Army Reserve Restructuring

[KevinB]

This.

It’s a performative move at best. Unless you work for government, you’re basically screwed/ on your own.

The fact that the CAF crow about it shows that the decision makers have no idea what having and keeping a civilian career is all about.

I know employers who won’t hire reservists because ‘they demand extra time off’, over and above their vacation entitlement, for training and the other staff bitch about it.

National Culture Shift is needed for that one.
The fact it gets done with gusto down here is shameful that Canada cannot manage it.

 

[mariomike]

I know employers who won’t hire reservists because ‘they demand extra time off’, over and above their vacation entitlement, for training and the other staff bitch about it.

Workers receive a vacation entitlement.

Where I worked, vacation was / is bid by seniority.

Since PRes Concentration was in the summer, as a junior employee , I would have had zero chance of qualifying for summer aka "Prime Time" vacation.

We had a two-week paid leave policy for summer PRes training .

 

[KevinB]

Workers receive a vacation entitlement.

Where I worked, vacation was / is bid by seniority.

Since PRes Concentration was in the summer, as a junior employee , back then , I would have had zero chance of qualifying for summer aka "Prime Time" vacation.

We had a two-week paid leave policy for summer PRes training .

From what I remember most Municipal, Provincial and Federal Gov positions have allocations for PRes work.
Though rumor was always that DND was the worst Federal department for offending on that.

However if not government related employment , there was little protection for individual PRes members.

 

[mariomike]

From what I remember most Municipal, Provincial and Federal Gov positions have allocations for PRes work.

Only familiar with one employer. Don't what other employer policies are.

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.

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.

 

[Harris]

There's quite a few factors that go into this mentality. Having also dealt with similar issues at my own unit, I am well versed lol.

To start, the CAF ties budgets to on paper strength. If your unit has 250 soldiers, then it gets allocated class A pay for 250 soldiers to parade their 39(? I can't remember the number) days per year. But if out of that 250, 100 show up the bare minimum, once per 60 days, then you can use that class A pay for things like work parties, additional paid days for leadership to come in and do PACE on another evening, etc. More on paper soldiers means more money for exercises, which means if you have 250 on paper, but only get the same 50 on ex, you get the budget of 250 to play with.

To compound this, if a unit gets too small on paper, the CAF doesn't trust that unit to reliably generate senior command appointments. An infantry "battalion" of 80 just isn't large enough to generate a LCol and CWO every 3 years that have the experience and knowledge to be able to sit at a table of their peers and not fall behind. If a unit gets too small, the CAF starts parachuting in command teams.

Finally, get small enough and you will be tactically grouped, which to many is just amalgamation by another name (or if you are in 31 CBG, you all get tactically grouped, regardless of your size).

The CAF and the Army want trained troops, not a mile long BTL. But until the CAF implements a way to incentivize getting rid of stale DP1 soldiers and the borderline NES, Units will continue to take advantage of the benefits and safeties of having a large on paper strength with a large non-employable cohort.

Ack all, but apparently things are not the same in all Brigades apparently (Shocker I know). I can only speak to my former Brigade 36 CBG, but the policies you talk about were/are different here:

• Pay is allocated based on the effective strength at a unit which was calculated by taking that tunber 3 times during the year, adding them together, and then dividing by 3. Then any special considerations were factored (multiple location Units etc...) and additional funds added as applicable. O&M was a % factor of that amount, again with special considerations factored in (Unit band, IA Coy, etc..., who would have a bit higher costs than a regular soldier)
• The parachuting in of command teams had very little to do with unit size in 36 CBG, and a lot to do with availability of Maj/MWO's to become CO/RSM. I myself commanded 3 units (10 years straight: 5,2,3 years) because I was available and had a civilian job that allowed me to do so. 36 CBG just doesn't have the numbers of people able to take those roles and those that are available are now doing 4-5 years vice the "normal" 3. The last 4 COs of my original Unit did 4, 5, 4, 5 years as CO respectively. Nearly all of the Reserve Units in 36 CBG have had CO's "posted" from other units and cannot consistently produce Command Teams. RSMs are no better and they too are frequently RSM of multiple units.
• 5XX had in the past resisted tactically grouping units. We have only one such grouping ATM, 1 and 2 R Nfld R's) We'll see how 2 Div feels about tac groupings I guess.

I kind of disagree with your last point a bit. The CCA can easily get a list of who isn't effective. The CA G1 has that info. If they want trained troops then release the chaff, and keep the wheat, but there is no appetite to implement "the purge". There doesn't need to be an incentive other than CO's are fired if they don't manage their troops properly. I can identify to the soldier who is "riding the system" and should be placed on NES, but no one wants to action it. Hell if they don't want to "punish" anyone, then just limit the Unit budget to TES numbers. That will incentivise the unit to get rid of the chaff.

 

[dapaterson]

However if not government related employment , there was little protection for individual PRes members.

As a company commander I had a Sgt wanting to deploy to Afghanistan whose full time job was working for the base in Ottawa.

The GoC policy at the time was "You shall let Res F members go for deployments".

The base commander personally refused his request.

Eventually we got it sorted, but yes, DND was not an employer of choice.

 

[dapaterson]

Ack all, but apparently things are not the same in all Brigades apparently (Shocker I know). I can only speak to my former Brigade 36 CBG, but the policies you talk about were/are different here:

• Pay is allocated based on the effective strength at a unit which was calculated by taking that tunber 3 times during the year, adding them together, and then dividing by 3. Then any special considerations were factored (multiple location Units etc...) and additional funds added as applicable. O&M was a % factor of that amount, again with special considerations factored in (Unit band, IA Coy, etc..., who would have a bit higher costs than a regular soldier)
• The parachuting in of command teams had very little to do with unit size in 36 CBG, and a lot to do with availability of Maj/MWO's to become CO/RSM. I myself commanded 3 units (10 years straight: 5,2,3 years) because I was available and had a civilian job that allowed me to do so. 36 CBG just doesn't have the numbers of people able to take those roles and those that are available are now doing 4-5 years vice the "normal" 3. The last 4 COs of my original Unit did 4, 5, 4, 5 years as CO respectively. Nearly all of the Reserve Units in 36 CBG have had CO's "posted" from other units and cannot consistently produce Command Teams. RSMs are no better and they too are frequently RSM of multiple units.
• 5XX had in the past resisted tactically grouping units. We have only one such grouping ATM, 1 and 2 R Nfld R's) We'll see how 2 Div feels about tac groupings I guess.

I kind of disagree with your last point a bit. The CCA can easily get a list of who isn't effective. The CA G1 has that info. If they want trained troops then release the chaff, and keep the wheat, but there is no appetite to implement "the purge". There doesn't need to be an incentive other than CO's are fired if they don't manage their troops properly. I can identify to the soldier who is "riding the system" and should be placed on NES, but no one wants to action it. Hell if they don't want to "punish" anyone, then just limit the Unit budget to TES numbers. That will incentivise the unit to get rid of the chaff.

The Army does not adequately resource pers admin for the Army Reserve. Never has. Many central functions for the Reg F are managed locally by Army Res units, amplifying the problem.

So units do pers admin by triage. And "hard" or "unusual" get put on the side of a desk to be dealt with in the future.


War story: I saw a rant on Facebook by someone identifying themself as the wife of a veteran, who had been retired nearly a year and hadn't got their pension.

Since I have some knowledge in that area and know some people who work there, I reached out to the pension folks and we dug in.

Turns out the individual had reached CRA (so entirely predictable), and their release file had sat at a CBG HQ for eleven months before being actioned. So the pension office had no way of taking action, they didn't know that the person had released.

Until pers admin for the Army Reserve is resourced, and leaders held accountable, this won't get better.

(Other parts of that story involve finally figuring out who the Individual was by finding their spouse's name in the Army SharePoint on a program for a grad parade...)