Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[Spring_bok]

I think ordering Canadian reserves to duty is a good idea.  I'd like to see both individuals and whole regiments called up. Or perhaps even platoon or company size.
"Your regiment/brigade WILL provide X amount of soldiers for this tasking/tour"

Where do you draw the line.  Some reserve taskings at CMTC are being planned for 3 year contracts.  Do we order people to do this too?  Or do we only order people to to do the sexy jobs like going overseas?  I ask this because CMTC put out the call last year for 300 reservists for the spring serial and they only got 100.  Should they have ordered people to leave their civy jobs for 5 months. No they just pushed the tasking to the reg force instead.  Lets see what would happen if they had 300 positions overseas for the reserves.  We would have plenty of volunteers I am sure.

 

[Haggis]

First of all I don't think Class B commandos should even exist, Class B back fills are a crutch for both the army and the member.

Class B positions are supposed to exist strictly to support Reserve training and administration.  However, with the eliminiation of non-operational Class C positions on 31 Mar 03, Many Class C jobs that support solely Reg F or combined Reg F/Res F training and administration were arbitrarily converted to Class "B".

As a result, you now have Class B members employed at places like NDHQ who don't do a lick of work in support of the Res F.  (Shouldn't those Reservists employed in the new "operational HQs" of CEFCOM, CANSOFCOM and Canada Command be on Class C?) What's the option?  Eliminate Class B and backfill with Reg F?

Hopefully in the near future we can move back and forth between reg and reserve with minimal restrictions. 

Res F employment policy was last massively re-written in December 2004 (last re-write was in April 1993).  Don't expect any major revisions any time soon.

Maybe Alberta is different but my unit members are very well motivated to achieve civilian career success and are more interested in courses and overseas tours than long term class B contracts.  Those that want to serve full time join full time and are doing quite well.

Alberta is prosperous, unlike other areas of Canada (parts of northern and Eastern Ontario and the Maritimes).  Many Class B commandoes have found Army/CF jobs that prevented them from losing thier houses, families etc. until economic fortunes turned around in their areas.  Even they are as well motivated as your Alberta bretheren,  but, in some areas, those fortunes never turned and the Class B members stayed Class B and became valued members of their units, brigades and communities.

Long story short, the Army needs Class B's to do the "unit" jobs.  The CF needs Class B's to do the "CF" jobs.  (Remember the Naval and Air Reserve have proportionally far, far more members on Class B and C than the Army Reserve.)  Otherwise, Reg F members will have to be pulled from the line to do those jobs or the jobs simply don't get done.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Canadian reservists were never ordered to serve actively in the Second World War or any other time I am aware of.

You're speaking solely of the army reserve?

 

[larry Strong]

I'm curious - what are everyone's ideas on what would make a sensible piece of legislation?  If you were asked to give input to the steering committee for the (hypothetical) Reserve Employment Protection Act, what would you your ideas be?

It would likely have to be in some form of monetary value, bet it tax breaks or credits of some sort. As the bottom line for most companies is the "Almighty Buck" no matter how employee friendly they would like you to think they are.

 

[Spanky]

What should (could) the legislation look like?
1)Tax breaks/credits for businesses affected.

2)Time off would be required for annual 2 week excercise

3)Time off for career courses

4)Time off for staffing the courses

5)Time off for up to a year for operations,

6)Employers would be given a six month notice

7)Reservists would REQUIRED to attend these events

Requiring reservists to staff and attend courses would allow the regulars to attend to their own needs in terms of leave, quality of life etc.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Screw the tax break- impose penalties, tax surcharges on any company and prison sentences on company officers that fail to comply and ditto  for union officials who attempt to obstruct. Employers are not given tax breaks for complying with human rights legislation, they damn well shouldn't get a tax break for any sort of reserve/military service legislation.   

 

[Spring_bok]

Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?  Since when did  getting time off from one job to do another become a right.  I could never understand how some reservists suffer from a false sense of entitlement just because the serve in our forces.  Someone please enlighten me.  I was a reservist many years ago and joined the reg force so that I could soldier full time, not just when it was convenient for me.  As far as tax breaks go it is a good idea maybe.  What other incentive does a civilian employer have for holding your job for as much as a year and a half.

 

[Sapper41]

Haggis,

I don't question the need for class B staff outside of summer taskings, I just think it's not in the best interest of our soldiers.  Having learned  from experience (the hard way) young reservists need to think of their future.  When the Army continues to 'lay off' reservists working at WATC over Christmas so they don't have to pay leave it should be a heads up for all our soldiers.  I don't think it's disloyal but you need to look out for number one, as a reservist you need to be your own life/career manager.

Again we can't have the government come in and hammer employers into protecting our civilian jobs.  We need to build relationships with employers not make them the enemy.  So forget penalties and legislation, awareness and an expanded CFLC is the answer.

 

[Chummy]

Whiskey601, while my knee jerk reaction was to agree with you re "screw the tax breaks", the problem is that this will do nothing to encourage them to hire reservists, or discourage them from avoiding hiring reservists. Sure, you could make it illegal to discriminate against a person for being in the reserves, but an employer in many cases may still ostensibly not hire someone for another reason, when being a reservist is the actual reason for not hiring. I think in this case, maybe it is better to use a carrot than a stick. At least, it would be worth thinking about carefully before dismissing the idea.

Spring_bok, I don't think he said it was a human rights issue, but rather was illustrating that we don't use tax incentives to get corporations to comply with legislation. Or at least, we shouldn't.

 

[Cloud Cover]

-Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?

No, its not a human rights issue, its a corporate social responsibility issue (CSR). Why is CSR just restricted to respecting human rights, protecting the environment etc. Providing employees with an opportunity to contribute to the defence of the countries in which profit is earned is not to much too ask of any corporation, and that is why there should not be a tax break.

 

[larry Strong]

Well if its a corporate social responsibility issue (CSR), the corporations won't ever do doodle squat, especially when it will interfere with their bottom line.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I don't see why job protection for active service for reserve personnel shouldn't be mandated by federal law.  We protect jobs for maternity leave as a duty to the state, we protect jobs for jury duty, a task that can easily exceed time lost for a tour, as a duty to the state.  We even mandate the hours of operation during election day to assure the duty to the state as a voter, even though advance and absentee balloting options make that a moot point.
      If you want to retain trained quality personnel, you have to make it possible to retain those of us with the drive and ambition to succeed in the civilian world as well.  I had to make a choice between continuing to serve my country, and supporting my family.  At the time I became most valuable to the army I served, I was forced to leave it.  Had their been job protection legislation in place, the retention problem of the reserves would be gone, and the money spent on training would begin to show its worth.

 

[Gunner]

Supporting reservists volunteering for overseas service could come under CSR.  Good point Whiskey.  CFLC has been very proactive in approaching corporations and obtaining their voluntary support. If you are a reservists and are having trouble obtaining time off for training or operations, contact your CFLC representative and see if they are able to assist. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

Now its a human rights issue?  Where did this come from?  Since when did  getting time off from one job to do another become a right.  I could never understand how some reservists suffer from a false sense of entitlement just because the serve in our forces.   Someone please enlighten me. 

Ok I will take some time to enlighten you.  Since when did serving ones nation become a "Job" ??  Maybe that is where the crux of it lies.  It is not a "Chore" it is a duty.  As a reservist we place our lives in two lines of duty, serving out nation to defend it's principles, on a part time basis.  We then serve our nation as active members of the working population, generating money to provide for the strength of our nation, and on top of that,  paying taxes on what we have earned.

The least we can get in return is the protection of our full time employment, once we serve our duty aiding our undermanned "regular" army.

Enlightened yet??

dileas

tess

 

[Spring_bok]

I am

Ok I will take some time to enlighten you.  Since when did serving ones nation become a "Job" ??  Maybe that is where the crux of it lies.  It is not a "Chore" it is a duty.  As a reservist we place our lives in two lines of duty, serving out nation to defend it's principles, on a part time basis.  We then serve our nation as active members of the working population, generating money to provide for the strength of our nation, and on top of that,  paying taxes on what we have earned.

The least we can get in return is the protection of our full time employment, once we serve our duty aiding our undermanned "regular" army.

Enlightened yet??

dileas

tess

Thank you very much for that twice the citizen explanation, I  hope it all works out for you.

 

[the 48th regulator]

It sure did, for over 15 years,

Thanks for asking, I am glad I helped to enlighten you.

dileas

tess

 

[pbi]

Where is Tomahawk6? Maybe he (or one of our other posters wth knowledge of US Res legislation) can post the Title that covers the prtotection of Res jobs. I understand that there is both Federal law (Army Res) and State law (ARNG) covering this issue.

I have heard, from a US Army Res officer in Afgh, that one's civvy job is not necessarily protected in every case: I believe it has some relation to "compulsory" vs "voluntary" full time duty. As well, I believe that some states permit the employer to terminate employment if the job disappears as a result of restructure.

While I highly respect the opinions of Matt and others, I do not think we can dismiss the issue of employer resistance: I have heard about it from a number of US sources over the last couple of decades, usually with reference to smaller employers. These sources include serving mbrs of the ARNG and Res from WA, MN and other states, as well as US military publications I researched while writng a paper at CF Staff School in 1987.

I doubt that the resistance is as widespread as it would be in Canada, but I believe that it definitely exists.

Cheers

 

[jbeach95]

In Canada, the "Public Safety Act, 2002" (which came into force in 2004) amended the National Defence Act requiring job protection for compulsory emergency service by reservists (no job protection for non-emergency service).

Bill C-7 (Public Safety Act, 2002):
http://192.197.82.11/common/bills_ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c7&source=library_prb&Parl=37&Ses=3
-see Part 13 (G)

Other Links:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1375
http://www.cflc.forces.gc.ca/pubs/media/alliance/1Q_2002_e.asp

 

[Chummy]

This bill was passed and became law. Annoyingly, the text of the passed legislation on the government website just reads "amended" for each of the sections. I tried finding the sections referenced in this legislative summary of the bill (s. 285.03 to 285.13, which I had assumed are the sections added to or amended in the National Defence Act), but these sections do not appear in the online NDA. I then tried keyword searching the NDA in case they'd renumbered it or something.

If anyone else is looking for the exact wording of the legislation, the bill as passed can be viewed here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-17/C-17_3/90173b-7E.html#36

scroll all the way down to Part VII, and you will need to click "next" for the rest of it.

I wonder why it does not appear in the NDA... I don't recall this being repealed, so assume the NDA online is just the "last consolidated version". Assuming these provisions were not repealed (I didn't dig that hard), the general lesson there is, beware of publicly posted legislation, as it may not be up to date.

The interesting thing is that, at a quick glance, the definition of "emergency" doesn't seem to catch a natural disaster, if the reserves were called up for that reason.

 

[John Nayduk]

Has anyone heard anything more on this?