# Compulsary Regular Force Service for Reservists for Deployment Opportunities



## Grunt_031 (8 Jun 2005)

After reading a thread about a young man/women? asking about Res Trg than immediate deployment, got a discussion going here at work.

With the amount of time invested into reservists for selection, predeployment, deplyment and post deployment should there be a compulsory service be require of these soldiers. They are placed in most cases on Class C Service for 6-9 months anyways.

An idea was for a reservist that was selected for deployment to be assigned a initial engagement or similar, that would sign him/her to three years of total full time service. They could for the first year serve with the unit they will be going over with, a 6 Month deployment, and then 12-18 months at a Trg School/ Area or CMTC passing on their experience.  The before and after time would be both beneficial to both the mbr and the CF.

Especially with the Schools in short supply of instructors and demo troops this could be a huge bonus. Ideally they would train other reservists and gaurantee Reserve Course running especially in the summer. This would free up the Reg force augmentation that continually get tasked to these course. For the members allow them to get the proper follow up care after the deployment, especially if it was it was a hairy one. 

Although this is just scratching the surface of ideas, any though or other ideas.


----------



## beach_bum (8 Jun 2005)

While I can both see your point and agree that in a lot of cases it would be an excellent plan, I think it would also deter a lot of reservists from going on a tour.  For example, some people take a year off school to go on deployment both for the experience and the money.  Would those same people be willing to take three years away from their schooling?  In other cases, the husband or wife at home is going to school, or has a career they are not willing to leave behind.  These are just a couple of reasons why some people don't join the Reg F, but still want to remain in the reserves and go on a deployment.  Would it be worth losing the experience of those people?  Just another thought.


----------



## NavComm (8 Jun 2005)

I think it's a great idea but I think for many reservists it would not be possible. In my case (I'm in the process for applying to the reserves) I would not be able to get that kind of time off my job. My understanding is that most reservists are either fully employed or in full time school.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Jun 2005)

This would have made sense in the Cyprus days when a three year engagement did not guarantee a tour, and the guaranteed tour would be the lure,  but with the tempo today I don't see the difference between this and just putting on a Patricia hatbadge for 3 years (besides the fact that a xfer to the regs now takes 1+ years for some reason) .


----------



## wotan (8 Jun 2005)

An interesting thought, and I think it could certainly work for some Reservists.  However, I would think that for the majority of Reservists that it would simply be impractical.  As well, with the force structure model of the P Res and the fact that the Government of Canada has never enacted legislation that supports Reservists on deployment (think job protection, post-secondary admission, etc), there is no real incentive for a Reservist to put their life on "hold" for three years to help out the Reg F.  Conversely, many are attracted to the opportunity to train and deploy exactly as their Reg F comrades for a relatively "short" nine months or so.

  Just my .02 and I am sure that there are both Reg F and P Res soldiers that agree and disagree.  Still, an intriguing possibility and perhaps one that could be fielded as an option for P Res soldiers alongside the system that currently exists.


----------



## Britney Spears (8 Jun 2005)

BTW, is this idea going to be enacted across the army or just Cbt Arms?  The issues would be rather different for each case. My above post probably only applies toCbt arms, and I know nothing of CSS training cycles, deployment patterns etc....


----------



## Grunt_031 (8 Jun 2005)

> For example, some people take a year off school to go on deployment both for the experience and the money.  Would those same people be willing to take three years away from their schooling?



Why not go after your schooling or before? The choice is yours, the army would not be making you go. With the newer money benefits it should be a incentive. To pay for school or pay off school. I do not understand students doing a tour in the middle of schooling, lack of focus or planning maybe, each person reasons are differant



> In other cases, the husband or wife at home is going to school, or has a career they are not willing to leave behind.



That would be the mbr's choice again, alot of Reg CF mbr live on IR and they would be compensated with benefits. 



> there is no real incentive for a Reservist to put their life on "hold" for three years to help out the Reg F



Thanks for the help. Makes up for all the tasks during the summers, weekends, holidays away from my family and life on tasks for the reserves. I was a reservist for 5 years before joining. The choice to "put your life on hold: in their case is a decision made by them not the Army. 

*There would still plenty of Class B/C tasks and within Canada * for mbrs to get experience and money, just not as glamorous. 

I think this would be useful Army wide. The new TOS's for CF MOS are different for each trade now, This would have to be tailored to each MOS

The bottom line I think for Reservists is, sacrifice and choice. How much are *you* willing to give up to get what you want and at the same time the CF can accomplish their aims more effectively.


----------



## c4th (8 Jun 2005)

â Å“Compulsoryâ ? is a dirty word in Canada when it comes to military service.   I returned from Roto 13 Op PALLADIUM and nothing would have thrilled me more than to have another two years of class C.   

However there are some flaws to the proposal of compulsory service for reservist.   First, what you are advocating is the replacement of the regular force by the primary reserve.   By keeping all reserve soldiers two years post deployment in order to fill instructor positions that are largely already filled by reservists will keep the NCO's busy at greater cost but what would your plan be for the Pte/Cpls? Between Roto 11 and 13 in Bosnia the reserves added at least 800 soldiers to Canada's deployable force.   Is there a need to keep an extra battalion in the full time order of battle?   Who would allow such madness?

The regular force certainly wouldn't.   Can you imagine what those extra 800 reservists the army MUST employ would do to the regular force retention and career progression?   I, as a reservist would have been perfectly happy to collect a theatre PER and two Reg Force PER's as an NCO before transferring to the regs.   Estimating that 1/3 will transfer to the regs anyway, that would be approximately 200 Cpl's over two and a half years who would quick-pick and now be competing with the regs on the merit boards.   Bear in mind that a good percentage of those Cpl's would have PLQ or be substantive MCpl's at their home units and now have equivalent time-in-rank and lengths of service.

Two thirds of the reservists cannot or would not sign three-year contracts.   This would do nothing to solve the regular force tasking deficiencies and would in fact decrease the CF's deployable force.   With some soldiers deploying six out of every twenty-four months fewer deployable soldiers is not the answer.

The reg force are not losing anything by augmenting with individuals or even formed sub or sub-sub units.   The pre-deployment training is conducted for all deploying soldiers.   Yes there is a small selection cost, but I am sure it is less than the recruiting and MOC training for any regular force private.

The reservists who complete their Class C contracts are not simply cleared out of the CF. Most of the NCO's continue career progression in the reserves and/or teach, as was suggested at the various schools.   About 1/3 of the Pte/Cpl's quit, but that is no different than in the regs at the end of the initial contract.   1/3 stay in the reserves and continue career progression to leadership and instructor levels.   Up to 1/3 will eventually attempt to component transfer to the reg force. 

The solution is to increase reserve augmentation in order that the regular force can not only complete their tasks but also be in Canada long enough to get their soldiers through career courses so they can be employed as instructors if need be.     One way to do this would be to reduce the chasm between the regular force and reserves.   Currently it is nearly impossible for reserves to get parity training with the regs.   How many advanced course that you have been on have reserves course loaded?   The reservist on Roto 13 asked the Director of the Reserves, Col Tarrant about course parity.   The reply was that the CF will train reserves only with what they absolutely need in order to fulfill immediate deployments.   

Much of what you suggest happens as a matter of course, and compulsory service would simply increase costs while decreasing manning.   Tours are the best recruiting pool that the regular force has.   The bottom line is not what are reservist willing to sacrifice for the CF, but what is the CF willing to sacrifice to have one standard, and one army? The answer I got from the DoR was sweet F*** All.   .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jun 2005)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Why not go after your schooling or before? The choice is yours, the army would not be making you go. With the newer money benefits it should be a incentive. To pay for school or pay off school. I do not understand students doing a tour in the middle of schooling, lack of focus or planning maybe, each person reasons are differant



That may apply to those in school, but does not, for those that take a year sabbatical from their well established civilian career. You can't expect them to give up pensions, seniority, etc, for your plan.



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> That would be the mbr's choice again, alot of Reg CF mbr live on IR and they would be compensated with benefits.



I doubt whether DND would be willing to pay separation benefits to the amount of Reservist we're speaking about here. The other option is to pay all the relocations at the start of the engagement and again at the end. Either way, it's not fiscally responsible.



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the help. Makes up for all the tasks during the summers, weekends, holidays away from my family and life on tasks for the reserves. I was a reservist for 5 years before joining. The choice to "put your life on hold: in their case is a decision made by them not the Army.



Your welcome. Makes up for the years I've spent, away from family, on tours augumenting and helping the Reg Force. I was a Reg for 13 years before going back to the Reserves. Reservists also take their vacation time AND family time to go on task during the summer, work weekends, holidays, evening, etc. Yes, it's their choice. It's also within the parameters that the CF specifies for Reserve members. That's the system. The trade off for not being in the Reg system is they do not get the training, benefits, equipment, support, etc, that the Regs do. Six of one half dozen of the other. This particular point has been hashed out many time on the Forum. No need to do it here. In most cases it's sour grapes



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> *There would still plenty of Class B/C tasks and within Canada * for mbrs to get experience and money, just not as glamorous.



We all know, for a fact, there are not enough B\C employment opportunities for the amount of Reservists your speaking of.



			
				Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> The bottom line I think for Reservists is, sacrifice and choice. How much are *you* willing to give up to get what you want and at the same time the CF can accomplish their aims more effectively.



Do you mean on top of the full time jobs and schooling they do, as well as all the time they give to the Reserves? The sacrifice to time and family is already there, and it besmirches dedicated Reservists to imply otherwise.


----------



## dutchie (8 Jun 2005)

I agree with everything c4th and Recceguy stated, and pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.

Now, as an aside, I actually don't mind Grunt_031's idea, provided it is voluntary. Make it available to compete for among res pers. 'Hey troops, wanna do a 3 year stunt with the regs? You'll get a tour out of it, plus loads of courses and experience.' I'll bet guys would be lined up for a shot at it. Making it mandatory, as already argued, is counter productive.


----------



## Grunt_031 (8 Jun 2005)

> I doubt whether DND would be willing to pay separation benefits to the amount of Reservist we're speaking about here. The other option is to pay all the relocations at the start of the engagement and again at the end. Either way, it's not fiscally responsible.



I do think this is feasible. A new mbr from to Recruit to First Op Posting is a lot of money. The majority of reservist are single and young. The percentage of married would be the same as the reg force. Maybe Posting a family of a reservist for the contracted time period would help as well. There would be the military community support for starters.



> Do you mean on top of the full time jobs and schooling they do, as well as all the time they give to the Reserves? The sacrifice to time and family is already there, and it besmirches dedicated Reservists to imply otherwise



This was not my intent to besmirch. I was a dedicated reservist in the beginning of my career and I have a lot of friends still in. I have friends who couldn't take off the 9 months without losing their positions and they quit their jobs anyways to have the experience and they had good jobs and families. 9 months or 24-36 months if you want it that bad, there are ways to achieve your goals. Each person is different and different circumstates. 

My intent with this thread is not to put down the reserves forces. We put alot of resources to training up These mbrs to up to a high readiness standard then after the mission is done set them to the winds. Sending them to training the next roto's, to the schools and training centres would enable to pass on important time sensitive lessons learnt. Even if there is 15-20% Augmention of Reservist they could be gainfully employed within the CF. Even Pte and Cpl can be used in Support roles such as drivers, gunners, demo troops, fillers for units during their training cycles to augment their units. The augmention would then let the Reg soldier to carry on with Carree courses etc without the detrimental effects of lack of manning. (eg Ever try to do a section attack with 4 guys).


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jun 2005)

A 3-year contract for reservists?  Isn't that called a Basic Engagement?  Aren't we just making Reservists Regulars with this proposal?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jun 2005)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> Even if there is 15-20% Augmention of Reservist they could be gainfully employed within the CF. Even Pte and Cpl can be used in Support roles such as drivers, gunners, demo troops, fillers for units during their training cycles to augment their units. The augmention would then let the Reg soldier to carry on with Carree courses etc without the detrimental effects of lack of manning. (eg Ever try to do a section attack with 4 guys).



Probably not your intent, but it sounds an awful lot like a GD Platoon, doing all the shit jobs the Regs don't want to do.


----------



## c4th (8 Jun 2005)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> My intent with this thread is not to put down the reserves forces. We put alot of resources to training up These mbrs to up to a high readiness standard then after the mission is done set them ..... The augmention would then let the Reg soldier to carry on with Carree courses etc without the detrimental effects of lack of manning. (eg Ever try to do a section attack with 4 guys).



In a macro sense I don't think you plan is feasible.  However, on a case-by-case basis, employing reserves soldiers as augmentees on Class C contracts at Bn or BSL's is a great idea.  We would all be better off if more people, reg and reserve, thought far enough out of the box to solve problems without worrying too much about what cap badge a soldier wears.

If you were looking for a choir to preach to, you have found it.


----------



## Grunt_031 (8 Jun 2005)

> A 3-year contract for reservists?  Isn't that called a Basic Engagement?  Aren't we just making Reservists Regulars with this proposal?



No, I would think of it as that. With a Reg force basic engagement you must factor in BMQ, SQ, DP1, SLT. This is a lot of training time and takes up the first 12-14 months of a soldier first BE, That does include any holding/PAT/Retreads. And know a lot of MOS are ging to a longer BE i.e. Medic 4-5 Years?

A reservist opting for a 2-3 Year contract would already be at lest DP1 qual in his trade. The first year spent in the hosting unit, 6-7 month tour and then post deployment Post tour Leave, Admin, AAR's, and then employment at CMTC, School, Etc until remainder of Contract. Option to Component Transfer with a couple REG Force PER and Seniority in competion with their Reg peers. 

As well the mbr would be entitled to all benefits of his regular force counterpart during duration of contract. Cost would be same or less in some cases of a Reg Force Member on a 1st BE but the CF would have a trained product to start with.

This not just limited to the Pte/Cpl but the remainder of ranks. (For Example)A Reg Mcpl makes about $50,000/Year plus Tax Free During Deployment, FOA, Separation allowance if married, etc so there are some ways of compensating for loss of a civilian position but the choice always remains with the mbr.



> Probably not your intent, but it sounds an awful lot like a GD Platoon, doing all the crap jobs the Regs don't want to do.



NOT MY INTENT, If a Res Company went over as a Company what stopping them using them as a OFOR Coy at the CTMC Centre for a 6-12 Month period. CTC uses many Cpl/Pte in there demo troops, Dvr/gunners for Courses. A number of times they are mostly Reg pers manning these tasks. If you go to the Career Manger section of the EMAA you can see the hundreds of postions that are not filled in the infantry alone.


----------



## Acorn (8 Jun 2005)

How about a flexible contract system? Offer contracts similar to the old YTEP, or the current class B/C, but with reg force benefits and pay. Length would be flexible - 1 year, 18 months, 2 years, but not a 3 year BE commitment. It would be offered to QL3/4 (or better) trained Reservists who would join a Reg unit at least 3 months before scheduled high readiness or deployment, last for the 6 month pd of deployment or high readiness, and include at least 3 months post (hence minimum one year). 

The length of contract offered would be dependent on the need for additional training or unit integration, with specialists often getting the longer contracts more frequently than the combat arms. At the conclusion of the contract suitable reservists (those with good PERs) could be offered *immediate* CT, with Res time calculated as normal, and time served on the, lets call it a _Flexible Engagement_, counting towards a BE. Such Res pers wouldn't have to endure the pain and suffering of the current CT system (i.e. waits of 1+ years).

Exec Summary

The key points of _Flexible Engagement_ are:

1. Flexible time served,
2. Only QL trained Reservists eligible,
3. Operational Tour required (mbr must DAG green prior to being accepted for the contract),
4. Regimental affiliations do not change for the pd of the contract (you can wear your kilts and funny hats),
5. Full reg Force Pay and benefits - pension deductions will be made as well,
6. Immediate CT *MAY* be offered to suitable candidates on completion of the _FE_, and
7. On completion of contract, if CT refused or not offered, Mbr will receive return of pension contributions with flexibility to roll it into the Res pension system (if in place).

Obviously CT offers would also be contingent upon other Reg force trade/classification prerequisites. Outstanding Junior Officers (or NCMs who are recommended) may be offered ROTP positions.

Other ideas/thoughts?

Acorn


----------



## 54/102 CEF (8 Jun 2005)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> The bottom line I think for Reservists is, sacrifice and choice. How much are *you* willing to give up to get what you want and at the same time the CF can accomplish their aims more effectively.



This is a great thread - the top level ministerial leadership must get behind it - sell it to Army (no problem) but I see the main enemy as the Human Resources Dept who nickel dimes the reserves to death on a whole host of issues

eg 
_ clawback on the education allowance
- clawback in in Canada Class C`s while leaving many in same jobs
- the large number of class Bs on full time service with 100% responsibility to perform per QR and O and all other rules and regulations inclusing security (there is no 15% discount on any of these)

But keep promoting the idea - its excellent

As Ronald Reagun used to say - somewhere in that pile of $hit is a pony!


----------



## c4th (9 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> How about a flexible contract system?  Other ideas/thoughts?



Good god!  With a system like that The CF might meet the proposed 8,000 man increase and be able to train them.

VCDS and CFRG would spin. 

I like it.


----------



## beach_bum (9 Jun 2005)

I agree.  I think that is the best suggestion I've heard yet.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2005)

beach_bum said:
			
		

> I agree.   I think that is the best suggestion I've heard yet.



+1 to that, very good proposal Acorn - it could help smooth out the Res to Reg transition by (hopefully) cutting out much of the red-tape that currently exists.

The only problem I could see coming out of it that, if it was expanded upon, it could be viewed as a back door by thoses who wish to avoid the longer Reg Force DP courses.


----------



## dutchie (9 Jun 2005)

I love the idea Acorn. Especially the point about the Res soldier having to DAG Green prior to offer of contract, the guaranteed tour (or near guarantee), and the offer of immediate CT to the switched on troops at the conclusion of their contract. 

Now only if someone with maple leafs on their shoulders read this.....

Some questions - how do you think this proposal would affect the availability of tours to Res soldiers not able/willing to commit to a Flexible Engagement? Do you think this would make it really tough for those troops to get tours? If yes, is that a problem? 

As it is right now, the only positions available (for Res augmentees) in the near future are going to be D & S Pl, GD, etc - not rifleman positions. I assume that FE pers would be fully integrated into the Coys, and would get the rifleman positions. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I assume that FE pers would be fully integrated into the Coys, and would get the rifleman positions.



I would imagine so - it would save units from having to cut-and-paste sub-units from other units for deployment; they could fill out with qualified reservists on a FE and, if both parties desired, keep them at the end.

I can guarantee you that the only thing stopping many reservists from jumping over is the hassle of going through the CT process.


----------



## Acorn (9 Jun 2005)

Caesar,

The key word is _flexible_. We should look at the system being able to adapt, within certain limits, to the desires of the reservist who wants to deploy. Perhaps a 10 month contract to cover a simple deployment (a contract which would preclude the offer of streamlined CT) can be used to allow those who simply want a tour, without further commitment.

I would hope that a longer contract would allow Reservists to integrate fully into the rifle companies, sabre squadrons or HA batteries.

One thing, regarding integration, that may have to be taken into account is the acceptability of individuals at that level. In the past a statistically significant number of reservists didn't "cut it" when integrated into Reg line units. Part of the FE should include a probationary period (say 1-2 months) with appropriate gateways to ensure the individual meets the standard. Not achieving certain milestones results in a void contract. The rank of entry will obviously determine the length of the probationary period and the type/number of milestones to be achieved. This would address infanteers concerns about a DP "back door" situation caused by the difference between Res and Reg courses.

Acorn


----------



## GO!!! (19 Jun 2005)

Recognising that this discussion is primarily oriented towards the combat arms, I feel compelled to point out that we are not suffering a shortage of crewmen, riflemen, gunners and sappers IN RELATION to the shortages we have in the CSS trades.

Our effectiveness at the sharp end is fine. We need more skilled trades. Is the trg reservist FCS/Wpns/Veh Techs recieve comparable to that of their reg force counterparts? This is where the "main effort" of the CT process needs to be.

As for keeping reservists in the reg force units for 2-3 yrs - a good idea, as the trg cycle for coy ops seems to be approaching 18 months, and as pointed out earlier in this thread, a res Cpl and a reg Cpl can be light years apart in terms of ability and experience.

Cheers


----------



## brin11 (19 Jun 2005)

GO,

I can answer part of your question in relation to weapons techs.   Reservists do the same training on the QL courses as the reg force in small arms.   The problems crops up that they are not trained on the armament side.   This could certainly be fixed by sending them on a two month armament course to get them up to speed and then their fives for armament only when the time comes.   I really like this idea, the unit gets a trained soldier, they get to "test drive" them for a particular period of time and if the powers that be like them, they get to stay.   It is certainly a little different with CSS personnel but it could be made to work I think.  You may find FCS or MAT techs in a reserve unit but they are all ex reg force.  They are no more in the reserve world.  Hopefully someone on the vehicle side can fill us in on their quals.


----------



## c4th (20 Jun 2005)

226,825 posts on army.ca this morning.  When a gem like this comes up, is there anyone over the rank of Major reading?


----------



## pbi (20 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> 226,825 posts on army.ca this morning.   When a gem like this comes up, is there anyone over the rank of Major reading?



There are at least four of us that I know of.

Cheers.


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Jul 2005)

I think your idea has merits Acorn anyway you can send this up the chain to be looked at?


----------



## Acorn (7 Jul 2005)

I'm not in a position to have much influence on the Mo. There are others here who do, and if they think it's a worthwhile idea (however unformed), I'm sure they'll kick it upstairs.

I don't think I'm the first though, as I see something similar being applied to Mo contracts for ops.

Acorn


----------



## TCBF (7 Jul 2005)

Now that we have dicussed the Mo serving in the Regular Force, lets take that fix and try and get more Regular Force serving in the Regular Force.   We have an astronomical non-effective rate for broken soldiers who aren't even fully trained yet, due to being unfit, or previosly injured.   The recruiting system refuses to accept this is an issue - they don't have to pick up the trash.   We have more busted young soldiers now, than we had busted old soldiers when we had 88,000 in the CF.

So, lets have a flexible engagement for the first year of service for all Regulars.   If the rct is a Med/Admin/Psych burden or "Not Economically Employable", bye bye.   No normal terms of svc benefits, no veterans affairs unless we broke something that wasn't broken before - use workers comp.

Oh, and an interview with a psychiatrist for EVERY applicant who has otherwise been selected.   If the German Bundeswehr can Psych interview 100,000 draftess every year, we can Psych test and interview 5000 recruits.   

Ten more Clayton Matchees, and we won't have an Army.

Tom


----------



## RCD (7 Jul 2005)

This could work
.but it would need a complete overhaul of the system!


----------

