The government’s defence plans depend on employer goodwill

Nothing, it seems, will be immune from the peaking of the state. Even the armed forces, the state’s original raison d’être, will be scaled back. By 2020, the government aims to have reduced the size of the army by 20 percent.

Under these plans, the resulting gap in the UK’s defence capability is to be plugged by the reserve forces. This means increasing their size and capability significantly. The Territorial Army will need to double in size and its members will require a lot more training. All of this depends on the goodwill of employers. The former head of the Army, Lord Dannatt, warned that employers may prove reluctant to give reserve soldiers time off for training and deployment.

I couldn’t find any research into employer attitudes to the reserve forces but it is an area of concern for some soldiers. This Chief of General Staff report comments:

There is a belief that there is a reduction in support for mobilisation from employers.

Some TA officers I spoke to a few years ago reckoned that there was a change in employer attitudes in the 1990s. They blamed this on a generational shift. Until the 90s, thanks to post-war conscription, most directors and senior managers had seen military service and looked favourably on the Territorial Army. As they began to retire, the baby boomers, with their more ambivalent attitude to the armed forces, took over. It was at this point, the officers explained, that it became harder for soldiers to get time off work and, in some cases, employer discrimination against TA members increased.

It is a plausible hypothesis, though hard to prove. Nevertheless there is a view among some members of the reserve forces that employers view them unfavourably.

The legal rights of TA members are limited. While employers are obliged to grant time off for duties as magistrates, councillors and school governors, no such obligation exists for those in the reserve forces. Employers must release workers and keep their jobs open when they are officially called up for service but there is no automatic right to time off for training.

And it is the training that makes the soldiers. Without it, the reserve forces have no hope of stepping up to their new role. Unless employers are prepared to release their staff, the Coalition’s 2020 defence plans will be ruined.

Which is why the government is considering new laws to protect the employment rights of those in the reserve forces. This is the same government that has been trying to reduce employment rights and has been kicking up a fuss about an EU ruling which might allow some employees extra time off. Despite all its rhetoric about the burden of regulation, in its quest to save money on its defence budget, the Coalition may have to enact new employment laws. Ironic or what?

It’s a question of priorities, of course. Real war is far more important than the phoney war on red-tape.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The government’s defence plans depend on employer goodwill

  1. Of course it was the duty of the feudal knights and lords – who benefited from their disproportionate ownership of hard assets such as land – to provide armed forces to protect the state. So maybe banks, pension companies and others who have the upper hand of wealth should have similar obligations.

  2. Pingback: The government’s defence plans depend on employer goodwill - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  3. Some of the increasing lack of sympathy among employers towards the TA will be due to globalisation. Multinationals necessarily consider their interests to be supra-national, so subsiding defence of the national state (through employee time off etc) is seen as another form of local tax.

    Shadenfreude at the irony of a neoliberal government enacting legislation to protect employee rights may be premature. It’s worth noting that Hammond’s proposals involve a greater reliance on both reservists and private contractors. It may well be that the real significance of this review is the increase in the latter, not the former. I don’t think the Tories are giving up on the market to provide solutions quite yet.

    Like many a Defence Secretary before him, Hammond has talked glowingly of the military being “better equipped”, maintaining an edge through high technology. Automation inevitably means a larger slice of the defence budget going to contractors, rather than being spent on “boots”. Rather than a substitue for regular troops, reservists in this new model army may turn out to be a transitional stage towards outsourced drone operators.

  4. rogerh says:

    Should have thought this is pure window dressing. Some sort of emergency legislation for call-up I guess, but pushing the ‘go’ button would be an act of desperation – and we have Trident for that. Will wither on the vine until full European integration.

    Good news for drone-makers, a very handy weapon that makes one’s opponents and all their children hate and despise one forever, produces no home-bound body bags and keeps conflicts going forever – all for a few £/pop.

    • Dipper says:

      Spot on. Drones alter warfare significantly – surprised mainstream commentators didn’t pick this up when the cuts were announced. Encouragingly, we have lots of teenage boys who are expert at video-games so our future security is in safe hands.

  5. Pingback: Territorial Army employment measures considered by Government | Redmans Solicitors

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s