Canada eyeing reservists to bolster force in Afghanistan

[Haggis]

I know of 11 reservists here at CRPG BC DET who really want to go over, but are not being given the opportunity because their CO doesn't want to try and find someone to fill their positions. Now these reservists (for the most part) are "retired" Sgt's and WO's with tons of reg force time in.

Why is it such a fight for them to go over if they are wanting too? Most of them are ready to quit their job to go over.

Because, despite the member's desire to go, they signed a contract with the CO of the CRPG and he hired them for a reason.  He has to weigh the impact of letting them go against the staffwork and incremental (and non-recoverable) costs required to source, hire and train their replacements all against the backdrop of delivering training and administration to his Ranger patrols.

If they really want to go, against their CO's wishes, they can simply quit their Class B's and hope to pick up another one when they return.

 

[Sig_Des]

Because, despite the member's desire to go, they signed a contract with the CO of the CRPG and he hired them for a reason.  He has to weigh the impact of letting them go against the staffwork and incremental (and non-recoverable) costs required to source, hire and train their replacements all against the backdrop of delivering training and administration to his Ranger patrols.

If they really want to go, against their CO's wishes, they can simply quit their Class B's and hope to pick up another one when they return.

Haggis, +50. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Springroll, a reservist on Class B/C is most definitely not the same as posting in a Reg F member. Those people applied for those positions, and most likely had to compete with others for it. They were interviewed for it. They signed a contract for it. Usually, when working in a B/C contract at a Reg F establishment, it is because it is is an important position for the establishment, and they had a shortage of available, qualified Reg F pers.

Now say, 1 year into a 3 year contract, and after 1 year of training you in that position, or sending you on career courses, all of a sudden, you want to scratch that itch and go overseas. So they're reservists. Between predeployment and actual tour, they're gone for 6 to 12 months. So what's their CO to do?

For a long term contract, the rules state he has to open it for national competition, usually for 30 days. Then he's got to start over with them.

Here's the way it is. They signed a contract. They want to do something else, they put in their notice, and apply for a deployment.

 

[Springroll]

That makes sense.

Thanks for the answers Haggis and Sig_Des.

 

[chrisf]

I'm talking about people who would pause their school to go on tour and then come back to finish and might have to go back on student loans. The 'pause' you're allowed with student loans is only 6 months. And while you do make good money while on tour, what if I have expenses back at home on top of my already 20, 000 in debt from student loans? You can't expect an average Cpl. to go on tour; pay his expenses back at home; pay off $20, 000; and then have enough leftover to pay the $6,000 tuition fee, and living expenses without applying for ANOTHER student loan. Much less hassel to only have one loan.

Ok, so you go on tour, pay off previous student loan, return, apply for new student loan, and at the end, you have half as much debt, rather then if you stayed home, still had to apply for a student loan because you were unemployed or underemployed while going to school, and have $40 000 to pay off at the end... I really don't understand the need for exemption...

 

[Donut]

CRC

  Your loan, I think, is with your bank, not the university, at least it was then (actually it changed part-way through).

Initially our loans were actually issued by the government, either provincial or federal.  Then they would be transferred to a bank on graduation.

that changed to the loans being issued by a financial institution, with a guarantee from the various level of government.

I know we got a form from the university, but that was really only our confirmation of student status; once you had that we'd take it to the bank, and they'd credit our account based on info they had gotten from the government as to amount.

I'd suggest you talk to your bank as to your status with them, they're probably the actual creditors, while the government is merely the guarantor.*

Hope it helps, there're some manning issues comin' down the pipe.

DF

JASO, +1

*no warranty implied or stated.  I'm not an expert in squat. your milage may vary.  Not only am I not a financial proffesional, I can barely do math, type, or ski, and didn't even stay at a holiday in last night.

 

[NL_engineer]

Yes there should be a law that protects reservist civvie jobs.

I can not see such a law being put in place.  Steping right out of the military in to the civy world for this explanation.

For example, say big Canadian Corporation X has 500 reservists, employed, in various positions.  All these 500 get mobilized, Corporation X is now left with millions of dollars to spend filling these positions, holding and increasing seniority for (union employees).  Now apply this across a couple more big Canadian businesses.  The CEO's are going to be to be happy, and will complain the PMO (and when you piss of these guys, you are not getting their money for the next election).  Let alone pissed of share holders who instead of getting the quarterly $0.35/ share dividend get $0.10/ share because of the increased Human Resources and other costs.  This affect then could make a big impact on the economy (people dumping shares, because they do not know why they dropped), and could forcibly stick us in a recessions or depression. 

 

[midget-boyd91]

Yes there should be a law that protects reservist civvie jobs.

 
If the reservists are CALLED UP , then yes, the job should be protected by the Gov or CF..... If the reservist volunteers, then I cant see a law being put in place, but many places protect the jobs anyways.

 

[Blindspot]

I visited a medical unit last week and was surprised to learn they are permitted only a seven person intake this year--be it tranfers or recruits: ORs or officers.  This situation is not consistent with the shortages in reserves for overseas service.  Or, is the recruiting effort being focused upon needed infantry reservists?  What are the intake numbers around the militia units? As has been said--the militia does not have that many more people to harvest.

Well, from CFRC Toronto: "The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are not hiring." Neither are the 48th Highlanders apparently. Officers I have talked to say WTF?

 

[Robbie]

I had a breff at my unit about a month ago.  LFCA is going to be looking for 500+ res for TF3 08. 

There is going to be 4 streams that a reservists can go.

Stream 1.  Leave April 07
Srream 2.  Leave July 07
Stream 3.  Leave Sept 07
Stream 4.  Leave Feb 08 - Take you stright in to build up training.

BEST of all you start on class C.

 

[chrisf]

Well, from CFRC Toronto: "The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are not hiring." Neither are the 48th Highlanders apparently. Officers I have talked to say WTF?

Don't mind the CFRC, the units in question should have their own unit recruiters, contact them directly.

 

[Blindspot]

Don't mind the CFRC, the units in question should have their own unit recruiters, contact them directly.

No longer. Recruitment has been taken over by 32 Brigade. Since then the units that I mentioned have not been "hiring". Strange is it not? Particularily when the Queen's Own have a new Armoury to fill.

 

[Kiwi99]

I have absolutley no problem with res troops going overseas.  From feb-aug 06 i had two in my section and more in the platoon as part og TF1-06.  But what concerns me, and I think this needs to be cleared up, is the fact that apparently by 2009, all reg force soldiers will have been to afghanistan.  That may be true.  But there seems to be nobody taking into account those of us from the regs that would go over again and again and again.  If I go with a sect of res, it doesnt bother me one bit.  i may even learn something.  But the important thing to note is the fact that among the regs, there are soldiers that want to go back to war, and they should be afforded every chance to do so.  As long as they sign a PTSD waiver so when we go nuts we get reminded we volunteered for it.

 

[KevinB]

Biggest problem I see from this issue (and look back its nothing new - look to the early 90's for augmentee issues) if that for reservists be employable beyond the Cpl/Pte level they need LAV experience.  Unless the reservists is willing to make a 2+year comitment to the tour -- they are not going to get LAV experience and courses.

  This put me back to saying 30 day CT issue for same trade.  Since offering 2 years to the reg - once may as well do a 3 year BE.

 

[gate_guard]

Reference Kevins comments, what's on the go for the workup for 1-08? I know a few guys from my regiment are doing crew commander courses, any plans on getting driver/gunner courses for the pte/cpl augmentees on the almost year long workup they're doing? If so, any issues with staffing/resources?

 

[GAP]

I have absolutley no problem with res troops going overseas.  From feb-aug 06 i had two in my section and more in the platoon as part og TF1-06.  But what concerns me, and I think this needs to be cleared up, is the fact that apparently by 2009, all reg force soldiers will have been to afghanistan.  That may be true.  But there seems to be nobody taking into account those of us from the regs that would go over again and again and again.  If I go with a sect of res, it doesnt bother me one bit.  i may even learn something.  But the important thing to note is the fact that among the regs, there are soldiers that want to go back to war, and they should be afforded every chance to do so.  As long as they sign a PTSD waiver so when we go nuts we get reminded we volunteered for it.

Yeah, but after 6 months you guys have to come home....we started with a 13 month tour, and myself and few others did 2 six month extensions....PTSD was extra.

 

[Kiwi99]

The army says you go for 6 months, then you go.  I am a firm believer that if you VOLUNTEER to stay longer, despite all the possible hazards etc, then you are the only person liable for whatever mental health issues thta may develop.  That is not being said as a hardass, I have seen war as well, but if i volunteered to stay or go immediatley back, i would accept resposibility for that action, whatever the cost. We all make our own beds, right, so we must sleep in them.

 

[Haggis]

The army says you go for 6 months, then you go.  I am a firm believer that if you VOLUNTEER to stay longer, despite all the possible hazards etc, then you are the only person liable for whatever mental health issues thta may develop. 

No, the Army is liable.  Remember it is a leadership responsibility to get you home in one piece.  Sometimes that may be against your wishes, but bigger heads than you will have made the decision for your good and the good of the Army.

That is not being said as a hardass, I have seen war as well, but if i volunteered to stay or go immediatley back, i would accept resposibility for that action, whatever the cost. We all make our own beds, right, so we must sleep in them.

If you are granted your extension and then return to Canada as a recurring character on the cabbage repairmans's calendar, what good are you as a soldier, trainer or mentor to those new, young soldiers you are expected to prepare for war?

 

[Matt_Fisher]

No, the Army is liable.  Remember it is a leadership responsibility to get you home in one piece.  Sometimes that may be against your wishes, but bigger heads than you will have made the decision for your good and the good of the Army.

If you are granted your extension and then return to Canada as a recurring character on the cabbage repairmans's calendar, what good are you as a soldier, trainer or mentor to those new, young soldiers you are expected to prepare for war?

I'm with Kiwi on this one, in that I don't think that we should assume that simply by being in theatre someone is going to go insane or experience levels of PTSD that will incapacitate them.  Lets look at history, in the First and Second World Wars, we had troops that remained in combat/in theatre for years at a time.  As long as there are qualified pers to assess the mental health of the soldier who wants to remain in theatre, and that individual is found to be of sound mental health, if they want to remain in theatre, or go back for repeat tours, that's up to them.

 

[Kiwi99]

I disagree with the comment saying the army is liable.  How?  Each person is different, and we all know that sometime in our service we may be exposed to horrible things.  History makes that quite clear.  How many times have you heard the phrase 'War is Hell'?  For anyone who joins the forces, knowing full well the reputation war has, to blame the military for their mental health is unacceptable. They are resposible to train you to not get shot and to kill the enemy.  Your mind is your own, and it is unique to you.   But that is my opinion, not wrong, but not right either.


One thing that I must stress is a thing noted by members of my pl CoC.  'Those that you think are mentally weak...they will be.  Those that you think are tough c**ts...they will be tougher'.

But this digresses from the original subject of the thread.  I just find it wrong for blaming the army for mental health issues.

 

[GAP]

As has been said, just because you stay longer does not necessarily make you eligible for PSTD....many of us did by choice, with the Marine Corps  blessing and checkup as to whether this was an intelligent decision for us through checking with our officers/sr. NCO's.

We had a job to do and we wanted to stay to do it.

All that being said....I like the 6 month ROTO system in use by the CF now. They might consider a 7/8 months tour simply for overlap.  I think there should be some flexability and there probably is in critical areas, but all and all it's not a bad system.