Reserve Call Outs/Employment Full Time

[PJ D-Dog]

Good day all:

Here is an idea that I had about the reserves a number of years ago.

In order to maintain some amount of conitnuity within the reserves, the CF should introduce service contracts much like the regular force.  Here's how it should work:

Reservists would initially join for two years with the understanding they would show up 80 per cent of training nights and 80 per cent of weekend training.  On those missed training dates, they would have to be excused either by making arrangements with their supervisors prior to the scheduled training or by phoning the unit in the event of an emergency.  This would cut down on NES soldiers and emphasize the point that the reserves is not just a hobby career.  If you want to join, you need to make some kind of commitment.

Upon completion of two years, they would be offered the opportunity to reenlist for three years with a monetary bonus and the attendance requirement of 85 per cent of training time.  Should a reservist not want to reenlist for three years, they would be offered to continue to serve indefinitly but without any type of bonus.

This would ensure that reserve units would get some amount of conitnuity in manpower or corporate knowledge within the unit.  A set of rules would have to be developed for those who would want to break their contracts.  Currently, other than wanting to be a soldier, there is no real incentive to attract people to the reverse nor to keep them in.

When I first joined the militia, back in the middle ages (1989), our battery gave out $100 dollars to the soldier who had missed the least training nights and weekend exercises.  It worked well until the unit decided that it was not fair as it was not an official CF or regimental policy.  As a result, there was no real reward for sticking around and being a good guy, other than the personal satisfaction in knowing you missed no training.

As per normal, your thoughts and comments.

PJ D-Dog

 

[BKells]

I don't like the idea of a contract for reservists. That's one of the big reasons people join. Case in point, university students who might do a tour or two but at some point will quit to have a career they've always wanted.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

I don't like the idea of a contract for reservists. That's one of the big reasons people join. Case in point, university students who might do a tour or two but at some point will quit to have a career they've always wanted.

That's ok.  There would be provisions in the contract for such a thing.  The contracts would be there as a guarantee for training attendance, retention incentive, and corporate knowledge.  How many times are reservists processed out for NES?  We used to have a bunch load because they would loose interest and there was no attendance mechanism to make them show up.

When a unit goes on a weekend excercise and you're a det commander of gun, the work load is made up for 7 soldiers.  When you end up working twice as hard because Bo and Luke didn't show up for training and you only have four people to do the job of 7, it becomes frustrating.  There is no recourse to get them to show up for training.  A contract does just that.

In addition, NES soldiers can be a killer of troop strength and a waste of money.  If you spend x-dollars training and kitting out a soldier only to have him be NES a year later with no recourse to get him in to train, you can only process him out.  At this point, your turn over rate has increased and your operational ability has diminished because the troop numbers are just not there.  In this day and age, reserve unit budgets are tied to the number of soldier you have on strength and the parade state for every training is looked at closely.  A contract could help solve some of these problems.

PJ D-Dog

 

[Infanteer]

I like the idea of a bounty that the Brits use to encourage full turnout.  If soldier attend 100% of their Reserve exercises, they get a reward at the end.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I like the idea of a bounty that the Brits use to encourage full turnout.   If soldier attend 100% of their Reserve exercises, they get a reward at the end.

And make it payab;e on 1 Dec - in time for Xmas shopping etc

 

[JBP]

Me and the guys currently on my BMQ course were talking about why we joined etc..

Most of us joined because either:

A.) Always wanted to do it/be in the army etc etc...
B.) Quite a few people wanted to "Blow sh*t up and do cool stuff like rappel out of helicopters!"...
C.) For the education reimbursement (Almost all university guys)
D.) Friend/Family suggested who was already in etc...
E.) Other...

I think something of that nature would be a great idea. Maybe change the contract lengths thought. Say 2 years for the start, takes most reservists almost that long to become fully trained really, then say a 1 year contract after that. THIS would make or break them, regular training, nothing super special. Maybe after that, a 3-5 year contract because if they've already been in 3 years, chances are they like it/know what they want to do...

And different kinds of monetary incentives for the lengths. Maybe make the 2nd 1 yr contract optional.. "Okay Pte. Bloggins, you can choose a 1 year contract for $350.00, or a 3 year contract for $750.00 and these bonuses would be upon completion of your contracts!"...

?

Not too much money, but enough to make'm happy.

It may scare people away to be in a contract, but I think it would only retain/keep the people who really do want to be there and reward them. Also attract the people who really DO want to be there in the first place, that way you don't have to do so much weeding out?!?!

 

[DBA]

I think an incentive for attendance would be best since it would motivate those who can show up without penalizing those who can't. Something like in December members get $600 (or $50/month for those who joined 4 or more months prior) if attendance is above certain levels and notice or reasons were given when they couldn't make it. Has to be a sizeable sum or it's not enough to motivate anybody. For a recruit who joined in June getting $300 if they parade till the end of November on a regular basis is a nice incentive.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

The bonus amounts that I had in mind were more siezable.  At sign up, a reservist should be entitled to $2000 bonus to be paid out 50 per cent at the end of the first year of enlistment and the remainder at the end of the second year.  The bonus is there as an additional incentive to join.

For those on a 3 year reenlistment contract, it should be something like $5000, with 50 per cent at the end of the first year of the new contract and the remainder at the end of year two of the three year contract.

Although these sums may seem large, the questions to ask is this:  How much money does it cost to buy experience?

PJ D-Dog

 

[PJ D-Dog]

Maybe change the contract lengths thought. Say 2 years for the start, takes most reservists almost that long to become fully trained really, then say a 1 year contract after that. THIS would make or break them, regular training, nothing super special. Maybe after that, a 3-5 year contract because if they've already been in 3 years, chances are they like it/know what they want to do...

The reason the frist contract is two years is because it takes most reservists that long to get trained.  They would have something to look forward too and not have enough time to become disgruntled with the system.  Then get them when they are motivated and you have them for another three years along with bonuses.

Should they decide not to sign a contract, they can still stay on but would not be entitled to any bunuses.  It's a bit of an endentured servitude sitation but a contract is deal in which both parties benefit.

PJ D-Dog

 

[George Wallace]

PJ D-Dog

Those sums would be nice, I must admit, but they are truly out in left field.  It would almost be likened to "Welfare Fraud".  I could see bonus amounts of approx. $50 for each month, but to be handing out over $2K for a year, just to maintain "experience" is a little too far fetched.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

Those sums would be nice, I must admit, but they are truly out in left field.  It would almost be likened to "Welfare Fraud".  I could see bonus amounts of approx. $50 for each month, but to be handing out over $2K for a year, just to maintain "experience" is a little too far fetched.

Consider how much it costs to train a reservist.  Clothing, use of equipment, ammunition, fuel for vehicles, rations, quarters (when on base), salary (both the trainee and the trainers), any consumable that is issued i.e. cammo paint, toilet paper, pens, pencils, note books.

If you put the price tag on all of this, you will find that 2K is a drop in the bucket compared to all the costs the resources used to train one soldier.  The cost of military training is expensive.  Say for example, that the cost of training for one soldier is rounded up to 20,000 (basic to trade course completion) and you have a turnover rate of 15 soldiers every two years for 6 years, then the money you spent to train them was $900,000.  Again, the bonus would be a drop in the proverbial bucket.

PJ D-Dog

 

[Infanteer]

I think PJ is on to something - I am interested to know what the attrition rate in Militia units is during the first year.  From personal experience, I remember our unit losing lots of guys after getting their trades training; this loss is a big waste of training dollars.

 

[Canuck_25]

I like the idea, seems practical. The CF should also try to indroduce job protection for those who go overseas also. A lot of people i know dont join because of this, the risk of losing full time employment is too great.

 

[Infanteer]

The problem with Job Protection is that it is a coercive measure and will not engender good relations with civvie employers.  It appears that the US is finding this out right now.

I'd prefer to see a more proactive measure like a tax-break/reimbursement for the employer which gives them incentives to work with a Reservist's odd schedules....

 

[DogOfWar]

The problem with Job Protection is that it is a coercive measure and will not engender good relations with civvie employers.   It appears that the US is finding this out right now.

I'd prefer to see a more proactive measure like a tax-break/reimbursement for the employer which gives them incentives to work with a Reservist's odd schedules....

good point infanteer. Alot of times in the states reservists are running into issues getting hired in the first place. Simply because the employer knows what will happen in the future. Tax breaks may appeal to the employers business sense.

 

[PJ D-Dog]

Good point, Infanteer, a tax break would be a great solution that could work in Canada.

PJ.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I think that the idea of a contract with a bonus provision for attending all training events would work wonders as a "carrot" for reserve units.  However until the government provides job protection legislation for reservists it's not fair to reservists to attend training events that may interfere with their primary income sources.

I think that a 'bonus' based contract would be easier to implement (until the government signs job protection legislation) and would provide a great incentive for reservists to earn a nice bit of additional cash to complement their devotion.

When I was in the militia back in the 1990's we had a big problem with retention and training turnout with soldiers that had less than 3 years in.  Those who stayed in past 3 years generally had the mindset that they were willing to sacrifice the time necessary to train effectively.  Those with less than 3 years it was hit or miss.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, in the Marine Corps Reserves attendance is required for all scheduled training functions.  Even if a Marine misses a scheduled event, they're required to make it up during some other time within 30 days of the scheduled event.  In our unit this usually means coming in on your own time during the week and doing some tasks with very little training value, ie. mowing the grass, working in supply, photocopying or shredding documents in admin, etc.  This is very much a "stick" rather than "carrot" approach to training attendance.

I think that such a system would be able to be implemented at a fairly low cost to the CFs if the pay scale was structured so that a reservist would have their class A pay divided between the monthly rate and the annual bonus.  Something along the lines of 15% of their annual reserve pay allotment could be awarded as an annual lump sum provided that they satisfied the attendance requirements.  That way there wouldn't be any new funding requirements to come up with bonuses for reservists.

Also, isn't the current educational reimbursement package contingent on the soldier attending a required amount of training events during a given year?  This could also be a great incentive for reservists to attend training.  Now comes the tricky part, how do you expand this bonus to include block MOS or career/leadership training rather than just a bonus based around a unit's training calendar?

 

[Pte Cowden]

I like the idea of a contract, on the other hand though... It might scare people away from the reserves, not everybody likes commitment. But then i guess that's a good thing, because it'd weed everybody out and only the people who really wanted to be there would join.

The idea of a contract could go both ways, good and bad. ???

 

[JBP]

My section Sgt said it cost approximately $10,000.00 per recruit for JUST BMQ. Ouch, and that's if they make it all the way through of course...

He also said on average, it's a 50% drop out rate. We started with 42, we now have 29!!!... Only half way through BMQ!

So, do I think a couple thousand is worth retaining a couple bumbs, sure. If it ends up saving us some coin in the end, maybe more $ for live-firing and actual training, I'd be all for it!

 

[R031button]

I don't know about other units, and other serials...but out of the 7 recruits my regiment sent on my BMQ course, three are still parading with the unit on a regular basis. That's pretty sad, I mean, think of the position the militia could be in if retention was at 60 or 75% instead of being under 50.