Why do the Conservatives hate the CF reserves?

Despite all the lofty promises made by the Harper government in the field of national defence they have managed to demonstrate a complete ineptitude in the personnel department.

A particular problem which has long plagued the Canadian Forces is the status and employment of the reserve component: that group of 23,000 volunteers who train on weekends, during vacations and often, during periods of unpaid leave from civilian jobs.

And now, because the regular force is so short-handed and the commitments are too high, reservists are filling lengthy active service positions on major operations, including combat. Part of this goes back to the 1987 Mulroney-era Defence White Paper which introduced the Total Force Concept, a plan which integrated the CF reserve component into the peacetime national defence structure.

Typical of conservative governments, less than adequate attention was paid to the effect on the people involved. While some minor improvements were made in the compensation for reserve service the single biggest problem facing Canada's part-time service personnel was the issue of conflict with civilian employment.

The Chretien government, while reaffirming the Total Force policy in its 1994 Defence White Paper simply made the problem worse. Instead of addressing the issue it reduced the paid-ceiling strength of the CF Reserve by several thousand people. Along with refusing the pay the Supplementary Reserve at all, (resulting in the wholesale loss of former regular force, skilled personnel in the event of an emergency), there was a very real possibility that Primary Reserve personnel would be refused training opportunities because the pay budget had been exhausted.

But the problem didn't go away and now, because reservists are now needed to fill certain full-time roles, it is surfacing as one of the most damaging aspects of a reservist's volunteer service.

Charles Gillis in Macleans writes:

When the call came through, Paul, a master corporal in the Canadian Forces reserves, was coated in camouflage, soot and a sheen of sweat. But the 35-year-old soldier from Toronto figured the message must be urgent, so he rushed to find out what was wrong. "It was my office telling me I had made a mistake filling out the forms for my leave," he recalls, noting that he was miles away from the nearest land line -- a pay phone at the base offices -- at the time. After weeks of trudging through the brush near Meaford, Ont., as part of his training for active duty, he was near the end of his tether with an employer who failed to grasp what he was trying to accomplish in the reserves. "I was totally exhausted, I hadn't eaten in two days," he says. "Here they were calling me over some stupid problem with paperwork. It definitely was not cool."

It would get worse. Paul -- who asked that his identity be withheld because he was speaking without the army's approval -- lost three days of pay because of the paperwork foul-up. Then, in a decisive exchange upon his return, the head of the Toronto finance company where he worked cornered him for a face-to-face conversation. "You were one of our best employees," the executive said ruefully, "until you got into this silly army thing."

Paul quit the firm three weeks later -- "I knew at that moment that I couldn't stay" -- and found another job. But stories like his are playing out with increasing frequency throughout Canada's army reserves, as the so-called "weekend warriors" who back up the country's 62,000-strong force of regulars are drawn into the all too real world of gun battles, ambushes and roadside bombs.

[...]

The result, inevitably, is friction between reservists and their bosses. Leo Desmarteau, the executive director of the Canadian Forces Liaison Centre, a joint civilian-military body which works to mediate these differences, estimates the number of soldiers seeking assistance in workplace disputes has increased from roughly 30 per year before the mission in Afghanistan to more than 100 last year. Most cases are easily settled, he says. "We encourage reservists to have a clean, clear break from their work situation before they go on tour." But some are not. (Emphasis mine)

Hold it right there.

This is not a new problem. It's getting to be an old and tired story, and there aren't too many reservists who would disagree, particularly where they are in a progressing civilian career, that they are in jeopardy of severe future financial loss on their return to the civilian world. In fact, most have no job to come home to.

Why? Because there is nothing to compel Canadian employers to make allowances of any kind for national military service. They don't have to hold a position and they don't have to grant leave without pay. They can, after having granted leave, terminate an employee in absentia, conceivably at precisely the moment that employee is engaged in a firefight in a place like Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a retired regular force brigadier-general and former defence industry lobbyist agrees that reservists should have their civilian jobs protected when they are away serving Canada.

Officials in O'Connor's office say the minister has asked his department for advice on the issue, and hopes to bring forward a new approach later in the year.

The advice O'Connor is seeking has been spewing forth for decades. And it's very straight forward: Pass legislation that would compel employers to hold a reservist's position for the specified duration of his/her full-time military obligation. If necessary, compensate employers financially.

The result would see an immediate increase in CF Reserve component recruiting and retention.

Is there a problem? Oh yes. Canadian employers don't really like the idea. It creates a level of instability in their workforce they would rather not endure. It would be inconvenient.

Will such legislation likely be forthcoming? Probably not.

Harper's mean-spiritedness comes from the very community which would object to any legislation compelling them to hold jobs while some of their employees are on active service. It would be viewed as government interference with their businesses.

So, for now, the cost of sending reservists to Harper's military adventures will be borne by the reservists themselves. Their employers will suffer no discomfort or inconvenience - at all.

It puts this statement by Harper to the test:

Harper said Canadians could learn from the soldiers, who are embarking on what he called "the highest calling of citizenship".

No one believes for a minute that Harper actually meant that, but by saying it, he correctly and inadvertently puts the employers who would screw their people when they proceed on active service as somewhere well below that calling.

Hat tip to reader: Les