Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[geo]

Given that V has not gone to the trouble of filling out a little bit of info in his background convinces me that he is trolling and has nothing of value to contribute.

Prove me wrong & say something that is backed up with fact.

 

[V]

Look, if you read my posts you would understand.  I'm on Roto O5.  I was trying to get time off from my employer and I was having trouble.  I have since sorted it out, hopefully.  I'll being going to Shilo in April.  That is why I want information about Shilo.  What do you want Geo.  If you can't be trades qualified your useless to your regiment.  IS that enough to add.  The I didn't get dressed up for nothing was from Braveheart.  It was suppose to be funny.  I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions. 

  V

 

[Osotogari]

My whole perspective on this matter isn't so much swirling around job protection as it is in ensuring that people can pick up where they left off with unions and/or professional associations.  Employers aren't going to get on board with job protection, or else if it's forced on them they won't hire any reservists.  Job protection is a pipe dream for us and it's becoming a nightmare in the US & A. 

If unions and professional associations can help with ensuring that you don't loose out on anything when you come back I'm happy.  I would be happy returning veterans didn't loose seniority and got back on with their benefits and/or didn't loose accreditiation; that would be an excellent first start.  That way returning vets can find work faster.

Also, I can't let certain remarks I've read here stand.  If all you're going to do is go on full-time courses and tours then you might as well be regular force.  That's not meant to be confrontational, it simply a statement which I believe to be fact.  If you want to go through the balancing act of family and career that is being a reservist then so be it as well.  Granted, you need to finish your trades training in order to contribute, but people who do their training and continue to show up aren't the problem. 


The problem, as I've said before elsewhere is the approach to manning for tours.  If they're being serious and recognize we're on a war footing then they should activate the reserve force.  The whole "who wants a tour" thing isn't sustainable.

 

[V]

  I agree with you on the who wants to go on tour thing isn't sustainable.  However, activating the reserves for Afghanistan will never happen.  I think it would be political suicide.  The situation that I was in with my employer was if you leave you can't come back.  They changed their minds and I have received a verbal approval.  Although, I want it in writing.  There are some things that employers do have to give you such as jury duty, maternity leave, and paternity leave.  There are far more people taking mat/pat leave than those that are going to Afghanistan.  The concern regarding hiring reservists might be the same as hiring a recently married couple, or in the case of jury duty a homeowner.  The rational behind an employer not hiring a reservists because they might go on tour seems difficult to comprehend.  In a perfect world I believe that part-time soldiers should have the same rights as others. 

Cheers,
V

 

[Jarnhamar]

However, activating the reserves for Afghanistan will never happen.

Reminds me of people saying our tanks will never see active duty again.

I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions. 

Yup.
NO ONE sees to be understanding your posts.  What does that tell you?

Looks like you're the only one in step Jonny 

 

[V]

Reminds me of people saying our tanks will never see active duty again.

Yup.
NO ONE sees to be understanding your posts.  What does that tell you?

Looks like you're the only one in step Jonny 

ESL? and ya SEEMS spell check, bottom right. Flawed...

 

[Jarnhamar]

Even with spelling errors you understood my post. That's still one up on your posts brother

Points still remain the same.
Job protection legislation would hurt reservists attempting to get jobs.  In my opinion it's not currently worth it.

 

[V]

There are some interesting comments on the subject of job protection, and general reserve policy issues from the Senate Committee on Defence in their latest report to Parliament

http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/defe-e/rep-e/RepOct06-e.pdf

good read

Cheers Flawed.

Take a look at this from Zorno.  It's a long read but a good one.  It talks about how thin we are stretched.  I found the discussion of comparing our defence spending with the Netherlands, Australia and a couple of other countries interesting to say the least.  Unfortunately, its like three hundred pages.

V

 

[geo]

Reservists don't need job protection.  What's the point in being in the reserves if you can't be deployed or take courses?  I would hope that reservists shouldn't have to need job protection.  Sort of like how Canada doesn't need the draft or to call up reservists unless there's a declaration of war.  Anyway, I understand your point but "I didn't get dressed up for nothing".
Cheers
  V

Look, if you read my posts you would understand.  I'm on Roto O5.  I was trying to get time off from my employer and I was having trouble.  I have since sorted it out, hopefully.  I'll being going to Shilo in April.  That is why I want information about Shilo.  What do you want Geo.  If you can't be trades qualified your useless to your regiment.  IS that enough to add.  The I didn't get dressed up for nothing was from Braveheart.  It was suppose to be funny.  I'm not going to keep on repeating myself for those who can't read the posts. Any questions. 
  V

V,  as you make additional posts, you are starting to make sense but, IMHO, that 1st one was vaguely precise - which is why so many people called you on it.  Not looking for a fight - just looking for a good read & discussion in which I /we can jump into.

CHIMO!

 

[Zorno]

Cheers Flawed.

Take a look at this from Zorno.  It's a long read but a good one.  It talks about how thin we are stretched.  I found the discussion of comparing our defence spending with the Netherlands, Australia and a couple of other countries interesting to say the least.  Unfortunately, its like three hundred pages.

V

The two previous reports from the same committee (same length) are also quite good

 

[old medic]

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2168

Québec Unions Join Forces to Support Reservists

NR-06.091 - December 13, 2006

City of Québec – Today, Commodore Margaret Kavanagh, Commander of the Canadian Forces Health Services Group, and Mr Jean Fournier, Provincial President of the Canadian Forces Liaison Council for Quebec, presented certificates of appreciation to employers and union representatives of ambulance and paramedic services in Quebec for their support to Canadian Forces Reserve Force members.

Ambulance and paramedic services’ employers and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec (FTQ) signed a collective agreement in June 2006 ensuring job protection and seniority for Canadian Forces Reservists working with these emergency services who may be called to deploy for military duty, at home or abroad. Other unions, such as the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN) and Travailleurs associés syndiqués de la Beauce, incorporé (TASBI), followed suit.

“This is truly a great moment for the Canadian Forces and its healthcare services,” said Commodore Kavanagh. “Union support, initiated by the FTQ, for medical Reservists in Quebec will allow the Canadian Forces to have a pool of military healthcare specialists available to help the injured on missions, at home and abroad.”

The agreement is the result of early discussions pursued by Mr. André Vézina, Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel of 55 Field Ambulance, a Reserve medical unit based in the City of Quebec, with the FTQ and other union representatives.

“In practical terms, the agreement will allow emergency healthcare responders to be available for Canadian Forces training opportunities and gain valuable experience on military operations,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Aline Préfontaine, senior healthcare Reservist in Quebec. “Of course, it also most importantly provides peace of mind to Reservists deploying with the Canadian Forces by insuring that their civilian job will wait for their return.”

The presentation took place at the Officer’s Mess of the Saint-Malo Armoury in the City of Québec.

Edit -  Also see: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2165

 

[Chummy]

Just an addendum to my post. The page has been moved (my guess is that they had mislabelled it the first time and fixed it, given the numbering). It is now here: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2331613&Language=e&Mode=1&File=202

For convenient reference, here is the relevant text:
*    *    * 

PART 13

R.S., c. N-5

NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT

74. The definitions ``emergency'' and ``Minister'' in subsection 2(1) of the National Defence Act are replaced by the following:

``emergency''
« état d'urgence »

``emergency'' means an insurrection, riot, invasion, armed conflict or war, whether real or apprehended;

``Minister''
« ministre »

``Minister'', except in Part VII, means the Minister of National Defence;

75. The portion of subsection 16(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Special force

16. (1) In an emergency, or if considered desirable in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter or the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party, the Governor in Council may establish and authorize the maintenance of a component of the Canadian Forces, called the special force, consisting of

R.S., c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60 (Sch. I, item 14)

76. Subsection 31(1) of the Act is amended by striking out the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a) and by replacing paragraph (b) with the following:

      (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter; or

      (c) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the North Atlantic Treaty, the North American Aerospace Defence Command Agreement or any other similar instrument to which Canada is a party.

*  *  *

PART VII

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT

Interpretation

Definitions[/b]

285.01 In this Part, ``employer'' and ``Minister'' have the meaning prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Reinstatement

Employer's duty to reinstate

285.02 (1) If an officer or non-commissioned member of the reserve force is called out on service in respect of an emergency, the officer's or member's employer shall reinstate the officer or member in employment at the expiry of that service.

Nature of reinstatement

(2) The officer or member must be reinstated in a capacity and under terms and conditions of employment no less favourable to the officer or member than those that would have applied if the officer or member had remained in the employer's employment.

Officer or member must apply

(3) An officer or member who wishes to be reinstated must apply to the employer for reinstatement within ninety days after the expiry of the officer's or member's actual service or service deemed extended by virtue of section 285.03.

Exception

(4) The employer's duty to reinstate an officer or member does not apply in the circumstances prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Application procedure

(5) The procedure for applying for reinstatement is that prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Hospitalization or incapacity

285.03 If, immediately following the officer's or member's service, the officer or member is hospitalized or is physically or mentally incapable of performing the duties of the position to which the officer or member would have been entitled on reinstatement, the period of hospitalization or incapacity, to a maximum prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council, is deemed for the purposes of this Part to be part of the period of the officer's or member's service.

Benefits and obligations on reinstatement

285.04 On reinstatement, an officer's or member's benefits, and the employer's obligations, in respect of remuneration, pension, promotion, permanent status, seniority, paid vacation and other employment benefits shall be in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Agreements or arrangements

285.05 Any agreement or arrangement between an employer and an officer or member respecting reinstatement continues in force, except to the extent that it is less advantageous to the officer or member than is this Part.

Termination without reasonable cause

285.06 During the one-year period following an officer's or member's reinstatement,

      (a) the employer shall not terminate the officer's or member's employment without reasonable cause; and

      (b) if the employer terminates the officer's or member's employment, the onus, in any prosecution under section 285.08, is on the employer to establish that the employer had reasonable cause.

Administration and Enforcement

Reinstatement Officers

285.07 (1) The Minister may designate any person as a Reinstatement Officer to assist in the administration and enforcement of this Part, and shall issue to a Reinstatement Officer a certificate of designation.

Powers and duties

(2) The powers and duties of Reinstatement Officers are those prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.

Requests for information

(3) A Reinstatement Officer may make reasonable requests of an employer for information relating to the reinstatement of an officer or member.

Offence and Punishment

Offence

285.08 (1) Every employer who contravenes section 285.02 or 285.06 or a regulation made for the purpose of section 285.04 is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Additional order

(2) A court that convicts an employer of an offence under subsection (1) may, in addition to any other punishment that it imposes, order the employer to pay to the officer or member affected an amount that the court considers reasonable in the circumstances.

Special case

(3) The failure of an officer or member to perform the duties of their position during a period when the officer or member is being assisted by a Reinstatement Officer is not reasonable cause for terminating the officer's or member's employment.

Offence

285.09 Every person who fails to comply with a reasonable request made under subsection 285.07(3) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Minister may prosecute

285.1 The Minister shall institute and conduct a prosecution under section 285.08, without cost to the officer or member, if the Minister considers that the circumstances warrant a prosecution under that section.

Time limit

285.11 Proceedings may be instituted under section 285.08 or 285.09 within, but not later than, one year after the time when the subject-matter of the proceedings arose.

General

Inconsistency with other laws

285.12 In the event of any inconsistency between this Part, or regulations made for the purposes of this Part, and any other law, this Part or the regulations prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

Consultation

285.13 In the implementation of this Part, the Minister

        (a) shall consult with the provincial governments; and

(b) may consult with any persons, associations, bodies and authorities that the Minister considers to be in a position to assist the Minister.

*  *  *

 

[John Nayduk]

I still say that if they can get new parents a year off for every new baby, they can protect a reservist's job for a year while he or she serves our country.  We can and have fought and some have died but we can't protect our jobs?  BS I say.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A carrot and stick approach will work better, it costs money for an employer to let a employee go for periods of time, the employer is suffering to allow for the greater good, so give them a break on some taxes or similar to sweeten the pot.

 

[geo]

Recce...
two incidents.
1.  Guy goes off for the weekend and breaks his leg skiing - goes back to work, boss signs his cast and everyone in the office will gather round to hear the story.

2.  Guy goes off for a weekend FTX and breaks his leg while conducting his training.  goes back to work & has to face the boss,  gets a load of crap and gets the message that it's one or the other - sleep on it...........

Fair................ no but, do you want to work?

 

[John Nayduk]

I'm not talking about time off for a weekend FTX. I'm talking about protected time off for tours.

 

[TCBF]

"I used to be an NDPer" - Zell_Dietrich

- We are flabergasted.  Who knew?

;D

- No doubt, the NDP have studied closely the problems inherant in such legislation where it currently exists in the USA and elsewhere, and have concluded that such legislation would be more trouble than it is worth.  Therefore, they are proposing it.

- As for the alternate issues: Employers who 'let go' reservists for being reservists should be outed on this and other forumns where we can engineer unbearable pressure to either 'Canadianize' or go out of business.

- Any takers?  Who will be the first traitorous ex-employer to feel our wrath?

 

[GO!!!]

I'm not talking about time off for a weekend FTX. I'm talking about protected time off for tours.

Oh no - if reservists have job protection, then there is absolutely no reason for anything but mandatory attendance at all unit trg events, with disciplinary action against those who are AWL.

Your job is protected, so why can't you come out and play?

I agree this would be a huge step forward in employing Canadian reservists, the ability to call up needed technicians for deployment, and making a strong case for standardised training accross the board.

It would also make it abundantly clear to all prospective applicants that deploying would no longer be optional - but a matter of due course, and an integral part of your job as a member of the militia.

Conversely, the reserves would benefit by actually being able to coerce troops to parade on designated nights, with the various levels of leadership benefitting as well (Lt. commanding a platoon, instead of a section). The initial exodus of individuals who do not want to serve would probably be made up for in spades by people who were previously put off by the prospect of being unemployed after a deployment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh no - if reservists have job protection, then there is absolutely no reason for anything but mandatory attendance at all unit trg events, with disciplinary action against those who are AWL.

Your job is protected, so why can't you come out and play?

I agree this would be a huge step forward in employing Canadian reservists, the ability to call up needed technicians for deployment, and making a strong case for standardised training accross the board.

It would also make it abundantly clear to all prospective applicants that deploying would no longer be optional - but a matter of due course, and an integral part of your job as a member of the militia.

Conversely, the reserves would benefit by actually being able to coerce troops to parade on designated nights, with the various levels of leadership benefitting as well (Lt. commanding a platoon, instead of a section). The initial exodus of individuals who do not want to serve would probably be made up for in spades by people who were previously put off by the prospect of being unemployed after a deployment.

Quit being so condesending. All Reservists aren't shiftless wastes of skin. Many have answered the call, while many Regs have tried to avoid it (until the tax breaks and Timmies came into play )

 

[GO!!!]

Quit being so condesending. All Reservists aren't shiftless wastes of skin. Many have answered the call, while many Regs have tried to avoid it (until the tax breaks and Timmies came into play )

Hey - I'm the first to admit that reservists can be seamlessly integrated, given a sufficient time to train with their new units. I doubted it until I saw it, but after 7 months, they're ready to go!

All I'm saying is that you have to take the good with the bad - the good being your protected job, the bad being the fact that you may be deployed against your wishes for an operational requirement - which you knew when you signed up.

Why is it unreasonable to expect that someone with legislated job protection should be mandated to participate in training events? Are'nt we better off with 100 guys that show up than 200 that exist only on paper?