Here’s a proposal that merits unanimous support in the Leg.
Saskatchewan Party Leader Brad Wall today announced his intention to introduce a private members’ bill in the spring that would protect the civilian employment of Canadian Forces Reserve members who volunteer for military training, for duties in Canada or for deployment overseas.
“I remember meeting with some of these brave men and women at a Riders game this past fall,” Wall said.
“I told my son ‘We may see some heroes on the field today, but these are the real heroes and I think we owe them our support and recognition.”
The Canadian Forces Reservist Protection Act would mandate an unpaid leave of absence for employees who find themselves in these circumstances. The process for guaranteeing a job on return from a leave of absence is outlined in Section 80 of the Labour Standards Act.
The first problem is what is the impact of this bill on very small businesses? Someone returning from the sevices could mean the this business is suddenly overstaffed. Must these business now pay severance to get back to a staffing level they can afford? That could be ruinous to a small business, which is often close to the edge at the best of times.
A second problem is the law of unintended consequences. Such legislation might encourage businesses to avoid hiring people who are in the reserves or might join the forces, since such people could result in extra obligation for these businesses.
I sympathize with the intent, but such laws must be carefully thought out. Hoisting social programs on the back of businesses is not a free ride.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/17/navy-tieup.html
CBCpravda hasnt figured out that this is all related. you cant pay out 1 billion to support pravda , one billion to residential schools, extra billion to quebec transfer payments and on and on.
proof positive that CBCpravda thinks the well will never run dry as they are the proponents of duffism. where half the people east of the ottawa river sit on their duffs for 2/3 of the year.
I agree with the proposal as long as it protects the small business owner that Rabbit speaks of. Currently in the US, job protection for reservists called up to active duty is a stae affair, but guaranteed by Congress, which supplements the states financially who in turn supplement the small business owners financially and offset the wages of a part time/short term replacement employee. Not all states work this way, but the ones that do seem to have good job protection laws with teeth.
As a member of the CF Army Reserve I appreciate the effort to make serving easier. Job protection may be a part of the solution. There is a danger of making a Reservist a burden to the business that hires them.
Another option might be to offer tax incentives to allow Reservists to deploy. For example, the Fed. Gov’t could reduce the tax and benefits burden for employers for every Reservist they hire.
Job protection would work best for those who are in the Reserves but work for a level of government.
It is a complex issue, but it does need some consideration, especially since so many Reservists are now serving overseas.
Cardstonkid:
Good idea.
A variation might be to pay cash bonuses to business who lose people who are called up, proportional perhaps to the amount of time that person has worked for the business. Such businesses are then obligated to offer to rehire that person later.
This has the benefit of paying for social programs out of the social purse. It might also actually encourage, rather than discourage, businesses to hire reservists. This in turn encourages people to join the reserves.
Hell, if they have to save a job for a woman on maternity leave then they should be able to do the same for serving reservists. As with everything a little common sense would be required. A reservist that disappears from work every few months to train or whatever should also be aware of the issues the employer has to face. It works down south of the 49th.
The last comment took the words right out of my mouth. The fact that you may have to pay maternity leave is one of a great many factors that business owners need to consider when hiring an employee. It would be the same in the case of a reservist. I would support the legislation in question
“Hell, if they have to save a job for a woman on maternity leave then they should be able to do the same for serving reservists.”
The problem is, if a business refuses to hire women because of possible looses when they become pregnant, women can sue for discrimination, and will usually win. No such option exists for reservists.
Don’t be so quick to jump on this. While we appreciate the thought, there has been considerable debate within the military about this in the past, and we have never really reached a consensus. Many of us think it’d be a bad idea, while others think it’d be a good idea. If it’s going to be implemented, it needs to be researched more, and thought out better. You can’t just write a new piece of legislation and expect everything to work out perfect.
Alex,
Good point, but what about making it to some degree the option of the reservist. For instance, the feds pony up a lump sum subsidy either to a) Pay out the employer so that they will keep the job open for the reservist when he/she returns, or b) To pay out the reservist as a sort of pre-emptive compensation for the possibility of job loss.
My Dad is a Lt Colonel(ret) in the reserves (RNBR), and he has said for years that some sort of job protection would make it easier to find quality recruits.
One of the challenges the Reserves face is that it largely draws from the high school and post-secondary student demographic. That is because they are more likely to have the time off in the summer and on weekends to serve. Why do so many in their 20’s and 30’s avoid Reserve duty? Because, it is a real challenge to balance the Reserve life with their work and family life. If we want a larger more capable Reserve force then we need to find a way to allow others from a wider demographic to serve.
This means more than just employment protection, it will mean flexible training schedules and new approaches to recruiting.
In my unit we have about 60 actively training members. Of them, 18 are going on the 2008 rotation to Afghanistan. Some quit their jobs so they could go! Talk about sacrifice, nearly 1/3 of the active unit is going and many have no idea if they will have a job to come home to. I admire these folks. I am fortunate as I can get a sabbatical when I arrange to go. I don’t know how some of these guys and girls are doing it.
People talk about past generations being so much better then the current one and that may be true, but I do know that there are some in this generation who are showing the same greatness that made past generations so admired.
“Hell, if they have to save a job for a woman on maternity leave then they should be able to do the same for serving reservists.”
Bang On! In a nutshell….if you can justify holding jobs for people who want to reproduce you can damned well do the same for people who are sacrificing their own lives to protect your nation and you very way and means of life!
As a small business owner I am fully aware of the implications of holding a job open for a reservist that decides to volunteer for active duty in CAF. My nephew (reservist/ex regular forces) has offered his services should a Saskatchewan regiment be deployed in Afganistan so I have more than a theoretical or business connection to this issue – my perspective is personal. With respect to Wall’s proposed bill, I support this completely. Any person that fills in for a reservist will be informed that the position is contingent upon the return the reservist and will take the job under those auspices so the question of overstaffing is not really relevant.
I have also heard that Wall announced that he has written to small business groups to solicit input as to the specifics of this legislation that will facilitate not only the ease of exit for the reservist but for ideas that will limit the impact on the business. Notwithstanding this, I think that business owners should do their part and figure out their own strategies and policies to help our men and women that serve at the “pointed end of the stick”.
Good on Wall. I haven’t heard word 1 from the NDP on this issue. Typical – Jack Layton thinks we should hold a bake sale and a study session and maybe get a Canada Council grant to make the whole problem go away.
When my nephew goes overseas I want him to have the support of all of us. And the best kit that money can buy.
Rabbit, you aren’t going to like what I have to say but I REALLY think you need to hear it. Why, shouldn’t businesses be expected to make a sacrafice. From what you’re saying I can only conclude that you wish to reap the rewards of our country, but not carry part of the burden. From your post all I can hear is ME ME ME ME ME ME ME.
It may not be such a big problem for employers as many may think.
A local business owner I spoke to (last week) told me straight out that any reservist he employed would recieve his unconditional support. Then he proved it by informing a Reservist in his employ that her job would be waitng when she got back from serving.
Our heartless capitalists are not as heartless as some may think, and many understand how important Reserve service is, to both the country and, perforce, themselves.
Passing this form of legislation will set an example that few would complain against, and most would support.
As a Reservist, I am likely more sensitive to these issues, and have personally noted a striking change in attitudes in recent years. Far more of my fellow citizens are more strongly supportive of the Armed Forces than they have been in the past. A heartening development, indeed.
The days of Reservists being afraid to inform their employers is also passing; employers are realizing that reservists are a net benefit, not a potential liability, to their team.
Nova Scotia is already doing something similar.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with the concept of a nany state protecting the jobs of reservists from their own lifestyle choices. What reservists eed to do is discuss the situation with their employers and their units. If the day job boss is unaware of the employee’s role in the reserves, the CFLC will gladly take them out on a weekend trip and show them in person.
Of course, the reservist has to discuss it with the boss and nominate them first. Then again, in this culture of entitlement we’ve got on the go, kids can always wait for the government to bail them out. We all know it’ll happen.
Canadian regulars and reservists alike who end up in the landmine removal roulette game do indeed deserve generous financial bonuses.
Danger on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border
Canada should condemn Pakistan’s land mine plan.
Dateline: Friday, January 12, 2007
by Lloyd Axworthy
Lost in the flurry of news reports of Saddam Hussein’s execution was a seemingly innocuous item announcing that Pakistan is preparing to use anti-personnel land mines as a way of curtailing movement across its border into Afghanistan. This move deserves an immediate international response because of its potential destructive impact.
First, it is an admission from the government of Pakistan, one of our self-proclaimed allies in the fight against the Taliban, that it is incapable of controlling its lawless northwest territories where the Taliban and other militant groups breed and conspire in their attacks against the occupying NATO forces in Afghanistan.
The 1997 land mine treaty, now signed by more than 150 countries, showed that Canada can play a global leadership role.
Most important, the basic prohibition of land mines as a weapon of war was becoming an international norm, and the argument for its efficacy as a weapon was being dismissed.
The treaty’s 10th anniversary, set for the end of 2007, was meant to give its worldwide supporters the chance to assess its value and to make further progress in eliminating this destructive tool of war and its spin-off imitators such as cluster bombs.
But Pakistan’s move casts a shadow on the treaty’s accomplishments — and just might precipitate a regression where other countries feel that they, too, can flout the treaty because of the silence and unwillingness of its supporters to condemn Islamabad’s action.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature7.cfm?REF=38
=TG
Not all Liberals are liberal all the time.
Some can make good sense when not distracted with *the agenda*. = TG
Posted by: cal2
“http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/17/navy-tieup.html”
I’m not sure where those figures came from becuase when I went to work in Esquimalt on Monday, 6 ships were at sea. 4 on an exercise and 2 doing trials.
As a fulltime reservist I applaud Mr.Wall’s intended bill. I have witnessed the effects of short-term reservists, enjoying the challenges and rewards of CF employment and who wish to make longer commitments but are afraid of losing their jobs. This bill should allow for extended periods of training or deployment without fear of unemployment upon return.
From the naval aspect, our Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDV) require a 2 to 3 year commitment as core crew. With the core crews fully staffed, we can then provide the needed training to both regular and reserve naval officers for navigation and seamanship as well as short-term training to groups of naval reserves from units across Canada. An added benefit of the conduct of this training is the Canadian naval ‘presence’ up and down the east and west coasts of Canada and the US. Anyone that says that we are not providing a presence in our areas of responsibility has not talked to people in Zeballos or Prince Rupert BC, Anchorage Alaska or San Diego California. Most of the time we just sail past tiny coastal cities and towns but they still see the flag. We also act as ambassadors in North America and abroad. I can’t obviously speak from the Army perspective, but as Cardstonkid said, if there is a need reservists will step up irrespective of the consequences.
As there were issues with women in the work force and fear of not being hired beacuse they may want to do something crazy like procreate, there will be issues with a law mandating civilian employment protection for those who choose to do something crazy like protecting our country and deploying wherever and whenever told. In the end, as Martha would say, “It’s a good thing !”
Brad Wall:
The man who would be Sask Premier
by John F. Conway
Brad Wall’s recent acclamation as leader of the Saskatchewan Party meant he achieved the status of Leader of the Official Opposition with neither public debate nor scrutiny. In last fall’s election, the NDP handily beat the Saskatchewan Party 46 to 39 per cent, but the situation in the Legislature is precarious. The NDP won 30 seats to the Saskatchewan Party’s 28, and, with Deputy Premier Serby on health leave to battle cancer, the Speaker will have to break many tie votes on confidence questions. One slip up, or another health problem or a death, could lead to the fall of the Calvert government and an early election.
[SNIPPED: This is a comments section, not a service for reposting copyrighted columns in their entirety. Either provide the link, or start your own blog – ED]