Would You Employ a Reservist?

  oresome 19:59 14 Aug 2012

There is an understandable reluctance by many employers to take on a potential reservist due to the disruption to the business caused by long periods away.

To combat this, Reservists may be given the same rights as women, who can't be asked if they intend to start a family at a job interview.

I don't think we can expect small companies in particular to shoulder this extra burden, brought about by the downsizing of the armed forces.

  Snec 20:13 14 Aug 2012

I agree with you, oresome.

Something needs doing and the person taken on to do it needs to be there to do it. It is called 'employment' and I find it amazing that many employment laws seem to ignore the reason someone is employed in the first place. But after making laws to provide maternity leave to men we can expect anything these days.

  Aitchbee 20:40 14 Aug 2012

I would not employ anybody who did not satisfy MY 'job description' capabilities and/or conditions of employment.

...that rules me out!

  wiz-king 05:08 15 Aug 2012

The company I work for did. He said at the interview that he was in the TA and was liable to go to Afghanistan for three months, he had just enough time to get his feet under the desk, so to speak, and was then off for a spell of duty. Also his annual holidays have to be arrange to suit his TA training camps but these are arranged months in advance. Not too much of a problem, certainly less than the problem caused by maternity leave.

  Forum Editor 07:30 15 Aug 2012

"I don't think we can expect small companies in particular to shoulder this extra burden, brought about by the downsizing of the armed forces."

Why not? Surely it's no different from small companies having to shoulder the burden of keeping a job open for a woman who leaves to have a baby.

We seem to be living at a time when everyone expects to be protected from the consequences of changes in our society. We're downsizing the armed forces for economic reasons, so you expect a sector of society (small business owners) to get special treatment because of it.

  Bing.alau 07:48 15 Aug 2012

I'm not in a position to offer anyone a job. But when I was, I would rather have employed a reservist than a non reservist. Why?

Well there is the fact that they have already shown a willingness to commit themselves to something; They are less likely to grumble and dodge the difficult parts of the job; They can take orders without feeling insulted; They can give orders without offending others; They are likely to be more disciplined and more professional in their outlook to the future. (They are not going to be in the reserves for life anyway). They are likely to have skills not found in a non reservist. The NHS has made big strides in surgery techniques because of the experience of its surgeons/doctors and nurses in war zones.

Some of them are also going to be women, who may also require maternity leave on top of the fact that they will be doing their annual training session away from their 9 to 5 job. But they will still be a superior asset than non reservists. (I can't get my head around men requiring maternity leave though).

(Stands back and awaits the flak).

  Quickbeam 08:38 15 Aug 2012

I also was going to post similar to FM.

  john bunyan 09:19 15 Aug 2012

The problem is that in the period from post WW2 to about the time of the Iraq war, reservists did a minimum of 2 weeks per year plus weekends, and if they went on longer tours it was mainly on a voluntary basis when between jobs or with some employers support. The situation now and in the future is totally different. As well as the minimum training period, they are much more frequently "called up" for operational deployment, which is usually for a whole year - 6 months work up with an operational unit followed by a 6 months tour in Afghanistan. Employers should, in my view , be given tax incentives to, for example, take care of pension contributions (and pay out if they are killed what they would have got at retirement age) and also towards the cost of replacements if needed. If Israel can do it, we should.

  interzone55 10:09 15 Aug 2012

In the past I've employed two men who'd very recently left the army, neither lasted more than a fortnight, because they found the mundaneness of warehouse work was not to their taste after military life.

One had just left after a spell in Serbia, and disappeared before the week was out, next thing I heard he'd turned "freelance" and was doing security work back in Serbia. The other just didn't turn up one day, and I never heard from him again.

I've worked with plenty of ex-servicemen & women who've been out of the army for a while, and they're generally OK, but I think someone who's just been demobbed after returning from combat will have difficulties with many jobs.

On a related note - seeing as there's already around 3m unemployed, and there's not many vacancies about, where are all these soldiers supposed to find work, considering the Remploy plants are closing, and the Government, with the help of Atos, are removing DLA from anyone who's not on a ventilator?

  oresome 10:32 15 Aug 2012

Nice to see some varied points of view, not all agreeing with mine.

Regarding the FE's point about downsizing the armed forces due to the economic climate. The West is in a financial mess because we find it difficult to compete in a global market place due to our higher wages, better working conditions, poor productivity and onerous employment conditions imposed on employers.

Adding extra burdens to business decreases our competitive ability still further and the downward cycle continues.

Large companies have more slack but if the conditions become too onerous, outsource the work to somewhere cheaper.

  Bing.alau 10:32 15 Aug 2012

In my experience a lot of regular service-people emigrate to such places as Oz and/or New Zealand. A lot these days find work in security jobs mostly in the middle east. The better quality people seem to do that the most. They want to be where the big money is. I can't blame them for that.

The ones invalided out with severe wounds are unable to get jobs unless they have very good qualifications and are able to compete with able bodied people. Most of the ones suffering from shell shock are probably unemployable, through no fault of their own and should be looked after from pillar to post. Not left to beg on the streets like the veterans of WW1 and WW2. They have just been unlucky and dealt a blow their minds can't cope with.

The rest should get priority in the jobs market.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 Hack Latest News: How Secure is your Wi-Fi?

Photoshop CC 2018 released with new Curvature Pen and better brush tools

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Comment utiliser Twitter ?