Reservists Say War Makes Them Lose Jobs

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040815/ap_on_re_us/returning_from_war_guard_6&printer=1
WASHINGTON - Increasing numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops who have returned from war in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. Jobs were eliminated, benefits reduced and promotions forgotten.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reports receiving greater numbers of complaints under a 1994 law designed to give Guard and Reserve troops their old jobs back, or provide them with equivalent positions. Benefits and raises must be protected, as if the serviceman or servicewoman had never left.

Some soldiers, however, are finding the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act can't protect them.

_Larry Gill couldn't return as a police officer in Thomasville, Ala., because a grenade injured a foot, making it impossible for him to chase criminals or duck bullets.

_Jerry Chambers, of Oberlin, Kan., discovered budget cuts had eliminated his job as a substance abuse prevention consultant.

_Ron Vander Wal, of Pollock, S.D., was originally told his job as a customer service representative was eliminated. He was hired after filing a civil lawsuit seeking damages.

The Labor Department said complaint numbers would have been worse had the government not made an aggressive effort to explain the law to employers.

"Any increase in the number of complaints is a concern to us," said Fred Juarbe Jr., assistant secretary of labor for veterans employment and training. "At the same time, we're pleased by the fact that the increase in complaints is not at the level that would have been expected."

Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said the department is drafting rules to spell out the law's protections for service personnel. "We've got to do everything we can to protect their re-employment rights," she said.

The department was receiving about 900 formal complaints a year before Sept. 11, 2001. The statistical picture since then, based on fiscal years ending Sept. 30:

_1,218 cases opened in 2002.

_1,327 cases in 2003.

_1,200 cases from Oct. 1, 2003 through July 31. If projected over 12 months, the figure would be 1,440, the department said.

The department upheld or settled soldiers' complaints in one-third of last year's cases, while another third were found to have no merit. The remaining cases are inactive or closed, often because the government lost contact with the soldier or the soldier returned to active duty.

When Guard and Reserve troops returned from the first Gulf War (news - web sites), there was one complaint for every 54 soldiers leaving active duty. Currently, with the government's aggressive drive to inform employers of the law, the figure has improved to 1 in 69.

The complaints represent a small percentage of the quarter-million Guard and Reserve troops who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Not all returning troops are bitter about their job loss.

Chambers, the substance abuse consultant, agreed budget cuts left his former nonprofit employer no choice but to eliminate his job.

"I don't fault them for that and I don't hold grudges," said Chambers. He was among the lucky ones, finding employment with his Reserve unit, the 1013th Quartermaster Co. based in North Platte and McCook, Neb. His unit has been mobilized anew, and he is again on active duty.

For others, finding their jobs gone was a hardship, emotionally and economically.

Gill, the former Alabama police officer with an injured leg, had to give up a career that began in 1992 and followed in the footsteps of his father and brother.

"My biggest concern is loss of income," he said.

While some troops fault former employers for firing them as they served their country, most complaints involved alleged denial of benefits, promotions and raises, said officials from the Labor Department and a Pentagon (news - web sites) organization ? Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve.

Army Col. Brarry Cox, who coordinates the ESGR's mediation efforts between employers and returning troops, said typical issues raised by soldiers include: "What about the 401 (k)? The end-of-year bonus? What about my evaluation? I was due a merit promotion that I missed.

"We try to talk employers through a logical approach: How were they (the employees) performing prior to active duty, where do you think they would have come out?"

The Labor Department, which has subpoena power, asks employers to justify firings or reduction of benefits and can refer complaints to the Justice Department (news - web sites) for filing of civil lawsuits. Only a small percentage of cases get that far.

While the 1994 law strengthened previous protections, it doesn't help doctors, lawyers or small business owners who depend on maintaining a client base. It doesn't save jobs eliminated by plant closings or budget cuts. And it doesn't help injured troops who can no longer perform the work they once did.

Reservists and guardsmen who returned to the Prince George's County government outside Washington, D.C., were among those who fell into a gray area.

The county required that they exhaust their leave before receiving a county salary supplement that bridged the gap between military and civilian pay. This meant some employees had to count some of their time in a war zone as vacation days or forfeit the extra pay.

"Our members were not able to decompress," said Percy Alston, president of the Fraternal Order of Police lodge representing the county's police officers. His members have challenged the policy through labor grievance procedures and expect an arbitrator will decide the matter.

They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

I'm sure the Bush-God fanbois will try and pin this on Clinton for cutting the size of the standing army. Doesn't matter that the Bush administration's failed planning is really to blame.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

They lost their jobs because their companies aren't following the law. I fail to see how that's Bush's fault.

No self-respecting company in this country should eliminate the position of someone who's serving. I hope the ones that have are outed in the press, a la Pep Boys.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: X-Man
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.
They lost their jobs because their companies aren't following the law. I fail to see how that's Bush's fault.
It's a hassle to go through to get the job back and not all get their jobs back.

In the meantime, how are they to earn money? How are they to pay their bills and put food on their table and a roof over their heads?

Ayup...it's the fault of Bush for the unjustifed war in Iraq. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: X-Man
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.
They lost their jobs because their companies aren't following the law. I fail to see how that's Bush's fault.
It's a hassle to go through to get the job back and not all get their jobs back.

In the meantime, how are they to earn money? How are they to pay their bills and put food on their table and a roof over their heads?

Ayup...it's the fault of Bush for the unjustifed war in Iraq. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

So if someone came back from Afghanistan and was told he couldn't have his job back, who's fault would it be then?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Both the reservists/guardsmen and the employers get caught between a rock and a hard place when tours extend beyond 6 mos...

Seeing as how we only have ~15K troops in Afghanistan, there wouldn't be much of a problem if that were the only war/ occupation/ whatever you call it in progress... normal rotation could easily apply.

With that in mind, I'd rate UQ's question as disingenuous, diversionary... The Iraqi adventure is the reason that any troops anywhere are currently held over, having their tours and/or enlistments extended...
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Conjur are you getting desperate? This is not that big a deal and it is being handled. Having trouble finding things to twist and mischaracterize so you have to stoop to what is basically a non issue? If you paid attention there were still nearly a thousand complaints of this kind filed every year even before Iraq.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Both the reservists/guardsmen and the employers get caught between a rock and a hard place when tours extend beyond 6 mos...

Seeing as how we only have ~15K troops in Afghanistan, there wouldn't be much of a problem if that were the only war/ occupation/ whatever you call it in progress... normal rotation could easily apply.

With that in mind, I'd rate UQ's question as disingenuous, diversionary... The Iraqi adventure is the reason that any troops anywhere are currently held over, having their tours and/or enlistments extended...

Tour length is irrelevant to the law. How long are employers required to hold a position when someone goes on active duty? Do you know? Do you even care? Did you even read the article? The problem is that some employers are not obeying the law. Period

I'd rate your post as usual---- ignorant, partisan drivel.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: NesuD
Conjur are you getting desperate? This is not that big a deal and it is being handled. Having trouble finding things to twist and mischaracterize so you have to stoop to what is basically a non issue? If you paid attention there were still nearly a thousand complaints of this kind filed every year even before Iraq.
Right. But the complaints have increased by about 40% since Iraq.

I pulled this headline off of drudge and it's reported by Yahoo news. It's hardly partisan.

These soldiers are having a hard time getting back into their jobs, if at all. They are being more than inconvenienced because of Bush's unjustified war in Iraq.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

I'm sure the Bush-God fanbois will try and pin this on Clinton for cutting the size of the standing army. Doesn't matter that the Bush administration's failed planning is really to blame.
Hmmm, let's look at the numbers here for a second.

The department was receiving about 900 formal complaints a year before Sept. 11, 2001. The statistical picture since then, based on fiscal years ending Sept. 30

_1,218 cases opened in 2002.

_1,327 cases in 2003.

_1,200 cases from Oct. 1, 2003 through July 31. If projected over 12 months, the figure would be 1,440, the department said.

Number of cases in 2002 > pre 9/11 by 35.3%
Number of projected cases in 2004 > pre 9/11 by 60%

Number of cases in 2003 > 2002 by 8.94%.
Number of projected cases in 2004 > 2002 by 18.22%.

Firstly, the FY2002 cases, which were submitted between 1 Oct 01 - 30 Sep 02, likely aren't applicable to OIF. Therefore, that particular aspect supporting your sensationalist whining is immediately shot all to hell.

Secondly, Prior to 9/11, the primary missions for Guard/Reserve components were Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai. From my understanding, assignments to the missions were largely voluntary. Also, From what I understand, approximately 15,000 Guard/Reserve troops were on active duty before 9/11. Consequently, if we compare a 266% increase in personnel mobilized immediately following 9/11 versus a 35.3% increase in complaints for FY2002, the system seems functional at least to some extent.

Thirdly, let's take a look at the actual Guard/Reserve mobilization figures for each year during the month of August:

21 Nov, 2001 - 55,121 (first cumulative figures available)
Aug, 2002 - 78,080
Aug, 2003 - 188,740
Aug, 2004 - 150,611

Source: Defense Link Archives

Mobilizations have increased Guard/Reserve end strength by over 1,200% since 9/11. Comparatively speaking, the Labor Dept. experienced a 60% increase in labor-related complaints during that particular timeframe. Funny how you and the journalist (read: advocate) conveniently neglect to include these figures.

Lastly, before some stupidass tries to give me a bunch of BS lipservice, I'm in the Retired Reserve and also subject to mobilization. As of two weeks ago, there was one volunteer slot open for Army retirees qualified in my MOS - a memorial activity specialist in the D.C. area. I'll serve as a Platoon Sergeant of First Sergeant in combat again, but won't arrange funerals in D.C.

Additionally, I've already resigned myself to the fact that I'll lose my current IT position if called to active duty.

Yes, mobilization is hard on reservists. Jobs are lost and lives disrupted or even destroyed. Yet, since 1973, service to the country has been voluntary and many Americans have proudly answered the call.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Huh? You say Bush is fvcking the military people again? Wow. I am truly shocked. He'll probably do his best to help those companies duck their responsibilities....
 

going5hole

Member
Aug 9, 2003
70
0
0
A quick call to the three reservists in my family (one currently deployed) tells me that 1) their jobs are being held / would be held if they were activated
to go overseas, and 2) that their apartments are held, without retroactive rent, for the duration of their service. Now, most people I know that would be deployed would move their stuff into storage to stop all other bills (cable, electricity, water, phone). Nothing to see here, move along.
 

going5hole

Member
Aug 9, 2003
70
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

I'm sure the Bush-God fanbois will try and pin this on Clinton for cutting the size of the standing army. Doesn't matter that the Bush administration's failed planning is really to blame.

Or, you could blame the employers, the actual people doing wrong here.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
USERRA doesn't cover people who lose their jobs to force reduction and it's highly likely that people holding those jobs would have lost them anyway. Let's talk about all the people that actually gain a job by being mobilized. I know that a sizable portion of the previously unemployed people in my Reserve unit actually got jobs from being mobilized. Where are those numbers?
 

CombatChuk

Platinum Member
Jul 19, 2000
2,008
3
81
Originally posted by: going5hole
Originally posted by: conjur
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

I'm sure the Bush-God fanbois will try and pin this on Clinton for cutting the size of the standing army. Doesn't matter that the Bush administration's failed planning is really to blame.

Or, you could blame the employers, the actual people doing wrong here.

The soldiers wouldn't have left their jobs if it wasn't for Bush...
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: going5hole
A quick call to the three reservists in my family (one currently deployed) tells me that 1) their jobs are being held / would be held if they were activated
to go overseas, and 2) that their apartments are held, without retroactive rent, for the duration of their service. Now, most people I know that would be deployed would move their stuff into storage to stop all other bills (cable, electricity, water, phone). Nothing to see here, move along.

Right cause three people represent the entire Guard. :roll:

By your logic if I told you that I knew people in the Air National Guard (In fact I do and this is true), and I told you that their jobs were toast after a few weeks of being out of them then what would you say?

No they don't all work at Joe Sixpack's tire & lube. At least one works for a major chain as a middle manager. I would rather not say which company.
 

imported_Aelius

Golden Member
Apr 25, 2004
1,988
0
0
Originally posted by: going5hole
Originally posted by: conjur
They can thank our war-mongering President for their way overextended tours of duty for losing their jobs back home.

I'm sure the Bush-God fanbois will try and pin this on Clinton for cutting the size of the standing army. Doesn't matter that the Bush administration's failed planning is really to blame.

Or, you could blame the employers, the actual people doing wrong here.

Technically that's a side effect of the root cause.
 

Rogue

Banned
Jan 28, 2000
5,774
0
0
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: going5hole
A quick call to the three reservists in my family (one currently deployed) tells me that 1) their jobs are being held / would be held if they were activated
to go overseas, and 2) that their apartments are held, without retroactive rent, for the duration of their service. Now, most people I know that would be deployed would move their stuff into storage to stop all other bills (cable, electricity, water, phone). Nothing to see here, move along.

Right cause three people represent the entire Guard. :roll:

By your logic if I told you that I knew people in the Air National Guard (In fact I do and this is true), and I told you that their jobs were toast after a few weeks of being out of them then what would you say?

No they don't all work at Joe Sixpack's tire & lube. At least one works for a major chain as a middle manager. I would rather not say which company.

Hmmm....I've known over 500+ mobilized Reservists and can't think of a single one that's lost their job actually. I'd say that's a sizable cross section worthy enough to say that these numbers are likely highly generalized and need a lot more clarification to present a clear picture. Also, for you NOT to name the employer in question only serves a disservice to people who may work for them in the future and may be affected, if in fact your example isn't a straw man.
 

going5hole

Member
Aug 9, 2003
70
0
0
The soldiers wouldn't have left their jobs if it wasn't for Bush...

Right, because bush is the only president to ever deploy reservists? :roll:
 

going5hole

Member
Aug 9, 2003
70
0
0
Originally posted by: Aelius
Originally posted by: going5hole
A quick call to the three reservists in my family (one currently deployed) tells me that 1) their jobs are being held / would be held if they were activated
to go overseas, and 2) that their apartments are held, without retroactive rent, for the duration of their service. Now, most people I know that would be deployed would move their stuff into storage to stop all other bills (cable, electricity, water, phone). Nothing to see here, move along.

Right cause three people represent the entire Guard. :roll:

By your logic if I told you that I knew people in the Air National Guard (In fact I do and this is true), and I told you that their jobs were toast after a few weeks of being out of them then what would you say?

No they don't all work at Joe Sixpack's tire & lube. At least one works for a major chain as a middle manager. I would rather not say which company.



Yeah, but you don't see me claiming those three represent all of them, right? But the three I know don't get any special treatment. Their jobs are held, as well as their domiciles. It's different for active duty personell. You show me that those three lost their jobs, and I'll show you the name and contact information of the nearest JAG officer associated with their base.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Oh, I read the article, UQ, and, afaik, employers are required to hold the jobs indefinitely. Doesn't really change the difficulties for both sides, nor does it change the simple fact that the Iraqi occupation is the cause of lengthened tours and enlistments. Some claim it's also cause for reduced recruitment and re-enlistments, although I have nothing to back that up...

The law doesn't, however, require all employers to make up the pay differential, making these extensions into sometimes severe hardships for their families. I support the volunteer military in principle and in real life- I donated $100 at our last union meeting towards helping the families of other members who've been called away. And I think that they do a good job, even when ordered into situations that may not serve the national interest, situations created by fools in high places...

Insult me if you please, doing so merely reveals your own shortcomings and untenable position...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: going5hole
A quick call to the three reservists in my family (one currently deployed) tells me that 1) their jobs are being held / would be held if they were activated
to go overseas, and 2) that their apartments are held, without retroactive rent, for the duration of their service. Now, most people I know that would be deployed would move their stuff into storage to stop all other bills (cable, electricity, water, phone). Nothing to see here, move along.

This is a ridiculous oversimplification. While I don't think President Bush is unilaterally to blame for this phenomenon, there's no doubt that extended military deployments create a lot of problems for some Reservists/Guardsmen.

I can't imagine many landlords would "hold" apartments for a year or more without payment of rent, and in all the years I have been providing legal assistance to military members, including deployed Reservists and Guardsmen, I have never heard of such a thing - God knows the law doesn't require it (though it does prevent landlords from getting summary judgments against deployed members, and thus summarily evicting them).

What you haven't taken into consideration is the fact that, believe it or not, many of these people own homes. Admittedly, being a member of the Reserves means you are subject to indefinite deployments - that's part of the deal - but Reservist enlisted members, in particular, often suffer tremendously in cases in which they are activated for extended periods.

I once spoke to a Reservist AF Security Forces member whose regular job was as a senior sheriff's deputy in a local department. His civilian pay was more than $100K/year, while he was an E-5 in the Reserves. The upshot was that, after being activated, he was suddenly making 1/3 of his regular salary, for what turned out to be 2 years. He and his wife suffered tremendously, and she essentially lived in abject poverty so they could make their mortgage payment.

This is part of the sacrifice Reservists make by staying in, but that doesn't mean it doesn't create hardships in some cases.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: going5hole

Yeah, but you don't see me claiming those three represent all of them, right? But the three I know don't get any special treatment. Their jobs are held, as well as their domiciles. It's different for active duty personell. You show me that those three lost their jobs, and I'll show you the name and contact information of the nearest JAG officer associated with their base.

:roll:

I am in fact such a JAG officer, and it isn't nearly as simple or painless as you make it out to be. In fact, the services' respective JAG corps provide only very limited assistance with issues related to Reservist/Guard reemployment rights, and these problems are generally worked by the Department of Labor.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
so basically employers breaking the law have nothing to do with these people losing their jobs, it is all da fault of da ebil bush?
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Hmmm....I've known over 500+ mobilized Reservists and can't think of a single one that's lost their job actually.
Here are a few figures for everyone to chew on:

# of Guard/Reserve personnel on active duty immediately before 9/11, 2001 - ca. 15,000
# of complaints to Department of Labor - ca. 900
1 complaint for every 17 persons on active duty.


# of Guard/Reserve personnel on active duty during 2003 - ca. 188,000
# of complaints to Department of Labor - 1,327
1 complaint for every 141 persons on active duty.

Relatively speaking, job protection for Guard/Reserve members has actually improved!
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
so basically employers breaking the law have nothing to do with these people losing their jobs, it is all da fault of da ebil bush?

As I said above, the problem is not limited to people losing their jobs - the deployments themselves can create severe financial hardship.

I definitely don't think President Bush is solely responsible for this, but I will say that OIF's novel "anticipatory self-defense" doctrine clearly makes it the most, er, elective major military conflict in American history, and President Bush was administratively the one who made the war happen.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |