Reservists Job Protection Superthread

[TMM]

Providing employers with an economic incentive would encourage their support, offset some costs they incur (though they would be avoiding the reservist's normal civilian salary), and provide tangible evidence to the soldier that they are valued.

Someone has to do the job of the person who has left and will need to be paid to do it.

I'm a civi, an employer and I have mixed feelings on this. On civi street, part-time employees do not get the same benefits as those who work full time. For large companies with several people in one department, extended leave would not cause major problems, but for a little guy like me, with a core staff of 4 people, in a technical field, having someone leave for 6 months + would be a massive headache.

I could see protection similar to parental leave, for a clearly defined period of time.

At some point though I'm thinking that one needs to decide between civi and military paths.

 

[dapaterson]

Someone has to do the job of the person who has left and will need to be paid to do it.

Yes, of course - but  I was highlighting the cost avoidance of not having the reservist's salary to pay while they are deployed.  Adding to that some tax credit (my $500 per week was deemed too generous by GAP - he must work for the Canada Revenue Agency ) helps offset the disruption.  Admittedly, it's less than perfect for smaller companies like yours, self-employed people, or those employed in the not-for-profit sector.

But I'd much rather have people griping that the system in place isn't perfect vice the current situation of having  no system in place.


GAP:

I think we'd need to get the Department of Useless Government Form Creation (DUGFC) engaged to provide an employer with something to make their accountants happy - a posting message would have most Certified Accountants scratching their heads and looking confused...

 

[John Nayduk]

I've always said that if they can give new parents time off, they can do the same thing for reservists. 

 

[GAP]

GAP:

I think we'd need to get the Department of Useless Government Form Creation (DUGFC) engaged to provide an employer with something to make their accountants happy - a posting message would have most Certified Accountants scratching their heads and looking confused...

Yeah, you're right...it just has to be something official that does not involve reams of paper, but shows the employer that the employee is not slacking off and gives him the right to collect $$ while he is away.

 

[c4th]

Non-refundable tax credit of $500 per week to the employer while the reservist is away from their civilian job. 

And does the DND budget pay for this or do taxes go up?

 

[GAP]

And does the DND budget pay for this or do taxes go up?

realistically a sub category under DND Human Resources, or something.

 

[armyvern]

Just my 2 cents worth...

Employers are already obligated by legislation to hold positions for their female employees for up to 1 year while they proceed on maternity leave.

Why can't legislation be passed to obligate employers to do the same for ResF personnel proceeding on Operational taskings? This would cover work-up trg, deployment and thier well-earned TO after the tour.

Vern

 

[TMM]

ArmyVern, I do like something similar to the mat/pat leave. If a reservist were deployed, I would have no problem using EI to top up their deployment pay up to civi levels. If going that route though, the same requirements that exist for leave/EI claims regarding hours worked would have to be followed.

 

[Shamrock]

However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.

 

[GAP]

However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.

You are always going to have some of that. The idea here is to at least get the employers begin to recognize that there is life beyond their workplace, and people do want to do other things. Right now, employers know from nothing about the reserves (generally) and totally dismiss it when it comes to their employee.

The states already had generated a culture of employers knowing that the jobs have to  be kept.

 

[Echo9]

A few notes here:

1.  Most larger employers don't have problems with reservists taking a year to a year and a half to do a tour.  They already have procedures in place for maternity leave, which they are legally bound to honour, and they will typically honour them.  The key is that the soldier has to give about the same notice as maternity leave- 6 months.

2.  In a lot of cases, the problem lies more with the reservist- not doing things with enough time.  Sometimes this can't be helped, goodness knows I've seen enough speedballs over the years where an augmentee is required for 6 months starting next week.  But, in most cases, the 3-6 month lead time is feasible these days.

3.  In a lot of cases, soldiers make their case at the wrong level.  A low level manager is much more likely to say no than someone higher in the food chain.  This is one of the areas that CFLC can help.  Again, timing is the key thing.

4.  Any program, whether it's carrot or stick is going to have problems with adoption with small employers.  Kinda stinks, but it's reality.  While the $500 per week tax write off is a no brainer for a large company, it's likely not rich enough to overcome the barriers that exist for a shop with less than 10 people, and each person has that much less replaceable.

5.  Short leaves of 2 weeks are also usually not a big issue- it's really like normal vacation.  One thing that I've encountered is that employers are often comfortable with leave without pay for courses, if you're concerned about all of your vacation days being used to attend courses.

6.  the biggest difficulty is getting the 6-8 weeks that seems to be standard course length these days.  To my mind, one of the most important hurdles that we face these days is reducing that time away from the unit while still maintaining the key content.  Not so much an issue at the QL3 level, big issue when you're trying to get those 22 weeks of training over 5 courses to get someone from MCpl to WO.

7.  The worst civ employer is multitudes better than the average non-res unit class B employer.  Yes, I get that you're being paid out of one budget to do one job, and not to parade with the home unit.  Yes, I understand that the focus needs to remain there.  But jeez!  It's like pulling teeth to get anything- half day CTO after an ex weekend, courses, sometimes even simple permission to parade during periods where there was no conflict.  I've even had permanent class B members volunteer for Op Tours and get denied.  There are some very good class B employers, but they are usually the exception.

and last of all...
8.  Dave: get back to work you lazy bugger!  Posting on this site in mid afternoon!  There's some good standing around that you're missing out on at the puzzle palace...

 

[MPIKE]

However, that brings us back to the problems American National Guardsfolk have with their protected employment.

Now are their problems really Ours?  I understand the point that keeps being brought up about discrimination etc.  But really we are not operating on the same scale as our counterparts to the south??  we are not mobilizing whole town units which creates the a massive hole in a employer's manpower.  I just can't buy into that the few augmentees or class A reservists are a large enough to warrant a systemic problem for employers?..

I wish I could remember the comments made by a QOR SSM at the 33 Bde conference this year where he valiantly tried to argue the points in this thread.  Unfortunatley, if you were there you might agree that they seem to fall on deaf ears..

 

[Shamrock]

I don't follow.  What were the points he was arguing?  That there should be protection or not?  To what degree?  Can you paraphrase?

 

[dapaterson]

and last of all...
8.   Dave: get back to work you lazy bugger!  Posting on this site in mid afternoon!  There's some good standing around that you're missing out on at the puzzle palace...

Nah, all the good standing spots by the windows were taken...

 

[Haggis]

I wish I could remember the comments made by a QOR SSM at the 33 Bde conference this year where he valiantly tried to argue the points in this thread.  Unfortunately, if you were there you might agree that they seem to fall on deaf ears..

It's all about "picking your battles" and "knowing thy enemy" (not that LCol Kilby would be considered an enemy) but, from the LCol's perspective, the MWO's arguments were invalidated from LCol Kilby's experience in dealing with Reserve augmentees for operations, and the MWO was going to lose.

Other threads have dealt with the challenges and benefits/liabilities of preparing Reservists for deployments.  The over-arching theme seems to be that you need six months of pre-deployment time just to administratively prepare a Reservist to deploy.  If his/her administration DAG was sorted out prior to arrival at the deploying unit, you could easily pare that down to 75 to 90 days of good, solid soldiering before being declared OPRED and getting on the plane/BHS.

However if the Reservists continue to arrive at the mounting base without basic kit, I cards, shots, dental etc. etc. we cannot TRAIN them to deploy any faster.

Apologies for the tangent, but until we get a better grip on Reserve administration the timeline to deploy Reservists will remain extraordinarily long and we will continue to ask employers to accommodate our shortcomings.

 

[Kunu]

How about this for another component of the carrot/stick approach:

As everyone knows, the federal government is a major customer for businesses across Canada.  Sooo...after a given date, if companies wish to be eligible to receive contracts, they must have a policy of job protection for reservists that meets certain benchmarks. 

Thoughts?

 

[geo]

.  Most larger employers don't have problems with reservists taking a year to a year and a half to do a tour.  They already have procedures in place for maternity leave, which they are legally bound to honour, and they will typically honour them.  The key is that the soldier has to give about the same notice as maternity leave- 6 months.

Problem is that most of the reservists work for some of the smaller employers.... and they don't all have the staff to fill the gap... therefore they have to hire out.... so what do they need the reservist for anymore?... no win situation IMHO

 

[armyvern]

Well another part of the problem is the fact that although employers already do this for women proceeding on maternity leave, they are legally obligated to do so.

A legal obligation on their part to do the same for ResF members would go an awful long way to creating at least a 'peace of mind' on job security once the Reservists tour is complete. Sure, incentives are always nice, but let's face it most employers are not going to hold a posn unless they are forced to do so.

To those very few employers who already do this willingly and without incentives...praise and big Kudos. Most employers raised one heck of a stink when they found out that maternity was increasing from 6 months to one year and that holding of the posns was mandatory. Do you honestly think that they're now going to roll-over and do this for our ResF members without being forced to do so via legislation?

If that were the case and they were willing, we wouldn't have ResF members now having to make what sometimes amount to be civilian career-ending decisions in order to serve their country deploying operationally.

 

[probum non poenitet]

In reply to rogsco's post:

Also, I know personally that certain units will tell their members that they must continue training with the unit if they want to be put on a class B

This is an illegal order (unless the Class B employer is also the home unit).
This sounds like an abuse of authority redress waiting to happen. 

 

[GAP]

Interest take on the issue just came out today in Defense News

Employer-Support Award No Mirage for Vegas Casino
By Samantha L. Quigley
American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=483

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17, 2006 – While competing for its share of the tourism market on the famed Las Vegas Strip, the MGM Mirage hotel and casino has earned something perhaps just as valuable: employee approval.
The National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, a Defense Department agency, has announced that the MGM Mirage is one of 15 recipients of the 2006 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award. The award publicly recognizes employers, nominated by employees serving in the National Guard and reserves, for exceptional support above the requirements of federal law.

Several MGM Mirage employees nominated their employer for the Freedom Award, Jeff Ellis, chief financial officer of corporate benefits for the MGM Mirage, said.

“We had seven or eight employees that sent in nominations. I don’t know which one was the one that got us the (award),” he said, adding that MGM Mirage officials are pleased with the recognition. “They’re very happy that (the employees) felt strong enough about our policy to actually nominate us for these awards.”

The MGM Mirage’s policy includes continued full pay and benefits for any employee called to active duty, Ellis said. “Whatever benefits they’ve selected as an employee, we continue them,” he said.

Of the hotel and casino’s 70,000-person workforce, about 110 are members of military reserve components, Ellis said. They work in positions ranging from security and information technology to management. Twenty-four of those employees currently are benefiting from continued full pay and benefits as they serve on active duty in their respective services.

“We don’t want them to have to worry about their family or their loved ones that they’ve left behind,” Ellis said. “We want our employees, our people that are called to active duty, to really concentrate on what they’re doing over there.”

ESGR will present the Freedom Awards to all 15 recipients during a ceremony Sept. 21 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, in Washington, D.C.