"Reservists Say War Makes Them Lose Jobs"

[GreenPartyVoter]

WASHINGTON - Increasing numbers of National Guard and Reserve troops who have returned from war in Iraq and Afghanistan 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 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.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0816-05.htm

[rkc3]

1. Not to worry, Bush will be taking care of these guys shortly.

[jtb33]

2. Hmmm...

First off, I have to say that if they didn't want to have to deal with being away from their jobs, they should have known enough NOT to join the Reserves. I can see why they may be upset at having their jobs "eliminated" and losing out on a raise if it was an across-the-bard company raise (rather than a performance-based one), but upset at not getting a "promotion"?! Um...

How does the USERRA work in "right to work" states like AZ that can fire (or "let go") an employee for any reason they want to (or no reason at all)?

[JHB]

3. I see where you're coming from, but the real problem is...

...long deployments, which the "don't penalize Reservists for giving public service" laws aren't really designed to handle. The general assumption about the Reserves was that if they were going to be called up for any length of time, it would be due to something really big that the whole nation has to sacrifice to deal with (a not-yet-nuclear WW3, for example). Otherwise, they're only gone for a few weeks tops. Desert Storm extended that to a couple of months, but still, not the many-months/yearlong deployments we've seen under Shrubco.

The rules (and reasonable assumptions about deployment) have been thrown completely out of whack, so its no wonder some people are getting screwed as a result.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Agreed...

that no one saw anything like this conming.

Reservists expect to be called up in national emergencies, and their employers have to deal with that. But, if you have a key employee gone for an undetermined amount of time, do you put your business on hold for a year? Do you get someone to fill in with the understanding that he or she doesn't "really" have the job, pay, and title for something they may be doing for that long? And, will the missing reservist even be able to do the job, which will likely have changed, when returning?

Everyone is getting screwed over this, and TPTB just don't give a damn.

[jtb33]

6. I agree...

A while ago here, I interviewed for a position that was vacated by a National Guardsman called to active duty. It was a "contract" position, but the "contract time" was listed as "indefinite". During the interview, the panel did a good job of making sure that I knew that as soon as the NG came back, that the contract would be over, and that I may have very little notice (days or weeks). This was about a year ago, and to my knowledge, that position still hadn't been filled at the beginning of this year(I turned it down, as the idea of not knowing when my employment would end was too much for me to leave a stable - yet underpaid - position).

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. Ah, yes. There's that 'personal responsibility' issue. n/t

[skygazer]

7. This is the "backdoor draft" at work

The NG is not normally deployed for a year or more at a time and overseas at that. This is one more example of Bush's running a war on the cheap and plenty of people are left out to dry as a result.