunteer for tours. It would have to be done in the same manner as the US Ntnl Guard whereby the entire CBG is activated, trained, and deployed, so the GG up and says hey 41 CBG you're going type thing


----------



## Greymatters

Good to know.  Something to pass on to others in the HR field!


----------



## Harris

From the link above:

"'service' means a period of active duty or training in the Reserves;"

To me that includes Tours, but clarification is needed I suspect.


----------



## Greymatters

I imagine somone will test it soon, and then a judge will provide interpretation, clarification, and precedent.


----------



## CombatMP265

Prior to the third reading of the bill I was able to talk to the CFLC NS Liason Capt.(N) W. 
I brought to his attention a lot of interpretations and definitions that had to be outlined prior to the approval of the Bill. He asked me what I thought about it, as he was going to talk to the local MPs[Ministers of Parliment]. And I had a couple of issues. 

One, they have to define what they meant by "Military Training". Does it refer to workup training, courses, weekend ex's, or even your weekly parade night? 

Two, it states that notice must be given in a "resonable amount of time" to the employer of a reservist. This needs to be defined, because someone could give 3 months notice but have his/her boss say "It's not enough notice" and threaten to fire them. It's too much power for an employer to have if this bill is supposed to protect reservists. 

Three, they removed the protection for those with civi jobs from the first reading (position holding, and penalties for break the law). Therefore this bill is really only for students. 

Four, the penalties for breaking the bill need to be higher. The max is a $5000 fine that a large company can esily absorb instead of protecting a job for someone going on workups and deploying. This bill needs to enforce and deter 'slick willy' companies from getting rid of reservists who want to deploy. 

And I gave him those recommendations, but I guess they were never put in.


----------



## Harris

Glad to hear someone pointed the issues out.  It's unfortunate that no one listened.  As its written now, the Company I work for could easily get out of allowing me to use this.


----------



## Greymatters

I was at a meeting yesterday of HR types and asked if anyone else had input to this, ref a similiar bill/act in BC.  No one had heard of one (yet) and were only able to cite a program where the CF goes out and seeks employers who voluntary apply this principal to their own company policies.  Anyone able to help out and tell me the name of the CF group doing this?  (I tried sveral searches but I must be using the wrong search words because no success so far...)


----------



## Haggis

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/


----------



## Greymatters

Excellent, many thanks!


----------



## AcornsRus

CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> ....
> Three, they removed the protection for those with civi jobs from the first reading (position holding, and penalties for break the law). Therefore this bill is really only for students.




I'm not sure why you say this.  Section 60H1 of the Act doesn't cover resumption of work, but it does refer to the NS Labour Standards Code. http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/labourst.htm.  The Code already covers Resumption of Work under section 59g. 

I suppose we just wait for the challenge - and a judge to interpret "required" leave and "Training." And I would imagine the bad publicity could have more teeth than a $5,000 fine.


----------



## CombatMP265

Dunderhead said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why you say this.  Section 60H1 of the Act doesn't cover resumption of work, but it does refer to the NS Labour Standards Code. http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/statutes/labourst.htm.  The Code already covers Resumption of Work under section 59g.
> 
> I suppose we just wait for the challenge - and a judge to interpret "required" leave and "Training." And I would imagine the bad publicity could have more teeth than a $5,000 fine.


Yes it does cover resumption of work, but it does not cover position holding. Which means that when a reservist returns from tour it does not gaurantee they will be doing the same job as before. Therefore, while their civi employer has to hire them back, they are not bound to give them their same job and/or pay. That's the real issue.

Another thing cut out of the act was seniority. If you go on tour there is no garuntee that seniority and promotion merits will be held either. 

Yes, bad publicity is an issue as demonstrated with the Major who worked for NB Power. However, this speaks to the bigger issue about "protection" legislation. My personal view is that protection legislation is there to do just that, protect. Were not to cater to companies, and while a cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship is the ideal to job protection, it is not the priority. The priority must be protecting reservists jobs in order to serve Canada and holding employers who squirm out of commitments to a high public standard.


----------



## AcornsRus

CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> .....Therefore, while their civi employer has to hire them back, they are not bound to give them their same job and/or pay. That's the real issue.
> 
> Another thing cut out of the act was seniority. If you go on tour there is no garuntee that seniority and promotion merits will be held either.



NS labour code section 59G says:

"59G (1) When an employee returns to work upon the expiry of a leave of absence taken pursuant to Section 59, 59A or 59B or returns to work pursuant to Section 59C, the employer shall permit the employee to resume work

(a) in the position held by the employee immediately before the leave began or, where that position is not available, in a comparable position with not less than the same wages and benefits; and

(b) with no loss of seniority or benefits accrued to the commencement of the leave."

I'm no expert at reading this stuff, but doesn't that cover what you were concerned about?


----------



## CombatMP265

Dunderhead said:
			
		

> NS labour code section 59G says:
> 
> "59G (1) When an employee returns to work upon the expiry of a leave of absence taken pursuant to *Section 59, 59A or 59B* or returns to work pursuant to Section 59C, the employer shall permit the employee to resume work
> 
> (a) in the position held by the employee immediately before the leave began or, where that position is not available, in a comparable position with not less than the same wages and benefits; and
> 
> (b) with no loss of seniority or benefits accrued to the commencement of the leave."
> 
> I'm no expert at reading this stuff, but doesn't that cover what you were concerned about?


No it doesn't cover what I was talking about. Reread those sections you quoted. They refer to pregnency leave and parental leave only. That quote has nothing to do with reserve leave.


----------



## AcornsRus

CombatMP265 said:
			
		

> No it doesn't cover what I was talking about. Reread those sections you quoted. They refer to pregnency leave and parental leave only. That quote has nothing to do with reserve leave.



Yes it does. The Reservist section (60H) subsection 5 states: 
Sections 59F to 60 apply mutatis mutandis to an employee who takes a leave of absence pursuant to this Section. 2006, c. 13, s. 9.


----------



## CombatMP265

I stand corrected


----------



## Steel Badger

When I went over to Bosnia in 03-04 I did so with the full support of OPSEU, and of my superintendant. I requested leave under the art. referrenced by Dglad.

We have, however, had ongoing issues with management over workers taking time off for trg. I have had several leaves revoked by management because the adult supervision decided that they didnt like feeling "forced" to do things by the union or by Ontario legislation. I have heard many similar complaints from across the province.

So far so good tho on my leave for TF 03-08. We shall see how it transpires.

Cheers


SB


----------



## Robert McClelland

A new group on facebook;
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5510836659

and a petition;
http://www.petitiononline.com/jobprot/petition.html
_*To:  Canadian House of Commons*

Canadian reservists frequently volunteer to serve our country in extended overseas missions. Unfortunately our country--with the exception of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia--does not recognize their sacrifice and some reservists return home only to face the unemployment line.

This situation is simply not fair to the men and women who put their lives on the line for their fellow Canadians.

Therefore we believe it's long overdue for the Canadian government to enact federal legislation that will protect the jobs of reservists who volunteer to serve in extended overseas missions. _


----------



## George Wallace

Apparantly there is already a program in place to deal with this.  I should be getting a briefing on it sometime in the next week or two.  Everyone is supposed to get it.  It deals with Job protection for Reservists when they Deploy or are Tasked.


----------



## George Wallace

You may also want to look at/research:

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council (CFLC), which administers Canada’s reserve force employer support programme.

For more information on Canada’s employer support programmes for the Reserve Force, call the Canadian Forces Liaison Council toll free at
1-800-567-9908, or visit www.cflc.forces.gc.ca   

Or perhaps you would like to read more recent developments in Alliance.

CANFORGEN 090/04 ADMHRMIL 044 021818Z JUL 04
REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT deals with Public Safety Act, 2002 (Bill C-7).


----------



## Greymatters

Ive checked on this in BC, and the only guarantee is through a CF (or CAF) plan where your company voluntarily signs up saying they will guarantee your job will be waiting for you when you return.


----------



## dapaterson

Certain provinces have introduced legislation to protect Reserve employment.  That being said, there are caveats to attach to such an effort:

(1) The US experience suggets Reservists can suffer some discrimination in hiring, as employers do not wish to have the administrative burden of dealing with replacement workers or assuring an equivalent employment on their return from military duty.

(2) Since 1939 all Reserve full-time service has been on a voluntary basis - individuals have not been "called out on service" IAW the NDA.  Certain provisions may only apply if the Government elects to call out reservists, vice having them volunteer.  In that case, members volunteering may have no protection.

(3) Both carrots and sticks may be needed; providing some financial incentive to employers may facilitate the process.


----------



## geo

This has been discussed before on Army.ca BUT here goes, 
The best job protection that the Gov't can provide is to make the hiring of reservists "irresistible".

1.   Quantify the special qualities that reservists bring to the job
2.   Provide a financial incentive for the employer to let reservists go take their courses, take predeployment training and deploy.  The employer has to reschedule or hire replacement staff - make it worth his while.  Provide a tax credit for the wages they will pay same said replacement.  Cover off the company benefits paid (health care, UIC, CPP, group health, etc).
3.   When the CF schedules a course..... run the course - stop cancelling courses at a couple of days from the date of departure.


----------



## Haggis

I don't think this will go far, for a couple of reasons:

1.  Employment Standards laws (i.e hours of work, OT, holidays, time off including "job protection") are a provincial responsibility.  Why do you think individual provinces are passing thier own laws?

2. *GAP* posted a letter he received here from Minister O'Connor, which rules out legislated job protection for exactly the reasons *dapaterson* voiced above.


----------



## Robert McClelland

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Apparantly there is already a program in place to deal with this.  I should be getting a briefing on it sometime in the next week or two.  Everyone is supposed to get it.  It deals with Job protection for Reservists when they Deploy or are Tasked.



My understanding is that legislation was introduced in the House but nothing has been done with it and now it will die when Harper prorogues Parliament this fall.


----------



## Korus

The fact that we reservists volunteer for missions overseas is a very valid point, and exactly why job protection can not be effectively and fairly legislated for voluntary tours. It's nice to say that a private company should be obligated to give us our jobs back, but it's not that simple. Many companies can simply not function well if a skilled/vital employee ups and leaves for the year to year and a half it seems to take nowadays to do predeployment and a tour. That employee needs to be replaced in that time frame. What then happens to the replacement employee? Are they held on the line to be outsted when the reservist returns just so that they can have their position back, even though the returning reservist is now a year or more out of date in their trade/profession if it's not the same as what they did on the tour? 

It's a big choice to volunteer to go on a tour, and in many ways it's exactly like getting another job. You have to leave a current job to take a new one, and then again have to find something new when the contract expires. It's tough sometimes, and from personal experience, it's not always easy to get back from a tour and think "ok, what now?", but that's just life. 

That's also why mandatory job protection when volunteering would yield HUGE amounts of hiring discrimination against reservists, IMHO.

Just my $0.02 as a reservist who would like to go on another tour, but has to juggle a civilian career at the same time.

edited to add:



> This has been discussed before on Army.ca BUT here goes,
> The best job protection that the Gov't can provide is to make the hiring of reservists "irresistible".
> 
> 1.   Quantify the special qualities that reservists bring to the job
> 2.   Provide a financial incentive for the employer to let reservists go take their courses, take predeployment training and deploy.  The employer has to reschedule or hire replacement staff - make it worth his while.  Provide a tax credit for the wages they will pay same said replacement.  Cover off the company benefits paid (health care, UIC, CPP, group health, etc).
> 3.   When the CF schedules a course..... run the course - stop cancelling courses at a couple of days from the date of departure.



I fully concur with what GEO posted, as quoted above, especially point number 3, which is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.


----------



## geo

Haggis,
As stated, the smartet thing the CF could do is to work out financial incentives with the revenue department.
That transcends labour laws and hits the business owner right in the pocketbook - where he'll understand.


----------



## Haggis

geo said:
			
		

> Haggis,
> As stated, the smartet thing the CF could do is to work out financial incentives with the revenue department.
> That transcends labour laws and hits the business owner right in the pocketbook - where he'll understand.



Agreed... in spades, Geo.  The CF, like all other departments, is funded by Treasury Board and, quite honestly, offering cash incentives to the employers of the small percentage  of Reservists who deploy each year isn't really a lot of money (depending on the size of the incentive, of course).  We're only talking about 2400 or so Reservists who deploy each year right now.  Once A'stan closes out, that number will fall down into the hundreds, mostly Air and Naval Reservists.

The problem lies in that DND/CF is always chronically underfunded to the point that:

a. something else will become a non-deliverable to support this (like some General's pet project), or;
b. other businesses will want cash incentives for thier "community minded' employees who volunteeer (like firefighters), or;
c. everyone will finally realize that it's simply cheaper to exclusively deploy the Reg F since they're already paid for.


----------



## Spanky

This has been suggested before and since the topic has been brought up again, here goes.  Why not set something up similar, in scope, to Maternity or Parental Leave.  The time lines are similar, and the employer is in the same situation re: replacing a key employee.  If the Feds threw in some extra incentive, I don't see how it would not work.


----------



## Redeye

I hope that no legislation like this goes through, because I'm always torn about whether to disclose that I'm in the Reserve to potential employers.  The potential for discrimination is huge, and there seems to be a lot of evidence of this happening to American reservists.  A voluntary program, providing reservists with support in negotiating with their employers regarding their intent to take call outs, as the CFLC does, is a better situation I think - because it doesn't risk this discrimination as much (although I suspect many employers on a small scale will still potentially avoid reservists - I'm sure the individual who hired me in a very large corporation will himself never hire another one, because I'm always having to fend off allegations of not being committed to that - my primary employment - in favour of being in the Reserve.


----------



## Rick Delaney 1

I think that it's a sad day in this country when we even have to ask for this kind of legislation.It just shows how little some companies think of the sacrifices made by our people in uniform.I personally would like to see the names of these companies broadcast so the public could choose if they want to do business with them or not As for the possibility of future discrimination against the reserves,aren't the now being discriminated against  by not being afforded the same rights as someone taking Parental/Maternity leave.Most pregnancies are also voluntary.


----------



## Haggis

All things considered, Reserve job protection legislation is only going to impact on about 23,000 Canadians.  That's a mere pittance compared to the several million potentially affected by maternity and parental job protection legislation.  Taking time off from work to begin or raise a family is far more socially and politically acceptable that taking time off to fight a mostly unpopular war.

In the big scheme of things:  "So what?"

To echo what Redeye said, I'd rather have time off granted by an employer because he wanted to, knowing the value of what Reservists do for Canada and the skills they bring to the job, than having him give time off because he had to.

Now, as others have said, if an employer is given certain "incentives" (bonuses, tax breaks, first right of refusal on contracts etc.) to give time off, then that's great.  Particularly if those incentives result in positive discrimination for the Reservist (i.e preferential hiring, recognition of military qualifcations etc.)


----------



## Greymatters

This is an issue that should be addressed in all business and management courses across the country.  However, it would be unrealistic to expect the academic world, which is traditionally anti-military (except at military colleges of course), to include material that supports benefits for the military and its members at the expense of the business owner.


----------



## Maybee

All good posts here so far. I am researching this for my day job as well as personal interest. 
Unlike some posters I have not been able to find any solid evidence from the US experience (with the exception of one credible anecdote) about hiring discrimination.
If anyone knows where I can find it I would be interested in seeing it. Would a visit with a provincial human rights commission not also resolve the hiring thing in the same way it aids those who are discriminated on some other basis?


----------



## Haggis

Maybee said:
			
		

> Would a visit with a provincial human rights commission not also resolve the hiring thing in the same way it aids those who are discriminated on some other basis?



No.  The Canadian Human Rights Act identifies eleven prohibited grounds: race, national or ethic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, and conviction for which a pardon has been granted upon which a complaint of discrimination can be laid.

Being a Reservist is not one of the "prohibited 11" so a provincial human rights tribunal wouldn't' even look at this.


----------



## Maybee

Yeah. Roger that. Anyways I found a pair of articles that described the difficulties facing the US NG and Reserve elements. Plus a government report.  Basically well worded legislation that provides some sort of incentive to the employer seems to be the solution. That and as much predictability as possible for the reservist and their employer.


----------



## The_Falcon

While searching for specific info about military leave with the Ontario government (since thats who I technically work for now), I came across, http://www.ontla.on.ca/bills/bills-files/38_Parliament/Session2/b226_e.htm  It died on the order paper, when the legislature was disolved for the election however.  It would be great if this got picked up once the new government comes in.


----------



## armyvern

Well this just in ...

Pic was taken approx 1 hour ago of myself and Premiere Ghiz of PEI during the provincial ceremonies to welcome home memebers of the PEIR & 721 Comm Sqn from operations on TF1-07.

I am pleased to say that part of the Premiere's speech included the statement that the PEI Legislature is introducing legislation that will secure and protect CF Res F members jobs in the province while they work-up and deploy on international operations.
He certainly got one huge cheer for that from the boys & girls who just came home!!

+1 to PEI.


----------



## The Bread Guy

8) shot Vern - thanks for sharing.

For what it's worth, here's the latest on job protection for Reservists, from the Minister of Human Resources & Social Development - in spite of media coverage saying "Canada wants to protect jobs of Reservists," I'm not exactly reading that in the news release (highlights mine - maybe the third highlighted bit commits a bit) .....

*Canada's New Government stands up for the Canadian Reserve Force*
Minister Blackburn engages in national dialogue towards reintegration strategy
Sep 28, 2007 13:00 ET

MONCTON, NEW BRUNSWICK--(Marketire - Sept. 28, 2007) - The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, visited New Brunswick today to *continue Canada's New Government's dialogue to ensure that reservists are successfully reintegrated into the Canadian work force*.

"Canada's New Government is committed to doing everything possible to ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Reserve Force who serve our country are well supported when they return to civilian working life. They deserve it," said Minister Blackburn.

There are over 33,000 reservists living in hundreds of communities across Canada. Approximately 2,500 of these reservists are on active duty at any given time, and many are students. However, those who are employed in full-time jobs elsewhere comprise the largest segment of the Canadian Reserve Force.

Minister Blackburn addressed members of the Gagetown Canadian Forces Base as part of *his national dialogue tour with stakeholders*. Later in the day, Minister Blackburn attended a press conference at the Hildegard Fire Station in order to recognize the City of Moncton for its exceptional support to members of the Canadian Reserve Force.

Canadian Reserve Force personnel play a vital role in protecting Canada's interests at home and abroad. Reservists have been called upon frequently to contribute to international peace, stability and human security throughout the world. They have also come to the aid of Canadians in times of crisis, such as the Winnipeg and Saguenay floods, and the Ice Storm of 1998. In doing so, reservists take time away from not only their jobs and careers but also from their families and friends.

*"Let's do everything we can to ensure that no one who wears our military uniform should ever have to go directly from the front line to the unemployment line,"* added Minister Blackburn.

*Canada's New Government is engaging in a dialogue to hear the perspectives of other jurisdictions and interested stakeholders before moving forward on implementing a strategy to ensure that reservists reintegrate into the Canadian work force successfully.*

This news release is available in alternative formats upon request.


----------



## Greymatters

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am pleased to say that part of the Premiere's speech included the statement that the PEI Legislature is introducing legislation that will secure and protect CF Res F members jobs in the province while they work-up and deploy on international operations.



Good to hear.  Whats the total now: Nova Scotia, PEI, Saskatchewan, Manitoba... did I miss any?  This will get the fatcats here in BC off their butts and doing something...


----------



## tomahawk6

A big step in the right direction.


----------



## The_Falcon

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Good to hear.  Whats the total now: Nova Scotia, PEI, Saskatchewan, Manitoba... did I miss any?  This will get the fatcats here in BC off their butts and doing something...



And hopefully here in Ontario, whoever forms the next government introduces a government bill as opposed to a private members bill.


----------



## Garett

http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&List=toc&query=5262&Session=15
http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/corporate/newsroom/speeches/blackburnjp/070925.shtml

Heard about this on the news today, looks like this might come through.  Comments?


----------



## The_Falcon

Watch and shoot, I'll believe it when it gets royal assent and is proclaimed into law.


----------



## Haggis

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Watch and shoot, I'll believe it when it gets royal assent and is proclaimed into law.



So what?  There are no penalties in this law for employers who choose to ignore it.  There are also no incentives to reward those who choose to comply.  It's a toothless paper tiger.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Haggis said:
			
		

> S what?  There are no penalties in this law for employers who choose to ignore it.  There are also no incentives to reward those who choose to comply.  It's a toothless paper tiger.



While this particular bill does have not specific incentives/disincentives listed, its purpose is not to establish a new and separate act to deal with reservists.  Rather the bill's aim is to make amendments to three existing codes:
The Canada Labour Code ,
The Public Service Labour Relations Act
The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.

In the case of the Canada Labour Code, the new section dealing with "Leave for Reservists" would be placed within that section of the code concerning vacations etc., in fact immediately preceding the division concerning Reassignment, Maternity Leave, Parental Leave and Compassionate Care Leave.  Thus the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, including already existing offences and sanctions against those who do not follow it, would apply.


----------



## The_Falcon

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While this particular bill does have not specific incentives/disincentives listed, its purpose is not to establish a new and separate act to deal with reservists.  Rather the bill's aim is to make amendments to three existing codes:
> The Canada Labour Code ,
> The Public Service Labour Relations Act
> The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.
> 
> In the case of the Canada Labour Code, the new section dealing with "Leave for Reservists" would be placed within that section of the code concerning vacations etc., in fact immediately preceding the division concerning Reassignment, Maternity Leave, Parental Leave and Compassionate Care Leave.  Thus the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, including already existing offences and sanctions against those who do not follow it, would apply.



So does that mean you would only get this protection if you happen to work for an employer who fell under the jurisdiction of one of those acts, and if not your screwed until your own provincial government creates their own reserve job protection measures?


----------



## Haggis

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While this particular bill does have not specific incentives/disincentives listed, its purpose is not to establish a new and separate act to deal with reservists.  Rather the bill's aim is to make amendments to three existing codes:
> The Canada Labour Code ,
> The Public Service Labour Relations Act
> The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act.
> 
> In the case of the Canada Labour Code, the new section dealing with "Leave for Reservists" would be placed within that section of the code concerning vacations etc., in fact immediately preceding the division concerning Reassignment, Maternity Leave, Parental Leave and Compassionate Care Leave.  Thus the provisions of the Canada Labour Code, including already existing offences and sanctions against those who do not follow it, would apply.



Seen.  Therfore it would fall under Part III of the Canada Labour Code. If so, if the penalties levied are those listed under s. 256(1), that's pretty inconsequential to a large, federally regulated employer, such as those described under s. 167 of the Canada Labour Code.

The majority of these employers are likely already Reservist friendly through the efforts of their members and the CFLC.  We need a law that will "target" the smaller, provincially regulated employers who employ the lion's share of Reservists.   This falls under provincial purview and efforts are being made independantly in several provinces to implement similar protections.  This is where incentives are going to be more productive than penalties in gaining compliance (although penalties are still necessary).


----------



## Blackadder1916

Haggis said:
			
		

> The majority of these employers are likely already Reservist friendly through the efforts of their members and the CFLC.  We need a law that will "target" the smaller, provincially regulated employers who employ the lion's share of Reservists.   This falls under provincial purview and efforts are being made independantly in several provinces to implement similar protections.  This is where incentives are going to be more productive than penalties in gaining compliance (although penalties are still necessary).



That may be so, but changes to many provincial labour codes were often preceded by similiar federal legislation.  Of note is the proposed admendment to The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act



> 4. The Department of Public Works and Government Services Act is amended by adding the following after section 22:
> 
> 22.1 (1) In this section, "reserve force" means the component of the Canadian Forces that is referred to in subsection 15(3) of the National Defence Act.
> 
> (2) *In every contract for the supply of goods or services entered into under section 20, there shall be inserted an express condition that the supplier of the goods or services under the contract shall grant a leave of absence, on the terms and conditions set out in Division VI.1 of Part III of the Canada Labour Code*, to any of its employees who is an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force and, for that purpose, "employee" in Division VI.1 is to be read as a reference to a person employed by the supplier.


There's an incentive there.  If you want to do business with the federal government, allow Reservists to serve.


----------



## geo

Yawn,
THis has been discussed before.
I see employers surreptitiously asking job candidates if they are reservists...... candidates that will not be invited back for a second interview - unless the employer is realy and truly desparate.


----------



## dapaterson

This is the first draft of the bill - it can be revised and improved before passage.

Note also that it was introduced in the Senate (Senator Hugh Segal is the sponsor); therefore it cannot include any financial incentives - only the House of Commons may initiate spending bills.

So, were a member of Parliament to adapt this, and add in some sort of carrot for employers, then introduce it as a "new" bill into the House, it might be a whole lot more palatable.


----------



## geo

They've got to remember one thing... Small business owners understand one thing very clearly.... money.

They understand that to let someone go off on deployment, it's gonna cost them something to train a replacement.
Give em a tax credit, a first crack at a gov't contract, exempt EI and CPP contributions for the replacement worker.... THAT is something they will understand.


----------



## dangerboy

Dec 03, 2007 10:18 AM 
Rob Ferguson 
Queen's Park Bureau
Military reservists called up for duty in Ontario will have their civilian jobs protected, and military families transferred to Ontario will enjoy immediate OHIP coverage under new legislation promised today by Premier Dalton McGuinty. 
The law, if passed, would help about 8,500 military families who have had to wait 90 days to become eligible for OHIP, often paying their own medical bills. 

"They and their families shouldn't have to wait," McGuinty said. 

Reservists called up for a tour of duty at home or abroad will be guaranteed under the legislation that their civilian jobs will be waiting when they return. 

"Ontarians who put their lives on the line to serve our country should never have to worry that their civilian jobs back home are on the line." 
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/282042


----------



## toughenough

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Reservists called up for a tour of duty at home or abroad will be guaranteed under the legislation that their civilian jobs will be waiting when they return.



I thought that this was always the case, its just a matter of what happens when they aren't "called up", but rather, volunteer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ontario joins the fray.

http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/Product.asp?ProductID=1814&amp;amp;Lang=EN



> News Releases
> For Immediate Release
> December 3, 2007
> 
> ONTARIANS STANDING WITH MILITARY FAMILIES
> McGuinty Government Introduces Legislation That Would Ensure Faster Access To OHIP Coverage, Job Protection For Reservists
> TORONTO — The McGuinty government is standing with those who serve in the military and the reserves by introducing legislation that would, if passed, provide immediate access to OHIP for eligible military families and protect the jobs of reservists who are called up to duty.
> 
> "When asked to make sacrifices on our behalf, our men and women in uniform do not hesitate, so when it comes to accessing government services, they and their families shouldn't have to wait," said Premier Dalton McGuinty.
> 
> "Compared to what they do for us, these are modest measures, but it is our hope that they will make military families' lives a little easier, and provide our soldiers with some peace of mind."
> 
> The legislation, if passed, would also remove the 90-day waiting period for services insured under OHIP for military families. Military families transferred to Ontario from other provinces or from overseas are sometimes required to pay physician fees up front during the waiting period. The new policy is expected to benefit approximately 8,500 military family members each year.
> 
> "People who serve our country should not have to face an additional burden of paying fees up front for publicly funded heath care for their families. This legislation, if passed, would ensure that military families have immediate access to coverage for the full range of provincially funded health care services," said Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and Long-Term Care George Smitherman.
> 
> The proposed legislation would also ensure that military reservists have job protection while on a tour of duty either at home or abroad. There are about 12,000 reservists from Ontario, with several hundred serving abroad at any one time.
> 
> "Job-protected leave for reservists would acknowledge the service and sacrifice these citizens render their country and community. Ontarians who put their lives on the line to serve our country should never have to worry that their civilian jobs back home are on the line," said Labour Minister Brad Duguid.
> 
> Premier McGuinty met with military families today to outline the changes and thank them for their service and sacrifices.
> 
> "Canadian Forces members and reservists do a tough job, often in difficult conditions. They stand ready to protect us — we have to make sure our province stands with them," he said.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## BKells

That's my question as well... does this protect those that volunteer? And what constitutes service which would be protected? Volunteering to go on a course or teach a course for the summer or just for deployments?


----------



## geo

.... methinks it's just another way for provincial politicians to make promisses that have little if any meaning.

Troops who are transfered to Ontario CONTINUE to be covered by their old province's medicare plan for 1st 90 days...  so McGuinty promisses won't cost him anything.

WRT volunteering VS being called up.... ayup, you noticed the wording too?


----------



## Haggis

> That's my question as well... does this protect those that volunteer? And what constitutes service which would be protected? Volunteering to go on a course or teach a course for the summer or just for deployments?



According to the published backgrounder, the proposed new law also covers Reservists who volunteer *for deployments*.

The interesting thing about this piece, compared to other provinces and the proposed amendments to Canada Labour Code (so far) is that it includes pre-and post deployment periods with no time limits.


----------



## geo

Haggis.... seen.... If I was an employer, I would prolly think a lot more BEFORE hiring a reservist.


----------



## The_Falcon

geo said:
			
		

> Haggis.... seen.... If I was an employer, I would prolly think a lot more BEFORE hiring a reservist.



Yup, that will be an unfortunate side effect.  I have already mentioned in another thread, how I believe I was denied a job simply because I was a reservist.


----------



## geo

Bingo!

Employers already have to contend with, upon hiring young women - he can expect to give em a 1 yr maternity leave at some point in time... If he hires a reservist, he can expect to give em a 1 1/2 year deployment leave at some point in time.....

Without providing some form of financial advantage, legislating reservist job protection is, from my persopective, a waste of time.


----------



## Pampers

I believe the law of unintended consequences will take over and we'll see a change in the employment landscape.

My experience has been over the years, employers:

A) Don't understand what we do, what kind of training we receive, unless they served themselves;
B) Don't understand what kind of commitment level we have(they think we head overseas on a moments notice);
C) Don't know we do in fact get paid, 
D) Don't know how to utilize the Leadership/Initiative/Professionalism that comes from being in the Reserves.

The key question a potential employer is going to have is "how will this affect me?"  Nobody thinks past 90 days anymore, and thinking that Johnny Bloggins is going to go on "Tour, whatever that means" means they will have to find a suitable replacement, train them, in the knowledge that when Johnny Bloggins comes back they have to rehire them and figure out what to do with the person they brought on as a replacement.  This causes their synapses to fry because they have to problem solve on top of their normal duties.  Most managers aren't good enough to deal with this kind of problem, and most organizations not flexible enough to cope.

When interviewing, the potential employer will want to know up front if you are going away or thinking about it.  The answer yes probably won't work in your favour. Can they ask that? Yes.  Can you prove that's why they didn't hire you? Unless you get it in writing, no.

**edited to reflect my sausage fingers**


----------



## geo

2 scenarios.....
Fella comes into the office after the weekend with a leg in a cast from a skiing accident... Boss is 1st one in line to wish you well & sign your cast.

Fella comes into the office after a weekend ex with a leg in a cast from a training accident... Boss is 1st one in line to tell same said fella that he has certain decisions to make if he is interested in working for his company... IE - Quit the reserves or Quit the company.


----------



## Blakey

"Fella comes into the office after a weekend ex with a leg in a cast from a training accident... Boss is 1st one in line to tell same said fella that he has certain decisions to make if he is interested in working for his company... IE - Quit the reserves or Quit the company."

Has this actually happened?,   

EDIT: I missed the _scenario_ part


----------



## PMedMoe

geo said:
			
		

> Employers already have to contend with, upon hiring young women - he can expect to give em a 1 yr maternity leave at some point in time...



Maybe not, her hubby might take half of it.....


----------



## slowmode

Now I have a question, does this mean if you go on course like for the summer your job will still be protected when you get back? Or does it actually mean Operational Theaters.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier

slowmode said:
			
		

> Now I have a question, does this mean if you go on course like for the summer your job will still be protected when you get back? Or does it actually mean Operational Theaters.



As I understand it just Operational Theaters.


----------



## Haggis

slowmode said:
			
		

> Now I have a question, does this mean if you go on course like for the summer your job will still be protected when you get back? Or does it actually mean Operational Theaters.



Domestic and international operational missions.  For time off for courses you're still on your own.  However, I beleive this new law has just made it much harder for Reservists to get time off for courses since employers now know that they MUST get time off for deployments.

"Be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it."


----------



## Dissident

Good intention, improper execution.

I would much rather see forms of tax credits and the likes for companies that hire reservist or allow reservist to go on deployment.


----------



## Roy Harding

> "City extends benefits for military reservists" (Calgary Herald, 2007-12-11. Page 19)
> 
> City extends benefits for military reservists
> 
> COLETTE DERWORIZ CALGARY HERALD
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> City employees who work as reservists will no longer lose pay, benefits or pension while they are training or serving overseas, after council endorsed a military leave policy Monday.
> 
> The policy, which takes effect Jan. 1, will put the City of Calgary in front of most other municipalities in the compensation packages offered to reservists.
> 
> Employees will be eligible for a military leave for a maximum of 24 months.
> 
> “That’s giving me goosebumps,” said Shawna Taylor, whose husband Jeff had to take a year leave of absence from the city to cover training and a six-month deployment to Afghanistan. “I’m glad because we didn’t have that.
> “People who are thinking about making a difference in the country will now be able to, because it doesn’t leave the family struggling.”
> 
> Since her husband’s benefits were cut off by the city, Taylor’s family was left without medical and dental coverage for almost three months.
> 
> Under the new policy, military reservists employed full-time by the city would have their salary, benefits and pension topped up for up to 24 months for training, domestic relief operations or international deployments. It also ensures employees don’t lose their benefits, seniority or vacation time.
> 
> “It’s something meaningful, tangible and supports military families who call Calgary home,” said Mayor Dave Bronconnier.
> 
> Early next year, 64 reservists serving with the Calgary Highlanders will be sent to Afghanistan for up to six months.
> 
> While there are about 100 reservists working for the city, it’s unknown how many are slated to go overseas.
> 
> City officials estimated, however, that the policy would cost less than $100,000 annually.
> 
> “It’s one of the best things we could have done for our members of the Canadian Forces and their families,” said Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart, who, along with the mayor, asked council earlier this year to support the policy.
> “It really puts our money where our mouth is.”
> 
> Colley-Urquhart said the city is getting calls from other municipalities — and some private companies — about Calgary’s policy.
> 
> “There have been inquiries from across the country on what we are doing,” she said.
> 
> Earlier this year, city council was criticized for its decision not to put Support the Troops decals on municipal vehicles.



I can't link to the original - I'm a subscriber, and share this article IAW the "share this article" ability inherent in my subscription.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Very classy.  Nice to see them step up.  My own LOA (given that someone feels it is necessary for us to have a minimum 7 month work up) is going to cost me $14,500 in pension buy-back.  And that is _IF_ the roto ends when it is supposed to (which it might not).


----------



## forcerecon85

Only seems right to give them that benefit. Its good to hear.


----------



## Rearadmiral

Just my opinion, but this and similar provincial legislation is just window dressing.  My reason for this opinion is that most legislation protects reservists when serving operationally but ignores protection when the reservist has to train to become eligible for an operational posting.  A smart employer could just deny training time and never face the issue of an operational posting and the avoid application of these laws.  

In a recent review in this area it seems that Nova Scotia comes out on top.  My own province (NB) has introduced legislation to protect reservist's jobs.  But my criticism is that unless they are willing to allow for training time the operational protection is limited, and NB only protects operational time.  I know Gov't shoudln't impose reserve training requirements on businesses, but, in my opinion the provice as an employer should show some leadership and and bring in thses policies themselves.  My province has a bad record on this.  Last year a provincial Crown Corp fired a reservist who wanted to do a second tour with the PRT in Afghanistan.  My work (a different Crown Corp) brought in a policy that allows me five days but specifically prohibits me using it for anything that might be used for getting a promotion.  I think what that means is that I can use the leave for the PT test, range qualifications and that stuff, but heaven forbid that I take a leadership course...

I think that the problem stems party from the fact that the people making the decisions have no military experience.  For them, there really is no difference between someone volunteering for the United Way and being a military member.  I suspect that some of them are even hostile to service.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

It only seems fair coming from the most prosperous province in the country. $100,000.00 would be practically chicken feed.


----------



## cameron

A very laudable move, let's hope other municipalities follow suit.


----------



## Haggis

Rearadmiral said:
			
		

> My work (a different Crown Corp) brought in a policy that allows me five days but specifically prohibits me using it for anything that might be used for getting a promotion.  I think what that means is that I can use the leave for the PT test, range qualifications and that stuff, but heaven forbid that I take a leadership course...



So, really, you can't do a PT test either since it is a prerequisite for promotion IAW DAOD 5023-2.


----------



## Rearadmiral

To be honest, and as a civvie lawyer, I haven't figured out what what exactly is covered.  I thing the bottom line is the same: nothing is changed.


----------



## GAP

Minister says laws coming to protect jobs and schooling for reservists
Article Link

VANCOUVER - New federal laws are on they way to protect Canadian reservists who may have to leave their jobs or interrupt their education to serve in the Canadian military.

Federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn told a few dozen reservists from Vancouver's 39 Canadian Brigade group Tuesday that it's the least the government can do for those who risk their lives defending our country.

"Reservists should not be penalized in their civilian lives as a result of serving within the Canadian forces," Blackburn said Tuesday.

The legislation to be pushed through the next session of Parliament will allow reservists in federally regulated sectors to take leave without pay and would prevent employers from discriminating against them.

The new laws would also allow students to retain their active student status and put Canada Student Loan payments on hold with no accumulating interest while the student is on leave.

"We realized how could we see those people defending our values around the world ... and when they come back after maybe one year and a half they don't have protection for their job," Blackburn told the group. "This is unbelievable that we didn't act before."
More on link


----------



## Hawk

That's been a long time coming!


Hawk


----------



## R933ex

A good move in my opinion. The only thing to remember is that this legislation will still only effect between 8- 10% of the employers that are subject to the Canada Labour Code and therefore subject to this ammendment.


----------



## geo

People should remember that DND / CF is probably one of the most notorious offenders WRT to allowing reservists to go & take rank and trade courses while same said reservist is employed on class B & C.

I had Cpls who were due for MCpl course - the unit had the position available & (at the time) the funds needed to send Cpl Bloggins.  Unfortunately, Cpl Bloggins was employed at the School in Valcartier.  The school would have none of it.  They said the reservist was free to quit his job (with 30 days notice) BUT they would not even consider rehiring him at the conclusion of his course.

Cpl Bloggins had to decide between staying Cpl  & retaining his callout for 3 years OR quitting, taking his course & then start looking for another job within the CF or, possibly on Civy street......  "Peechy!"


----------



## karl28

This is long over due  a military reservist who goes on temporary active duty shouldn't have to worry about losing there civilian job back home .  If the gov can let  parents take paternity leave for one parent up to a year off  work and still be able to keep there job than the gov should be able to do the same for a reservist who is serving their  country .


----------



## scoutfinch

Never forget that this is a double edged sword.  I can attest from personal experience that prospective employers are very,very wary of hiring reservists in jurisdictions with employment protection legislation.  I was grilled for atleast 20 minutes of a one hour preliminary interview and about 3/4 of my hour+ long final interview on the subject of my future intentions with the Reserves and possibilities of future deployments.  I eventually declined the position offered and elected to effect a CT to the RegF.

Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.


----------



## vonGarvin

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.


That was, if I recall, always a worry about "job protection".  Sure, companies are mandated to not fire employees due to their reserve status, but they have no restrictions over not hiring reservists.


----------



## scoutfinch

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> That was, if I recall, always a worry about "job protection".  Sure, companies are mandated to not fire employees due to their reserve status, but they have no restrictions over not hiring reservists.



It's been a problem in some states for years for the National Guard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It’s a good start, but along with the stick you need some honey. The employer should get some benefit from hiring a reservist and letting them serve. The benefit could be a tax credit, possibly a limited top up of funding to hire replacement, although I think tax breaks are a better idea.

So if a reservist gets X amount of days training a year, they give a form completed by the reservist & unit to his employer who attaches it to their tax form to receive the credit. It could be a sliding scale, the more training, the bigger the credit.


----------



## Mikeg81

I think that the company is already getting compensation for hiring a reservist. 

Its called making money.

And, IMO, if said employer will allow a reservist to go and train, I know I would pay that company back with a little more loyalty and hard work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually it costs an employer to release a reservist to go on a long course, the position has to be back filled or covered off by someone else. Although an employer will not state officially that they won’t hire a reservist, they can make life difficult or choose to hire someone else. That would be the backlash of a law requiring a employer to release a reservist, the same way that employer prefer not to hire a woman of child bearing years if they can choose another candidate who is not in that demographic. My 2IC was a supervisor for a large power company, he could never get time off to take his SLC and I know others that were told to choose between their jobs and their “hobby” 

Honey will go a long way in making the life of a reservist easier when trying to balance the demands of 2 very different careers.


----------



## Mikeg81

I must have brain-block on....so if I go on a deployment, and my civ job stops paying me, but gives that money to someone else...what is that costing them?

Are you talking in terms of training? Hiring?

As for the rest...sounds like a Human Rights complaint to me. But I'm not so stupid to think that the HRC would do anything to help.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Well, training is one, hiring is an  other one.  It's certainly not cheap to train in some fields.  It costs around 20 000$ to train a civilian pilot for a type rating on a specific aircraft...

Max


----------



## muskrat89

I can't speak for alternate-hires, but I know when an employee gets injured, much of the industry uses a 5:1 ratio when computing direct costs to indirect cost. In other words, an injury requiring $1000 in medical costs probably cost (the company) an additional cost of $5000 - in lost time, lost productivity, taking someone out of an existing position to fill that one, the time/productivity lost when training a replacement, administrative costs (paperwork, investigations, etc). I know that my analogy is not a direct fit, but it more complicated than "Remove employee 12652; allocate that employee's wages to new employee 17899"


----------



## tank recce

Mikeg81,

If you're talking a McJob, sure - from the employer's perspective, it's plug'n'chug. I don't think most people at a fast-food job are terribly worried about retaining their position upon return from a tour.

But - what about a skilled position? A professional position? A professional position in a unique company dealing with proprietary technology? I was seriously considering a tour (personal life intervened); my employer and I sat down, and we figured to minimize the disruption I'd need to give him 3 MONTHS notice, to recruit and train up to speed a suitable replacement.

It ain't just $50 for an ad in the paper. Recruiting for certain positions can cost THOUSANDS, plus lost production (other people covering the hole AND carrying out instruction) as the new guy goes through the training process. A Reservist can be a wonderful employee for a company. A Reservist going off on tour can be a nightmare.

My .02


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> As for the rest...sounds like a Human Rights complaint to me. But I'm not so stupid to think that the HRC would do anything to help.



You have to prove to the HRC that they didn't hire you because of this or that, employer are not stupid and have work around to avoid costly actions. Also if you are in a small industry with specialist skills, a HRC complaint will be the kiss of death, no one will hire you.


----------



## oldpond

Manitoba already passed this in 2007.  Nice to see the idea spreading across the country.  Good sign that support is strong.  

Now if I can just pass my methacholine challenge test...


----------



## geo

Some other little problems when you run off on a course / mission....
- what happens to your pension plan contributions while you are away
- what happens to your company health insurance plan while you are away - for you, your spouse & the kids
- what happens to seniority, etc, etc, etc

without financial incentives and tax breaks, this isn't going anywhere.
You have to make an employer WANT to hire you AND WANT to let you go on career courses, trade courses AND the occasional deployment


----------



## Fishbone Jones

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Never forget that this is a double edged sword.  I can attest from personal experience that prospective employers are very,very wary of hiring reservists in jurisdictions with employment protection legislation.  I was grilled for atleast 20 minutes of a one hour preliminary interview and about 3/4 of my hour+ long final interview on the subject of my future intentions with the Reserves and possibilities of future deployments.  I eventually declined the position offered and elected to effect a CT to the RegF.
> 
> Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.



So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.


----------



## Roy Harding

recceguy said:
			
		

> So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.



It's going to come up in the interview process.  What are your outside interests, hobbies?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> It's going to come up in the interview process.  What are your outside interests, hobbies?



Camping, hiking, ATVing, hunting & long quiet walks in the moonlight ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> Never forget that this is a double edged sword.  I can attest from personal experience that prospective employers are very,very wary of hiring reservists in jurisdictions with employment protection legislation.  I was grilled for atleast 20 minutes of a one hour preliminary interview and about 3/4 of my hour+ long final interview on the subject of my future intentions with the Reserves and possibilities of future deployments.  I eventually declined the position offered and elected to effect a CT to the RegF.
> 
> Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.



All the more reason to look for work at an organization that supports the CFLC 

http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/


----------



## geo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> All the more reason to look for work at an organization that supports the CFLC
> 
> http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/



sooo.... not the CF? ???


----------



## Haggis

recceguy said:
			
		

> So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.



For many Reservists applying for thier first civilian job, Reserve service is the only "work experience" they bring to the table.  If the prospective employer asks about your prior work experience... then what?  Say nothing?   If it's on your resumé you could be seen as lying.

Also, leaving your Reserve service/status off your resumé/application will show large and glaring gaps in your employment history.  

"Mr. Recceguy, you don't show any employment between date X and date Y and again from date M and date N.  What were you doing during that period?"


----------



## geo

Haggis said:
			
		

> "Mr. Recceguy, you don't show any employment between date X and date Y and again from date M and date N.  What were you doing during that period?"



Standing around, sitting around, visiting interesting places and people.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you... and I don't want to kill you


----------



## Dog

Here is the link to the Ontario Reserve job Protection bill, I imagine they will be similar across the country:

http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/9baa712e-9b09-42a7-bb00-0725724ddbdf/1/frame/?search=browseStatutes&context=


----------



## daftandbarmy

Haggis said:
			
		

> For many Reservists applying for thier first civilian job, Reserve service is the only "work experience" they bring to the table.  If the prospective employer asks about your prior work experience... then what?  Say nothing?   If it's on your resumé you could be seen as lying.
> 
> Also, leaving your Reserve service/status off your resumé/application will show large and glaring gaps in your employment history.
> 
> "Mr. Recceguy, you don't show any employment between date X and date Y and again from date M and date N.  What were you doing during that period?"



BeEmployers are so desperate for workers right now it won't matter. And my expereince has been that anyone with even a hint of a military background is head and shoulders above many of their peers, especially in the 18 - 25 year old age bracket. The new demographic is pretty tough to deal with as an employer (see? scars), and anyone with an experience with the military work ethic will do well IMHO.


----------



## BDTyre

My employer has a very craftily written job protection.  They will grant me a leave of absence provided I can get a letter from my CO.  But they can just as easily deny one; their decision is based on factors such as position, seniority, prior attendance, and requirement for the employee to be there.

The letter from the CO also has to be worded in such a way that it is clear whatever I'm doing that takes me away from my employer is "required."  This is fine for basic and trades courses, where I am required to do them, but what about other courses that I don't need but should take, such as a 404s, IPSWQ or a PLQ.  And what about an overseas deployment?

I suppose, if worse comes to worse, and my employer wouldn't let me go on a qualifications course, or a deployment, I could always complain about how they're stifiling a personal goal and preventing me the opportunity for advancement.  Thankfully I'm not the only reservist in my company -there is at least one other- but I'm probably the only one in a management position, hence a position requiring a certain commitment -and that commitment has been called in to question at least once.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> BeEmployers are so desperate for workers right now it won't matter. And my expereince has been that anyone with even a hint of a military background is head and shoulders above many of their peers, especially in the 18 - 25 year old age bracket. The new demographic is pretty tough to deal with as an employer (see? scars), and anyone with an experience with the military work ethic will do well IMHO.



I agree that the current labour shortage can help you get hired, but it can also limit you from being released for long term exercises, plus don't bet on the current labour shortage to last much longer, when the economy downturns the situation will reverse as employees will not be willing to risk a good paying job for a part time one.


----------



## geo

Heh
Break a leg in a skiing accident & receive sympathy from all your work mates & management
Break a leg on a training weekend & receive grief from management......


----------



## Hawk

This is going to end up much like the situation many people in my generation (boomers) are in. I'm fully trained and have 20+ years experience in my profession, industrial purchasing.  My resume looks excellent - then the prospective employer finds out I'm 1) female, and 2) over 50. Good luck! I know very well why I'm turned down, but its always stated as they changed their mind and reorganized the department, or they found someone else with some obscure qualification I don't have. You can't scream discrimination - you just don't have a leg to stand on.


Hawk


----------



## NL_engineer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Camping, hiking, ATVing, hunting & long quiet walks in the moonlight ;D


 :rofl:



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> BeEmployers are so desperate for workers right now it won't matter. And my expereince has been that anyone with even a hint of a military background is head and shoulders above many of their peers, especially in the 18 - 25 year old age bracket. The new demographic is pretty tough to deal with as an employer (see? scars), and anyone with an experience with the military work ethic will do well IMHO.



I have met a number of employees like that; most try to hire reservists, one of those has said "because they show up on time and work hard"

The the government dose anything to make it an incentive, it should be tax breaks, as it directly contributes to the bottom line.  On the plus side for government, they get the money back in personal income tax  : (said tax break = increased profit which leads to bonuses to managers (all taxable) and increased dividends to shareholders (also taxable) 

just my 2 cents


----------



## geo

you see...... a win / win situation!


----------



## Neill McKay

recceguy said:
			
		

> So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.



Alternatively, it could be made an offence to discriminate on the basis that someone is a reservist.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Alternatively, it could be made an offence to discriminate on the basis that someone is a reservist.



Tough to prove and doesn't pay the bills while waiting for the proof....


----------



## Neill McKay

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Tough to prove and doesn't pay the bills while waiting for the proof....



Definitely tough to prove, but no more so than any other form of discrimination.


----------



## geo

Neil,
As things stand, most discrimination cases take at least 2-3 years to resolve.
Most people want to forget it and move on... and you can't buy your groceries on that sort of wait and see promises.

Reservists are, for the msot part, just entering the job maket as they are completing their education.  Do they have the patience to wait when a possible career is on the line?


----------



## Neill McKay

geo said:
			
		

> Neil,
> As things stand, most discrimination cases take at least 2-3 years to resolve.
> Most people want to forget it and move on... and you can't buy your groceries on that sort of wait and see promises.
> 
> Reservists are, for the msot part, just entering the job maket as they are completing their education.  Do they have the patience to wait when a possible career is on the line?



No, of course not.  This is far from a simple issue.

But, as others have said, legislation requiring employers to allow military leave to reservists can create a disincentive to hire reservists (all the more so in countries such as ours where military service isn't as fashionable as in, say, the US).  Looking at it from the perspective of an employer who knows little about the reserves and all of the good things that reservists bring to their civilian jobs, why would he hire someone who can take off for months at a time and be guaranteed the same job on returning?  Why not just hire a civilian who doesn't bring with him that possibility?

At one time it was pretty normal to avoid hiring women for the same reason: why hire a woman who might go off and have a kid, taking a bunch of maternity leave to do so, when you can have a man instead?  Obviously we've (mostly) moved past that now, in large part because the law quite rightly does not allow an employer to discriminate against women.

There has to be some kind of protection against discrimination for reservists, otherwise there's a real potential for them to suffer in the job market -- even the ones who have no intention of ever deploying.  A prohibition against discrimination is the way we address this for other groups, so it seems like a sensible way to go for reservists as well.  It certainly isn't going to be perfect, but it's better than nothing, and it's as much as we already do for others.


----------



## geo

From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.

As an employer I would want to know the good things I can do & "what's in it for me".  

Honey works a lot better than vinegar


----------



## Haggis

geo said:
			
		

> From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.
> 
> As an employer I would want to know the good things I can do & "what's in it for me".
> 
> *Honey works a lot better than vinegar *



True, but it's always been the Canadian way to legislate *against* something.

....and vinegar is cheaper than honey to the average taxpayer.


----------



## Neill McKay

geo said:
			
		

> From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.



Yes, by all means.  Even something as simple as advertising directed at employers could work wonders.


----------



## geo

Haggis,
Vinegar might be cheaper, in the short term, for the taxpayer..... but it won't work as well, which means the law won't be accepted (easily) and will require changes & tweaks ad infinitum.

Neil,
Advertising can & does work... so long as you have a viable product to "sell".
It's an unfortunate problem of the combat arms trades is that most employers don't see or understand what they can / could do with an Infantryman, Crewman & Gunner.... and the Sapper is only useful to clear minefields & build things...
The aspects of personnel supervision are not understood and therefore hard to sell.


----------



## Blackadder1916

While this may be a big issue for reservists and regulars in transition to civilian employment (hopefully staying with the reserve), it is not an issue that strongly shows up on employers’ radar.  The are *25,000* Reserve Force members, including 4,000 Canadian Rangers.  When the full-time students among them are factored into the equation it become an even smaller number among the *12,660,700* permanent and *1,631,100* temporary employees in the country.  At the present time, the military is in favour in Canada and politicians will always jump on the bandwagon.  Of course with politicians being politicians, despite having accidentally fallen on to an issue with a noble purpose, they will find a way to screw it up, usually by going too far.

Having been in the position of hiring employees, military service was not always a prime factor in deciding who got to the interview stage. Though it was always a secondary factor that I looked for in a candidate for employment.  The reality is that there were only two ways that someone got to an interview; their resume sold them or they had a personal recommendation from someone I knew.  Even then it was not a guarantee of a job offer.  (of a typical 75 - 200 resumes reviewed for one position perhaps 3 – 5 got a call)

As to financial incentives for employers; there were/are a number of programs that the federal and provincial governments use as incentive for hiring marginally attractive employment candidates. (before the flaming start I am not suggesting that these are applicable to reservists)  My take on most of these programs is that they are only minimally successful for the participants, very successful for the companies that are contracted to provide/administer the service and can be financially rewarding for employers.  Usually when it is financially rewarding for employers, the employees are not well served.  If an employer can find a way to get free money from a government program, they’ll find a way to do so without incurring a significant obligation.


----------



## proudnurse

Cambridge Times News article April 4th, 2008

Reproduced in accordance with fairdealings. 

Article Link: http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/article/123226


City ahead of its time Roads job safe for soldier who'll be gone for a year
By Ray Martin
News
Apr 04, 2008


Mark Adam has enough on his mind these days without having to worry about whether he'll have a job to come home to next year.

Ontario has recently introduced legislation designed to protect the jobs of employees who are reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but the City of Cambridge is ahead of the game.

In September 2002, council approved an extended leave policy for employees serving in the reserves.

The policy was created in part because of Mark Adam, junior manager of operations for roads, who serves with the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada (RHFC). Adam has been a member of the local regiment for the last 27 years and has worked his way up to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer.

"The city has been very good about giving me the time," Adam said. "They've given me time off to participate in two to three exercises, and eight to 12 times for courses."

On Tuesday, Adam is being called to duty once again. This time, Adam will be away for an entire year, part of which will be spent in Afghanistan.

"I was on the list to go, but I was passed over in the first round in November, and for the next round in December and then I got the call," he said. "It's been a bit of a roller-coaster ride but I'll be filling in for someone that couldn't go."

Adam might have been posted to Bosnia as a peacekeeper when Canada was participating in the UN mission following the break up of Yugoslavia.

"I had a young family then and it wasn't fair to go then, but they're older now and it will be a little bit easier," he said. "It's something I need to do."

Adam and his wife Linda have three boys, two of whom are also in the military.

Adam is one of 15 members of the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada that are heading to southern Afghanistan.

Before heading off to his overseas deployment, Adam will undergo further training in Wainwright. Alta., and Petawawa, Ont. When he gets to Afghanistan, Adam may well put to use some of the skills he learned in college and working for the past 20 years at the City of Cambridge.

Adam has been assigned to the Civil-Military Co-operation Group, and his job will be to work with the Red Cross and civil officials to help rebuild the country's infrastructure.

"We recognized the need for the corporation to support our employees who serve in the reserves, and we came up with this policy," said city director of Human Resources George Vandermey.

Prior to developing the policy, Vandermey participated in the Executrek program put together by the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, which was established by a group of business and community leaders to encourage employers and educators to establish leave policies so that reservists can participate in military training and operations. Vandermey visited CFB Petawawa for a day and within a month drafted the policy that council approved.

That policy does two things, Vandermey said. It recognizes the training the reservist receives and the transferable skills like leadership, problem solving, critical thinking and team building that the military provides. It also provides city employees who are called to duty the peace of mind that once they have finished serving their country they will have a job to come back to.

Adam is about to become part of the second set of troops from the RHFC deployed to Afghanistan.

Two of that initial group were wounded in the field.

While he is away, Adam's family will be assisted by support groups from the Galt Armoury and in Kitchener, as well as from people participating in Red Fridays, by wearing something red in support of Canadian troops serving overseas.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

tank recce said:
			
		

> But - what about a skilled position? A professional position?



And that is the other end of the equation...

As a result of the tour extension being foisted on us going over on TF 3-08 there are many of us who got written agreements that we would be back to work as of 01 Mar 09.  Now the tour is being pushed into April and even later.  Kind of hard to ask employers to be supportive when the Army decides to pull this sort of stuff.  When this was brought to a person on the command level above my pay grade, they replied "Oh well.  If they get fired then they can always go Reg".  I just love that sort of subordinate loyalty.  :threat:
However, if the Army is going to play the "you can't fire them, they are protected" card and starts playing fast and loose with our commitments, IMO you will see both employers being reluctant to support the Reserves, and Reservists being reluctant to deploy.


----------



## geo

.... which has been the ongoing story of Reservists going on career rank and trade courses....

It's on... book time off...
It's off - 24 hrs before leaving for course.....

............"sit on this and rotate" >


----------



## Greymatters

recceguy said:
			
		

> So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.



A bit late to add, but to amplify:

According to the the most recent standards, potential employers cant ask on application forms if you are in the Reserves or retired from the military unless you volunteer the information as prior employment.  Technically, employers are not allowed at any time of the interview process to ask any questions about your military service unless:
a) the job is labelled as giving preference to military veterans;
b) the position is seeking someone with military experience, or;
c) you mention the fact of prior service on your application/resume or during your interview as any informatino you provide can be questioned.

In the end, like Recceguy said, if you dont want to answer questions about military service, dont offer the information.  

If you do offer it, dont say something stupid like 'I could tell you but then I woudl have to kill you', it just makes us all look bad...

Interestingly enough, according to the CHRC employers are not allowed to ask any questions about foreign military service, but I would take that with a grain of salt.  You cant probe for foreign military service or activities, but you can ask questions about it if they volunteer the information in their paperwork...

And yes, I know, even though they arent 'allowed to', many employers still ask this anyway and will keep asking unless someone takes them to court for discrimination.


----------



## daftandbarmy

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> And that is the other end of the equation...
> 
> As a result of the tour extension being foisted on us going over on TF 3-08 there are many of us who got written agreements that we would be back to work as of 01 Mar 09.  Now the tour is being pushed into April and even later.  Kind of hard to ask employers to be supportive when the Army decides to pull this sort of stuff.  When this was brought to a person on the command level above my pay grade, they replied "Oh well.  If they get fired then they can always go Reg".  I just love that sort of subordinate loyalty.  :threat:
> However, if the Army is going to play the "you can't fire them, they are protected" card and starts playing fast and loose with our commitments, IMO you will see both employers being reluctant to support the Reserves, and Reservists being reluctant to deploy.



Good point. I know two employers who aren't keen on hiring reservists because of this uncertainty factor which is, of course, completely out of the control of the individual soldier. At least employees on long term partental leave will be certain to return after a specific length of time. The only real benefit to an employer is that they don't have to pay the soldier/employee on long term deployments.

My worry is that, with so many reservists deploying on multiple tours, we'll see a generation of people who may never find and keep a long term, meaningful attachment to local labour markets. This may contribute to issues related to PTSD and other stress related ailments, as well as promote a drain of valuable expertise away from reserve units.


----------



## Greymatters

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My worry is that, with so many reservists deploying on multiple tours, we'll see a generation of people who may never find and keep a long term, meaningful attachment to local labour markets. This may contribute to issues related to PTSD and other stress related ailments, as well as promote a drain of valuable expertise away from reserve units.



Isnt this the individual's career choice though?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Sure. But if we want to make sure that the Army can still complete its missions, which means that it will continue to require significant support from reservists, we need to figure out how to find and keep those all-important '2 career' reservists.


----------



## Blackadder1916

This article from the Christian Science Monitor may give some an indication about the effectiveness of job protection legislation or, at least, the American experience with it.

While reservists serve, their jobs don't always wait
Between 2004 and 2006, returning volunteers filed 16,000 complaints against employers.


> from the April 10, 2008 edition
> By Jill Carroll | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> 
> Washington
> Steve Duarte worked in human resources for the same company for 19 years. But within months of returning from Iraq with his Marine Reserve unit in 2003 – his second military deployment in two years – he was told his job was ending in a week.
> 
> "There was that initial shock – and then the shock of 'What am I going to do?' " recalls Mr. Duarte of Littleton, Colo., whose expenses at the time included tuition for his son at the University of Denver.
> 
> As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, tensions are mounting between the military's civilian volunteers, trying to step back into their professions, and employers, straining at times to cope with a growing cadre of workers who are away at war for months then expect to regain their former jobs. A 1994 law – the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) – gives workers that right, along with promotions or other benefits they would have earned had they not been deployed. But with more than 600,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized since 9/11, thousands have found their jobs gone or positions diminished when they returned.
> 
> Last week the Department of Justice said it was suing Wal-Mart, alleging that it failed to reinstate a cashier who was an Air Force reservist, and United Parcel Service, charging that it eliminated the job of another Air Force reservist while he was on active duty in Iraq in 2003.
> 
> USERRA had been a lightly used law until 9/11 "changed our priorities completely," says John Muckelbauer, regional director of compliance for 10 Midwestern states for the Labor Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service, which investigates complaints. "It pushed USERRA right up to the top and it's been up there ever since."
> 
> The law is a ticklish issue for companies, experts say. On one hand, they don't want to do anything that makes them look unpatriotic. On the other, the long and sometimes repeated deployments of key personnel can complicate staffing.
> 
> "There continue to be companies that step forward and support guardsmen and reservists," says John Lowrie, an attorney with Ford and Harrison LLP, a labor-law firm that represents employers around the country. "There are other companies that do feel a strain, and it's difficult for them." Particularly under stress are airlines, police and fire departments, and other emergency-response services, whose key employees also tend to be in military reserve units, he adds.
> 
> "It can be a challenge for our smaller companies especially," says Jack Morton, manager of national security and emergency preparation at the US Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is working with the military to develop a predictable schedule for call-ups of the National Guard and reserve units.
> 
> Some 16,000 complaints filed
> 
> No one knows how big the problem is. Members of the reserve forces filed some 16,000 formal and informal complaints with the government from 2004 through 2006, says the Government Accountability Office (GAO), using the most recent data available. But that may underestimate the number who actually encounter rehiring problems, experts say.
> 
> Some aggrieved workers sue their employers on their own. Most apparently take no action at all. A GAO analysis of Defense Department surveys in 2004 and 2006 showed that some 70 percent of reservists who said they had problems getting rehired or promotions or raises did not seek redress.
> 
> One reason may be that the system is bureaucratic and can take months to decide a case.
> 
> Four government agencies handle complaints. The Defense Department's Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) offers informal mediation. The Labor Department tries to resolve formal complaints from service members without going to court. If they can't be resolved and are legitimate complaints, then the Justice Department or the Office of Special Counsel will take the case to court.
> 
> The system is actually working better than before as government agencies eventually geared up to handle all the complaints pouring in as a result of the largest activation of reserves in decades, according to the GAO. But it still criticized the process for delays and called for a single agency to oversee it.
> 
> The disputes are also more complex.
> 
> "In '03 and '04 our role was frequently more as a mediator and educator," says Mr. Lowrie, the lawyer who also serves as chairman of the Colorado ESGR. These days, more employees and employers are aware of USERRA's protections and cases are "slightly more a genuine dispute." The number of complaints ESGR ombudsmen receive has drifted down steadily from almost 6,000 in 2004 to a little more than 1,000 last year.
> 
> Justice Department suits are up slightly – rising from two to eight over the same period.
> 
> Stung by his sudden layoff notice from Agilent Technologies, Duarte called his commanding officer, Marine Col. George Aucoin, a New Orleans lawyer who knew of USERRA. When Duarte e-mailed company executives about the law, they said he was being laid off because of financial troubles and his job was not protected.
> 
> While sending out résumés, Duarte and Colonel Aucoin continued to research USERRA. The Labor and Defense departments said they couldn't represent him – for reasons that Duarte disputes.
> 
> In February 2004, Agilent posted an opening for a job very similar to Duarte's.
> 
> "That was kind of the nail in the coffin," says Duarte. He sued the next month.
> 
> A struggle – and $12,000 in costs
> 
> The case would ultimately cost Duarte $12,000. At the same time, he struggled to find another job. He and his wife lived off her salary, his severance from Agilent, and the pay from extra work he took on with his reserve unit. Finally, in April 2005, he went on active military duty "because I had to get back to work."
> 
> "It wasn't easy financially. It wasn't easy mentally," says Duarte. After a while, "it wasn't about the money."
> 
> If it was hard to use USERRA to protect himself – a college-educated lieutenant colonel with years of work experience and savings – "there is no way a young [private first class] or lance corporal coming back is going to be able to fight this thing," he says.
> 
> A little over a year after filing his suit, the US district court in Colorado found in his favor, awarding him almost $400,000.
> 
> Agilent said in a statement that "although Agilent disagreed with the final outcome in this matter, we appreciated the opportunity ... to explain the reasons for the business decisions that were made.... Agilent remains committed to its employees who serve in the military."
> 
> "It's forced employers to take a very close look at allegations arising under USERRA and forced them to consider the ramifications associated with disputing a claim," says Lowrie.
> 
> Duarte has become an advocate of sorts on the issue, starting a website about his experience and recently testifying at a Senate hearing on USERRA. A year ago he finally found steady work, back in human resources with the city of Westminster, Colo.
> 
> It "was the first time my life got back to some semblance" of normal since 2003, says Duarte.


----------



## Greymatters

Some aggrieved workers sue their employers on their own. Most apparently take no action at all. A GAO analysis of Defense Department surveys in 2004 and 2006 showed that some 70 percent of reservists who said they had problems getting rehired or promotions or raises did not seek redress.  One reason may be that the system is bureaucratic and can take months to decide a case.

With many low-paying jobs, its easier to find a new job than try to take legal recourse that can expensive and no guarantee of success.  In the end, a lot of these people dont have the resources or the will to go after their former employers...


----------



## geo

Heh... am positive that when the formerly employed reservist applies somewhere else - gives his old boss as reference - and when the prospective new employer talks to the old... New will be thrilled to hear about the pending litigation.

Fughetaboutit


----------



## Greymatters

geo said:
			
		

> Heh... am positive that when the formerly employed reservist applies somewhere else - gives his old boss as reference - and when the prospective new employer talks to the old... New will be thrilled to hear about the pending litigation.



...and can susequently be sued for such comments even if what they say is the complete truth, as proven by some past court cases... which is why some companies out there today are switching to a policy of not providing references at all, even that that too is technically illegal (they dont actually refuse, they just make it difficult to follow up on by requesting that all reference requests be sent to the company legal or HR department, in writing, and specifying exactly what information the new employer is seeking)...


----------



## geo

Ahhh.... but all court cases cost money... lots of money... which the poor unemployed reservist / guardsman does not have.


----------



## Greymatters

geo said:
			
		

> Ahhh.... but all court cases cost money... lots of money... which the poor unemployed reservist / guardsman does not have.



Thus the problem - what good are rights if the only way to realize them is if you have the money to pay for it?


----------



## brendanhm1

http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=393179



> Job protection for Reservists is now the law
> 
> OTTAWA, ONTARIO, April 21, 2008 — The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, today confirmed that members of Canada's Reserve Forces will have their civilian jobs protected under the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act, now that Bill C-40 has received Royal Assent and has come into force.
> 
> "I am very proud of the fact that the jobs of our reservists are now protected while they are serving our country, whether at home or abroad," said Minister Blackburn. "It is a question of fairness for our reservists and their families, and now that fairness is enshrined in law."
> 
> The new legislation provides job protection for reservists who work for employers in federally regulated industries and the federal public sector. It also provides relief to student reservists who have loans under the Canada Student Loan Program.
> 
> The bill received Royal Assent last Thursday and an Order in Council was issued on Friday to ensure amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Section 1) and the Public Service Employment Act (Section 6) take effect immediately to protect the jobs of the reservists. The benefit created by the amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act is scheduled to be in place as soon as regulations are adopted.
> 
> The new legislation is part of a comprehensive reinstatement strategy for the Canada Reserve Force announced on January 8, 2008.
> 
> For more information, please visit Labour.gc.ca .



Hopefully this is in the right forum.

Anyways my question is, how does this affect part time workers. For example I work part time for the city...does this amendment to the bill protect my job when I require weekends off for exercises? I read over the bill but I still dont quite understand it.


----------



## slowmode

I thought I would answer this for you

Reservists working in federally regulated work places and the federal public service are allowed to take a leave of absence without pay from their civilian employment to take part in annual training or in certain operations in Canada or abroad that are designated by the Minister of National Defence. This leave is also available to reservists who are required to train or to report for duty under the National Defence Act


----------



## The_Falcon

torunisfun said:
			
		

> http://news.gc.ca/web/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=393179
> 
> Hopefully this is in the right forum.
> 
> Anyways my question is, how does this affect part time workers. For example* I work part time for the city*...does this amendment to the bill protect my job when I require weekends off for exercises? I read over the bill but I still dont quite understand it.



No this bill does not effect you, as municipal employees fall under PROVINCIAL jurisdiction.


----------



## geo

Another thing....
This won't do anything for the Reservist who is working on class B at one place & his home unit wants him to take a career course.

That Class B employment unit can & will often kaybosh any idea or hope of same said reservist dissapearing for the duration of his course.... IE - He's here to do a job & the job has to get done.... he'll do the job OR he'll go home.

The CF is prolly on of the worst Federal employers WRT giving reservists time off for courses... or deployments


----------



## Blackadder1916

torunisfun said:
			
		

> Anyways my question is, how does this affect part time workers. For example I work part time for the city...does this amendment to the bill protect my job when I require weekends off for exercises? I read over the bill but I still dont quite understand it.



As Hatchet Man already stated, "No this bill does not effect you, as municipal employees fall under PROVINCIAL jurisdiction."
However, some provinces have enacted provincial job protection legislation that may (or may not) apply to your situation.  The following is a summary of provincial legislation that I found.  There is other info at the site that may be of interest.

http://www.hrinfodesk.com/preview.asp?article=24215


> *Recent developments*
> 
> In 2007, the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick enacted military leave provisions under their employment standards legislation to provide a person who is required to be absent from his or her employment for purposes of service in the Canadian Forces Reserves with job security and the right to return to his or her employment when service ends. The leave provisions vary slightly in each jurisdiction.
> 
> The federal government, although already supportive of military leave policy, in January 2008, intend to table legislation to cover military leave for federally regulated workplaces and the public service. It is expected that the other provinces and territories that do not yet have military leave provisions will follow with their own provisions.
> 
> *Legal requirements*
> 
> In general,
> 
> “Reserves” means the component of the Canadian Forces referred to in the National Defence Act
> 
> “Reservist” means a soldier serving either part or full time in the Canadian Forces falling under the Primary Reserve force. Reservists are generally employed in a part-time capacity (Class 'A', less than 120 days per year), however may be employed under full time contract (either Class 'B' or 'C'). Note: Every employment standards legislation depending on the jurisdiction allow all or different types of reservist to be entitled to military leave; you must refer to the definition provided for under employment standards legislation in your jurisdiction). We thank Mr. Steve Ball, B.Comm Human Resources Co-op for this revised definition.
> 
> “Service” means active duty or training in the Reserves
> Briefly, the jurisdictions with military leave provision provide for the following:
> 
> *Ontario*: On December 3, 2007, the Ontario government introduced and gave first to third reading including Royal Assent to a Bill that provides job-protected leave for military reservists under the Employment Standards Act. The Bill is now in force. Such a leave is available for reservists serving on certain domestic operations, such as search and rescue operations or national disasters such as flood relief or ice storms, as well as for international deployments. All employers covered by the Employment Standards Act, regardless of size, are required to provide the leave to eligible employees.
> 
> To qualify for the new leave a reservist must have worked for their employer for at least six consecutive months. Reservists are entitled to an unpaid leave period necessary to engage in the operation they are deployed to. In the case of international operations this would include any pre-deployment (training) or post-deployment activities required by the Canadian Forces.
> 
> *New Brunswick*: On December 20, 2007, Bill 11 received Royal Assent and comes into force immediately. Amendments to the Employment Standards Act allow reservists to be away on unpaid leave for up to 18 months and return to their previous position or a position at a similar level as long as the employee has worked for their employer for at least six months.
> 
> *Prince Edward Island*: On October 18, 2007, the Prince Edward Island government gave first, second and third reading to Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act to provide a person who is employed in Prince Edward Island and who is required to be absent from his or her employment for purposes of service in the Canadian Forces Reserves with job security and the right to return to his or her employment when service ends. The Bill received Royal Assent and came into force on November 2, 2007.
> 
> Employees who have worked for an employer for at least six months and who are in the reserve force will be allowed to take unpaid leave to participate in military training or active service. The length of the period of unpaid leave to which an employee is entitled under the Act for the purpose of service is the period necessary to accommodate the period of service for which the employee is required to be absent from work.
> 
> *Manitoba*: On June 14, 2007, the Manitoba government reintroduced, passed and gave Royal Assent in legislation to a bill that amends the Employment Standards Act to provide a person who is employed in Manitoba and who is required to be absent from his or her employment for purposes of service in the Canadian Forces Reserves with job security and the right to return to his or her employment when service ends.
> 
> Members of the Canadian Forces Reserves who have worked for their employer for seven consecutive months, who are absent from work for the purpose of service (active duty and/or training), qualify for unpaid Military (Reservist) Leave.
> 
> Employers must provide time off and allow employees to return to their job when the leave has ended. There is no restriction on the length of the unpaid leave or how often a reservist can go on leave; employees can take unpaid leave for as long as they continue to serve.
> 
> *Saskatchewan*: On April 26, 2007, Bill 54 received Royal Assent and came into force on assent. Bill 54, The Labour Standards Amendment Act, 2007 provides a person who is employed in Saskatchewan and who is required to be absent from his or her employment for purposes of service in the Canadian Forces Reserves with job security and the right to return to his or her employment when service ends.
> 
> Reservists who give their employer the required notice can now be assured that their service with the Canadian Forces, whether domestic or overseas, will not cause them to lose their job. The employer must grant a period of unpaid leave that may be necessary for the employee to complete his or her period of service.
> 
> *Nova Scotia*: Effective April 24, 2007, the Nova Scotia government enacted a private member's bill (Bill 80) that provides a person who is employed in Nova Scotia and who is required to be absent from his or her employment for purposes of service in the Canadian Forces Reserves with job security and the right to return to his or her employment when service ends.
> 
> Every employee has a right to return to that employee's civilian employment if the employee
> 
> (a) provides the employer with reasonable notice of the employee's intention to
> 
> (i) take a leave of absence for a period of service, and
> 
> (ii) return to work upon completion of service; and
> 
> (b) returns to work or applies for re-employment at the employee's workplace within a reasonable time upon completion of the employee's service.
> 
> *To learn more details about the topic of unpaid military leave under employment standards legislation by jurisdiction, please refer to the “Military Leave” topic in the Library section under the selected jurisdiction under the heading Benefits*.


----------



## garb811

geo said:
			
		

> Another thing....
> This won't do anything for the Reservist who is working on class B at one place & his home unit wants him to take a career course.
> 
> That Class B employment unit can & will often kaybosh any idea or hope of same said reservist dissapearing for the duration of his course.... IE - He's here to do a job & the job has to get done.... he'll do the job OR he'll go home.
> 
> The CF is prolly on of the worst Federal employers WRT giving reservists time off for courses... or deployments


Not completely true.  I know of 1 guy who was double dipping and he went on two tours in a three year time frame.  As he had retained his badge, it allowed the Reg F WOs to stay in the Guardhouses while he went from a HQ slot.  Nobody seemed willing to answer the question of why they needed the Class B position in the HQ if they could spare that body for 2 years of work-ups and deployment and they never back filled it when he was gone.  Last I heard he was finally being moved off to other pastures after about six years in the position.


----------



## geo

Garb... there are exceptions but, as you point out, if they need that position filled - why should they let you go the minute you show up?

Had a Cpl who was qualified JLC parts 1 thru 5 but needing that dreaded part 6.
He got a 3 year callout in Valcartier working for a unit in 5 CMBG
They wouldn't spring him for the time to take his part 6...... no way, no how.... NYET!
Only option he had was to give his 30 day notice.


----------



## dapaterson

STUDENT LOAN RELIEF FOR RESERVISTS DEPLOYING

Trying to keep information all in one place:


The Canada Student Loans Act and the Student Financial Assistance Act have both been amended to allow eligible Reservists who are also full-time post-secondary students to retain interest-free status while they are serving on designated operations.

Eligibility

You will be eligible for this benefit if you:

are in the Canadian Reserves; 
are a full-time student; 
have a federal student loan but have not started repayment; and 
intend to return to school after your designated operations. 
Depending on the province or territory that your loan is with, you may be required to make payments on the provincial/territorial portion of your loan. If payments are required, the Government of Canada will ensure that interest is paid on the provincial/territorial loan.

MORE AT: http://www.canlearn.ca/eng/after/payingback/reserv.shtml


----------



## pict

Does Bill C- 40 currently provide job protection for reservists across Canada for training and deployment?

  I read through the legislation regarding Bill C - 40 and it looks good, but is it in effect.


----------



## pict

The BC Employment Standards Act as of July 2009 does appears to protect reservists for operational duties.  I will submit full document for those interested.  There are certain stipulations to the agreement but there is protection... finally.  Min requirements are four weeks notice,  etc etc. and employee must be allowed to return to work in the same role or a similar role without loss of pay or status.  I'm a little fuzzy on training for reserves in a non operational capacity... more to follow.


----------



## pict

Reservists' leave
52.2  (1) In this section:

"Canadian Forces" has the same meaning as in section 14 of the National Defence Act (Canada);

"reservist" means a member of the reserve force, as defined in section 2 (1) of the National Defence Act (Canada).

(2) Subject to the regulations, an employee who is a reservist and who requests leave under this section is entitled to unpaid leave, for the period described in subsection (3), if

(a) the employee is deployed to a Canadian Forces operation outside Canada or is engaged, either inside or outside Canada, in a pre-deployment or post-deployment activity required by the Canadian Forces in connection with such an operation,

(b) the employee is deployed to a Canadian Forces operation inside Canada that is or will be providing assistance in dealing with an emergency or with its aftermath, or

(c) the prescribed circumstances apply.

(3) An employee who is a reservist is entitled to take leave under this section for the prescribed period or, if no period is prescribed, for as long as subsection (2) (a), (b) or (c) applies to the employee.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), a request for leave must

(a) be in writing,

(b) be given to the employer,

(i)  unless subparagraph (ii) or (iii) applies, at least 4 weeks before the employee proposes to begin leave,

(ii)  in the case of leave under subsection (2) (a) or (b), if the employee receives notice of the deployment less than 4 weeks before it will begin, as soon as practicable after the employee receives the notice, or

(iii)  in the case of leave under subsection (2) (c), within the prescribed period, and

(c) include the date the employee proposes to begin leave and the date the employee proposes to return to work.

(5) If circumstances require leave to be taken beyond the date specified in the request under subsection (4) (c), the employee must

(a) notify the employer of the need for the extended leave and of the date the employee now proposes to return to work, and

(b) provide the notice referred to in paragraph (a),

(i)  unless subparagraph (ii) or (iii) applies, at least 4 weeks before the date the employee had proposed, in the request under subsection (4), to return to work,

(ii)  in the case of leave under subsection (2) (a) or (b), if the employee receives notice of the extended deployment less than 4 weeks before the date referred to in subparagraph (i), as soon as practicable after the employee receives the notice, or

(iii)  in the case of a leave under subsection (2) (c), within the prescribed period.

(6) If an employee who is a reservist proposes to return to work earlier than specified in the request submitted under subsection (4) or the notice provided under subsection (5), if applicable, the employee must notify the employer of this proposal at least one week before the date the employee proposes to return to work.

(7) An employer may require an employee who takes leave under this section to provide further information respecting the leave.

(8) If an employer requires an employee to provide further information under subsection (7), the employee must

(a) provide the prescribed information in accordance with the regulations, or

(b) if no information is prescribed, provide information reasonable in the circumstances to explain why subsection (2) (a), (b) or (c) applies to the employee and provide it within a reasonable time after the employee learns of the requirement under subsection (7).


----------



## pict

Hope this helps... OP Podium I don't know what this will mean...


----------



## pict

Duties of employer
54  (1) An employer must give an employee who requests leave under this Part the leave to which the employee is entitled.

(2) An employer must not, because of an employee's pregnancy or a leave allowed by this Part,

(a) terminate employment, or

(b) change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent.

(3) As soon as the leave ends, the employer must place the employee

(a) in the position the employee held before taking leave under this Part, or

(b) in a comparable position.

(4) If the employer's operations are suspended or discontinued when the leave ends, the employer must, subject to the seniority provisions in a collective agreement, comply with subsection (3) as soon as operations are resumed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Mods: I thought we had another thread on this topic but my searches (2) didn’t find it. Please move this if it’s appropriate. Thanks.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is more on the problems facing the Reserve Forces - specifically on their employers:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/army-reservists-weigh-heavy-on-employers/article1422814/


> Army reservists weigh heavy on employers
> *C.D. Howe analysis urges taxpayer support for companies whose workers are deployed to Afghanistan and elsewhere*
> 
> Colin Perkel
> 
> Kandahar, Afghanistan — The Canadian Press
> 
> Published on Thursday, Jan. 07, 2010
> 
> The increased reliance of Canada's military on its volunteer part-time soldiers is imposing a financial burden on their employers that taxpayers need to help carry, a new analysis concludes.
> Employers, for example, face additional expenses in recruiting and training temporary replacements for deployed employees, or higher overtime bills as others pick up the slack, says the report released Thursday by the C.D. Howe Institute.
> 
> The situation has become particularly pressing in light of Canada's lengthy and intensive military involvement in Afghanistan.
> 
> About 20 per cent of the troop strength in the war-torn country comes from reservists, who fill myriad jobs as part of Canada's Afghan mission – from hard-edge combat roles or medics to clerical and logistics work.
> 
> Some have paid with their lives, most recently the four soldiers who were killed Dec. 30 when their light-armoured vehicle struck a massive roadside bomb outside Kandahar city – the same blast that killed Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang.
> 
> “Given the key roles Canadian reservists play in meeting Canada's increasing domestic and international security demands, policy makers need to rethink who pays for employer costs when employees deploy,” said Colin Busby, a policy analyst with the Toronto-based think-tank.
> 
> Padre Sandy Scott, a minister in Prince Albert, Sask., said his deployment to Afghanistan is costing his St. Paul's congregation thousands of dollars.
> 
> There were recruiting costs involved in replacing him, as well as paying travel costs for his replacement to move from Vancouver, Padre Scott said.
> 
> Although his actual deployment to Afghanistan is expected to last about seven months, training and other preparation for the mission will mean an absence of closer to 15 months.
> 
> “Employers have to be really committed, and they have to be prepared to take a financial hit, as well as a hit to their programs,” Padre Scott said.
> 
> “[Reservists] may not be able to go, because they fear if they do go, it will either put their employer in a position that's untenable or their employer won't support it.”
> 
> Military figures indicate the Canadian Forces comprise around 90,000 personnel – about one-third of whom are reservists. Close to 10,000 of the part-timers are students; most of the rest are employed.
> 
> Currently, the military relies heavily on employer goodwill, stressing the value of reservist employees to companies.
> 
> “They are motivated and above all, they have been taught loyalty ... to the team, to the group, to the organization,” the Canadian Forces Liaison Council states.
> 
> Most reservists take unpaid leaves of absence but federal and provincial legislation requires their jobs be kept open for them.
> 
> Constable Kevin Collier, who now plans ways to counter Taliban propaganda as a lieutenant at headquarters in Kandahar, said his Calgary police force was fully supportive of his deployment, even topping up his military salary – a cost indirectly borne by local taxpayers.
> 
> However, before becoming a police officer, he was compelled to quit several construction jobs just so he could go on his three-month training military courses, he said.
> 
> The report notes that both the Australian and British governments have programs in place to mitigate the financial stresses on employers, who might be reluctant to hire someone in the first place because of their military ties.
> 
> Mr. Busby is recommending a scheme to reimburse employers on a sliding scale based on the reservists' regular civilian earnings.
> 
> The cost, he estimates, would be about $26-million in 2010, decreasing as the Afghan mission winds down.
> 
> Such a system would share the costs of national defence actions more fairly, he said.
> 
> Padre Scott agreed.
> 
> “It's a critical piece that needs to be put in place,” he said.
> 
> “With financial assistance, of course, some more resources in terms of people can be freed up, so I think it's an absolute necessity.”




Several Army.ca members have commented on the employers’ dilemma. It is, probably, time that the Government of Canada (DND) stepped up and took on some of the burden.


----------



## Rifleman62

"The increased reliance of Canada's military on its volunteer part-time soldiers", "“Given the key roles Canadian reservists play in meeting Canada's increasing domestic and international security demands" flies in the face of the cuts to the Reserve payroll.
Saw this happen many times over the years I was in the Reserve, including the year nobody got paid for 8/9 months when pay was converted to computer.


----------



## bear1234

Hi Everyone,

This week I was talking to my buddy out here in BC about a reserve soldier who works for the BC Govt that is getting screwed around by his full time employer. This soldier has been on  military leave for almost a year and is hoping to deploy to Afghanistan. His employer was matching and topping up his pay as per their Collective Agreement, but then all of a sudden they decided that they were not going to continue to support him and now they are “pressuring” him to quit.

I use to work in the for the BC Government in the Liquor Distribution Branch and I looked into the BCGEU Collective Agreement for the clause that would apply. There is 3 that apply under Art. 20.14. I know my experience with being a reservist and the BC Govt...it sucked! I quit my job because of the “support”  and stress I received from this employer. If this person s going through what I  had to put up with I plan to write to my Member of Parliament and my MLA about this treatment....(if its true) This is not acceptable at all.

Has anyone on here from BC heard of this happening to anyone they know? What about other employers? I thought that the new laws were suppose to help protect reservists from this sort of thing happening.


----------



## Michael OLeary

He may find some assistance through the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.

Job Protection Legislation
http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/jpl-lse/index-eng.asp

Chairman of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council for British Columbia
http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/pro/bc-cb/index-eng.asp

Contact CFLC
http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/cu-cn/index-eng.asp


----------



## Fishbone Jones

bear1234 said:
			
		

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> This week I was talking to my buddy out here in BC about a reserve soldier who works for the BC Govt that is getting screwed around by his full time employer. This soldier has been on  military leave for almost a year and is hoping to deploy to Afghanistan. His employer was matching and topping up his pay as per their Collective Agreement, but then all of a sudden they decided that they were not going to continue to support him and now they are “pressuring” him to quit.
> 
> I use to work in the for the BC Government in the Liquor Distribution Branch and I looked into the BCGEU Collective Agreement for the clause that would apply. There is 3 that apply under Art. 20.14. I know my experience with being a reservist and the BC Govt...it sucked! I quit my job because of the “support”  and stress I received from this employer. If this person s going through what I  had to put up with I plan to write to my Member of Parliament and my MLA about this treatment....(if its true) This is not acceptable at all.
> 
> Has anyone on here from BC heard of this happening to anyone they know? What about other employers? I thought that the new laws were suppose to help protect reservists from this sort of thing happening.


Tell  him to go to the Union Hall and get what he pays dues for! Start holding the Executive responsible for what they tell the members that they do. If his local is not ready to fight for him, ask him why he pays dues.


----------



## Spanky

Not sure about BC, but in Ontario I believe a union has the legal responsibility to represent.  Failure to do so would put the union in a position of "failure to represent" with the labour board.


----------



## ggranatstein

A recent article published in the Montreal Gazette on August 18, 2010:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/story_print.html?id=3414237&sponsor=

*Reservists' job security deserves and gets protection*

by Gabriel Granatstein

The late Winston Churchill is reported to have first coined the phrase "twice a citizen" as a measure of the value of military reservists who served the national interest in both civilian and military capacities. In a reflection of that praise, the Quebec government enacted legislation last year which, for the first time, required employers to give military reservists job protection similar to that of an employee who leaves on maternity or sick leave. Similar legislation has been passed throughout the rest of Canada.

Being a reservist myself, this legislation is near and dear to my heart. I've been a reservist for seven years and have served both full and part-time. I still serve as a reservist with the Judge Advocate General Branch (legal) of the military. Military service has been an invaluable experience for me and I love being able to practice law at a firm like Ogilvy Renault LLP and still continue to serve my country. While my own firm has always been very supportive and encouraging of my parallel military career, this new legislation helps protect those reservists whose employers are perhaps less supportive than mine and, at the same time, sensitizes all employers to the rights and obligations of reservists and the corresponding benefits that they can offer their employers.

Before discussing the new legislation, it is important to first consider the roles and obligations of reservists in the Canadian Forces. First of all, reservists generally receive the same training as their regular force (full-time) counterparts. They wear the uniform, earn the same rank and often serve side-by-side with the regular forces. However, unlike regular force service members, they do not sign full-time multi-year or indefinite contracts that require them to be moved around the country and be deployed at the government's will. Reservists can work part-time or full-time, when and where they choose. In exchange for this flexibility, reservists are not guaranteed full-time employment and receive a slightly lesser salary. However, many reservists work full-time. For example, in my seven years as a reservist, I spent about three years working full-time. I did a tour in Bosnia as a peacekeeper in a mixed regular force and reserve unit. That contract lasted about 10 months and because it was for an operational tour, I was entitled to all of the benefits of being in the regular force. The tour, like all operational deployments for reservists, was optional. I also worked full-time in a headquarters in Quebec, worked as a recruiting officer and taught basic training in Manitoba. I volunteered for all of those positions.

Indeed, unlike our American counterparts, Canadian Forces reservists cannot be compelled to serve on operational tours without an Order In Council signed by the Governor General of Canada acting under the advisement of the federal cabinet. This has not happened since the Second World War and is not likely to happen anytime soon. Given this situation, there has not been any form of job protection legislation for reservists as it has been their choice to leave on a deployment. However, Canada's involvement in Afghanistan has resulted in an increased use of reservists and there has been a push to enact job protection legislation across all jurisdictions. Indeed, given that labour relations are generally the responsibility of the provinces, all provinces have enacted a similar form of job protection legislation.

In Québec, that legislation took the form of last year's amendments to the Labour Standards Act ("Act"). The amendments provide that any employee who is subject to the Act and has 12 months of uninterrupted service with an employer is entitled to take off up to 18 months to participate in a qualifying Canadian Forces operation. Also, any employee subject to the Act, regardless of their length of service with an employer, is entitled to take up to 15 days off to take part in annual military training. Of course, employers are entitled to both written notice of the requested leave and documents justifying that their absence is for valid military purposes and do not have to pay these employees during their absence. On their return from this service, reservists are generally entitled to return to the same position, without penalty.

I would encourage employers not to see these absences in anything but a positive light. When on operations and undergoing training, Canadian Forces soldiers gain valuable transferrable skills. Soldiers of all ranks learn leadership, project management, attention to detail, how to work under stress, and many other valuable life and work-related skills. Many employers have recognized the value in employing reservists and have dedicated policies providing more generous benefits for their reservists. From my experience, some employers even offer to "top-up" the difference between the salary a reservist will earn overseas and what they would have otherwise have earned at home. If reservists are, as Winston Churchill said, "twice the citizen"- so are employers who support their reservists.

Gabriel Granatstein, a lawyer at Ogilvy Renault LLP, practices labour and employment law in the province of Québec and can be reached at ggranatstein@ogilvyrenault.com.


----------



## LineJumper

Very well written, do reservists generally lose their jobs?


----------



## ModlrMike

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Very well written, do reservists generally lose their jobs?



It's highly variable. Generally, employers are more lenient now-a-days, but that wasn't always the case.


----------



## mariomike

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Very well written, do reservists generally lose their jobs?



Canada Labour Code:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/L-2/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:l_III-gb:l_XV_2


Beyond the Code, Military Leave Policy depends on your employer.
I worked for The City of Toronto. 
We did not have a Military Leave Policy during my time in the militia, but they have one now. 

"Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program.":
http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/9fff29b7237299b385256729004b844b/58a35e5368beb69e852567bd006d7e4b?OpenDocument

We worked 12 hour shifts, so this part sounds interesting ( Even more so for those on 24-hour tours ): "Employees are paid their regular pay provided they submit any compensation received for military service to the city treasurer, unless this compensation is paid for days they are not scheduled to work."



"All benefits continue during the leave.
An employee's service is not affected by the leave. An employee's vacation entitlement, and pension credit do not change."

"Leave of absence shall be granted to employees to serve in the
Canadian Armed Forces during hostilities, peacekeeping missions,
or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada.
Seniority will accumulate during such leave."



"Earned Deferred Leave" or "Educational Leave" may also be used.
The above was wrtitten into our Collective Agreement.


----------



## kratz

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's highly variable. Generally, employers are more lenient now-a-days, but that wasn't always the case.



If you are in a job that might not allow you time off, search your company policieswell ahead of time (at least 6 months) and make an effort to present an action plan for your company's decision makers (owner), while getting them in touch with CFLC (Canadian Forces Liaison Council )

There are pros and major cons in job protection laws. Be careful what you ask for.


----------



## Haggis

kratz said:
			
		

> If you are in a job that might not allow you time off, search your company policieswell ahead of time (at least 6 months) and make an effort to present an action plan for your company's decision makers (owner), while getting them in touch with CFLC (Canadian Forces Liaison Council )



BEFORE you engage CFLC, contact your unit Military Leave Represntative (usually your DCO and/or RSM) for assistance at the local level.

AFTER you are granted your leave, submit your employer for recognition or an award from CFLC.


----------



## ggranatstein

With regard to the citation of the Canada Labour Code - be careful, that only applies to employees in federal undertakings. The vast majority of employees work for in provincial undertakings. Those are regulated by the labour standards legislation of each province.

LineJumper - I will pass your comments on to the author, who I know well.


----------



## mariomike

Habitant said:
			
		

> With regard to the citation of the Canada Labour Code - be careful, that only applies to employees in federal undertakings. The vast majority of employees work for in provincial undertakings. Those are regulated by the labour standards legislation of each province.



Ontario: "Reservist Leave":
http://www.worksmartontario.gov.on.ca/scripts/default.asp?contentID=1-5-6


----------



## Haggis

This page summarizes all the current Job Protection Legislations in Canada.  They are not equal.  They do not provide the same coverage.  There is no synchronization.


----------



## RandyCrust

I'm a recruit for the 84th Indepdant Feild Battery, (actually at 37 I'm the oldest recruit).  I'm enrolled for the combinded BMQ land/ Dp1 course this summer but I have to take the time off work.  Has anyone done this as in take almost two months off work, how did you go about this?   My civie employer is alright with the idea and all but they don't know how to go about it.  Is there such a thing as leave for milatary service?  

I know I should ask my orderly room but its the weekend.


----------



## MikeL

You just need to talk to your employer,  tell them which dates you need off to complete your training and then it's up to them to say yes or no to the time off.  I know some Reservists who have taken over a year off from work in order to go on tour,  so it is possible to get time off work.. just depends on your boss.  

As for such a thing as leave for military service,  what do you mean?  Just getting time off work?  Or some kind of legislation/job protection for Reservists in order to train and go on deployment?


----------



## JorgSlice

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> You just need to talk to your employer,  tell them which dates you need off to complete your training and then it's up to them to say yes or no to the time off.  I know some Reservists who have taken over a year off from work in order to go on tour,  so it is possible to get time off work.. just depends on your boss.
> 
> As for such a thing as leave for military service,  what do you mean?  Just getting time off work?  Or some kind of legislation/job protection for Reservists in order to train and go on deployment?



Some provinces (like Alberta) have legislation that states that if they have employees that are members of the Canadian Forces and are required for training or deployment, they must retain those members and cannot give their job away to someone else. Upon their return, they must allow the employee to return to work.

Some companies also allow employees to take time off simply for the purpose of Military training/deployment. My current employer has 3 senior executives who served in the USMC, and closer to home, my Account Manager served 6 yrs in the British Army, 6 in the CF and many more in the RCMP. I I believe he is currently a reservist with the Seaforth Highlanders of Canada.

Edit: My employer actually has corporate policy that any employees that are members of the military cannot have their request for leave for training or deployment rejected.


----------



## mariomike

RandyCrust said:
			
		

> My civie employer is alright with the idea and all but they don't know how to go about it.  Is there such a thing as leave for milatary service?



We had Military Leave where I used to work, if you want to use it as an example for your employer:

Military Leave
(a) Leave of absence shall be granted to employees to serve in the Canadian Armed Forces during hostilities, peacekeeping missions,
or during a time of war as declared by the Government of Canada.
Seniority will accumulate during such leave.
(b) Leave of absence for Reserve training shall be in accordance with City policy as amended from time to time.
http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/0/58a35e5368beb69e852567bd006d7e4b?OpenDocument
"Employees can take a leave of absence with pay, for the two week period of absence, to attend the Canadian Armed Forces Reserve Training Program."


----------



## Allgunzblazing

RandyCrust, I'm in a similar situation as you. I work for a government agency and our Collective Agreement supports employees who wish to be engaged in the Reserve Component of the Canadian Forces. 

Before I approached the reserve unit I was interested in, I informed my Staffing Manager. After getting written approval from that office, I was able to give a firm commitment to the Review Board when I appeared before them. 

I'd say, take a look at your employment contract. Things might be easier, if you're in a unionized work place. A number of non-government employers also support reservists. At my work place, reservists are given Leave of Absence to attend training, deployment, etc. Similar to JorgSlice, my employer is bound to keep my job while I am away from work with the CF.


----------



## Redeye

RandyCrust said:
			
		

> I'm a recruit for the 84th Indepdant Feild Battery, (actually at 37 I'm the oldest recruit).  I'm enrolled for the combinded BMQ land/ Dp1 course this summer but I have to take the time off work.  Has anyone done this as in take almost two months off work, how did you go about this?   My civie employer is alright with the idea and all but they don't know how to go about it.  Is there such a thing as leave for milatary service?
> 
> I know I should ask my orderly room but its the weekend.



If your employer is alright with it you're basically set. I'm not sure what else they need. However, they could try contacting the Canadian Forces Liaison Council to get a sample military leave policy to add to their HR policies. Their website has lots of info. 

http://www.cflc-clfc.forces.gc.ca


----------



## mariomike

It also depends if you work for an Essential Service.
Two weeks every summer is one thing, but anything more than that puts a strain on Operations.


----------



## JorgSlice

For those in Alberta, here is the legislation:



> *The Employment Standards (Reservist Leave) Amendment Act*,_ 2009, S.A. 2009, c. 4_ (the Act) came into force on June 30, 2009. The Act amends the Alberta Employment Standards Code (the Code), by providing leave provisions for members of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces, consisting of officers and non-commissioned members who are enrolled for other than continuing, full-time military service when not on active service.
> 
> Similar to maternity and parental leave provisions in the Code, reservist leave is unpaid, job-protected leave. Under the amended Code, an employee who has completed at least 26 consecutive weeks of employment with an employer, and is a reservist, is entitled to reservist leave without pay to take part in either:
> 
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]deployment to a Canadian Forces operation outside Canada;
> [*]deployment to a Canadian Forces operation inside Canada to provide assistance in dealing with an emergency or with its aftermath;
> [*]annual training, for an amount up to 20 days in a calendar year; or
> [*]an operation or activity set out in the regulations.
> [/list]
> 
> Unless the regulation or Act provides otherwise, an employee is entitled to reservist leave for as long as one of the four activities mentioned above applies to the employee.



If you're a student, it does not apply. Only to your job.


----------



## mariomike

The City of Calgary has a progressive Military Leave policy.

Military Leave may be granted to Reservists for a period of up to twenty-four (24) months. During the approved leave period, the member's pay and benefit coverage with the Government of Canada will be harmonized to ensure continuity of regular salary, benefits and pension as
well as the continuation of service accumulations for seniority and vacation.

The City of Calgary will top up all pay and benefits including family medical coverage to insure the member is not affected in any way.


----------



## Chang

Anything like this available for BC? Would definitely be nice to have.


----------



## MikeL

Globemaster said:
			
		

> Anything like this available for BC? Would definitely be nice to have.



Just did a quick google search,  so I'm sure if you spent more time searching around you can find more.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009LBR0002-000276.htm


> INFORMATION BULLETIN
> 
> 2009LBR0002-000276
> September 4, 2009
> Ministry of Labour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BRITISH COLUMBIA EXTENDS RESERVIST JOB PROTECTION
> 
> 
> 
> VICTORIA – Changes to the Employment Standards Regulation will extend job-protected leave to Canadian Forces reservists called on to support the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.
> 
> 
> 
> In 2008, the Employment Standards Act was amended to provide reservists with job-protected leave from their civilian employment when they are deployed to a Canadian Forces operation outside of Canada, or to assist with an emergency inside Canada. The new regulation extends this support to reservists deployed to support the 2010 Games.
> 
> 
> 
> About 1,000 reservists are expected to be deployed to the Games, with half coming from within B.C. Many will begin their work in September, and will serve up to the completion of post-Games activities in March or April 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> As with other statutory leaves in B.C., employers will not be required to pay wages while the employee is on leave. Reservists will receive compensation from the Canadian Armed Forces for their services. When the reservist returns to work, the employer has to place the employee in their previous job, or in a comparable position.
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government has also extended Reserve Leave under the Canada Labour Code for the 2010 Olympic Games. The Canada Labour Code covers employment in federally-regulated industries such as banks, telecommunications and interprovincial transportation.



http://www.cflc-clfc.forces.gc.ca/jpl-lse/pro/bc-cb-eng.asp


> Job Protection Legislation for Reservists: British Columbia
> 
> [Disclaimer]
> 
> General:
> 
> Job Protection Legislation has been enacted in most jurisdictions to ensure Reservists can perform their military duties without jeopardizing their civilian livelihood. All the legislation is based on amendments to Labour Codes and Employment Standards, but differs between jurisdictions. Deployed Reservists serving together can be covered by more than one law, and employers may have to refer to more than one Law if they employ Reservists in one or more jurisdiction. The following information summarises the provisions contained in the British Columbia Legislation. For more general information on Job Protection Legislation, please refer to Reserved Jobs: Job Protection Legislation and You, available from the Canadian Forces Liaison Council.
> 
> Title: Employment Standards Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 113
> 
> Provisions:
> 
> Minimum Employment Period before Leave of Absence: None indicated.
> 
> Notice Period Required for Granting of Leave of Absence: At least four (4) weeks notice, in writing, or as soon as practicable upon receipt of deployment notice, to include start and end dates. Employer can ask for proof from a military official that the employee is required for military service.
> 
> Length of Leave of Absence: For the prescribed period, or for as long as the employee is involved in the operation / activity.
> 
> Frequency of Leave of Absence: None indicated.
> 
> Notice for Reinstatement: If extending beyond approved leave period, four (4) weeks notice required; if returning early, at least one (1) week's notice required.
> 
> Benefits: Reinstated to position held or comparable position, with same pay and benefits. Employment deemed to be continuous for the purposes of calculating annual vacation, pension, medical or other plan beneficial to the employee. Employer exempt from continuing to pay employer share of pension, medical or other plans.
> 
> Education provisions: None indicated.
> 
> Hardship Clause: None indicated.
> 
> Limitations: No provisions for annual training


----------



## mariomike

Globemaster said:
			
		

> Anything like this available for BC? Would definitely be nice to have.



For continuity of salary, benefits and pension while on Military Leave, check your collective agreement ( if you have one ). 

Otherwise, reply #10 ( Job Protection Legislation for Reservists: British Columbia ) would apply:
"As with other statutory leaves in B.C., employers will not be required to pay wages while the employee is on leave."
"Employer exempt from continuing to pay employer share of pension, medical or other plans."


----------



## Chang

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Just did a quick google search,  so I'm sure if you spent more time searching around you can find more.



Yes I've came across the second document before, but I didn't think it was too applicable due to this clause:



> Limitations: No provisions for annual training



Is this a reference to our career courses? Based on reading that legislation, I thought it was merely for guys being deployed and their work-up training.


----------



## cupper

This should answer any and all questions regarding military leave for reservists in all provincial jurisdictions.

http://www.cflc-clfc.forces.gc.ca/jpl-lse/jplg-glpe-eng.asp


----------



## mariomike

Globemaster said:
			
		

> Based on reading that legislation, I thought it was merely for guys being deployed and their work-up training.



You asked about British Columbia:

SECTION 5: [Employment Standards Act, section 52.2] authorizes reservist employees to take unpaid leave from their employment while deployed to a Canadian Forces operation.

(2) Subject to the regulations, an employee who is a reservist and who requests leave under this section is entitled to unpaid leave, for the period described in subsection (3), if

(a) the employee is deployed to a Canadian Forces operation outside Canada or is engaged, either inside or outside Canada, in a pre-deployment or post-deployment activity required by the Canadian Forces in connection with such an operation,

(b) the employee is deployed to a Canadian Forces operation inside Canada that is or will be providing assistance in dealing with an emergency or with its aftermath, or

(c) the prescribed circumstances apply.

(3) An employee who is a reservist is entitled to take leave under this section for the prescribed period or, if no period is prescribed, for as long as subsection (2) (a), (b) or (c) applies to the employee.
http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/1st_read/gov43-1.htm


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Reviving the thread for a question:

I have been having issues with my employer since starting BMQ. I had just a little under 24hrs notice that I was to be going onto BMQ, my employer's Military Leave policy is that I need to give minimum 30 days notice (which apparently happens infrequently, on the Army side). I am on a weekend course and still able to work during the week, but they removed me from my standard position, left me without work for about a month +/-, and when I pressed the issue they put me to work in a 1-man site where I do nothing but sit at a desk for fewer hours for the same number of days a week. They have no problem filling my position full-time, but filling it for 3-days a week is a mortal sin it seems. My co-worker was not given this treatment and when I questioned management about it and asked to be reinstated they refused and said I cannot return to my position until I'm finished my training.

To not go into great detail, I feel as though they are giving me the run-around and screwing me over and it's causing not just financial hardship but also creating stress which is preventing me from being the best soldier I can be. I hopefully will be on the BMQ-L that follows, and therefore I will be at a major loss of income for well over 6 months, I need the money to survive.

Do I need to go through my CoC (either home unit or course staff) before going through the CFLC, or can I contact the Alberta - South Rep directly?


----------



## ModlrMike

The Alberta Employment Standards Act lays out the terms for Reservist Leave. You'll want to look at Section 7.1, which actually starts on page 31 of the linked document. A very quick perusal of the act leaves me with the impression they're in violation, but I'm not an authority and make no claim that my interpretation is correct.

Alberta Employment Standards Act


Try the CoC first, if that fails, then try your rep.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The Alberta Employment Standards Act lays out the terms for Reservist Leave. You'll want to look at Section 7.1, which actually starts on page 31 of the linked document. A very quick perusal of the act leaves me with the impression they're in violation, but I'm not an authority and make no claim that my interpretation is correct.
> 
> Alberta Employment Standards Act
> 
> 
> Try the CoC first, if that fails, then try your rep.



Thanks Mike, much appreciated


----------



## Jarnhamar

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Reviving the thread for a question:
> 
> I have been having issues with my employer since starting BMQ. I had just a little under 24hrs notice that I was to be going onto BMQ, my employer's Military Leave policy is that I need to give minimum 30 days notice (which apparently happens infrequently, on the Army side). I am on a weekend course and still able to work during the week, but they removed me from my standard position, left me without work for about a month +/-, and when I pressed the issue they put me to work in a 1-man site where I do nothing but sit at a desk for fewer hours for the same number of days a week. They have no problem filling my position full-time, but filling it for 3-days a week is a mortal sin it seems. My co-worker was not given this treatment and when I questioned management about it and asked to be reinstated they refused and said I cannot return to my position until I'm finished my training.
> 
> To not go into great detail, I feel as though they are giving me the run-around and screwing me over and it's causing not just financial hardship but also creating stress which is preventing me from being the best soldier I can be. I hopefully will be on the BMQ-L that follows, and therefore I will be at a major loss of income for well over 6 months, I need the money to survive.
> 
> Do I need to go through my CoC (either home unit or course staff) before going through the CFLC, or can I contact the Alberta - South Rep directly?



I'm not saying that your employer isn't giving you the run-around but I wanna throw some context at you for you to consider.

Your employers policy requires 30 days and you gave them less than a day.  I can't imagine many employers civi side really care that the army is so disorganized that they send people away on a course with less than a days notice.  It's not their problem.

Speaking about creating financial hardships, it seems like you jeopardized your primary job and source of income to take on a part time job without guaranteed hours.

You're choosing to attend BMQ and take a chance that you'll be course loaded on BMQ-L. I applaud you doing whatever you can to get trained but you kinda created the spot your in.  Your employer may very well be fucking you off and if they're breaking some kind of labor rule then for sure go after them and set things right but do some research and be careful you don't make matters worse and get yourself fired.

If I was running a business and I had someone tell me that they want last minute time off to work at a second job I probably wouldn't be too supportive either.   A major problem with the reserves is that reservists (in general, not saying you) HAVE abused the "Sorry I need to do army stuff" in the past leaving employers high and dry.  I've had to deal with civilian boss's calling me and trying to give me a blast of shit because Private so and so was *ordered* to attend a week or two week exercise last minute, they weren't impressed when I told them them it's volunteer and no one was ordered.  

Make sure you do some research because if your boss has half a brain he's going to be doing research himself.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that your employer isn't giving you the run-around but I wanna throw some context at you for you to consider.
> 
> Your employers policy requires 30 days and you gave them less than a day.  I can't imagine many employers civi side really care that the army is so disorganized that they send people away on a course with less than a days notice.  It's not their problem.
> 
> Speaking about creating financial hardships, it seems like you jeopardized your primary job and source of income to take on a part time job without guaranteed hours.
> 
> You're choosing to attend BMQ and take a chance that you'll be course loaded on BMQ-L. I applaud you doing whatever you can to get trained but you kinda created the spot your in.  Your employer may very well be fucking you off and if they're breaking some kind of labor rule then for sure go after them and set things right but do some research and be careful you don't make matters worse and get yourself fired.
> 
> If I was running a business and I had someone tell me that they want last minute time off to work at a second job I probably wouldn't be too supportive either.   A major problem with the reserves is that reservists (in general, not saying you) HAVE abused the "Sorry I need to do army stuff" in the past leaving employers high and dry.  I've had to deal with civilian boss's calling me and trying to give me a blast of shit because Private so and so was *ordered* to attend a week or two week exercise last minute, they weren't impressed when I told them them it's volunteer and no one was ordered.
> 
> Make sure you do some research because if your boss has half a brain he's going to be doing research himself.



Roger,

This is why I wish to consult someone who has the ins and outs of the legislation before going any further. The Legislation does state though that where proper notice cannot be achieved that it is to be given as soon as practicable, which was all I could do.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Fair enough.  I read through the link that Mike provided, it mentions 


> (5)
> If an employee cannot comply
> with the notice requirement
> under subsection (4)(a) because of *deployment in urgent
> circumstances*, the employee must advise the employer in writing
> of the reservist leave as soon as is
> reasonable and practicable in the
> circumstances.



My four year old knows more about this kinda stuff than i do but just guessing I'm not sure an untrained reservist attending voluntary basic training would constitute as a 'deployment in urgent circumstance'.

By the sounds of it it mostly applies to operations such as deploying to Afghanistan or a deployment within Canada such as the ice storm or floods. it mentions annual training but that strikes me more along the lines of the yearly brigade training exercise in August, or perhaps during the training cycle.


You should consider calling the labor board and speaking with a representative from there instead of approaching it from the military side perhaps. There's all kinds of wild crazy rules about employees, benefits their entitled to and grievances when an employer takes hours away.


----------



## George Wallace

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Reviving the thread for a question:
> 
> I have been having issues with my employer since starting BMQ. I had just a little under 24hrs notice that I was to be going onto BMQ, my employer's Military Leave policy is that I need to give minimum 30 days notice (which apparently happens infrequently, on the Army side). I am on a weekend course and still able to work during the week, but they removed me from my standard position, left me without work for about a month +/-, and when I pressed the issue they put me to work in a 1-man site where I do nothing but sit at a desk for fewer hours for the same number of days a week. They have no problem filling my position full-time, but filling it for 3-days a week is a mortal sin it seems. My co-worker was not given this treatment and when I questioned management about it and asked to be reinstated they refused and said I cannot return to my position until I'm finished my training.
> 
> To not go into great detail, I feel as though they are giving me the run-around and screwing me over and it's causing not just financial hardship but also creating stress which is preventing me from being the best soldier I can be. I hopefully will be on the BMQ-L that follows, and therefore I will be at a major loss of income for well over 6 months, I need the money to survive.
> 
> Do I need to go through my CoC (either home unit or course staff) before going through the CFLC, or can I contact the Alberta - South Rep directly?



From my interpretation of what you have here:

- You are on a Weekend BMQ, which will likely not be every weekend.  It is part-time employment.
- You are applying a clause that would give you 30 days full-time leave to attend Reserve training that you do not have to.  You will not need to take any time off your job, if it is a Mon to Friday job.  If you work shift work or weekends, you should have been able to easily reschedule your employment hours by talking to your boss and colleagues.  If you couldn't attend Reserve Training for one weekend, you could have your unit make up that training.
- Now that you have your employer confused and using a 30 day Reserve Employment clause, you may not be able to use that when you do need to attend full-time BMQ (L).


----------



## Seanf122

Hello,
I've searched endlessly for this topic and came up with no results...here is my question:

I'm payed a yearly salary as a department manager at a retail store. When I go away for DP01 or other courses, is my civi company still bound by law to pay me on top of my DND pay? Or to they stop paying me because the DND is covering my pay? How does this all work for people who are on salary pay in civi life? 

Thanks,


----------



## Tibbson

I don't believe there is any law or regulation stipulating that however, if you are under some form of contract, there may be a clause there that covers this.  In most cases though reservists take courses while on either vacation time or unpaid leave from their civilian jobs.


----------



## ModlrMike

In Ontario your provincial legislation would be the guiding document.

In short, it really depends on your employer. If you take vacation, or other earned time off, then you would probably be paid. If you take a leave of absence, then likely not. 


Start here: Job Protection Legislation

Read the relevant Act and then go to your employer with a plan. You may be covered by a company policy, you may be covered by your contract. It varies greatly.

For example: I need to take vacation time first, then an unpaid LOA if I don't have enough time for my tasking. On the flip side, I can't be fired, and must be given an equivalent position upon my return.


----------



## Seanf122

Okay, So basically what I've gathered from this link (which was exactly what I was looking for by the way..Thanks!) is that to go on course and be paid for it from my employer is to request vacation for the the time that I'm away on course. If I need additional time off it will be without pay! 

Has anyone (or know of anyone) that had issues with their employers NOT approving vacation time to go away to operations or Training? How was it resolved?


----------



## brihard

Seanf122 said:
			
		

> Okay, So basically what I've gathered from this link (which was exactly what I was looking for by the way..Thanks!) is that to go on course and be paid for it from my employer is to request vacation for the the time that I'm away on course. If I need additional time off it will be without pay!
> 
> Has anyone (or know of anyone) that had issues with their employers NOT approving vacation time to go away to operations or Training? How was it resolved?



You're probably looking at right weeks' absence to get your training done. At best you'll probably get an unpaid leave of absence. Be prepared for the possibility of your civilian employer not supporting you. You work retail, after all.  Some people are able to get leaves of absence. Others are forced to quit or are fired.


----------



## kratz

While you should always engage your CoC, the CFLC (Canadian Forces Liaison Council) is another resource to assist PRes with course opportunities. Have you searched the site and checked out CFLC.forces.gc.ca ?


----------



## Tibbson

Seanf122 said:
			
		

> Okay, So basically what I've gathered from this link (which was exactly what I was looking for by the way..Thanks!) is that to go on course and be paid for it from my employer is to request vacation for the the time that I'm away on course. If I need additional time off it will be without pay!
> 
> Has anyone (or know of anyone) that had issues with their employers NOT approving vacation time to go away to operations or Training? How was it resolved?



That is considering that you get paid vacation.  I know of plenty of people who have had employers not approve vacation time when it is requested but its usually more of a coordination issue then a jab against the employee going on a military course.  My dads autoparts plant shuts down for three weeks at the start of the summer and does not allow vacation for the remainder of the summer months so that they have the staff to operate.  If a reservist working there wanted to take time at the end of the summer instead then the plant would have an issue with that.  Compassionate or medical reasons aside of course.  

At the end of the day, the availability of vacation time that can be coordinated with any reserve course you may be selected for and the likelihood of getting additional time off, paid or unpaid, is really between you and your employer.   As someone pointed out though, some provinces have certain protections in place re job security when deployed but again, it's unique to the province involved at this time.


----------



## Seanf122

kratz said:
			
		

> While you should always engage your CoC, the CFLC (Canadian Forces Liaison Council) is another resource to assist PRes with course opportunities. Have you searched the site and checked out CFLC.forces.gc.ca ?




Thank you Kratz. I really like the letter templates they have provided on the CFLC site, It's a fantastic resource! It will certainly assist in persuading the owner to accept my decision to serve as a reservist. Fingers crossed he will continue to pay me, In the end he will be the one benefiting from all the skills I will acquire from the CF.


----------



## krimynal

Hello everyone , I just had 1 quick question ,

Basically I started working at a civilian job 3 months and a half ago , when I first met my boss for the 1st interview , I told him I was in the army and I was gonna be going to some summer camps or training camps everyonce in a while , I told him that the army are never really upfront about those camps and that you pretty much always know about them last minute.  

At this time , the boss told me that it didn't care that It would only be a good thing since he could give my hours to the other guys , for the time I was gone , and give me back my job once I get back , which was fine with me.  

Only today I told him I had received my email this morning about going to Vimmy Camp in valcartier this sunday for my QS+PP1 which is gonna last 1 month ( July 7Th to august 10Th ) 

I called him this afternoon about this , he basically told me that if I left , I wouldn't have my job back , that he was upset and mad at me "for the way I left him no choice but to let me go" .... I found it really really stupid since I told him at my interview and I told him that the army was always gonna come first since that's what I wanted to do in life.

So I was wondering if there was something I could tell him about the fact that he can't just fire me for going away to army training .... not looking into going to court with him or anything , but just want to let him know what the procedures are ( is it true that you can't fire someone that is in the military if he leaves for camp and training ? )

thanks a lot !


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is no such legislation in Canada, that I know of.  We aren't like the US Reserve/National Guards who have their "job protection" laws.

I would say, also, that what you said to your employer isn't accurate.  You have very little, if any, experience in the CAF yet you are stating things "are always this way" with regard to "little to know warning" about leaving for training, etc.

I spent years in the PRes and I always knew, fairly well in advance, that I was going away on a course, callout, Class B, weekend exercise, etc.  This "always last minute/never up front" stuff is bullshit IMO.

Your employer has a business to run, etc and bills to pay/family to feed, and you are leaving him in a tight bind with little notice.  I can understand him being upset. 

Re-read what you said you told him in the first interview.  I'd bet a box of donuts he really had no idea it would be "4 days notice" you were leaving and for how long.  He misunderstood and/or you downplayed it perhaps.  

 :2c:


----------



## ModlrMike

I see from your profile that you're in Quebec.

Go here: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=%2F%2FN_1_1%2FN1_1_A.htm

You want to scroll down to sect 81.17.1

Given the information you have provided, it appears that the employer is not obliged to let you go to train as you have not been with him for 12 months. As well, an employee must give to the employer advance written notice of not less than four weeks of the date on which the absence is to begin, the reason for it and its duration.


----------



## mariomike

krimynal said:
			
		

> So I was wondering if there was something I could tell him about the fact that he can't just fire me for going away to army training .... not looking into going to court with him or anything , but just want to let him know what the procedures are ( is it true that you can't fire someone that is in the military if he leaves for camp and training ? )



This may help.

Reservists Job Protection Superthread  
http://army.ca/forums/threads/2552.0


----------



## Jarnhamar

Don't quit a full time job to take a course in the reserves.

Ask your boss if a leave of absence or whatever is possible. If not then thank him for the consideration, suck it up that you won't get a course and write a memo to your chain of command telling them that if they want to send you on a course you need a month + notice.

Will that notice always happen? No not always. ,It often can and does but also lots of reserve units are notorious for doing exactly what happened to you.  
If you want to be on X course then you have two days to pack. Do you think a regular force member working at your unit or a full time reservist at your unit with a 1-3 year contract is really that torn up over you having to pick between full time civilian work or a course in the reserves?

Most of the guys like you from my old unit that were ready to sacrifice their jobs "for the unit" either quit to go regular force, quit for a full time civilian job or have a full time civilian job and show up in the reserves when it's convenient for them (and not the unit).

Don't quit a full time job to take a course in the reserves.


----------



## The Bread Guy

mariomike said:
			
		

> This may help.
> 
> Reservists Job Protection Superthread
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/2552.0


And so we merge to create an even richer mix of information for the consolidated thread.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## mariomike

For reference,



			
				aliw said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> I'm sure this has already been answered before, but I was unable to find any real information on this.
> 
> I have began the process of joining the reserves and the prospect of being in the Canadian Forces has been a long time dream of mine. However, being away from my full time job (a job that I love) for 8 weeks will pose an issue. Not to mention, an unpaid absence.
> 
> I was curious as to what steps can be taken to minimize the chances of being let go.
> 
> I'm sure others have faced similar circumstances; have you been let go from work?
> 
> Also the recruiter I met told me that there have been instances where Admirals and Generals have sent requests to CEO's of companies to allow team members an unpaid leave for BMQ and trades training.
> 
> I just need more direction in what I should do when I reach this juncture.
> 
> Thanks





			
				DAA said:
			
		

> As a perspective member of the Canadian Armed Forces Reserves, it's usually a good idea to possibly discuss this option with your current employer just to ensure that you have their support.
> 
> For your reading pleasure and things you may want to discuss with your employer before hand.........
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-reservist-support/employer-educator-info.page


----------



## Maxadia

Hi all,

I know I am reviving an old thread, but I am hoping to gain some clarification in regards to reservist leave, as it relates specifically the Alberta Employment Standards Act.

Under the allowed operations and activities, it states:
"*annual training*, included related travel time, for up to 20 days in a calendar year"

What is, and what is not considered "annual training"?  Are there any restrictions around that phrase?  My belief was that annual training, as covered under the act, was considered to  be any type of training that the military would be paying a reservist for, whether it was a single day, weekend exercise, or career courses.

If you could offer any clarification, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## mariomike

RDJP said:
			
		

> What is, and what is not considered "annual training"?



Reserve Summer Training?
https://www.google.com/search?ei=rnlHXNHEFISvjwTjp5aQBQ&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+%22reserve+summer+training%22&oq=site%3Aarmy.ca+%22reserve+summer+training%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..90127...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.7L_SsRCKHuo

RST
https://www.google.com/search?ei=KnpHXJb5GpXvjwSRp4-QBQ&q=site%3Aarmy.ca+rst&oq=site%3Aarmy.ca+rst&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..67941...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.fdtL7K2qVP4


----------



## Maxadia

Thanks for the reply, but one of us is not understanding the other, and I am not sure who that is.  8)  Do you mean that reservist summer training is the only thing considered "annual training" under the Alberta act?


----------



## mariomike

RDJP said:
			
		

> Do you mean that reservist summer training is the only thing considered "annual training" under the Alberta act?



No. That is why I put the question mark.   8)


----------



## RedcapCrusader

RDJP said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply, but one of us is not understanding the other, and I am not sure who that is.  8)  Do you mean that reservist summer training is the only thing considered "annual training" under the Alberta act?



Annual training is any and all training conducted throughout the year.


----------



## Maxadia

Thanks for the replies, and mariomike - that clears it up.  I wasn't quite sure.

Basic scenario is that I have an HR person trying to tell me that a previous 3 day course I took in the fall (CTIO) was not "mandatory" like "career courses" are, feels like they were lied to, and is "hesitant to approve my requested leave" for a two week course this summer.  :
No one said it was mandatory, just their interpretation after talking to the CO who I think stated that the difference between a one-off course and a career progression course.

Far as I was aware, like Lunchmeat stated, any and all training is "annual training", and hopefully that is what the CFLC will confirm as well.

Thanks again.  ;D


----------



## Dissident

Your situation smells political, thread with caution.

An employer balking at giving a reservist 3 days for training one fall, then 2 weeks for training the next summer, seems to be flirting dangerously with bad, bad PR in the land of Alberta. There must be more context to your situation. 

Without additional information in the overall situation, I would cautiously advise you to go on the offensive. Are you familiar with the CFLC? http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-reservist-support/index.page

Get your supervisor on board. Tell them that you appreciate their help in your dual career. Ask them if they would be willing to help you write a submission for employer recognition award for the CFLC.

A previous employer of mine (Ledcor Construction), went above and beyond with helping me maintain my commitment to the reserve, while they had me working out of country and my wife was deployed. My submission won them a provincial award that we received during the dinner at the war museum. Dinner that a VP and I were flown to.

Good luck.


----------



## mariomike

RDJP said:
			
		

> Thanks for the replies, and mariomike - that clears it up.  I wasn't quite sure.
> 
> Far as I was aware, like Lunchmeat stated, any and all training is "annual training", and hopefully that is what the CFLC will confirm as well.
> 
> Thanks again.  ;D



Hopefully, HR and CFLC will go by LunchMeat's interpretation of "annual". :dunno:

adjective: annual

1. occurring once every year.
"the sponsored walk became an annual event"

synonyms: yearly, once-a-year, every twelve months 
"an annual report" 

•calculated over or covering a period of a year.
"an annual rate of increase"

synonyms: yearlong, lasting a year, twelve-month 
"an annual subscription" 

noun

1. a book or magazine that is published once a year under the same title but with different contents.
"a Christmas annual"

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=vdpHXMD5AoHLjwSEy4DwDQ&q=annual&btnK=Google+Search&oq=annual&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67l10.1669.3184..3810...0.0..0.390.1090.3j3j0j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0i131j0j0i131i67.qHaHde3V1f8


----------



## Maxadia

Mariomike, I do believe it is all in the interpretation of the word, and I am waiting to see the CFLC's interpretation.

NinerSix - pm incoming.


----------



## mariomike

RDJP said:
			
		

> Mariomike, I do believe it is all in the interpretation of the word, and I am waiting to see the CFLC's interpretation.



That's what it sounds like. Good luck.


----------



## Maxadia

From the CFLC rep: training is training, regardless of what it is. 

Thanks all.


----------



## mariomike

RDJP said:
			
		

> From the CFLC rep: training is training, regardless of what it is.



That's great.

Saw this on their website, 


> having the right to do something is one thing, but actually doing it can be something else altogether. And if you have to fall back on legislation to get military leave for Reserve activities, chances are that things could get strained. You don't want to make too many waves in your civilian job – that's something we understand.



Sometimes a career is like a marriage. 

You can be right, or you can be happy.  

Where I worked, Reservists received two-weeks Leave With Pay ( LWP ) - not vacation - each and every annual summer concentration. 

That was pretty generous considering it cost the City 80-hours at double-time-and-a-half to cover your shifts.

Since it was LWP, all benefits, seniority, vacation entitlement, sick bank credits, pension etc. continued without interruption.

If you are requesting Leave No Pay ( LNP ), perhaps continuation of benefits etc. is something you may wish to ask your HR people about.

Or, check your collective agreement - if you have one.


----------



## TheSnake

I have a question I found this municipal job I like on the civi side, now before I bother applying and what not. Will a government township job give me the time off to do the training after just applying for said job?

I ask because of summer training and I just see my self getting a month or two (assuming I get the job) in shifts before I go off for training? so do I bother applying for the job at all?


----------



## daftandbarmy

TheSnake said:
			
		

> I have a question I found this municipal job I like on the civi side, now before I bother applying and what not. Will a government township job give me the time off to do the training after just applying for said job?
> 
> I ask because of summer training and I just see my self getting a month or two (assuming I get the job) in shifts before I go off for training? so do I bother applying for the job at all?



Here's a tip:

The job will pay for your mortgage, Class A - not so much.

Get the job first, then work out the Reservist commitments afterwards. Most municipalities have pretty good support for Reservists taking time off for military commitments.


----------



## mariomike

TheSnake said:
			
		

> I have a question I found this municipal job I like on the civi side, now before I bother applying and what not. Will a government township job give me the time off to do the training after just applying for said job?



May depend if it is a part-time, temporary or seasonal job. Or, a full-time, permanent job.

I worked for a municipality. There was a Military Leave Policy,

Reservists received two-weeks Leave With Pay ( LWP ) - not vacation - each and every annual summer concentration. 

( That was pretty generous considering it cost the City 80-hours, paid at double-time-and-a-half, to cover your shifts during LWP. )

Since it was LWP, all benefits, seniority, vacation entitlement, sick bank credits, pension etc. continued without interruption.

Check your collective agreement - if you have one.
http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/0/58a35e5368beb69e852567bd006d7e4b?OpenDocument


----------



## TheSnake

mariomike said:
			
		

> May depend if it is a part-time, temporary or seasonal job. Or, a full-time, permanent job.
> 
> I worked for a municipality. There was a Military Leave Policy,
> 
> Reservists received two-weeks Leave With Pay ( LWP ) - not vacation - each and every annual summer concentration.
> 
> ( That was pretty generous considering it cost the City 80-hours, paid at double-time-and-a-half, to cover your shifts during LWP. )
> 
> Since it was LWP, all benefits, seniority, vacation entitlement, sick bank credits, pension etc. continued without interruption.
> 
> Check your collective agreement - if you have one.
> http://wx.toronto.ca/intra/hr/policies.nsf/0/58a35e5368beb69e852567bd006d7e4b?OpenDocument


 the job is regular part time with set hours


----------



## mariomike

TheSnake said:
			
		

> the job is regular part time with set hours



Our Military Leave Policy was for full-time permanent employees. 

You can check with your municipality or union ( if you belong to one ) to see if they have something similar.


----------



## TheSnake

mariomike said:
			
		

> Our Military Leave Policy was for full-time permanent employees.
> 
> You can check with your municipality or union ( if you belong to one ) to see if they have something similar.


 I'am not haven't applied to them yet.


----------



## Rifleman62

A comparison. Glendale is a city in Phoenix, AZ. Luke AFB is in Glendale.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/glendale/2019/04/01/glendale-pays-national-guard-member-department-of-justice-sued-city-fired-military-leave/3336089002/?utm_campaign=daily_briefing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=azcentral-Daily%20Briefing&utm_term=list_article_thumb

*Glendale pays $45K to ex-employee who said she was wrongly terminated because of military leave* - 2 Apr 19

Glendale will pay missed wages and retirement benefits to an ex-employee who says the city fired her because she tried to take military service leave. The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city in U.S. District Court in 2017 on behalf of Rebecca Cruz, a member of the Arizona Air National Guard. Cruz said in her complaint that the city fired her just days after she told her supervisor she had to leave for two months for a Guard training program. City officials told her at the time they were firing her because of her job performance. Cruz said in her complaint no one warned her before that her performance was lacking. The parties settled the case in December, and the case was officially dismissed Monday.

As part of the settlement, the city will pay Cruz $45,000,the equivalent of the back wages that she lost because of her termination. Cruz will also receive her Arizona State Retirement System contributions. The city "honors and respects all employees who request time off for military service," according to the statement.

*City denies violating military rights*

The city firmly denies that firing Cruz violated her military rights, or was otherwise illegal or inappropriate, according to a statement city officials emailed The Arizona Republic on Monday. "As described in the city’s filings in the lawsuit, it had valid, objective reasons for ending Ms. Cruz's employment after only 11 weeks – none of which concerned her military service," the city said.The city "honors and respects all employees who request time off for military service," according to the statement.

"Glendale's treatment of those who serve in the military is award-winning on a national level," the city said. In its statement, the city emphasized its support for military service members, stating that it goes above and beyond with its policies and practices regarding military service. Luke Air Force Base is in the city.
*
Illegal to fire service member for performing required duties*

The Department of Justice brought the case under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. That act protects the rights of uniformed service members so they can retain their civilian employment while they're away fulfilling military service obligations. It says they can't be discriminated against because of these obligations. Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, said our nation depends on Cruz and other members of the National Guard. "Our laws preserve their civilian jobs when they are called to service,” he said in a news release. “The Department of Justice ensures that these laws are followed.”
*
Employee said she told city about her service obligations*

Cruz started in the Arizona Air National Guard in 2007. Around March 28, 2016, the city hired her as a management analyst in the Public Works Department. Her salary was $75,000. When she interviewed for the spot, she told then-Public Works Program Administrator Bob Manginell and then-Deputy Director Michelle Woytenko about her military service in the Guard, according to her complaint. Two months into the job, in May 2016, the Guard told her that it was changing her classification and she would need to attend a two-month long training program starting July 11, 2016.

*City admin: Don't come back with 'PTSD or whatever people call it'*

Shortly after she was notified, Cruz told Manginell in person that she would have to leave for the training, according to Cruz's complaint. At this meeting, Cruz said, Manginell said he was concerned about how she would integrate back into work when she returned. Cruz said she told him she would receive training on how to reintegrate.  "Manginell said 'okay,' but told Cruz that he did not want her coming back with 'some kind of PTSD or whatever people call it,'" according to Cruz's complaint.

In the city's response to the complaint, the city denied that Manginell said that, or that he expressed concern about her service. Cruz said Manginell appeared visibly upset that her Guard duties could consistently require her to be away from her position and said that one of her co-workers would have to "bend over backwards" to do the work while she was away. The city also denies that Manginell said this. Cruz then filed her written military orders and a request for 240 paid military leave hours.

*City said firing was because of job performance*

On June 8, Cruz and Manginell met with two employees in the city's Human Resources Department, who verified that Cruz was entitled to 320 paid military leave hours per year. Cruz said in her complaint that Manginell's "tone and demeanor" at the meeting made it clear her leaving for training was an issue for him. The city denied this in its response. That same day that they met with human resources, Manginell and Woytenko met with then-Public Works Director Jack Friedline, where they expressed concerns about Cruz's work performance, according to Cruz's complaint.

*Friedline decided to fire Cruz, who was still in her probationary period with the city.*

In the city's response to Cruz's complaint, it said that Friedline decided to fire Cruz "before he was aware that (she) had received military orders and requested paid military leave."  "Jack Friedline’s decision to terminate (Cruz) was based on his personal observations of (Cruz's) work performance, upon reports from members of his staff that (Cruz's) work performance that did not meet the City’s expectations and upon (Cruz's) inability to communicate effectively and appropriately with City staff, including managers in Friedline’s chain of command," the city wrote in its response.

Cruz said in her complaint that no one had told her about issues with her performance before she was fired on June 16, 2016. The city denied this in its response. Because of the close timing, Manginell's comments about Cruz's leave, and the lack of comments about her performance, Cruz said in her complaint she believed she was terminated because of her request for leave. Cruz filed a complaint shortly after she was fired, and the city received the complaint on June 24, 2016.

*City employees involved have since retired or moved to new roles.*

Manginell retired on Nov. 2, 2016. Friedline was promoted from public works director to assistant city manager in September 2017. That was a month after Cruz filed the complaint against the city. Friedline retired in September 2018. Woytenko, who was deputy director of public works when Cruz was fired, is now the city's director of public works.

*City emphasizes strong military support*

The city believes it goes above and beyond with its policies and practices regarding military service. In 2015, the city was one of 15 organizations across the country to receive the Secretary of Defense Freedom Award for supporting employees who were also active military. The city was nominated for the award by three Glendale police officers because of the support they and their families received during their military service, according to a 2015 city press release. Also, in July 2018, a Public Works employee received the Department of Defense's Patriot Award, which acknowledges supervisors who provide support to members of the National Guard and Reserve. "As described in the city’s filings in the lawsuit, it had valid, objective reasons for ending Ms. Cruz's employment after only 11 weeks – none of which concerned her military service," the city said.


----------



## mariomike

> Glendale is a city in Phoenix, AZ.



She got $45,000. But, lost a $75,000 year job with the City, after being there only 11 weeks.



> entitled to 320 paid military leave hours per year



Our Canadian city entitled us to 80 paid military leave hours per year.



> Our laws preserve their civilian jobs when they are called to service,



So do ours. But, Canadian reservists have not been placed on active service since the Second World War. 

See also, 

Canadian Armed Forces
Job Protection Legislation
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-reservist-support/job-protection-legislation.page


----------

