Would you hire someone if they were in the Territorial Army?
Discussion
Following on from the coverage of the army cuts today, it got me and my OH talking about the logistics of having people in the TA working with/for you.
She works for an organisation with close connections to the army; consequently they have a large number of reservists on the books, to the extent that they have made disaster contingency plans in case they were all called up at once.
In my case I have a team of six people working for me, whose work is organised into day-sized packets. Consequently a TA member going on deployment would be like someone being on long term sick, which causes chaos; we're not in an industry where we can get effective temps.
So, if I'm honest, if I got a CV that said "I'm in the TA" I'd have to try really hard not to chuck it in the bin, as they may as well say "I'm prone to long periods of time off sick".
According to Mrstheboy, TA members are not required to disclose this, so new employee could (in theory) walk in on day one and say "I'm off to fight one of Tony Blair's hangover wars next week, toodle pip!"
I know this sounds phenomenally unpatriotic etc. but I can imagine why small employers might look upon TA members less than favourably.
She works for an organisation with close connections to the army; consequently they have a large number of reservists on the books, to the extent that they have made disaster contingency plans in case they were all called up at once.
In my case I have a team of six people working for me, whose work is organised into day-sized packets. Consequently a TA member going on deployment would be like someone being on long term sick, which causes chaos; we're not in an industry where we can get effective temps.
So, if I'm honest, if I got a CV that said "I'm in the TA" I'd have to try really hard not to chuck it in the bin, as they may as well say "I'm prone to long periods of time off sick".
According to Mrstheboy, TA members are not required to disclose this, so new employee could (in theory) walk in on day one and say "I'm off to fight one of Tony Blair's hangover wars next week, toodle pip!"
I know this sounds phenomenally unpatriotic etc. but I can imagine why small employers might look upon TA members less than favourably.
Defcon5 said:
Do you have a similar outlook on women of child bearing age?
Well no, because I can ogle them, obviously. 
Joking apart, maternity's never come up - thank goodness.
I only posted this because it had never occurred to me before, and there was some allusion on the radio today to employers becoming less receptive to employees being TA members, while the government seem to think they are an increasing part of the army of the future.
Maternity is a very good analogy - thank you for that - another situation where if you work for a big organisation and don't have particularly specific skills it won't cause too much a problem, but to a small employer where everyone does something specific, it must be a nightmare.
There has been any number of threads on here about people doing their utmost not to hire any woman of child bearing age; It'll be interesting to hear their take on this. I suspect it'll be similar (while you may get 97 odd % of their salary covered, it doesn't cover the cost of a temp, who won't be as good as the original staff member, nor the cost of the mistakes they make learning the role, nor does it cover the hassle involved).
I'm not an employer, just repeating what has been said here before.
I'm not an employer, just repeating what has been said here before.
I can see that the inconvenience of having someone that may take off for long periods would be difficult for a small business.
If I was in a larger company that could fairly readily absorb that, I'd look on it favourably as an extra-curricular thing that reflects well on the person.
I guess it's where the two overlap that's the question.
Must say I'm not in charge of hiring anyone, so feel free to ignore me.
If I was in a larger company that could fairly readily absorb that, I'd look on it favourably as an extra-curricular thing that reflects well on the person.
I guess it's where the two overlap that's the question.
Must say I'm not in charge of hiring anyone, so feel free to ignore me.
The benefits of having staff in the Reserve Forces more than often outweigh any perceived cost. For example, they get free training, they get paid whilst conducting that training, they get developed in ways that many organisations could not hope to get close to, and if they do get called up, you get funding from the MOD to hire replacement staff. If you have a number of staff in the Reserves, they would not all get called up at once; you also have the right to say no too if it would damage your business for whatever reason. I certainly encourage my staff to consider service in the Reserves for all of the reasons above and my organisation and it's customers are better for it.
Johnnytheboy said:
According to Mrstheboy, TA members are not required to disclose this, so new employee could (in theory) walk in on day one and say "I'm off to fight one of Tony Blair's hangover wars next week, toodle pip!"
Not true, when you join the reserves you have to give your employer details and a letter is sent to inform them of their commitment etc. I suppose you might get through an interview without mentioning it, but when they get that letter in your probationary period it'd be all too easy for the employer to say 'you didnt tell us, bye' or make up some excuse.If I were an employer id find it difficult to employ a reservist member unless it was unskilled work that didn't require much training. The employer can claim the employees salary whilst they are on tour to get a replacement in - but for example if I were to go on tour tomorrow, finding an experienced software engineer for a year would cost a hell of a lot more than my salary.
As it happens I am very lucky to work for an employer that has a very favourable policy towards reservists, I can't fathom why, I am just glad they do.
Your job as a reservist is protected when you go on operation. I would be disgusted if any employer didnt want to employ someone who was in the TA for just that reason. It might be inconvenient for you as an employer, but for the employee they are probably risking life and limb for a cause and quite possibly that 'cause' is the defence of the United Kingdom.
I've just copied this directly from the TA website http://www.army.mod.uk/join/26850.aspx
'Joining the Army as a Territorial won’t put your job at risk. There is a legal requirement to tell your employer, so make sure that you do. It’s also a good idea to do it in plenty of time. That way, if you need to take time off, you can give them plenty of warning and they can arrange to cover your absence.'
So there you go.
'Joining the Army as a Territorial won’t put your job at risk. There is a legal requirement to tell your employer, so make sure that you do. It’s also a good idea to do it in plenty of time. That way, if you need to take time off, you can give them plenty of warning and they can arrange to cover your absence.'
So there you go.
Condi said:
Your job as a reservist is protected when you go on operation. I would be disgusted if any employer didnt want to employ someone who was in the TA for just that reason. It might be inconvenient for you as an employer, but for the employee they are probably risking life and limb for a cause and quite possibly that 'cause' is the defence of the United Kingdom.
It may be disgusting - and I entirely agree that joining the TA is a Good Thing - but if I had the choice between two otherwise identical candidates for a hard-to-cover job, it would be hard for me to justify putting patriotism before the good of my employer. 
Mojooo said:
Some guy I met the other week is having a month off to man the Olympics.
What a lovely misconception. He's not having a month off, he is doing another job for that month!I'll be attending ITC Catterick soon, booked the time off.. colleagues all seem to think I'll be on holiday for that time despite me saying where I'm off to. Umm, no, ill be doing work that is a lot more demanding than my day job!
extraT said:
I'd also assume that with maternity you have 7-9 months to plan, rather then a few days compared to a TA.
They will be given several months notice of deployment so that's not really an issue(unless they are doing secret squirrel things for intelligence or SAS/etc, in which case they could tell you but then they'd have to kill you.)Random fact; my mechanics lecturer in 1st yr was in the TA, REME I think; Major Ron! Nutter.
Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 9th July 22:09
We had a couple of TA people in our office - and I have to say that the two of them were much more dependable, mature, and disciplined than the rest of the staff. Maybe because of their training, they tackled any job and did a good job too - and also became natural team leaders.
So in our case, a distinct advantage having them.
So in our case, a distinct advantage having them.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff