Where the Educational Reimbursement is involved, I have always believed that there should be a fixed "pay back" arrangement of so many mandatory training or ops days, with the individual required to pay back a percentage (or all...) of the difference. The current system of just insisting that the soldier not go NES is really pretty weak-it allows the individual to parade only once a month, which unless the unit is parading on weekends, is way below the standard expectation for a Res soldier. I don't think we are really protecting the investment that the public is making in offering a potentially excellent program that benefits the country, the Army and the individual.
As for a contract: I certainly understand the impulse, but I'm not sure we have the administrative horsepower to enforce it. The process of clearing a person off NES and getting them out of the Res is very labour-intensive: I know that in our Bde it consumes large amounts of admin effort that should be spent on those soldiers who are in and doing what the Army asks of them. Despite the effort, we still struggle with an NES rate that is too high in some of our units. If we could fire people out of the military as fast as civvy corporations seem to be able to, I could certainly see supporting a required attendance contract.
I am more of a proponent of the incentive program, both in the TA style "bounty", and in making a Res soldier employee an asset to a civil employer, not a liability. If a bounty "disadvantages" those who cannot attend as often..well, too bad. So does the Res pay system. If you attend more often you get more money. Those who can't (or won't...) attend training get less money, but generally speaking the people with restrictive "career" civvy jobs are normally already at a higher pay grade in the Res, having been in for a while, and are probably drawing more pay per training session anyway. In the end, what the Res needs is your time-if you can't give it, you can't expect to be treated exactly the same way as somebody who can. This is a problem, but it is a reality in any volunteer or part time organization with a training requirement: volunteer fire departments are a very good example of this. Lots of people join, thinking how cool it will be to scream around town in a fire truck, then they realize they can't (or won't...) make the weekly drill sessions, or turn out on the 2:00 AM calls, etc. and they go "NES".
On the civvy job front, IMHO it is way better to have employers who let their Res soldiers go willingly than to have employers who resent the imposition and seek a way to get rid of the burden. (This is Canada, not the US, and I know that even they have a few issues...) I know that willing cooperation works: I attended our Regional CFLC Employer Awards ceremony the other night, and saw a wide selection of different employers receive the awards. Adding a tax incentive, or allowing the employer to "top up" Res pay instead of paying full salary during absence on Res duty, or favouring supportive companies in Govt tendering by making Res support a bidding requirement, are all possible alternatives. In the end, we probably need job protection as a final stick but IMHO it should be reserved for real emergencies.
Cheers.
