Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[geo]

you see...... a win / win situation!

 

[Neill McKay]

So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'.

Alternatively, it could be made an offence to discriminate on the basis that someone is a reservist.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Alternatively, it could be made an offence to discriminate on the basis that someone is a reservist.

Tough to prove and doesn't pay the bills while waiting for the proof....

 

[Neill McKay]

Tough to prove and doesn't pay the bills while waiting for the proof....

Definitely tough to prove, but no more so than any other form of discrimination.

 

[geo]

Neil,
As things stand, most discrimination cases take at least 2-3 years to resolve.
Most people want to forget it and move on... and you can't buy your groceries on that sort of wait and see promises.

Reservists are, for the msot part, just entering the job maket as they are completing their education.  Do they have the patience to wait when a possible career is on the line?

 

[Neill McKay]

Neil,
As things stand, most discrimination cases take at least 2-3 years to resolve.
Most people want to forget it and move on... and you can't buy your groceries on that sort of wait and see promises.

Reservists are, for the msot part, just entering the job maket as they are completing their education.  Do they have the patience to wait when a possible career is on the line?

No, of course not.  This is far from a simple issue.

But, as others have said, legislation requiring employers to allow military leave to reservists can create a disincentive to hire reservists (all the more so in countries such as ours where military service isn't as fashionable as in, say, the US).  Looking at it from the perspective of an employer who knows little about the reserves and all of the good things that reservists bring to their civilian jobs, why would he hire someone who can take off for months at a time and be guaranteed the same job on returning?  Why not just hire a civilian who doesn't bring with him that possibility?

At one time it was pretty normal to avoid hiring women for the same reason: why hire a woman who might go off and have a kid, taking a bunch of maternity leave to do so, when you can have a man instead?  Obviously we've (mostly) moved past that now, in large part because the law quite rightly does not allow an employer to discriminate against women.

There has to be some kind of protection against discrimination for reservists, otherwise there's a real potential for them to suffer in the job market -- even the ones who have no intention of ever deploying.  A prohibition against discrimination is the way we address this for other groups, so it seems like a sensible way to go for reservists as well.  It certainly isn't going to be perfect, but it's better than nothing, and it's as much as we already do for others.

 

[geo]

From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.

As an employer I would want to know the good things I can do & "what's in it for me". 

Honey works a lot better than vinegar

 

[Haggis]

From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.

As an employer I would want to know the good things I can do & "what's in it for me". 

Honey works a lot better than vinegar

True, but it's always been the Canadian way to legislate against something.

....and vinegar is cheaper than honey to the average taxpayer.

 

[Neill McKay]

From my perspective, it makes more sense to create incentives to hire reservists INSTEAD of legislating penalties for having excluded them.

Yes, by all means.  Even something as simple as advertising directed at employers could work wonders.

 

[geo]

Haggis,
Vinegar might be cheaper, in the short term, for the taxpayer..... but it won't work as well, which means the law won't be accepted (easily) and will require changes & tweaks ad infinitum.

Neil,
Advertising can & does work... so long as you have a viable product to "sell".
It's an unfortunate problem of the combat arms trades is that most employers don't see or understand what they can / could do with an Infantryman, Crewman & Gunner.... and the Sapper is only useful to clear minefields & build things...
The aspects of personnel supervision are not understood and therefore hard to sell.

 

[Blackadder1916]

While this may be a big issue for reservists and regulars in transition to civilian employment (hopefully staying with the reserve), it is not an issue that strongly shows up on employers’ radar.  The are 25,000 Reserve Force members, including 4,000 Canadian Rangers.  When the full-time students among them are factored into the equation it become an even smaller number among the 12,660,700 permanent and 1,631,100 temporary employees in the country.  At the present time, the military is in favour in Canada and politicians will always jump on the bandwagon.  Of course with politicians being politicians, despite having accidentally fallen on to an issue with a noble purpose, they will find a way to screw it up, usually by going too far.

Having been in the position of hiring employees, military service was not always a prime factor in deciding who got to the interview stage. Though it was always a secondary factor that I looked for in a candidate for employment.  The reality is that there were only two ways that someone got to an interview; their resume sold them or they had a personal recommendation from someone I knew.  Even then it was not a guarantee of a job offer.  (of a typical 75 - 200 resumes reviewed for one position perhaps 3 – 5 got a call)

As to financial incentives for employers; there were/are a number of programs that the federal and provincial governments use as incentive for hiring marginally attractive employment candidates. (before the flaming start I am not suggesting that these are applicable to reservists)  My take on most of these programs is that they are only minimally successful for the participants, very successful for the companies that are contracted to provide/administer the service and can be financially rewarding for employers.  Usually when it is financially rewarding for employers, the employees are not well served.  If an employer can find a way to get free money from a government program, they’ll find a way to do so without incurring a significant obligation.

 

[proudnurse]

Cambridge Times News article April 4th, 2008

Reproduced in accordance with fairdealings.

Article Link: http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/article/123226


City ahead of its time Roads job safe for soldier who'll be gone for a year
By Ray Martin
News
Apr 04, 2008


Mark Adam has enough on his mind these days without having to worry about whether he'll have a job to come home to next year.

Ontario has recently introduced legislation designed to protect the jobs of employees who are reserve members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but the City of Cambridge is ahead of the game.

In September 2002, council approved an extended leave policy for employees serving in the reserves.

The policy was created in part because of Mark Adam, junior manager of operations for roads, who serves with the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada (RHFC). Adam has been a member of the local regiment for the last 27 years and has worked his way up to the rank of Chief Warrant Officer.

"The city has been very good about giving me the time," Adam said. "They've given me time off to participate in two to three exercises, and eight to 12 times for courses."

On Tuesday, Adam is being called to duty once again. This time, Adam will be away for an entire year, part of which will be spent in Afghanistan.

"I was on the list to go, but I was passed over in the first round in November, and for the next round in December and then I got the call," he said. "It's been a bit of a roller-coaster ride but I'll be filling in for someone that couldn't go."

Adam might have been posted to Bosnia as a peacekeeper when Canada was participating in the UN mission following the break up of Yugoslavia.

"I had a young family then and it wasn't fair to go then, but they're older now and it will be a little bit easier," he said. "It's something I need to do."

Adam and his wife Linda have three boys, two of whom are also in the military.

Adam is one of 15 members of the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada that are heading to southern Afghanistan.

Before heading off to his overseas deployment, Adam will undergo further training in Wainwright. Alta., and Petawawa, Ont. When he gets to Afghanistan, Adam may well put to use some of the skills he learned in college and working for the past 20 years at the City of Cambridge.

Adam has been assigned to the Civil-Military Co-operation Group, and his job will be to work with the Red Cross and civil officials to help rebuild the country's infrastructure.

"We recognized the need for the corporation to support our employees who serve in the reserves, and we came up with this policy," said city director of Human Resources George Vandermey.

Prior to developing the policy, Vandermey participated in the Executrek program put together by the Canadian Forces Liaison Council, which was established by a group of business and community leaders to encourage employers and educators to establish leave policies so that reservists can participate in military training and operations. Vandermey visited CFB Petawawa for a day and within a month drafted the policy that council approved.

That policy does two things, Vandermey said. It recognizes the training the reservist receives and the transferable skills like leadership, problem solving, critical thinking and team building that the military provides. It also provides city employees who are called to duty the peace of mind that once they have finished serving their country they will have a job to come back to.

Adam is about to become part of the second set of troops from the RHFC deployed to Afghanistan.

Two of that initial group were wounded in the field.

While he is away, Adam's family will be assisted by support groups from the Galt Armoury and in Kitchener, as well as from people participating in Red Fridays, by wearing something red in support of Canadian troops serving overseas.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

But - what about a skilled position? A professional position?

And that is the other end of the equation...

As a result of the tour extension being foisted on us going over on TF 3-08 there are many of us who got written agreements that we would be back to work as of 01 Mar 09.  Now the tour is being pushed into April and even later.  Kind of hard to ask employers to be supportive when the Army decides to pull this sort of stuff.  When this was brought to a person on the command level above my pay grade, they replied "Oh well.  If they get fired then they can always go Reg".  I just love that sort of subordinate loyalty.  :threat:
However, if the Army is going to play the "you can't fire them, they are protected" card and starts playing fast and loose with our commitments, IMO you will see both employers being reluctant to support the Reserves, and Reservists being reluctant to deploy. 

 

[geo]

.... which has been the ongoing story of Reservists going on career rank and trade courses....

It's on... book time off...
It's off - 24 hrs before leaving for course.....

............"sit on this and rotate" >

 

[Greymatters]

So with the same legislation, why can't they make it illegal to ask if your a Reservist, on your app or interview? Same as religion or race. Kinda 'Don't ask, don't tell'. 

A bit late to add, but to amplify:

According to the the most recent standards, potential employers cant ask on application forms if you are in the Reserves or retired from the military unless you volunteer the information as prior employment.  Technically, employers are not allowed at any time of the interview process to ask any questions about your military service unless:
a) the job is labelled as giving preference to military veterans;
b) the position is seeking someone with military experience, or;
c) you mention the fact of prior service on your application/resume or during your interview as any informatino you provide can be questioned.

In the end, like Recceguy said, if you dont want to answer questions about military service, dont offer the information. 

If you do offer it, dont say something stupid like 'I could tell you but then I woudl have to kill you', it just makes us all look bad...

Interestingly enough, according to the CHRC employers are not allowed to ask any questions about foreign military service, but I would take that with a grain of salt.  You cant probe for foreign military service or activities, but you can ask questions about it if they volunteer the information in their paperwork...

And yes, I know, even though they arent 'allowed to', many employers still ask this anyway and will keep asking unless someone takes them to court for discrimination. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

And that is the other end of the equation...

As a result of the tour extension being foisted on us going over on TF 3-08 there are many of us who got written agreements that we would be back to work as of 01 Mar 09.  Now the tour is being pushed into April and even later.  Kind of hard to ask employers to be supportive when the Army decides to pull this sort of stuff.  When this was brought to a person on the command level above my pay grade, they replied "Oh well.  If they get fired then they can always go Reg".  I just love that sort of subordinate loyalty.  :threat:
However, if the Army is going to play the "you can't fire them, they are protected" card and starts playing fast and loose with our commitments, IMO you will see both employers being reluctant to support the Reserves, and Reservists being reluctant to deploy. 

Good point. I know two employers who aren't keen on hiring reservists because of this uncertainty factor which is, of course, completely out of the control of the individual soldier. At least employees on long term partental leave will be certain to return after a specific length of time. The only real benefit to an employer is that they don't have to pay the soldier/employee on long term deployments.

My worry is that, with so many reservists deploying on multiple tours, we'll see a generation of people who may never find and keep a long term, meaningful attachment to local labour markets. This may contribute to issues related to PTSD and other stress related ailments, as well as promote a drain of valuable expertise away from reserve units.

 

[Greymatters]

My worry is that, with so many reservists deploying on multiple tours, we'll see a generation of people who may never find and keep a long term, meaningful attachment to local labour markets. This may contribute to issues related to PTSD and other stress related ailments, as well as promote a drain of valuable expertise away from reserve units.

Isnt this the individual's career choice though? 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Sure. But if we want to make sure that the Army can still complete its missions, which means that it will continue to require significant support from reservists, we need to figure out how to find and keep those all-important '2 career' reservists.

 

[Blackadder1916]

This article from the Christian Science Monitor may give some an indication about the effectiveness of job protection legislation or, at least, the American experience with it.

While reservists serve, their jobs don't always wait
Between 2004 and 2006, returning volunteers filed 16,000 complaints against employers.

from the April 10, 2008 edition
By Jill Carroll | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Washington
Steve Duarte worked in human resources for the same company for 19 years. But within months of returning from Iraq with his Marine Reserve unit in 2003 – his second military deployment in two years – he was told his job was ending in a week.

"There was that initial shock – and then the shock of 'What am I going to do?' " recalls Mr. Duarte of Littleton, Colo., whose expenses at the time included tuition for his son at the University of Denver.

As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on, tensions are mounting between the military's civilian volunteers, trying to step back into their professions, and employers, straining at times to cope with a growing cadre of workers who are away at war for months then expect to regain their former jobs. A 1994 law – the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) – gives workers that right, along with promotions or other benefits they would have earned had they not been deployed. But with more than 600,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized since 9/11, thousands have found their jobs gone or positions diminished when they returned.

Last week the Department of Justice said it was suing Wal-Mart, alleging that it failed to reinstate a cashier who was an Air Force reservist, and United Parcel Service, charging that it eliminated the job of another Air Force reservist while he was on active duty in Iraq in 2003.

USERRA had been a lightly used law until 9/11 "changed our priorities completely," says John Muckelbauer, regional director of compliance for 10 Midwestern states for the Labor Department's Veterans' Employment and Training Service, which investigates complaints. "It pushed USERRA right up to the top and it's been up there ever since."

The law is a ticklish issue for companies, experts say. On one hand, they don't want to do anything that makes them look unpatriotic. On the other, the long and sometimes repeated deployments of key personnel can complicate staffing.

"There continue to be companies that step forward and support guardsmen and reservists," says John Lowrie, an attorney with Ford and Harrison LLP, a labor-law firm that represents employers around the country. "There are other companies that do feel a strain, and it's difficult for them." Particularly under stress are airlines, police and fire departments, and other emergency-response services, whose key employees also tend to be in military reserve units, he adds.

"It can be a challenge for our smaller companies especially," says Jack Morton, manager of national security and emergency preparation at the US Chamber of Commerce. The chamber is working with the military to develop a predictable schedule for call-ups of the National Guard and reserve units.

Some 16,000 complaints filed

No one knows how big the problem is. Members of the reserve forces filed some 16,000 formal and informal complaints with the government from 2004 through 2006, says the Government Accountability Office (GAO), using the most recent data available. But that may underestimate the number who actually encounter rehiring problems, experts say.

Some aggrieved workers sue their employers on their own. Most apparently take no action at all. A GAO analysis of Defense Department surveys in 2004 and 2006 showed that some 70 percent of reservists who said they had problems getting rehired or promotions or raises did not seek redress.

One reason may be that the system is bureaucratic and can take months to decide a case.

Four government agencies handle complaints. The Defense Department's Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) offers informal mediation. The Labor Department tries to resolve formal complaints from service members without going to court. If they can't be resolved and are legitimate complaints, then the Justice Department or the Office of Special Counsel will take the case to court.

The system is actually working better than before as government agencies eventually geared up to handle all the complaints pouring in as a result of the largest activation of reserves in decades, according to the GAO. But it still criticized the process for delays and called for a single agency to oversee it.

The disputes are also more complex.

"In '03 and '04 our role was frequently more as a mediator and educator," says Mr. Lowrie, the lawyer who also serves as chairman of the Colorado ESGR. These days, more employees and employers are aware of USERRA's protections and cases are "slightly more a genuine dispute." The number of complaints ESGR ombudsmen receive has drifted down steadily from almost 6,000 in 2004 to a little more than 1,000 last year.

Justice Department suits are up slightly – rising from two to eight over the same period.

Stung by his sudden layoff notice from Agilent Technologies, Duarte called his commanding officer, Marine Col. George Aucoin, a New Orleans lawyer who knew of USERRA. When Duarte e-mailed company executives about the law, they said he was being laid off because of financial troubles and his job was not protected.

While sending out résumés, Duarte and Colonel Aucoin continued to research USERRA. The Labor and Defense departments said they couldn't represent him – for reasons that Duarte disputes.

In February 2004, Agilent posted an opening for a job very similar to Duarte's.

"That was kind of the nail in the coffin," says Duarte. He sued the next month.

A struggle – and $12,000 in costs

The case would ultimately cost Duarte $12,000. At the same time, he struggled to find another job. He and his wife lived off her salary, his severance from Agilent, and the pay from extra work he took on with his reserve unit. Finally, in April 2005, he went on active military duty "because I had to get back to work."

"It wasn't easy financially. It wasn't easy mentally," says Duarte. After a while, "it wasn't about the money."

If it was hard to use USERRA to protect himself – a college-educated lieutenant colonel with years of work experience and savings – "there is no way a young [private first class] or lance corporal coming back is going to be able to fight this thing," he says.

A little over a year after filing his suit, the US district court in Colorado found in his favor, awarding him almost $400,000.

Agilent said in a statement that "although Agilent disagreed with the final outcome in this matter, we appreciated the opportunity ... to explain the reasons for the business decisions that were made.... Agilent remains committed to its employees who serve in the military."

"It's forced employers to take a very close look at allegations arising under USERRA and forced them to consider the ramifications associated with disputing a claim," says Lowrie.

Duarte has become an advocate of sorts on the issue, starting a website about his experience and recently testifying at a Senate hearing on USERRA. A year ago he finally found steady work, back in human resources with the city of Westminster, Colo.

It "was the first time my life got back to some semblance" of normal since 2003, says Duarte.

 

[Greymatters]

Some aggrieved workers sue their employers on their own. Most apparently take no action at all. A GAO analysis of Defense Department surveys in 2004 and 2006 showed that some 70 percent of reservists who said they had problems getting rehired or promotions or raises did not seek redress.  One reason may be that the system is bureaucratic and can take months to decide a case.

With many low-paying jobs, its easier to find a new job than try to take legal recourse that can expensive and no guarantee of success.  In the end, a lot of these people dont have the resources or the will to go after their former employers...