Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[dutchie]

My understanding in the US is that employers are required to provide time off for troops going on course, ex, or Ops and hold their job for when they return- this doesn't happen here. I have lost a number of civvie jobs due to my Army job.

 

[zerhash]

that would be a good idea which would help the recruiting and support of our military. it increase attendence in reserve units also

i personaly need this to help me with keeping my jobs. hard to take a tour or go on course without worrying if youll have your job at the end of it

 

[NavyGrunt]

In Canada most provincial governments do have agreements- Alberta provincial government workers are granted 6 mos a year if needed(no Q's) and more as required. I just call the Chief and tell him Im leaving.......

 

[NMPeters]

S Baker. I had heard, however, that there are a lot of employers in the U.S. who won't hire people who are members of the NG or Reserves because they don't want to take the risk of having to lose them for training or duty which is why you also have an organization called ESGR (Employer Support for the Guards and Reserves). Is that biase really that prevalent among employers there?

Also, to answer your original question, funding does have a lot to do with it as well. There is only so much money in the Army well, so units are only funded up to a certain percentage of their authorized strength. I don't know what that percentage is, off the top of my head. Hopefully this will change soon if the Government makes good on its promise to fund an additional 3000. That, however, does not address the recruiting, training and retention issues previously mentioned. It's really difficult to pinpoint the exact reason for the simple fact that we do not have any historical imperical data to compare things too.

 

[Gryphon]

You didn't put it on your CV?

But I wholly agree that Canada needs some sort of Job Protection for us reservists...

any one know what we could do?

 

[NMPeters]

I can fully understand the small businesses having a hard time with it.

 

[Ty]

I can fully understand the small businesses having a hard time with it.

Does anyone know if the law in the US requires an employer to maintain a salary (or portion thereoff) for a person on National Guard duty? 
I'm unsure how a small business would have difficulties with allowing military duty and maintaining employment.  Perhaps we're talking about the hardships imposed by "filling the gap" or re-training?  If so, does the US subsidize any initiatives to support employers in theses tasks?

 

[pbi]

Am an an active duty officer so I can say for 100% certainty that ALL employers follow the rules 100% of the time. However I think it only makes sense to do just that, no company wants to be labled as a firm that does not hire or support reservists.

SBaker: My impression from talking to these individuals over in Afgh, as well as indivs from 34 ID and the Wash ARNG in CONUS is not that employers do not follow the rules 100%: they do, as far as those rules go.  But the rules , as I understand them, only cover punitive actions directly attributable to ARNG or Res service conflicts. They do not, as far as I know, talk about punitive action that is taken ostensibly for other reasons (and thus escapes the legislation). I am certainly not suggesting that all or even most employers are guilty, but the comments I have heard seem to come from a cross section of ARNG and Res pers.

As for asking deployed National Guard and Reservists about their pay and job security while deployed, I am sure that the answers are quite entertaining I for one do not feel bad for them at all...that is their duty to go where they are required to go, whether they agree with it or not. I have gone several times, too bad, don't sign-up, the days of "Southern Comfort" National Guard service are long gone.

IIRC this issue also surfaced during the first Iraq war, at which time numbers of ARNG and Res pers were upset and even surprised at the idea of having to go overseas on combat operations. At the time I believe this was attributed to less-than-frank recruiting methods which enticed people to join the ARNG or Res on a "job" basis, emphasizing benefits over service. ( A technique not unknown in Canada). Cheers.

 

[Simpleton]

You didn't put it on your CV?

But I wholly agree that Canada needs some sort of Job Protection for us reservists...

any one know what we could do?

I think the 'argument' that employers, especially small ones, would resist legislation is a red herring. I have heard many times that you wouldn't get a job if the reserves had job protection and the only thing you could do was eliminate that reference from your resume.

That is all bunk.

A few years back (quite a few now) the government introduced a program known as maternity leave. The howls and cries were the same as what we hear about this. For example, "This will directly impact on a young woman getting a career opportunity", or "Training will be held back from women in case they get pregnant and leave" even "Women will never hold a senior position because if they have children they won't have spent enough time in the company" and the solution "You cannot ask for gender, age or marital status on a job application".

Guess what? The sky didn't fall. Women are rising through the ranks of business - most are never denied a job because they may take time off to have a child (I say most because I am not positive about the ratio). If any woman feels that she didn't get the job there is legal protection for her.

My question is, "How is legislated job protection for Reserves any different in principle"?

 

[pbi]

I think the 'argument' that employers, especially small ones, would resist legislation is a red herring. I have heard many times that you wouldn't get a job if the reserves had job protection and the only thing you could do was eliminate that reference from your resume.

That is all bunk.

A few years back (quite a few now) the government introduced a program known as maternity leave. The howls and cries were the same as what we hear about this. For example, "This will directly impact on a young woman getting a career opportunity", or "Training will be held back from women in case they get pregnant and leave" even "Women will never hold a senior position because if they have children they won't have spent enough time in the company" and the solution "You cannot ask for gender, age or marital status on a job application".

Guess what? The sky didn't fall. Women are rising through the ranks of business - most are never denied a job because they may take time off to have a child (I say most because I am not positive about the ratio). If any woman feels that she didn't get the job there is legal protection for her.

My question is, "How is legislated job protection for Reserves any different in principle"?

The difference, IMHO, is the political constituency for the issue. All women (potentially) can be mothers at some time in their lives: people see reproduction as a biological imperative. The rights of women, and the careers of professional women, are also issues that have powerful support bases. Protection of the family appeals to both right and left ends of the spectrum, for different reasons. It wasn't too difficult to drum up support for this measure. As well, it relieves employers of messy liabiilties arising from fetal deformities, miscarriages, etc.that could be attributed to the workplace.

Service in the Reserve, at least in Canada, IMHO lacks the broad political support that measures such as maternity/paternity leave enjoy. Service is voluntary, is engaged in by a tiny minority of Canadians, and is probably not well understood by political "movers and shakers" who get bills passed. Many people in the RegF still do not even understand the issues facing the Res, let alone the general public.

If we want this legislation, we will have to convince Canadians (especially small employers) that it is in their interests to give Res soldiers time off their jobs without repercussions. I do not think this is impossible, and given the increased profile of, and support for, defence issues in Canada in the last  few years, the Govt might do it. What is lacking is the political will.

Finally, as I have mentioned, Res soldiers should be careful of what they ask for. If job protection were granted, the military would almost certainly demand a quid pro quo from the citizen soldier: "we call, you come". Are all Res prepared to accept that? If so, great. If not, better think it over first. Cheers.

 

[Rick Goebel]

PBI wrote:

"If we want this legislation, we will have to convince Canadians (especially small employers) that it is in their interests to give Res soldiers time off their jobs without repercussions."

I am both a former reserve infantry officer with over 31 years of service AND a small employer.   I am, in fact, the former commanding officer and the current civilian employer of Eowyn (who has contributed to this thread).   I took her on as a civilian employee when I was her army reserve CO.   I am very aware of the value her reserve service has added to her overall value as an employee.   I am also very aware of the value the military reserves have to our society as a whole.

This said, however, when she is gone I have to do both my job and hers.   If she were gone for World War III (or even Gulf War I), I would surely hire someone else (albeit less competent) for the duration. If she were gone for two weeks training a year every year for many years (as I was), I would just suck it up and do the two jobs.   If she were gone for nine months (including pre-deployment training) for compulsory service on ROTO 39 somewhere, I'd be pissed.   Had I known of this possibility at the time I hired her, I simply wouldn't have.   Similarly, when I hired her I expected training absences of not more than two weeks at a time.   I might have hired her if it were likely to be three weeks or possibly even four.   I would not have hired her if the likely training periods had been more than that.   All businesses, even the smallest, are geared to handle the absence of employees for around two weeks at a time.   More than that creates a real strain on a small business.   Small businesses are the growing sector of our economy.   Army staff MUST realise that courses for reservists cannot routinely run for months at a stretch.   Similarly, the politicians must realise that public support for any military operation will decline as time goes on if the threat is not seen to be very significant.   This is true whether legislation exists or not.

 

[Rick Goebel]

S_Baker wrote "I guess the people who didn't think they would be deployed overseas haven't read history books"

Actually, if they were Canadian and read the history books they'd know they were safe.  Even in WW I and WW II, when Canada conscripted civilians, reservists weren't forced to serve overseas in combat.  The vast majority volunteered to do so, but they weren't compelled.

pbi wrote "Res soldiers should be careful of what they ask for. If job protection were granted, the military would almost certainly demand a quid pro quo from the citizen soldier: "we call, you come"."

When I joined the militia, I thought (incorrectly) that I could be compelled to go.  I suspect that this is the case with many who join.

I don't think it would be entirely fair to change the rules for those already in, but I also don't think it would hurt recruiting any to add the compulsion to serve in a national emergency now

 

[48Highlander]

When I joined the militia, I thought (incorrectly) that I could be compelled to go.  I suspect that this is the case with many who join.

You CAN be compelled to go.  You're right in that your chain of command can't order you to go overseas, however, if a serious enough situation ever arose, parliament could vote to mobalize all reserve personnel for deployment.  It's unlikely, but it's still a situation in which you'd be "compelled to go".

 

[LowRider]

I really don't think that legislated job protection is the answer.This would just encourage more employers not to hire reservists.It's hard enough to get a job with that on your resume now!
I think a better approach would be for the federal government to offer incentives to companies who hire reservists,such as tax incentives and prefence towards obtaining government contracts.

 

[Meridian]

I semi-inquired regarding this with my employer, a so-called "leading IT provider".

While they apparently have no "formal corporate policy" they do have many reservists in their "ranks" and it is corporate policy to consider all special circumstances. They stated they would look at using LWOP if projects and workload permitted.

Whatever that means.

 

[bossi]

... I don't think it would be entirely fair to change the rules for those already in, but I also don't think it would hurt recruiting any to add the compulsion to serve in a national emergency now

(chuckle) There's no need to "change the rules" (i.e. ya might want to re-read the fine print on the enrolment document ... it used to go something like this):
"... I hereby engage to serve for an indefinite period of time, including the length of an emergency and for one year thereafter if my services are so long required."

 

[Simpleton]

... If she were gone for nine months (including pre-deployment training) for compulsory service on ROTO 39 somewhere, I'd be pissed.  Had I known of this possibility at the time I hired her, I simply wouldn't have.

Rick,

What if she decided to start a family of five children - say a newborn every two or three years. Each time she had a child she would be gone for a year. Had you known that she was inclined to have a large family would you simply not have hired her? Wouldn't that action be illiegal?

My apologies, but I think your attitude is one of limited thought. As a reservist deploys for longer and longer period of times this could be seen as an opportunity to expand your workforce. Many people, with qualifications, are seeking piecemeal work and they would be able to cover your reservist each time they depart. Then, if you require a surge capability, you could bring them back as required.

There are many ways to accomodate, but focussing on the 'narrow' view that if they are to be away so don't hire them is an antiquated view of the modern global environment. Businesses that are willing to change to the evolving modern workplace appear to be the businesses that will succeed in the long run.

 

[Meridian]

Simpleton, good points - ones that I may use for my own employer, if it is ever needed. As a consulting company, they tend to be a bit more narrow minded and focussed on current projects... but Summer is usually a slow time for us, given our major client is the government.

 

[Arctic Acorn]

I was recently present for a briefing on the Army Transformation and the LFRR by a Major at LFAAHQ. Part of the transformation is a pretty radical shift of the role of the Reserve Army soldier.

In a nutshell, we were told that the Army has to be able to deploy up to two battlegroups anywhere in the world continuously for up to six months, and that we have to be able to begin doing that by 2006. That translates to 6 battlegroups at three different readiness phases. (2 at no-notice to go/2 training to replace the high-rediness guys/2 just returned, and on rest and recuperation). The reserves, I was told, will have a major part to play in this.

The plan is to have Area-based reserve-only company groups based within each area (excepting CFNA). No RSS staff or anything...all reservists from the CO to rifleman bloggins. They will do the same training as their regular-force counterparts (all at the CMTC in Wainwright), and will be an integral part of these battlegroups through these three readiness phases.

When the Major told us this, he immediatlely got swamped with questions relating to mandated job protection legislation and liability issues. He didn't really have an answer for us. Essentially, trial and error is going to dominate this project for quite some time.

:dontpanic:
T.A.

 

[Northern Touch]

I was recently present for a briefing on the Army Transformation and the LFRR by a Major at LFAAHQ. Part of the transformation is a pretty radical shift of the role of the Reserve Army soldier.

In a nutshell, we were told that the Army has to be able to deploy up to two battlegroups anywhere in the world continuously for up to six months, and that we have to be able to begin doing that by 2006. That translates to 6 battlegroups at three different readiness phases. (2 at no-notice to go/2 training to replace the high-rediness guys/2 just returned, and on rest and recuperation). The reserves, I was told, will have a major part to play in this.

The plan is to have Area-based reserve-only company groups based within each area (excepting CFNA). No RSS staff or anything...all reservists from the CO to rifleman bloggins. They will do the same training as their regular-force counterparts (all at the CMTC in Wainwright), and will be an integral part of these battlegroups through these three readiness phases.

When the Major told us this, he immediatlely got swamped with questions relating to mandated job protection legislation and liability issues. He didn't really have an answer for us. Essentially, trial and error is going to dominate this project for quite some time.

:dontpanic:
T.A.

Great, trial and error, just the solution to solve things.  Although it will probably provide a greater opporitunity to for reservists to get overseas tours, without any growth in the military, will there actually be enough Regs AND reservists (who can get time off work) to actually keep those 6 battle groups at there phases of readiness?

Without any job protection, many experienced and senior reservists won't even bother going overseas, especially when they are most likely earning a lot more money with their current job.  I think job protection in some form is critical and doable for the reserves.  How can we ask people to serve their country but not give a little back to them and protect their job when they are overseas serving their country.

The thing is the US and Canada have different views on our militaries.  It is obvious that the American public supports their military (maybe not the war in Iraq, but they have supported their military very well over the years) especially with the needed funding and such, so it is much easier for their employers to accept a legislation which does protect NG volunteers jobs.  Well here in Canada, IMHO most employers would take a "well who gives crap if your in the reserves" attitude.  Not all, I'm sure some do see it as favourable, I'm just talking about on the aggregate. 

I don't think we can ever expect a huge turn around from our government, expecially considering how many of our Prime Ministers actually have military experience.  Bill Clinton was the first US president NOT to have any military experience, while we haven't had a leader with military experience SINCE 1963!  (John Defenbaker, http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blpms.htm) and even then, he was only a Leautenant from 1916-1917 (http://canadaonline.about.com/cs/primeminister/p/pmdiefenbaker.htm)

It'll take a leader that has first hand  experience to get some real changes in place.