Reservists Say War Makes Them Lose Jobs

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: burnedout

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!

These numbers are almost certainly misleading, though, in that so many people are still in Iraq and Afghanistan - these kinds of claims normally won't be filed until the GI gets home, and finds his job is gone.

 

[LunarRay]

It might help to read the law.. not in legalspeak but, in a pretty good form IMO

There are other sources but, I think this and the FAQ that is in there can answer lots of questions regarding the actions of employers related to the article.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: going5hole
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:

For 18-month...2-year duties?

How about the b/f of a friend of mine? A UPS pilot in the Reserves that makes over $100k/yr is now in Afghanistan for a year. He won't be making $100k/yr there. He would if he was working for Halliburton, though.

 

[going5hole]

Okay, Jag officer, but you also don't see me claiming that the JAG personell would do everything right? But it would certainly get the ball rolling. My brother in law used the services of the Ft Hood JAG to get out of an apartment lease in Killeen, so they could move into a house.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: going5hole
Okay, Jag officer, but you also don't see me claiming that the JAG personell would do everything right? But it would certainly get the ball rolling. My brother in law used the services of the Ft Hood JAG to get out of an apartment lease in Killeen, so they could move into a house.

That's a completely unrelated issue. I don't see how you get from A---->B. We provide all kinds of help, and will do whatever we can to help service members, but DOL has the stick on the USERRA.

 

[going5hole]

And just for clarification, I thought this was a great article, because it shows the slimyness of even smaller corportations. It's the "Blame Bush" crap at the end of it that Conjur adds that bugs me. It even states in the first line of the article, that they are are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. If you're going to blame the president for this, you might as well just turn around and blame the reservists too. They knew, when joining the reserves, that they could be deployed in a time of need. It's not always the one weekend a month and two weeks a year that the commercials say, and the recruiter lets them know it right to their face. Both sets of blame (president and reservist) are equally asinine.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, yeh, the callups in the wake of 9/11 served in the invasion of Afghanistan, for sure, but the Admin already had their eye on bigger game- Iraq, and the preparations were ongoing from 9/12/01, whether anybody wants to admit it or not... Given the relative troop strengths involved, it would seem that the vast majority of issues have arisen because of Iraq...

 

[going5hole]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: going5hole
Okay, Jag officer, but you also don't see me claiming that the JAG personell would do everything right? But it would certainly get the ball rolling. My brother in law used the services of the Ft Hood JAG to get out of an apartment lease in Killeen, so they could move into a house.

That's a completely unrelated issue. I don't see how you get from A---->B. We provide all kinds of help, and will do whatever we can to help service members, but DOL has the stick on the USERRA.

The only thing I originally said was that I would provide the number for the JAG personell FOR HELP. I never said they would resolve the issue, now did I? You even say it yourself, you provide all sorts of help. If you couldn't help directly, then you would certainly provide the contact information the enlisted person, right? I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying, trying to prove me wrong, when we've been saying the same essential thing the entire time.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: going5hole
And just for clarification, I thought this was a great article, because it shows the slimyness of even smaller corportations. It's the "Blame Bush" crap at the end of it that Conjur adds that bugs me. It even states in the first line of the article, that they are are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. If you're going to blame the president for this, you might as well just turn around and blame the reservists too. They knew, when joining the reserves, that they could be deployed in a time of need. It's not always the one weekend a month and two weeks a year that the commercials say, and the recruiter lets them know it right to their face. Both sets of blame (president and reservist) are equally asinine.

Did anyone expect 18-month....2-year deployments?

NO.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: going5hole
And just for clarification, I thought this was a great article, because it shows the slimyness of even smaller corportations. It's the "Blame Bush" crap at the end of it that Conjur adds that bugs me. It even states in the first line of the article, that they are are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. If you're going to blame the president for this, you might as well just turn around and blame the reservists too. They knew, when joining the reserves, that they could be deployed in a time of need. It's not always the one weekend a month and two weeks a year that the commercials say, and the recruiter lets them know it right to their face. Both sets of blame (president and reservist) are equally asinine.

I'm with you, to a point. I do think the primary problem, specifically with regard to people losing their jobs, is caused by the private employers. That said, losing jobs is only a piece of the larger problem when so many reservists are deployed for so long.

I don't agree that recruiters, in every instance, gave these Reservists the complete picture. Recruiters can and will say whatever they think the potential recruit wants to hear, and more often than not I think they tend to minimize the risk of extended deployments to people considering joining. Whether you like the movie or not, F9/11 gives a great taste of typical recruiter behavior.

I also disagree that the President has no, or minimal culpability in this issue. OIF was clearly a completely optional war, and the White House made it happen. This, IMO, makes President Bush a player ethically in any consequences that follow.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: DonVito

These numbers are almost certainly misleading, though, in that so many people are still in Iraq and Afghanistan - these kinds of claims normally won't be filed until the GI gets home, and finds his job is gone.

1. There were people in Iraq and Afghanistan arriving home last year and filing complaints as well.
2. Not all mobilized reservists are in Iraq or Afghanistan. If that were the case, we'd have over 300,000 deployed to both operations.

Bottom line: The number of mobilized personnel increased by well over 1,000% since 9/11, while DOL complaints have only gone up by 60%, IF we use the projected figure of 1,440 complaints.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Rogue

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.

Right cause I have created straw man before for people like Mill and Co. because when reality and logic conflict with their point of view it's suddenly "straw man" AKA get out of argument you can't win free card.

 

[going5hole]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: going5hole
And just for clarification, I thought this was a great article, because it shows the slimyness of even smaller corportations. It's the "Blame Bush" crap at the end of it that Conjur adds that bugs me. It even states in the first line of the article, that they are are encountering new battles with their civilian employers at home. If you're going to blame the president for this, you might as well just turn around and blame the reservists too. They knew, when joining the reserves, that they could be deployed in a time of need. It's not always the one weekend a month and two weeks a year that the commercials say, and the recruiter lets them know it right to their face. Both sets of blame (president and reservist) are equally asinine.

Did anyone expect 18-month....2-year deployments?

NO.

There shouldn't have been any expectations. Getting deployed is a fact of life sometimes in the military.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: going5hole

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.

But you are claiming that your point means everything and the other's argument means nothing.

Your words: "Nothing to see here, move along."

Hence my point.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: burnedout

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!

How many of the 188,000 made claims while out of country? Can they? How many of those 188,000 have come home to make such claims if they couldn't overseas? Does the military assist these Reservists in making these claims or are they "on their own". Also how many of them have lost their jobs and did not make claims?

Without answering the above your #s are meaningless in resolving this debate.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: DonVito

These numbers are almost certainly misleading, though, in that so many people are still in Iraq and Afghanistan - these kinds of claims normally won't be filed until the GI gets home, and finds his job is gone.

1. There were people in Iraq and Afghanistan arriving home last year and filing complaints as well.
2. Not all mobilized reservists are in Iraq or Afghanistan. If that were the case, we'd have over 300,000 deployed to both operations.

Bottom line: The number of mobilized personnel increased by well over 1,000% since 9/11, while DOL complaints have only gone up by 60%, IF we use the projected figure of 1,440 complaints.

You really haven't refuted anything I've said - your post sounds more like a shell game to me than a true response. The fact of the matter is that many tens of thousands of the Reservists activated since 9/11 are still deployed, and hence have not had an opportunity to find out their jobs are gone.

As it happens, though, I think one positive side effect of 9/11 has been that the public want to be as supportive of GIs as possible, and so I hope we don't see a lot of Reservists and Guardsmen losing their jobs. That said, job loss is only part of the collateral harm wrought on Reservists and Guardsmen by long deployments. I will be leaving AD at the end of the year, and I'm not inclined to join the Reserves, because our present military manning philosophy places excessive pressure, IMO, on these folks.

 

[going5hole]

Originally posted by: Aelius


But you are claiming that your point means everything and the other's argument means nothing.

Your words: "Nothing to see here, move along."

Hence my point.

My original "nothing to see here, move along" has everything to do with this being blamed on Bush. Nice to see there are so many mind readers on this forum.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: going5hole

Originally posted by: Aelius


But you are claiming that your point means everything and the other's argument means nothing.

Your words: "Nothing to see here, move along."

Hence my point.

My original "nothing to see here, move along" has everything to do with this being blamed on Bush. Nice to see there are so many mind readers on this forum.

Nice to see that there are so many articulate writers on this forum.

When in doubt blame the reader.

 

[going5hole]

So now i'm inarticulate because you didn't understand? Sometimes, yes, the reader is the one to blame.

 

[Ryan]

A+B=C

A does not equal c.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: DonVito

You really haven't refuted anything I've said - your post sounds more like a shell game to me than a true response.

And your post sounds more akin to speculation while simultaneously disregarding fact.

The fact of the matter is that many tens of thousands of the Reservists activated since 9/11 are still deployed, and hence have not had an opportunity to find out their jobs are gone.

And what is the Department of Labor projection for 2004 complaints? 1,440.

Here is the fact of the matter: As of 30 April, 2003; 224,528 Guard/Reserve members were on active duty. Presently, that number is down to ~155,000, as of the latest Aug 04 figures. Guard/Reserve personnel strength actually increased by more than 5,000 since last month. Between April 2003 - July 2004, 74,000 GIs have returned to civilian life.

Prior to 9/11, an average of 15,000 active duty Guard/Reserve members accounted for ~900 DOL complaints. Almost five times this number are projected to account for 60% (1,440) more DOL complaints.

[...]

I will be leaving AD at the end of the year, and I'm not inclined to join the Reserves, because our present military manning philosophy places excessive pressure, IMO, on these folks.

Have fun.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

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.

Umm.. You are currently in the military correct? You say JAG.. which is part of the Navy correct? I thought there was some part of military 'law' which states you cannot speak out against the Commander in Chief.. is that correct or am I mistaken?

 

[myusername]

I hope DV will forgive my responding first, as his response will surely be more erudite and polite, but Crim I don't like you, so here ya go:

Originally posted by: Crimson
Umm.. You are currently in the military correct? You say JAG.. which is part of the Navy correct? I thought there was some part of military 'law' which states you cannot speak out against the Commander in Chief.. is that correct or am I mistaken?

He hasn't, you tool. If the fact that he is being neutral, rational, non-partisan and objective, (and quite well spoken and knowledgable) makes you think that he is knocking on you hump-toy president, then maybe you should re-evaluate what that implies about your own opinions.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Umm.. You are currently in the military correct? You say JAG.. which is part of the Navy correct? I thought there was some part of military 'law' which states you cannot speak out against the Commander in Chief.. is that correct or am I mistaken?

Each service has its own JAG Corps. The Navy has attracted the most frequent treatment in popular fiction (A Few Good Men, JAG), probably due to their handsome dress uniforms!

Commissioned officers are not allowed to use "contemptuous speech" toward the Commander in Chief or any of several other officials or legislatures in accordance with Art 88, UCMJ, but the Manual for Courts-Martial provides that "(i)f not personally contemptuous, adverse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article."

EDIT: If you're interested, take a look at p. IV-17 of the Manual for Courts-Martial.

 

[LunarRay]

Hehehehe,
Don Vito...
One is charged under the UCMJ, no? One is prosecuted under the guidelines of the MCM, I'd think. And, when there exists a conflict I'd expect the Court to hold in favor of the UCMJ... the law applicable to the conduct of military personnel. But, I could be wrong. I'm often wrong.
I'd opine further that insulting and disdainful speech would be considered to be contemptuous speech. But, the key is that it reads 'speech' so what about writings? I don't recall a specific reference to writings .... well.. libel but, Article 32 might cover as well.. No?

Not picking at you, Don Vito, just wondering.