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

[zipperhead_cop]

I can't believe that all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth has been sparked by a committee's mere "musing."Imagine what an actual statement of intent would do....

But wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth is half the fun!  ;D
I think the big response in this thread is indicative of the frustration that many of us Reservists feel in that we want to serve in Afghanistan, but don't want to obliterate our personal lives in the process.  It's all well and good if you have a disposable job to say "I'll just quit, go on tour and get a new job when I get back". 
This will boil down to something that rests on an individual basis.  Casino Windsor let me go away for two summers for RESO 1/2 and 3.  Not because they were huge military suppporters or I was in a union.  I think they simply were allowing me to access the unpaid leave of absence program. 
Size of company, job description, skill set needed.  All things that cannot be addressed in a blanket policy about job guaranteeing.  I think the incentive idea was a better one. 
If someone was in a tight spot, maybe they could do the leg work on behalf of their company to look into getting someone on a temporary contract basis.  Find your own replacement profile, then ask the company if they would object to you looking into a temporary hire.  Let them draw up the terms of temporary employment, then you go try to find candidates for them to review.  It's your idea, you do the work.  If you don't create an administrative burden for them, you'll have a better chance.  Everybody knows the basic tenants of being a bureaucratic cog..."If it is different or difficult, it is bad".  Plus, while your replacement is doing his/her thing, the company gets a chance to have a free evaluation of a new employee and maybe ends up wanting to take them on full time.  (don't find someone who does your job better than you do  ;D )
If you get hurt and can't get back by the end of the temporary contract, that is the risk you take.  I guess that is why you want to have your SISIP/RARM all paid up before you go. 
I also acknowledge that there will be people who will use excuses of work/family issues to avoid having to feel pressured to go on deployment.  I think it is that reality that causes some to want to pursue mandatory deployment rules.  Certainly, the PRes is going to need to come up with some sort of "wheat from the chaff" plan of sorts. 
We are at a point in history where it is finally dawning on the broader population base that these conflicts are not going to go away like magic, and the oh-so-impressive blue helmets do not settle conflicts like Moses parting the sea.  By virtue of the fact that we are members of the Reserve, we are demonstrating that we have some sort of desire to serve.  If that is in the form of sand bagging, snow shovelling or walking around in the bushes for the 2010 Olympics then that is great.  Certainly the need is there.  But there is a need for a part time, expandable and activatable (if that is even a real word  ??? ) fighting force that knows that it is wearing an irregular patterned green uniform because it is training to go to some other place and kill people.  Perhaps it is time for a split in the Reserves?  Create a universal sub unit within all Army Reserve units that is DAG Yellow Minus.  People would not ask to be in said unit if they were not reasonably certain they would be in suitable physical shape, have sufficient skills to have relatively short work up times and have home and civilian situations that are problem free.  Who knows.  Something has to give. 
As the District Commander told us at the officers mess dinner this year "Call it augmentation, fill-ins or reserve support if you want.  Make no mistake, gentleman.  We are a nation mobilizing for war" (sic).   

 

[edgar]

As far as the businessman shouldering responsability.. well, this is what society is about. We don't have free markets, if you think we do, you're nuts.  We have combination markets.  There are tons of minute legislative rules out there that push societal requirements on business all the time - think about permits.  Its a cost of doing business.

Are you suggesting our economic organization is equivalent to the Soviet command economy because I need a permit to rewire my basement? What colour is your herring?

Point is, the "cost of doing business" is paid for by the customers (that's you and me). It is effectively just another tax. The question is: is this tax paying for something necessary? If you want a job protection scheme, understand it is not free. Not free as in "beer", and not free as in "Live free or die". Satisfying your "social requirements" will cost in lost income, or lost opportunity, and before you demand this you ought to consider whether what your asking for is solving the problem effectively and efficiently.

Does anybody have a hard number of the additional soldiers we will generate for tasks longer than two weeks by enacting job protection? Here's my ballpark figure, based on the number of people I actually heard bitching about how they wanted to go but couldn't: about 2 pers per squadron. Multiply that by all the units and you could have maybe a bn group of odds and sods from all over. Take the cost to the taxpayers of paying all that class c and b and add to it the cost of enforcing job protection (hey maybe we could transfer some of the gun registry bureaucrats to run this). I claim that would cost more than simply raising another bn group of regs.

Personally, I feel guilty because I am not sharing the risk. When I compare myself to Grandpa my six months looks pathetic to his five years overseas, clearly I am not pulling my weight, socially speaking. As I take steps to correct this, I find it is going to cost me a lot of money. I'm going to do it anyway, but it is entirely my problem. If you want me to pay higher taxes, or pay more for my groceries (and less for my kids college fund) because you want to go over, I must respectfully refer you to the reply given in the matter of Arkell v. Pressdram. You can go deliver meals to elderly shut-ins if you crave public service.

Businesses who find some comparative advantage from hiring reservists, will do that. Businesses that have high employee mobility or turnover don't care what you do between gigs. The system works as it is. Changing it will benefit only a very few people, and a lot of people will experience a pain in the arse.

A further thought: I never saw a Reg Force character who couldn't make more money working in the "real world", so let's not pretend they don't pay a price in lost income for their service.

 

[Meridian]

Fair enough, a few more thoughts though:

1 - What is the actual cost of job protection, realistically.  Many employers can hire contract personnel or can use the opportunity to mentor/in-house develop their staff;  most companies are used to doing this for maternity and now parental leaves as well, so, does anyone have any real ballpark numbers as to how much the actual cost would be?

2 - Currently, the pers enrolled in the Reserves enrolled under a system that did not offer job protection, so it is therefore understandable that a vast majority of them would have no issue with the fact that there was no job protection once they were in, save for the 1-2 per unit (as suggested) who will complain/want more no matter what the conditions.

3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?

 

[edgar]

3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?

That's good thinkin, all the arguments against militia job protection have probably all been made during a maternity benefits debate. I know for sure that the feminists complain that women are less likely to get hired than men because men don't (well didn't used to) want time off for babies. Did that turn out to be measureably true, and will shirking employers start to recognize army haircuts? How much extra did it cost the pogey office to administer maternity? How much extra hassle did that add to small business? I'm pretty sure there are more working mothers than militia in Saskatchewan, so militia job protection will cost less. As far as I can tell giving people maternity and paternity benefits through unemployment insurance has been pretty painless, so no more argument from me as to cost.

But aren't reservists already eligible for pogey after a 9 or more month tour anyway? Summer tasks would be a problem maybe because they are too short to get enough weeks to collect. I never collected because I was always a student.

I am left with the issue of forcing an individual to support the war by rehiring a guy he maybe doesn't want anymore. Also, does a guy really "deserve" to go back to exactly the same job and income after taking a year off to do his own thing? Doing this for maternity doesn't bother me so maybe I should get over it.

 

[Meridian]

Personally, Id be more in favour of job protection when the military member is required by the forces to serve full time, rather than when the member has volunteered to serve full time.  Presumably the reserves is for people who want part time work, and the regs who want a full time career,  but the lines have been a blurrin'.   

I agree that if I volunteered for full time service (ie a tour), then why should my employer be forced to support my position ad infinitum?  But if I enrolled to serve my country part time, and, when I enrolled, it was under the expectation that - barring war, insurrection, needs of the Government, etc,  I would work part time and it wouldnt collide with my full time job, and then was called up, I would expect that that callup should be protected.

The nuance between volunteering and being voluntold I suppose is where this issue hits its greatest head. 

 

[Haggis]

1 - What is the actual cost of job protection, realistically.   Many employers can hire contract personnel or can use the opportunity to mentor/in-house develop their staff;  most companies are used to doing this for maternity and now parental leaves as well, so, does anyone have any real ballpark numbers as to how much the actual cost would be?

It's unrealistic to draw parallels between parental/maternity job protection and Reserve job protection. At some point in the lifespan of every single Canadian employee, he or she can be in a position to claim parental or maternity benefits.  This legislation benefits all 32.6 million of us.  Reseve job protection benefits 20,000 or so and only a handful of those will be in a position during thier lifespan as a CF member to invoke it.

2 - Currently, the pers enrolled in the Reserves enrolled under a system that did not offer job protection, so it is therefore understandable that a vast majority of them would have no issue with the fact that there was no job protection once they were in, save for the 1-2 per unit (as suggested) who will complain/want more no matter what the conditions.

Most Reservists join the CF at a time in thier lives when mobility and career are not concerns.  As they "grow up" these concerns become real, but thier desire and ability (as gained through training and experience) to serve their country is still there. I don't see your point.

3 - What is the actual cost of enforcement of the legislation?  How much does it cost to enforce maternity legislation?

Even though you are comparing apples and oranges, in comparison the cost would be negligible.  What's money, really, to the government?  It would be far less than paying off another Maher Arar, but require far more political intestinal fortitude.

 

[c_canuk]

It has been my experience that most reservists who are volunteering for deployments are unemployed, or marginally so. They have few military or civilian skills in most cases. That's why they have the time to be deployed!

sure, and if we had job protection for those that volunteer, you would see more reservists doing just that, if you force mandatory tours on the reserves it's membership will plummet, the reservists that are already on tours would stay, but a good portion of their supporting staff would disappear and units would start crumbling.

there is no need to force reservists to deploy anymore than there is need start a conscription program. the benefit of job protection would only apply to those dedicated enough to volunteer anyway.

as for full time reservists being pushed to joining the regs, or being treated like the regs, we don't have a pension program though on is in the works but will not be the same caliber, get paid less, and don't have access to a lot of reg force perks, the trade off for that is we get to live where we want and volunteer for tours rather than getting voluntold.

the reserves are in a perpetual training cycle, we need the guys who live in their mom's basement that someone mentioned because are the guys who come in for a couple days every week and do all the regular wpn cleaning, vehicle preventative maint, canvas maint, go the day before an exercise to make sure all the resources are available and set up etc etc.

for example my unit right now is really hurting because 8 of the 10 class A guys who's only job is to do this work are all tasked out, either back fill for regs who are on the task force, or they themselves are deploying, now the unit has to use up regular training time when the rest of the unit is available to do all the maint that usually was taken care of by what I like to call the irregulars...  They are a very valuable resource, and it's now very appearant at the unit.

Forcing mandatory service on these guys, is just going to insult them as they are already volunteering, the rest of the unit is either students, or employed full time. the units are already hurting for staff and we can't recruit enough people to make up for turn over as it is, all mandatory service will do in my opinion is cripple the reserves.

Sure there will be some that won't deploy, but Job protection won't be something they can use. Even though they don't deploy they can still provide valuable service as back fill reg positions, instruct recruits, and maintain equipment.

I'm currently backfilling in a reg position, and when I deal with my home unit on administrative matters I feel torn, the Unit really needs me back there, but the reg unit I'm in now needs me just as much... we're spread too thin as it is, and I don't think it would be in our intrest to make the reserves any less attractive to potential recruits.

It's not an issue of we want our cake and eat it too, it's a matter of if we volunteer to set our lives aside for 1-2 years to go overseas, the least the Government could do is make sure that it's their for us to pick up again when we get back.

 

[Groucho]

Been reading this post from Scotland with a bit of interest! If you allow me to spend my 2 pence! The TA that go over to Iraq and soon A'stan are not officially volunteers because of the way they are called up. The British Government has used part of the Army Act (1995 I think) to call up members of the reserves for active service!  This was to protect reservist's civ jobs!  If a reservist volunteered they would not get higher pay if they outgoings where higher that what they would made called up!
There was a number of changes in the TA after the first call ups went out. Yes a number of people quit but a great percent where people who had quit ( in some cases years earlier) but did not do the paperwork to clear or where going to quit anyway! We can be called up for up to a year once in three years ! I know a number of my fellow members of my unit (Scottish Transport Regiment RLC(V) ) who have gone on tours! We now tell people who wish to join about the call ups! It is a fact of being in the reserves
There are 10 ways that people can be left out of the pot! The ones I can remember off the top of my head are:
1)Single parents 2) Self employed 3) a carer 4) a student in FULL TIME study 5) an employee of a small business that would have a too great impact on  the business if they were to go!!
You can get your name on a list of people who are willing to  be called up to go first ( But you have not volunteered but would go if called up)
An employer can appeal an employee's call up and also ask for their employee to be returned before the end of the call up if they are needed! This goes to a committee that looks into each case! An employer can get funds from the British government to offside the costs of being in, training replacement worker(s)! If an employee does not get their job OR SIMILAR JOB on they return the employee can get funds from the British government to take this to court! There has been a number of cases that after a period of time the employee has been let go because of various other reasons that the employee has taken that to court ( also with fund from the government) outcomes unknown to me!

I thank you for letting an old (48th) Highlander to get his 2 pence in ( I think I have spent it)