Senate Committee: Reserves to be Pressed to Meet AFG Commitment by 2009

[The Bread Guy]

More talk of making Reserve terms of service more binding, but with job protection (highlighted)....

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Committee says pressure on army reserves likely to create a problem in 2009
BILL GRAVELAND, Canadian Press, 1 Feb 07
Article Link

A continued reliance on army reserve units to fill a growing need for fresh troops in Afghanistan could create a shortfall if Canada's mission is extended through 2009, the Senate committee on national security and defence was told Thursday.

Col. Art Wriedt, commander of the 41 Canadian Bridge Group, said as many as 220 soldiers are already in line to be rotated into Afghanistan in the first part of 2008, but 2009 "is going to be very problematic." He said that makes recruiting new reservists key.

There is no formal program for that, and the job has been primarily left to individual units. But since going to Afghanistan is voluntary for reservists, a continuation of the war could result in a dwindling supply of those willing to go.

It could also create training problems, said Lt.-Col. Tom Manley, commanding officer of the Calgary Highlanders, a reserve infantry regiment that is scheduled to send 90 of its 230 members to Afghanistan in 2008.

"With so many people leaving I have few people staying behind," Manley told the committee. "I will have almost no sergeants or warrant officers left behind and very few master corporals.

"It will be very difficult indeed to train my regiment to generate forces for the next operation (in 2009). I don't know what the answer is."

There are currently 2,500 troops serving in Afghanistan. Most rotations last about six months. For reservists going overseas it involves signing a contract, going through pre-deployment training and getting time off from current employers.

The committee was also told that once a soldier has served one mission in Afghanistan, he may not be eager to return right away.

"You start to see that almost everybody is going to have a medal on their chest before too long," said Lt.-Col. Bruce Jilkes, commanding officer of the King's Own Calgary Regiment.

"The forecast participation for reservists is increasing, yet our unit's historical contribution to operations is a large initial spike followed by a steady decline as everybody gets their tour in and no longer wants to go over."

Unlike regular force soldiers who can be ordered to head overseas every two years, reservists only go if they volunteer.

That prompted members of the Senate committee to muse about making service mandatory in return for guaranteeing a reservist's job would be waiting upon a return home.

"We have been thinking along those lines. We're going to guarantee your job, but the other side is you would go wherever," said Senator Colin Kenny, chairman of the committee.

"It would change the nature of the contract, and I assume it would change the number of people who would walk up and be willing to volunteer to join the reserves."

Canada has pledged to remain in Afghanistan until 2009, but the government has yet to decide whether its contribution to the NATO mission will be extended past that point.

 

[P-PLATOON]

This would be great! I would be glad to volunteer, if I knew my job was being held.

 

[Osotogari]

Not that it's completely a bad thing to have job protection but it can be a double-edged sword as National Guard folks are starting to find out.  Their military status is coming up in job interviews, and with their operational commitments the reluctance on the part of employers to hire a Guardsman is starting to shine through.  Also, careful what you wish for.  Job protection in some contexts implies that like the National Guard you can be mobilized, unlike now where we can just about pick and choose.  Not that I mind, but let's be realistic here. 

I still think much of the manpower needs could be sorted out if the pre-training wasn't so ridiculously long.  14 months?  Give me a break.  If they need instructors to run summer courses, then put the word out. This early report date BS so they can have GDs and instructors in the schools is blatant lying to people.  Shorten the time commitment and use it properly.  Instructing on SQ and/or painting sea cans for 5 months is not training. 

 

[enfield]

Job protection = a good thing. Definitely.

Mandatory Service = Not so much.

The two do not have to go together.

Changing the terms of service would, in my view (and I work quite a bit in Res recruiting) diminish our ability to recruit new people, and would force out older members. One of our strongest selling points is that we won't make a soldier go anywhere. People - the public, applicants, their parents/family - are well aware of the experience of the US National Guard, and would associate any mandatory service requirements with the very negative NG experience in Iraq. Those of us inthe military have probably also heard of similar experiences in the British TA.

Applicants do not know or understand very much about the military - its simply a characteristic of the Canadian public. Potential recruits today hear the good stuff (pay, fun training, tuition reimbursement) and are happy. If they hear "and you will have to go overseas at some point, and will have to put your life on hold for a year and a half, but your job will be protected" they will get upa nd walk out of the recruiter's office.

Everyone who wants to go to A'Stan is already going. Enforcing mandatory service would merely force out everyone else. And those who have already gone, or those who can't/won't go will simply quit.

I will agree with Osotogari - shortening the pre-deployment training to a reasonable length will increase the number of volunteers and lessen the impact on Reserve units, since they lose people for quite as long. Shortening the pre-training period would mean taking that training and doing it somewhere else - say, improve unit training, or add more/better summer courses so that members are better prepared when the arrive. I alos believe that moving away from the 'Reserve Company' model, and returning to augmentees as the primary employment, would be better for the sustainability of reserve forces.

Other, more viable, solutions would be doing more induce ex-Reg F members into the Reserves, do more to retain Reservists after their tour (many quit, or go Reg F), and improving the training at the unit level.
Or, even better - recruit more people into the Regular Force, so that reservists won't be needed so much.

 

[alfie]

Having been there done that myself (reserves and overseas) The volunteer aspect for deployment also ensures that those going actualy want to do the job and do it well. If we emulate the US system you may end up with those in country with less than positive traits. As well the burden would now fall upon the Reg force to screen out potentail problems. I wonder how long before political interference would get into that process.

 

[Haggis]

Interesting comments, so far.  Some Reservists want to go on tour, but only if they can volunteer? 

 

[CBH99]

I think if the Senate does move in the direction of guaranteeing a soldier's employment upon return, in addition to mandatory deployments - we're going to see a change in the number of people approaching the reserves.  The entire nature of the Army Reserve in Canada would change, and I think enrollment numbers would reflect that.

There have been a number of good suggestions so far.  There is no reason we can't guarantee our reservists' job status here at home, as well as keep their deployments voluntarily.

 

[turretmonster]

Then I guess we should also adopt the one Army, one standard in training way of thinking that our southern cousins have. If a class B(A) wanted to go on a deployment, would their job be waiting for them upon return?
TM

 

[Haggis]

If a class B(A) wanted to go on a deployment, would their job be waiting for them upon return?

CMP Instr 20-04 says "Yes..... but".  The member needs permission from the employing unit otherwise there is no requirement for the employing unit to hold the member's position.

Some employing units here in Ottawa will grant a Class B Reservist time for a deployment and will backfill the position.  Others won't.  There is a school of thought that says if you (the employing unit) can afford to let your Reservist go for a tour without a backfill, do you really need that position?

Mandatory service has risks.  I can see a scenario where a Class B (A) Reservist in a stressed MOSID is tasked to deploy (yes, provisions exist for this).  The employing unit can't find a backfill and decides that they can do without the Reservist and his position is eliminated.  This is the same workaround a civilian employer could use to "downsize" the position occupied by his deployed Reservist employee.

Catch 22.

In order for this to work, the Resrvist must have legislated and unconditional job protection, whether working Class B at NDHQ or as a civvy at Home Depot.

 

[cplcaldwell]

One thing here, as a reservist who has had to turn down deployments and courses because of "Civilian" job requirements.

The "Job Guarantee" will never work. Never. Never. Never. Never.

There are so many ways that a Civilian boss can screw you; and when the civilian job puts the roof over your kids' heads, the decision is simple.

I have come to the conclusion that for a Reservist there are two windows of deployability.

One in a person's early twenties. Before the mortgage, kids et al. This is where 'we' are often seen, as the 'QL4' GD/driver/gate monkey on tour.

The other is once the kids are gone, the mortgage is nearly retired and the "who cares I'll go work at WalMart" phase of Civilian career (self) management arrives.

Lucky indeed is the Reservist who can get a tour in between those two windows. I know some and I envy them a great deal.

The current state of affairs is a fortunate one for those of us who want to actually do something productive. But it is not sustainable. Not just because of the numbers required, or because of the knock-on affects pointed out by the LCol. There are only so many willing to go and also only so many able to go, after that the Reserve will be used up for a period until it re-generates. (Hmmm... perhaps that's why they call it a Reserve).

And I bet you a dollar we will see just that.. I surmise that by 2010 there could very well be a lot of red faces at Disneyland-am-Rideau when the Augmentee numbers come in anemic.

TF 3-08 may very well be the "Toronto Brigade" but don't look for a repeat.

It is fundamentally disingenuous to think that in our society and in our economy that we can use the reserve, consistently, as a hiring hall.

Senator Kenny is sucking canal water up through his ring piece to think any law he and his colleagues can/will pass any law that will change the fact one iota.

The reserves can deploy a certain number of persons, only a certain number of times and that's it.

No law will change that.

 

[tomahawk6]

We have protection of jobs for Reservists and National Guardsmen which can see legal action against employers. Canadian deployments seem to be for 6 months and would be far easier for an employer than are the 18 month mobilizations our reservists now face. One thing we are seeing now is that some employers wont hire reservists.

 

[Haggis]

We have protection of jobs for Reservists and National Guardsmen which can see legal action against employers. Canadian deployments seem to be for 6 months and would be far easier for an employer than are the 18 month mobilizations our reservists now face. One thing we are seeing now is that some employers wont hire reservists.

American society also sees military service as an honourable thing and a civic duty.  Canadian society less so (but that is changing).  I have seen excellent Class A soldiers quit the CF becasue they were forced to choose between going NES and losing thier civilian livelihood.  I have also seen the reverse, where a soldier chooses the CF (calls in sick to attend an ex/parade/etc.) and gets tanked by his civvy boss for it.

There are several threads on these forums, by some quite intelligent and experienced members, arguing that Reserve augmentation to deployed operations is unneccessary, and is done to fill a political agenda.  Yet this senator is stating that Reserve augmentation is both critical and unsustainable.  Who's really telling the truth?

 

[GO!!!]

IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.

Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.

For example, when an infantry unit requires drivers, signallers, gunners and experienced support weapon operators, and the only courses augmentees have is LSVW and a basic understanding of TCCCS - it takes the better part of a year to get them through the requisite courses and then some practical experience. Once all of that is done, then the collective training can begin.

It would be downright foolish to send infantry augmentees into Afghanistan in the current operational context with a compressed workup training. They need the additional courses and training, and we often need it in the regs too.

In regards to legislated Reservist job protection, this seems to me like the PRes wants to "have it's cake and eat it too".

What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you choose to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

+10

It is called a quid pro quo - the cost of job protection is mandatory service.  Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Haggis]

What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you choose to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

Agreed.

The Reserves are progressing with little steps, GO!!!  Full scale fitness testing in the Army Reserve starts in Apr 07.  That, in itself, should cull the herd a bit.

It is called a quid pro quo - the cost of job protection is mandatory service.  Sounds reasonable to me.

The tenets of Universality of Service are already aplied to the Res F WRT medical catrgories and employment limitations based on the common tasks standard.  Why not expand that to include deployability? 

However, the devil is in the details.  How do we compel Reservists to deploy while, at the same time, protecting thier civilian careers in a reasonable, acceptable (to the business community that employs the Reservist) and enforceable way?

 

[COBRA-6]

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

There would be a short-term drop in numbers as the wheat is sorted from the chaff. There would, however, be an increase in numbers over a longer timeline as recruiting and retention improve with having an operationally focused (expeditionary and domestic), effective and relevant Reserve force. A lot of soldiers leave the Reserves because they become frustrated with class A "come when you feel like it" life. This is particularly true of soldiers returning from ops.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

 

I agree. The PRes is not an employment agency. The government needs to get a reasonable return on investment, both from the individual reservist and the Reserves as a whole. We are heading down this road both domestically (with the TDBG's) and on expeditionary ops. The logical next step is firming up the terms of service to mandated parading, exercises and ops, with corelating job/education protection.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

However, the devil is in the details.  How do we compel Reservists to deploy while, at the same time, protecting thier civilian careers in a reasonable, acceptable (to the business community that employs the Reservist) and enforceable way?

We somehow make it work for maternity leave.......

 

[enfield]

IMHO, the lengthy workup times are not negotiable.

Many reservists (and some reg F mbrs as well) bring very little to the table in terms of useful soldier skills that are relevant in the current operational context. This is not their fault, just a reality of a lack of resources and training time.

Agreed - Reservists show up at Reg F units way behind the training curve, and require a lot more lead-up time to get them up to speed. At the same time, I think one year (or more) of pre-deployment training is unreasonable for a reservist. It limits the number who can volunteer and it cripples reserve units who lose their best people for even longer. 1 year of training time tells me that the Reserves are useless, since anyone off the street can be trained to be a good Infantry Private in one year.

However -
I would suggest that returning to the augmentee system, and away from the 'reserve company' model,  would shorten the lead up time - no need to get reserve NCO's and Officers up to speed, or to get a new company used to working together.

I'd also suggest making Reserve training better, so that troops show up better prepared. Perhaps make the courses longer, or harder, or open more opportunities for reservists to take Reg F courses.  'Graying' the line between Reg and Res, and getting more ex-Reg soldiers into the Reserves will help.

It would be downright foolish to send infantry augmentees into Afghanistan in the current operational context with a compressed workup training. They need the additional courses and training, and we often need it in the regs too.

Absolutely - can this be provided over a longer period of time, earlier in a soldiers career? Can they be provided locally, in major cities, and maybe even in the evenings, so the reservists is still technically at home?

In regards to legislated Reservist job protection, this seems to me like the PRes wants to "have it's cake and eat it too".

What most of you are saying is that you want legislated job protection when you choose to be deployed, regardless of the requirements of the CF. This begs the question - if employers can be forced to retain you - why should the CF not be permitted to force you to deploy?

Is the CF going to make up the income gap when someone quits a high paying job? What about self-employed people? Is it possible to write legislation that is so iron-clad it will be perfect, and no reservist will ever lose their job? Will employers cease hiring reservists? What about reservists who are police officer, firefighters, etc - can we steal from local emergency services?

Reservists can be compelled to serve overseas - when Parliament declares an act of war. If the reserves are needed so badly, then Parliament can do so. When needed, Reservists have showed up in droves - to fight forest fires out west, to clean up Halifax after the hurricane and White Juan, to assist in the Manitoba floods, and to serve overseas. Frankly, in many units there's nobody left to go overseas. My own unit, a Res Inf unit, has two - TWO - sergeants left and no WO's. Two Lt's (one is the Adj), a couple Captain's, and Four MCpl's, two of them brand new. All Class A NCO's are teaching weekend BMQ's.  Everyone else is overseas, and whoever is left are filling normally Reg F positions in Gagetown, mostly teaching. The Reserves is not some pool of untapped manpower - everyone is working.

I think that if the militia wants to be taken seriously (and by all indications it does) and reap the benefits of better and more training, pensions and better pay and benefits, there will have to be some "give" at their end too. Mandatory training events, parade nights, regular drug testing, fitness testing, the whole nine yards.

If this will be bad for retention, I ask, is it better to have a militia filled with people who can't/won't deploy? or a smaller cadre of trained and usable soldiers.

I agree with most of what you're saying - mandatory training nights and training events are a good idea. (Providing that there is a consistent quality to the training - if we start people's time with standing around on a training night, they will quit rather than be forced to show up. But this is a seperate issue). Drug testing, fitness standards all of that - excellent. I just think that forcing someone to go away for 1.5 years - and they will be away from home for that long - is unreasonable and cannot be good for the military or the reserves.

To me this is just a reasonable extension of universality of service - if you can't be deployed, you should'nt be employed.

But Reservists aren't employed - one night a week, one weekend a month is a hobby, not a job. A Reservist does not cost that much money to train and retain, and even if only a small percentage go overseas, the CF is still getting a more cost-effective soldier than it would with a Regular. The CF has made very few promises to the Reservist, and given the reservist very little.

If the Military needs soldiers it can deploy whenever it chooses, the Reg Force should be expanded. The part time Army is a Reserve - for use, temporarily, in emergencies. Mandatory Overseas Service will empty the Militia faster than cutting off the pay.

To add another angle to the debate: forget overseas service. What about jobs back in Canada? There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country, and not just as summer GD. Teaching BMQ, SQ, IBTS to Reg and Res troops, working on OR's, Maintenance Shops, Range Control, Staff jobs at HQ's, the Schools at Gagetown and many more key jobs that the Regular Force can't fill.

 

[turretmonster]

"There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country"

Thousands.

TM

 

[cplcaldwell]

If the Military needs soldiers it can deploy whenever it chooses, the Reg Force should be expanded.

"There are hundreds (thousands?) of reservists filling jobs at bases across the country"

Thousands.

Agreed to both.

I think that to some degree this stiuation is a manifestation of the old adage "Be careful for what you wish for ... you might just get it".

Is not the real issue that the Reserves have argued for an expanded role for so long... finally got it.... only to have the powers that be start thinking.... oh well, it's an instant Army... just add water.

It seems to me that now that someone has finally got to the issue of job protection it's coming at the expense of having to realize that a real powerful, durable Armed Force is not a Regular cadre filled up with Reservists (a la Sweden) but a Regular Army with a Reserve 'cadre' thrown in.

Here's slender branch I'll crawl out on.....Reserve augmentees should be looked at not (so much) for what they do for the Regular Force but what they bring back to the Reserve force.

Then, someday if the big balloon ever goes up, or when the 8.5 rolls through YVR, then the Reserve will be able to respond with a more credible Force.

Whilst I agree that today, a balloon has gone up, I am concerned that this 'surge' will be regarded as future 'business as usual' model.

Compelling Reservists sounds to much to me like a Parliament that is too damn cheap to do the right thing. Starting down it is a slippery slope.