Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[dapaterson]

I see your point, but it does eliminate the probably of troops not showing up cause they cant get time off, cause lets face it many employers aren't exactly reserve friendly, or know what the reserves are even

Though in some instances that's the Reservist never engaging their employer or using it as a convenient excuse.

 

[cryco]

I know my boss was kinda stunned when i told him that training for an officer in the reserves could involve 2 months and then 3 months off in consecutive years during the summer. My HR lady lost it. She wrote back to me as if a was daft when I was still inquiring, after making the mistake of telling her about the 2 and 3 months.
If the govt had something in place to help it would be nice, but i can't think what they could do.
it's not like protecting the reservist's job when being deployed, it's the actual initial training. The employer can simply say, don't do it if you know it'll keep you away.
That's what my HR implied. In her defense, i do something so specialized, it's hard to find a replacement.
The only reason my boss is ok with me to go through with this is the weekend training offered outside of the summer months.

 

[MilEME09]

I know my boss was kinda stunned when i told him that training for an officer in the reserves could involve 2 months and then 3 months off in consecutive years during the summer. My HR lady lost it. She wrote back to me as if a was daft when I was still inquiring, after making the mistake of telling her about the 2 and 3 months.
If the govt had something in place to help it would be nice, but i can't think what they could do.
it's not like protecting the reservist's job when being deployed, it's the actual initial training. The employer can simply say, don't do it if you know it'll keep you away.
That's what my HR implied. In her defense, i do something so specialized, it's hard to find a replacement.
The only reason my boss is ok with me to go through with this is the weekend training offered outside of the summer months.

my problem is if i take time off for weekend EX's and such my employer probably won't give me time off for course if i went to say every EX

 

[cryco]

oh, that sucks. I'm guessing you work on weekends in that case. The weekend thing is good for me wrt work. The summer training though will be trickier. I will burn through my vacation and have to take unpaid time off, which will raise a few eyebrows here.
I guess that's where the gov't  can do something to help; not to pay me. Instead, allow me to take unpaid leave for such reasons.
But I'll deal with that when it happens. It's still a long way off.

 

[mariomike]

The summer training though will be trickier. I will burn through my vacation and have to take unpaid time off, which will raise a few eyebrows here.

If you are a member of a union, your collective agreement may contain a Military Leave Policy. If not, you may wish to ask your union to consider negotiating such a policy.

Some cover a limited amount of summer training: "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."

 

[MilEME09]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/02/colin-busby-building-a-stronger-military-reserve/

Building a stronger military reserve


Canadians’ wellbeing improved last week when the federal government took steps to solidify the future for Canada’s citizen soldiers. Reservists play key roles in meeting Canada’s growing international and domestic security needs, and Ottawa, last Tuesday, announced a low-cost plan to financially support employers of reservists when he or she volunteers for full-time military duty.

Canadian reservists usually participate full-time in the civilian workforce and train part-time as members of the reserve force. But every so often, be it after a natural disaster or during a major international event, crisis or operation, a reservist will have the choice to activate for full-time military service and work alongside Canada’s regular forces.

Reservists play a key role in the operational plans of the Canadian Forces. The Canada First Defence Strategy plans for reservists to make up 30% of total military personnel.

The increasing demand for Canadian reservists was particularly acute in the mid-2000s, when large numbers of reservists were necessary to complete the operational duties of Canada’s Afghanistan mission. This led to a number of federal and provincial job protection laws requiring employers of reservists to protect the latter’s jobs should they choose to deploy on a domestic or international mission. These laws were instated to protect a reservist’s decision to deploy without fear of repercussion in civilian life.

But there were unintended consequences from the legislation. The most important consequence was that these laws shifted the costs of military activities onto individual employers. After losing an employee, an employer would need to hire a temporary replacement, ask remaining workers to work overtime or perhaps turn away potential clients without the capacity to deliver on new contracts. The long-term concern was that the employer-employee relationship may erode, and employers might discriminate in hiring reservists in the future.

In a 2010 C.D. Howe Institute paper, I argued that, to protect the strength of employer and reservist relationships, the government of Canada should cover a portion of the costs borne by employers when a reservist takes a military leave of absence.

After Tuesday’s announcement, Canada is now one of three Commonwealth countries, alongside the United Kingdom and Australia, to offer financial compensation to employers of reservists while they deploy. The new Compensation for Employers of Reservists Program will offer cash benefits of around $403 per week, much like the Australian plan, payable at the end of a reservist’s deployment. Eligible employers include those in the private sector, provincial, municipal or territorial governments, whose employees are on a designated operation from a period of 30 days to 18 months.

A strong reserve force has a number of advantages for all Canadians. It allows for a cost-effective use of resources during peacetime and the rapid augmentation of capacity during times of war and heightened military readiness. It also enables a number of military personnel to bring unique skills into sometimes hard-to-fill positions in the forces, such as engineers, medical officers, water filtration specialists and so on. Likewise, many Canadian employers can benefit from the operational skills reservists learn from military training. Perhaps as importantly, a strong reserve force exposes more communities to the realities of Canadian military engagements in ways not possible when we rely solely on regular forces whose families often live on geographically isolated military bases.

Maintaining a balance between civilian and military life is complicated. A reservist’s relationship with his or her employee is central to transitioning into, and out of, civilian life. With this week’s news, the prospects for reservist-employer relationships have never been better. Employers now have one more reason to hire citizen soldiers, and all Canadians gain from a resilient reserve force staffed by those among our bravest and best.

National Post

 

[MilEME09]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dnd-s-budget-overhaul-of-reserves-buried-ahead-of-federal-election-1.2220942

DND's budget overhaul of reserves buried ahead of federal election

The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, February 4, 2015 4:19PM EST

OTTAWA -- The Department of National Defence appears set to miss a self-imposed deadline to rebalance the number of reserve soldiers in the military.

It is a budget-driven exercise that experts say the Harper government is keen to avoid in the run-up to an election as Conservatives try to patch things up with disgruntled veterans.

Internal documents say a review of how Canada's force of citizen soldiers is structured was supposed to be done by the end of March 2014, with a new funding model to be in place by April 1 of this year.

But National Defence spokesman Zoltan Csepregi says the review is still ongoing and it's too early to speculate what it will recommend.

Csepregi says the vice-chief of defence staff is examining the "optimal number" of part-time and full-time reservists with an eye towards having a "predominantly part-time, strong and sustainable reserve force."

Retired lieutenant-colonel John Selkirk of Reserves 2000, a coalition that advocates for the militia, says the government faces a political backlash if it imposes significant changes and funding cuts on the reserves.

 

[Kirkhill]

Reserves 2000 huh?

This is 2015 - Presumably Reserves 2000 was formed ca 1995 .... when 2000 was the future.  1995 was 20 years ago and the Medak Pocket was still being hushed up.  Still waiting for restructuring.

 

[OldSolduer]

Reserves 2000 huh?

This is 2015 - Presumably Reserves 2000 was formed ca 1995 .... when 2000 was the future.  1995 was 20 years ago and the Medak Pocket was still being hushed up.  Still waiting for restructuring.

Be prepared to wait some more. This will only happen when it suits the politicians.....and not just those who sit in Parliament.

 

[McG]

Likely it will be the Army driving any significant change and not the agenda of a political party when it comes to the overhaul the PRes need.  In that light, military leadership would be wise to arrive at its decision after an election.  The alternative is that honouraries and tribal lobbies quickly make a stink in local media, then opposition parties pick-up the cause (regardless of merit) to score political points.  Very soon the national media holds up the uniformed honouraries as "proof" the Army does not really support its change.  The party in government, being more focused on relection than stewardship of the CAF, then takes the easy button by killing the initiative for at least another half decade.

Maybe that is too cynical, but I do believe the PRes needs an overhaul of a sort that should be launched early in the tenure of a majority government.  Otherwise, the lobby of honouraries holds too much power to push the tribes ahead of the whole.

 

[daftandbarmy]

:nod:

 

[MJP]

Likely it will be the Army driving any significant change and not the agenda of a political party when it comes to the overhaul the PRes need.  In that light, military leadership would be wise to arrive at its decision after an election.  The alternative is that honouraries and tribal lobbies quickly make a stink in local media, then opposition parties pick-up the cause (regardless of merit) to score political points.  Very soon the national media holds up the uniformed honouraries as "proof" the Army does not really support its change.  The party in government, being more focused on relection than stewardship of the CAF, then takes the easy button by killing the initiative for at least another half decade.

Maybe that is too cynical, but I do believe the PRes needs an overhaul of a sort that should be launched early in the tenure of a majority government.  Otherwise, the lobby of honouraries holds too much power to push the tribes ahead of the whole.

Considering the timing of the article, I have to say that your post is eerily on the mark!

 

[Rifleman62]

MilEME09« Reply #1786 on: February 04, 2015, 16:08:26 » Quote

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/dnd-s-budget-overhaul-of-reserves-buried-ahead-of-federal-election-1.2220942
Quote

    DND's budget overhaul of reserves buried ahead of federal election

    The Canadian Press - Published Wednesday, February 4, 2015

    OTTAWA -- The Department of National Defence appears set to miss a self-imposed deadline to rebalance the number of reserve soldiers in the military.

    It is a budget-driven exercise that experts say the Harper government is keen to avoid in the run-up to an election as Conservatives try to patch things up with disgruntled veterans.

    Internal documents say a review of how Canada's force of citizen soldiers is structured was supposed to be done by the end of March 2014, with a new funding model to be in place by April 1 of this year.

    But National Defence spokesman Zoltan Csepregi says the review is still ongoing and it's too early to speculate what it will recommend.

    Csepregi says the vice-chief of defence staff is examining the "optimal number" of part-time and full-time reservists with an eye towards having a "predominantly part-time, strong and sustainable reserve force."

    Retired lieutenant-colonel John Selkirk of Reserves 2000, a coalition that advocates for the militia, says the government faces a political backlash if it imposes significant changes and funding cuts on the reserves.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/erin-o-toole-jason-kenney-say-reservists-will-get-same-benefits-as-regular-force-1.2993514


Erin O'Toole, Jason Kenney say reservists will get same benefits as regular force
Unequal treatment of reservists has been sensitive topic for Conservatives

Buried at the last par of this article is:

National Defence was supposed to have delivered a new structure for the part-time, volunteer force by this spring's budget, but it likely won't be done until after the election, scheduled for October.

What do you think it means and/or is it related to the 4 Feb 15 post above?

 

[Monsoon]

What do you think it means and/or is it related to the 4 Feb 15 post above?

Basically they're talking about phase 2 of PRECS - figuring out what the optimal class "B"/"C" strength is going forward. The first round of PRECS was really just about budgetary fire-fighting; this one is about determining what "should" be, based on the fact that they want the permanently-established "B" positions to be about providing direct support to the PRes organization itself (with the operational and other organizational support positions being incremental taskings).

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not just about the Army, but worthy of note nonetheless - shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ....

Reserve force review coming before election, Defence Minister Kenney says
Delayed release had critics warning about political motivations for putting it off.
By RACHEL AIELLO

A departmental review of the structure of military reserves will be wrapped up “this summer” and will focus on expanding the size and capability of Canada’s reserves, Defence Minister Jason Kenney says.

In an interview last week, Mr. Kenney, (Calgary Southeast, Alta.) told The Hill Times that it’s a priority for him to increase the number of personnel in the reserve units and it’s something he’s currently working on, with the aim of determining “how we can get more bang for the buck for reserves.”

The plan to review the structure of Canada’s reserves came as part of the “defence renewal plan” that the Conservatives announced in October 2013. The strategy was created to “minimize inefficiency, streamline business processes and maximize the operational results” by guiding resource allocations, among other things, between 2013 and 2018, according to the department. The plan set a $1.2-billion annual reduction target for the five years to be put into “frontline priorities,” and to re-allocate between 2,800 and 4,800 military and civilian employees.

Former Defence minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.) told reporters at the time that the plan wasn’t to reduce the number of staff but to “rebalance” the military’s regular, reserve and civilian workforce. 

According to internal Department of National Defence documents reported on by The Canadian Press, a review of the structure of the reserve force was supposed to be completed by the end of March 2014, and the new funding model was to be in place by April 1, 2015, but this has not happened. The documents reportedly said that implementing a new funding model in the 2015-16 budget year was key to the department’s plans to continue absorbing the department’s budget cuts.

The initial delay in “re-balancing” the military staff and resources has been seen by critics as a political move, with critics assuming it meant cutbacks and the Conservatives not wanting to have that on their plate ahead of a federal election. Mr. Kenney denies this.

He said the project is aimed at “reallocating” the $1.2-billion in internal defence spending by moving resources from “lower priority, or lower-yield operations to higher-yield and higher priority areas,” and that the government has decided to identify reserves as a priority.

Mr. Kenney said he couldn’t give a precise date, but anything the government hopes to do in terms of new policy would “have to be pretty much wrapped up this summer.”

John Selkirk, a retired lieutenant-colonel and executive director of Armed Forces advocacy group Reserves 2000, told The Hill Times that he believes Mr. Kenney is committed to strengthening the reserves and that the presumption that the Department of National Defence would be considering cutting reserves at this point in the political cycle was “bizarre.”

He said that, if anything, the government needs to consider upping the number of reservists. With the current threat of terror, or the possibility for a natural disaster or emergency, for a nation of 33 million people “to only have a full-time regular force of around 60,000 is banana republic territory,” Mr. Selkirk said. “And then to only have a total of all reserves being 27,000, or closer to 23,000 or 24,000 right now, are very very tiny numbers for a nation of our size and breadth.”

NDP defence critic Jack Harris (St. John’s East, Nfld.) said that although this is the first he’s heard that Mr. Kenney would complete the report this summer, it is good news—“as long as there is good news that goes with it” for the reservists and approximately 100 communities across the country where bases are stationed.

Mr. Harris said he thinks the decision to boost the number of reservists is linked to similar government announcements to come in the next little while, aimed at boosting the Conservatives’ re-election prospects.

“These are the kinds of decisions they may make because reserves are popular in the communities which host them and the people who have an attachment to the military through the reserves are happy about that, and have been concerned with the cutbacks that have taken place,” he said. “It may be that whatever political damage that that has potentially caused is being sought to be mitigated.” 

Liberal MP Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, B.C.), her party’s defence critic, questioned how the government is planning on “squaring the disconnect” between the budget cuts and the capacity of the Canadian Armed Forces.

When Mr. Kenney was asked about how the department can afford to potentially increase, rather than decrease, the number of reservists, he said the department thinks there are “adequate resources to make modest increase in the size and footprint of reserves.”

raiello@hilltimes.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Working equipment always helps keeping people motivated, just saying

 

[quadrapiper]

Working equipment always helps keeping people motivated, just saying

Also, a clearly-defined mission, relevant and interesting/challenging/well-organized training, suitable and painless support/administrative apparatus, well-sited and usable armouries/training sites. Leadership that can make a decision regarding the utility of supporting a platoon rattling around some vast armoury calling itself a Regiment. And so on.

 

[MilEME09]

Working equipment always helps keeping people motivated, just saying

Not just working equipment, how about enough equipment, how is it a Reserve CSS FSG/company/what ever you want to call it only has two C9's? no C6's to protect the in and out route of a harbour and I won't even get at he issue of tooling, spare parts and vehicles.

 

[Dissident]

Our recruiting allotment his year: 5 pers. This does not even keep up with attrition. I've warned of this since late 2010, when we were full (54 pers on paper) to now where we are ~24 on paper and paraded 9 all rank for a week end ex. All I want for Christmas are a bunch of new troops. 5 doesn't cut it. Twice that would be OK. I want 15-20 for the next 3 years before we lose the core group we built.

Hopefully this reserve change is good news.

 

[MilEME09]

Our recruiting allotment his year: 5 pers. This does not even keep up with attrition. I've warned of this since late 2010, when we were full (54 pers on paper) to now where we are ~24 on paper and paraded 9 all rank for a week end ex. All I want for Christmas are a bunch of new troops. 5 doesn't cut it. Twice that would be OK. I want 15-20 for the next 3 years before we lose the core group we built.

Hopefully this reserve change is good news.

dont forget of those 5, how many actually make it, and stay? When I got in I was 1 of 6 that entered my unit, within a year only two of us out of that 6 were still in.  with that kind of retainment, we need five times the number of people coming in to meet demand.