TA to get legal protection against discrimination.

#3
Can't see this working. Doesn't an employer have the right to drop an employee without reason during their first year on board?
 
#4
Firms simply need to ask about membership of the reserves as a matter of course during the application process. File 13 awaits anyone who's ticked the 'Yes' box.
 
#5
Firms simply need to ask about membership of the reserves as a matter of course during the application process. File 13 awaits anyone who's ticked the 'Yes' box.


"Therefore, ministers are considering legal safeguards to allow people to take time off and return to their previous position – and to bar companies from asking potential employees whether they are members of the TA. There is anecdotal evidence of some companies refusing to hire reservists because of the potential disruption caused. "

From the article....
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#7
This was predictable if they really do intend to dramatically increase the number of "Reserves". Employers will however be incredibly imaginative in finding ways to identify potential members of the Reserves and in drafting employment contracts to make it virtually impossible to join.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
This has been investigated, and rejected, several times over the past fifteen years - and that's just the time I know about, It was rejected for the good and sensible reason that it was an utterly rubbish idea.

Now, considering that when it was first considered that this was before the idea of actually mobilising the Reserves for anything other than an all-out war of National survival was on the cards (i.e. before the TA got involved in 'wars of choice') and rejected as unworkable, what chance now, when employers will actually see their employees leave now and then?

Anyway, if brought in it will not change much. Those who want to be in the TA will continue to join, but with limited 'real' career and job choices. Those who are not will not be encouraged to join by this - on the contrary, it will now be seen as a 'real' second job, and not any more as a 'voluntary' activity by many employers - and that is NOT a good thing.
 
#10
So an employer will not be able to ask? I'll wager they'll be mighty pissed off when they find out.

It seems a bit like employment by stealth with a potential ambush.

Sent from my mobile
 
#11
...throw some real money and real protection behind the TA it's all smoke and mirrors...
Protecting the TA? What about protecting UK business? Speaking as an employer, I welcome the fact that there's an openness to knowing who is a reservist or not. Companies aren't stupid and the better ones also do risk and contingency planning in case of mobilisation of reserves. They also do their best to support reservists.

If all of this goes underground then companies risk taking a blind hit because there was no requirement on the part of the individual to declare that they were a reservist.

So no surprises if a hypothetical employer asks recruiters as a part of the due diligence process to see if the individual is a reservist? I bet a good recruiter (in this totally hypothetical situation) could get a 90% hit rate as a lot of reservists are probably pretty proud of being TA and have LI profiles, CVs, etc that extol the fact. Don't be surprised if someone else gets the job - it's a buyer's market and reservists = hassle under this model.

For those that bother with cause and effect, this 'initiative' forces a hefty chunk of the TA underground and may impact recruitment. Be careful what you wish for.

Back in the Army idiom, it's a ****ing stupid idea generated for column inches that will hit the TA and business at a bad time for both.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
Just when you think that the powers that be have achieved an unassailable level of ignorant ineptitude, they find another gear. How is it possible to be so blithely unaware of employment conditions in the real world? Even by the dire standards of what has gone before, this proposal is truly cretinous.
 
#13
Surely the concept of just keeping quiet about being a reservist until you get mobilised is not a sensible one by any stretch of the imagination?

If this is the kind of thinking that is being applied to FR2020, God help us all.
 
#14
Just when you think that the powers that be have achieved an unassailable level of ignorant ineptitude, they find another gear. How is it possible to be so blithely unaware of employment conditions in the real world? Even by the dire standards of what has gone before, this proposal is truly cretinous.
Welcome to the world of the modern professional political class. The apparatchik is alive and well....
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#15
The real issue is that the Army really hasn't worked out how to engage with employers and does so very poorly. There still seems to be an assumption that most reservists are employed by by the kind of 'Top 100' companies which are/were targeted by Sabre. In reality, most of those kind of employers are in a position to take a bit of a hit over reservists, unlike the small to medium sized employers who might really suffer when a key member of their workforce is taken away for a year. As the reserves become more important, employer support and liaison needs to become a key staff function at all levels, not just something you palm off on a fat wheezy NRPS bloke in RHQ, or some ex-regular RFCA sybarite.
 
#16
Can't see this working. Doesn't an employer have the right to drop an employee without reason during their first year on board?
Yes, subject to certain legal caveats. There are certain legal rights that an employee may enforce notwithstanding any 'qualifying period' of employment, such as the right of access to a trade union, right to a minimum wage, right to assert a statutory protection etc. Pregnancy is one such right.

However, it is near impossible to prove that the reason for the employer's not employing somebody, dismissing them or indeed discriminating against them is as claimed - the burden of proof rests with the individual affected and he/she must bring a civil claim through the Employment Tribunal.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, Mr Cameron, along with the cypher that is Dr Vincent Cable, have made that a whole lot more difficult!
 
#17
In what world is this remotely sensible or helpful? If an employer is unsympathetic to reservists, all they do is make life difficult for them in terms of time off for training, etc, when they've employed them.

I'm also a little sceptical of the idea that we should move towards a USNG model of employment protection. Admittedly it looks good on paper (well, the interweb anyway), but I'm unsure that they do much better than us in actual practice. My contact with NG units has suggested that they are heavily manned by national and local government servants (how many prison officers do the Yanks have!?), defence/government contractors' employees (an idea here for bidding for government work?) and individuals who (to put it politely) probably have marginal civilian employment prospects. I was struck by the number of mentions of "public sector employers" in FR2020. Another sideways acknowledgement from the government that, like the Olympics and the G4S fiasco, the much maligned public sector can deliver things that the private sector can't or won't?
 
#18
My contact with NG units has suggested that they are heavily manned by national and local government servants (how many prison officers do the Yanks have!?),
When I was offered employment with Her Majesty's Civil Service, we were actually encouraged at that point to join the TA/RNR/RAFR. I rather suspect the public sector is the only likely pool from which substantial numbers could be found notwithstanding any laws.
 
#19
In what world is this remotely sensible or helpful? If an employer is unsympathetic to reservists, all they do is make life difficult for them in terms of time off for training, etc, when they've employed them.

I'm also a little sceptical of the idea that we should move towards a USNG model of employment protection. Admittedly it looks good on paper (well, the interweb anyway), but I'm unsure that they do much better than us in actual practice. My contact with NG units has suggested that they are heavily manned by national and local government servants (how many prison officers do the Yanks have!?), defence/government contractors' employees (an idea here for bidding for government work?) and individuals who (to put it politely) probably have marginal civilian employment prospects. I was struck by the number of mentions of "public sector employers" in FR2020. Another sideways acknowledgement from the government that, like the Olympics and the G4S fiasco, the much maligned public sector can deliver things that the private sector can't or won't?
Which is a complete contrast to the early days of the TF/TA when large private companies pretty much picked up the tab for their local TA unit, and I mean "THEIR" ... John Brown's Steel pretty much raised and paid for 1 of the 4 Infantry battalions in Sheffield and gifted his home as RHQ.
 
#20
Which is a complete contrast to the early days of the TF/TA when large private companies pretty much picked up the tab for their local TA unit, and I mean "THEIR" ... John Brown's Steel pretty much raised and paid for 1 of the 4 Infantry battalions in Sheffield and gifted his home as RHQ.
Back when the wealthy were interested in the welfare of the nation. Long before my time and not, I suspect, ever to be repeated.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J The Intelligence Cell 27
2 Royal Signals 25
O Officers 15

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top