Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[Roy Harding]

"City extends benefits for military reservists" (Calgary Herald, 2007-12-11. Page 19)

City extends benefits for military reservists

COLETTE DERWORIZ CALGARY HERALD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

City employees who work as reservists will no longer lose pay, benefits or pension while they are training or serving overseas, after council endorsed a military leave policy Monday.

The policy, which takes effect Jan. 1, will put the City of Calgary in front of most other municipalities in the compensation packages offered to reservists.

Employees will be eligible for a military leave for a maximum of 24 months.

“That’s giving me goosebumps,” said Shawna Taylor, whose husband Jeff had to take a year leave of absence from the city to cover training and a six-month deployment to Afghanistan. “I’m glad because we didn’t have that.
“People who are thinking about making a difference in the country will now be able to, because it doesn’t leave the family struggling.”

Since her husband’s benefits were cut off by the city, Taylor’s family was left without medical and dental coverage for almost three months.

Under the new policy, military reservists employed full-time by the city would have their salary, benefits and pension topped up for up to 24 months for training, domestic relief operations or international deployments. It also ensures employees don’t lose their benefits, seniority or vacation time.

“It’s something meaningful, tangible and supports military families who call Calgary home,” said Mayor Dave Bronconnier.

Early next year, 64 reservists serving with the Calgary Highlanders will be sent to Afghanistan for up to six months.

While there are about 100 reservists working for the city, it’s unknown how many are slated to go overseas.

City officials estimated, however, that the policy would cost less than $100,000 annually.

“It’s one of the best things we could have done for our members of the Canadian Forces and their families,” said Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart, who, along with the mayor, asked council earlier this year to support the policy.
“It really puts our money where our mouth is.”

Colley-Urquhart said the city is getting calls from other municipalities — and some private companies — about Calgary’s policy.

“There have been inquiries from across the country on what we are doing,” she said.

Earlier this year, city council was criticized for its decision not to put Support the Troops decals on municipal vehicles.

I can't link to the original - I'm a subscriber, and share this article IAW the "share this article" ability inherent in my subscription.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Very classy.  Nice to see them step up.  My own LOA (given that someone feels it is necessary for us to have a minimum 7 month work up) is going to cost me $14,500 in pension buy-back.  And that is IF the roto ends when it is supposed to (which it might not).

 

[forcerecon85]

Only seems right to give them that benefit. Its good to hear.

 

[Rearadmiral]

Just my opinion, but this and similar provincial legislation is just window dressing.  My reason for this opinion is that most legislation protects reservists when serving operationally but ignores protection when the reservist has to train to become eligible for an operational posting.  A smart employer could just deny training time and never face the issue of an operational posting and the avoid application of these laws. 

In a recent review in this area it seems that Nova Scotia comes out on top.  My own province (NB) has introduced legislation to protect reservist's jobs.  But my criticism is that unless they are willing to allow for training time the operational protection is limited, and NB only protects operational time.  I know Gov't shoudln't impose reserve training requirements on businesses, but, in my opinion the provice as an employer should show some leadership and and bring in thses policies themselves.  My province has a bad record on this.  Last year a provincial Crown Corp fired a reservist who wanted to do a second tour with the PRT in Afghanistan.  My work (a different Crown Corp) brought in a policy that allows me five days but specifically prohibits me using it for anything that might be used for getting a promotion.  I think what that means is that I can use the leave for the PT test, range qualifications and that stuff, but heaven forbid that I take a leadership course...

I think that the problem stems party from the fact that the people making the decisions have no military experience.  For them, there really is no difference between someone volunteering for the United Way and being a military member.  I suspect that some of them are even hostile to service. 

 

[retiredgrunt45]

It only seems fair coming from the most prosperous province in the country. $100,000.00 would be practically chicken feed.

 

[cameron]

A very laudable move, let's hope other municipalities follow suit.

 

[Haggis]

My work (a different Crown Corp) brought in a policy that allows me five days but specifically prohibits me using it for anything that might be used for getting a promotion.  I think what that means is that I can use the leave for the PT test, range qualifications and that stuff, but heaven forbid that I take a leadership course...

So, really, you can't do a PT test either since it is a prerequisite for promotion IAW DAOD 5023-2.

 

[Rearadmiral]

To be honest, and as a civvie lawyer, I haven't figured out what what exactly is covered.  I thing the bottom line is the same: nothing is changed. 

 

[GAP]

Minister says laws coming to protect jobs and schooling for reservists
Article Link

VANCOUVER - New federal laws are on they way to protect Canadian reservists who may have to leave their jobs or interrupt their education to serve in the Canadian military.

Federal Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn told a few dozen reservists from Vancouver's 39 Canadian Brigade group Tuesday that it's the least the government can do for those who risk their lives defending our country.

"Reservists should not be penalized in their civilian lives as a result of serving within the Canadian forces," Blackburn said Tuesday.

The legislation to be pushed through the next session of Parliament will allow reservists in federally regulated sectors to take leave without pay and would prevent employers from discriminating against them.

The new laws would also allow students to retain their active student status and put Canada Student Loan payments on hold with no accumulating interest while the student is on leave.

"We realized how could we see those people defending our values around the world ... and when they come back after maybe one year and a half they don't have protection for their job," Blackburn told the group. "This is unbelievable that we didn't act before."
More on link

 

[Hawk]

That's been a long time coming!


Hawk

 

[R933ex]

A good move in my opinion. The only thing to remember is that this legislation will still only effect between 8- 10% of the employers that are subject to the Canada Labour Code and therefore subject to this ammendment.

 

[geo]

People should remember that DND / CF is probably one of the most notorious offenders WRT to allowing reservists to go & take rank and trade courses while same said reservist is employed on class B & C.

I had Cpls who were due for MCpl course - the unit had the position available & (at the time) the funds needed to send Cpl Bloggins.  Unfortunately, Cpl Bloggins was employed at the School in Valcartier.  The school would have none of it.  They said the reservist was free to quit his job (with 30 days notice) BUT they would not even consider rehiring him at the conclusion of his course.

Cpl Bloggins had to decide between staying Cpl  & retaining his callout for 3 years OR quitting, taking his course & then start looking for another job within the CF or, possibly on Civy street......  "Peechy!"

 

[karl28]

        This is long over due  a military reservist who goes on temporary active duty shouldn't have to worry about losing there civilian job back home .  If the gov can let  parents take paternity leave for one parent up to a year off  work and still be able to keep there job than the gov should be able to do the same for a reservist who is serving their  country .

 

[scoutfinch]

Never forget that this is a double edged sword.  I can attest from personal experience that prospective employers are very,very wary of hiring reservists in jurisdictions with employment protection legislation.  I was grilled for atleast 20 minutes of a one hour preliminary interview and about 3/4 of my hour+ long final interview on the subject of my future intentions with the Reserves and possibilities of future deployments.  I eventually declined the position offered and elected to effect a CT to the RegF.

Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.

 

[vonGarvin]

Job protection may not be an issue any longer in some jurisdictions; however, finding a job in those jurisdictions will become one.

That was, if I recall, always a worry about "job protection".  Sure, companies are mandated to not fire employees due to their reserve status, but they have no restrictions over not hiring reservists.

 

[scoutfinch]

That was, if I recall, always a worry about "job protection".  Sure, companies are mandated to not fire employees due to their reserve status, but they have no restrictions over not hiring reservists.

It's been a problem in some states for years for the National Guard.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It’s a good start, but along with the stick you need some honey. The employer should get some benefit from hiring a reservist and letting them serve. The benefit could be a tax credit, possibly a limited top up of funding to hire replacement, although I think tax breaks are a better idea.

So if a reservist gets X amount of days training a year, they give a form completed by the reservist & unit to his employer who attaches it to their tax form to receive the credit. It could be a sliding scale, the more training, the bigger the credit.

 

[Mikeg81]

I think that the company is already getting compensation for hiring a reservist.

Its called making money.

And, IMO, if said employer will allow a reservist to go and train, I know I would pay that company back with a little more loyalty and hard work.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Actually it costs an employer to release a reservist to go on a long course, the position has to be back filled or covered off by someone else. Although an employer will not state officially that they won’t hire a reservist, they can make life difficult or choose to hire someone else. That would be the backlash of a law requiring a employer to release a reservist, the same way that employer prefer not to hire a woman of child bearing years if they can choose another candidate who is not in that demographic. My 2IC was a supervisor for a large power company, he could never get time off to take his SLC and I know others that were told to choose between their jobs and their “hobby”

Honey will go a long way in making the life of a reservist easier when trying to balance the demands of 2 very different careers.

 

[Mikeg81]

I must have brain-block on....so if I go on a deployment, and my civ job stops paying me, but gives that money to someone else...what is that costing them?

Are you talking in terms of training? Hiring?

As for the rest...sounds like a Human Rights complaint to me. But I'm not so stupid to think that the HRC would do anything to help.