National Guard, Reserve and 60 Minutes
Saw this episode on 60 minutes last night.
The report talks about the problems maintaining job security in the face of deployments (and enduring problem), but it points out what I think will be a huge issue in coming years: The utilization of the NG and Reserve as an operational rather than strategic reserve force. As the piece notes, Guardsmen and Reservists already face employment discrimination because of frequent deployments and I only see that trend worsening as regular deployments/activations become institutionalized. If trends continue, many capable people will either quit the Guard/Reserve or not consider joining in the first place for fear of damaging their prospects for civilian employment and/or advancement. As a reservist currently myself, this concern is quite personal, particularly since I've been in high-optempo Reserve and Guard units since I left active duty.
I think there is some merit to the argument in the 60 minutes piece that by utilizing less expensive Guard and Reserve forces, all the government is doing is shifting the financial burden elsewhere - mainly onto civilian employers and the Guardsmen/Reservists themselves. I know many fine and talented individuals who've already left the service because of this issue. I don't think DoD has fully considered the second and third order effects this policy will likely create. Increasingly, I think DoD will be forced to hire more full-time technicians and ARG personnel, as well as further exploit "virtual" full timers (that the NG/Reserve have long depended on) - those that stay in status thanks to man-day money. These latter folks are a lot like contract personnel in many ways.
Anyway, I see major problems looming in the next decade because of these new policies. Comments?
It is a problem and it is complex.
In fact, it's a major problem and IMO use of the Guard and Reserve as an operational rather than an emergency and strategic reserve is unwise. I do believe that a specific subset of both (recall the original definitions of Ready Reserve and Standby Reserve) could be so used but it should be comparatively small.
I have long contended that the Reserve Cmponents should be larger than the Active Components in all services but that sure does upset the active heirarchy... :D
Interesting factoid is that the biggest employer problem with long call-ups for the RC involves two very distinct categories of employers --the major Corporations (During DD/DS ATT was an absolute monster about it...) who are exceedingly cost conscious -- a few are however, very supportive -- and at the other end, local government entities, small cities and counties who are only one deep in many employees. I'm not at all sympathetic to the big guys but the little ones have a very real problem -- yet they are supportive to the point of pain. Interesting contrast between the large and small...
An allied problem to this is the large number of serving police and sheriff's officers who are sometimes but far from always MPs -- most small Departments can ill afford their lengthy absence. Same applies to EMTs and Paramedics.
There are no easy solutions to this -- but return of the RC to a non-operational reinforcing mode will, I believe, be necessary and demanded over the next few years. Hopefully the wizards (Heh :rolleyes: ) at DoD are figuring this in.
I strongly agree with both of you.
I'll add that Vouno and Peay bear considerable responsibility for failure to use the RC correctly during their stay in DC and thus created a flurry of not always helpful laws from Congress after the fact in an attempt to insure that it didn't happen again. As is usual when our Congress tries to help, their laws did almost as much harm as they did good. :(
Most things are better than they were but there's still too much parochialism on both sides of the AC / RC divide -- and there is a divide. That needs to change.
Reed is also correct in saying some active duty is helpful to the RC (as well as to the AC). As he said it needs to be short and worthwhile.
Firings/promotions/ impacts of mobilizations
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John T. Fishel
It probably requires some legislation that would make certain civilian jobs exempt from the RC - eg police, fire, EMS. And it would require putting some real teeth into the legal protections that the RC members already have (such as making it a felony to deny employment for RC participation with individual responsibility and 5+ year prison terms....)
They can't fire you, but they don't have to promote you, send you to training, or make you the least bit competitive for promotions in an up-or-out workplace and then suddenly you hit the equivalent of a military RCP b/c you're missing several certifications/courses you needed to make the next grade and avoid a cut. I know at least one guy that happened to (at a bank), and I've heard about a few others. These guys are doomed to a spin-cycle of low-level careers because they can't get promoted at work.
That also leaves out the issue of the independent contractor - say a drywall guy - who has a relationship with a local general contractor for construction work. Now SGT Drywall spends a year checking IDs at the gate at Ft Benning because our Army is too small to secure itself and too cheap to hire help. When he gets back after a year, that general contractor has himself a new drywall guy that won't get deployed, can work weekends b/c he's not at drill, and isn't guarding water buffaloes after a hurricane when he *really* needs the construction help repairing damaged homes.
Can you sue the general contractor for "firing" the SGT Drywall? Not in the least - he's not an employee. But can SGT Drywall work in that town anymore? Not at level he was accustomed to.
Same thing with the local independent car mechanic whose customers need their cars fixed while he's walking the fenceline at Fort Jackson, or the pharm sales guy who's territory needs covering while he's babysitting gate guards and dealing with soldiers sleeping around at Ft Gordon, and whose relationships with local docs is now gone because he's off the grid for a year.
No one sounds off for these guys before or after mobilizations, but now they're stuck having to volunteer to go on the next one because they can't work in their hometown any more, and they can't support their family without the income. But to get the income they have to leave home for 12 months at a time. Why would these guys stay? :mad:
And it's always fun when your unit mobilizes and takes with it the country sherriff, 2 of 8 deputies, and the dispatcher, plus 6 of 9 police officers in one town and 5 of 9 in the one next to it, plus 7 of 10 firefighters in that town, too.
Do that every 4 years, and the town's going to be looking for new cops, firefighters, etc. They can't have their towns decimated by mobilizations.