• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Reservists Job Protection Superthread

  • Thread starter Thread starter elcope
  • Start date Start date
My employer -thanks to me!- has a military reserve policy.  When my asst. mgr. found out I was joining, he contacted our head office and two weeks later a military reserve leave policy shows up.

The long and the short of it is that if I go away for up to a year, they are required to return me to my previous position or one most like it and ensure I am, at a future point, returned to my previous position.

Reserverists are also allowed to take three months off for training with no threat to their job security.
 
My employer just scares me a little - as a consulting agency, apparently they tend to take the road that "sure, you can go away, but when you come back, if we have no projects for you, we will keep you around for a few weeks, but if there are no projects, sorry!"

I guess I'll cross that road when I come to it.

Plus, do I really want to work for an employer who would screw me for serving my country?
 
Meridian said:
... Plus, do I really want to work for an employer who would screw me for serving my country?

Good point, especially since I lost my job when I got back from Afghanistan ...
(and the best part is - my employer ... was the Army)
 
Good point, especially since I lost my job when I got back from Afghanistan ...
(and the best part is - my employer ... was the Army)

I don't quite get it?  ???
 
Simpleton wrote:

"Businesses that are willing to change to the evolving modern workplace appear to be the businesses that will succeed in the long run."

I assume that your small business is doing well with this philosophy and I congratulate you.   As you tell other small business owners of your success, I am sure that more and more will adopt this philosophy and prosper accordingly.   Soon, with proven records of success, such businesses will leave dinosaurs like me far behind.   However:

Your point that a woman could take every other year off for maternity leave and that there is nothing I could do to prevent it is well taken.   I must say, though, that one instance of government interference in business is not adequate justification for yet more interference.

Further, the government (as far as I know) does not itself make women pregnant.   Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.   Army staff officers decide on individual training policies like duration of courses.   DND staff and the Treasury Board control regular force manning levels and Cabinet decides on international commitments.   Allowing government to force employers to make up for inadequate regular force manning to meet perfectly predictable operational tempo is just not reasonable.   It is letting the government   take the easy way out rather than forcing it to match regular force resources to actual continuing defence needs.

Reserve forces should exist to provide a "surge" capability for the military when unusual events occur.   The world wars were certainly examples of such unusual events.   The need to create a brigade for NATO duty in Europe in the 50s was such an event.   Even the start of the current heavy operational tempo back in the early 90s was such an event.   The government was caught in the midst of trying to cash in a "peace dividend" at the end of the cold war by reducing our 10 infantry battalions (including the Airborne) to 7 (and then 6)  at the same time as we reached a peak of having four deployed major units (two in former Yugoslavia, one in Cyprus and one in Somalia and, yes, I know that the one in Cyprus was sometimes not infantry).   It was reasonable to heavily use reservists to get over this hump which could not reasonably have been foreseen.   More than a decade later, it is not reasonable that the regular force has still not been restructured (meaning increased rather than decreased) to meet current, continuing requirements.

I do believe that it is good to have at least some reservists on most deployments in order to provide operational experience for them.   It should not, however, be an operational necessity.
 
Bossi...,

Very sorry to hear about your loss of your callout.  When I returned from Bosnia the private school where I worked refused to honour their commitment to me and laid me off claiming there was a decrease in enrollment which wasn't true.  Fortunately the school board offered me a position in another school.  Now I am low man on the totem pole as the new guy but it is a great new school.

I have listened to some really competent people speak about the dangers of job protection legislation for reserves.  How reserves won't be hired, how they will be denied promotions, how they will be viewed as liabilities to big and small companies.  This thread was covered in the LFRR loop back a year ago and there were some novel ideas put forward like tax credits and advertising promotions given to employers who supported their country and allowed reservists to accept tours. 

If you haven't experienced losing employment as a result of service to your country you probably can't imagine the importance of this argument.  Trail and error simply won't do.  Even our CF doesn't get it as our Battle Captain was asked to go on a second tour to Bosnia but his full-time employer the CF refused to let him go and then only agreed by telling him if he went he would lose his Callout.  Go Figure.  I think we have lots of work ahead of us in this area.

BG

PS Hang in there because something better will be there.
 
Rick Goebel said:
Further, the government (as far as I know) does not itself make women pregnant.  Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.  Army staff officers decide on individual training policies like duration of courses.  DND staff and the Treasury Board control regular force manning levels and Cabinet decides on international commitments.  Allowing government to force employers to make up for inadequate regular force manning to meet perfectly predictable operational tempo is just not reasonable.  It is letting the government  take the easy way out rather than forcing it to match regular force resources to actual continuing defence needs.

Rick,

Very good points. Thank you. I stand corrected.
 
bgreen wrote:

This thread was covered in the LFRR loop back a year ago and there were some novel ideas put forward like tax credits and advertising promotions given to employers who supported their country and allowed reservists to accept tours

IMHO, this is by far the preferable way to go: make a Reserve employee an asset, not a liability. In other words, if the employer cooperates he benefitsNow, we already know about the s\intangible skills and attributes that Res (or RegF) people acquire in their service are assets to employers (far more so IMHO than most technical skills acquired in the military which have a shelf-life). What we could do is go a step beyond this and take measures such as tax incentives, wage top-ups, preference in bidding on Govt contracts, etc. that would make having a Res employee more attractive.

Too expensive? Not really, if you consider the return to the country in a more effective Res capability. As well, let's be realistic and remember that the number of Canadian citizens willing to volunteer their time to be soldiers will always be proportionately small. I remain skeptical and wary of a purely "stick" approach to employers in a country with our political culture.

Rick Goebel: you wrote:
Reserve full-time service, on the other hand, is completely within the control of the government and it's agencies.  

Reserve forces should exist to provide a "surge" capability for the military when unusual events occur.  

But, I would argue, the political situations that lead to the requirement to activate Reservists are not always fully predictable. It may also not be an option for the Govt to avoid using Res, if it finds itself faced with a situation that it cannot manage within its existing force structure for whatever reason. A good (domestic) example of this is the increasing (and, I say, appropriate...) use of Res for response to overwhelming civil emergency: these calls cannot normally be predicted. While an employer in the affected city will probably let the Res go for duty, what about employers   of Res in distant cities, as happened during OP PEREGRINE, or OP ASSISTANCE? Thus far we have relied on the good will of employers, but I suggest that is a time-limited thing: before too long they may start wanting their employees back.

These situations that require unexpected surges in manning can affect all nations, regardless of the size of their Regular armed forces: look at the desperate manning situation the World's Most Powerful Nation is currently in. Simply expanding the RegF does not guarantee we will not need Res at unforeseen times. So, what will constitute an "important" surge requirement for Res full-time servicevice a "frivolous" one ? This, IMHO, would come down to defining what the national interest is in each case(which we should probably be doing anyway, but...)

The world wars were certainly examples of such unusual events.

Yes, but we can advance the argument that neither of these wars (particularly not WWII) were actual "surprises". In the case of WWII, there were clear warning signs of some sort of impending conflict for several years before the outbreak, which is why all the players (including Canada, to a lesser degree) began rearming in the mid-late 1930s. Since these wars could have been (and to a certain extent were..) foreseen, does, it delegitimize the use of the NPAM   in them (as part of the CEF/CASF, I mean....)?

Cheers.
 
pbi, I absolutely agree that domestic emergencies like the forest fires in BC last year, the Halifax hurricane and the great Ontario/Quebec ice storm are valid uses for reservists.

I would have to ask, though, how many civilian lives were lost or injuries incurred and how much property was destroyed or damaged because we relied on volunteers under our current system rather than compelling service with job protection?

Yes, employer support is greater in the immediate vicinity of a problem.   Indeed employer support is time-limited.   I mentioned before that our regular force should be restructured and increased.   So should our reserve force.   A emergency service volunteer rate of 5% of 30,000 militiamen provides far more people than the same rate in a militia of 15,000.   Obviously, doubling the number nationally would proportionately increase the numbers near the fire, ice storm, hurricane or whatever and increase the local support factor.

Doubling the size of the army reserve would be a burden on the taxpayer.   Why, though, should the employer of an individual reservist carry an additional burden when the government chooses not to impose that burden on all taxpayers?
 
And let's not forget those civie workers doing the same stuff, during emergencies.

Triple time ($150-200 / hr), 5 star hotels, restaraunt meals, 8 hr days, etc, all billed to the gov't.

or

Reservists at $85.00/ day, sleeping on gym floors, eating IMP's and 16 hr days.

Thanks for coming out.
 
recceguy said:
And let's not forget those civie workers doing the same stuff, during emergencies.

Triple time ($150-200 / hr), 5 star hotels, restaraunt meals, 8 hr days, etc, all billed to the gov't.

or

Reservists at $85.00/ day, sleeping on gym floors, eating IMP's and 16 hr days.

Thanks for coming out.

This can work both ways. Most of our domestic emergencies, especially in the smaller communities, see hundreds of local volunteer firefighters out working hard to save their towns, villages and farms. In many cases these volunteer firefighters must leave their civ jobs and are paid little (or nothing) by the municipality as compared to the soldiers who work beside them who are getting pay, plus allowances, plus R&Q and travel costs. The VFFs work out of their homes, not out of "five star hotels". It's all relative.

If you expect to see Army Res Ptes paid the same as unionized hydroelectric workers or police constables, forget it: that isn't likely to happen anytime soon and its probably an unrealistic goal. If Res are going on domestic ops just to get the cash (which I do not generally believe, having been involved  in launching Res on domestic ops...) then IMHO perhaps they are motivated the wrong way. Cheers.
 
Did anyone else see the MND suggest he was going to take a closer look at job protection legislation for reservists? I believe it was on CTV News last night.  It seemed to be a passing reference more than a policy pronouncement but it might be a significant development.

cheers, mdh
 
I believe this is provincial area of responsibility, so while he could encourage it, he could not mandate it. (duh...I think)

It would be great if something could be worked out. The US has something similar, but again, I think it goes state by state
 
GAP said:
I believe this is provincial area of responsibility, so while he could encourage it, he could not mandate it. (duh...I think)

It would be great if something could be worked out. The US has something similar, but again, I think it goes state by state

There are a bunch of threads discussing this topic already.  One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.  Even with all the benefits available to the employers, they know that they will have to release said Reservist (and protect his/her job) time and time again for tours.
 
Haggis said:
There are a bunch of threads discussing this topic already.  One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.  Even with all the benefits available to the employers, they know that they will have to release said Reservist (and protect his/her job) time and time again for tours.

Whilst unfortunately this is true in some cases, for the majority, it is not.

I'm a firm believer that job protection legislation and service contracts for reservists should be introduced hand-in-hand in order to make the CF's reserve system more effective and a true force multiplier.
 
would be nice if it happened, but not too likely, no government ever seriously looks at it. too bad for the troops
 
One of the most telling observations from "the American Experience" is that many employers will now discriminate against hiring Reservists.

I concur with Matt Fisher. I have worked in the US for 15 years, and have never seen this - either at my own companies, or at the companies of friends and aquaintances. I have never even heard 2nd- or 3rd hand accounts of it (friend of a friend of my sister's boyfriend). Haggis, I have to dipute "many", at least based on my own experience. Maybe the phenomenon is localized, or worse in certain segments of industry?
 
What could logically be expected of employers of today in the way of keeping jobs open for guys on training or tours?

 
Doesn't Alberta have that type of legislation in place at present?
I thought I recalled hearing that in the news a while back?
Certainly would be nice for reservists to have one less hurtle...

HL
 
Back
Top