Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Northern Va. from N.J.
4,436 posts, read 4,857,060 times
Reputation: 2745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yes, it still holds true today. Military reservists and the National Guard, in particular, are prone to lose their job when placed on active duty. Since they lost their job as a direct result of their service to the nation, they are entitled to either be given their old job back, or given a preference when seeking another civilian job.
People that I know that went on to become weekend warriors after their time was up did so for the extra money, they were not forced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:20 PM
 
12,997 posts, read 13,614,409 times
Reputation: 11187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Those in the military make both good and bad employees, just like everyone else. An employer should not be forced to keep a bad employee, whether they are in the military or not. I have absolutely no problem with giving a veteran their old job back, but there is not guarantee that they will be able to keep that job.

As I previous posted, USERRA applies to reservists as well as the National Guard. So reservists are indeed protected under federal law. If they are a good employee, then they should be able to keep their job when they return from Active Duty. After all, what employer does not want a good employee? If they are a bad employee, then it would not surprise me to see them lose their old job shortly after it is given back to them. Thankfully, that is a business decision in Right-To-Work states and not left up to the socialist union fascists who think they have a right to be employed.
Glitch, I agree with all of the principles you state here. Sure, bad employees should be let go and good employees should be retained. Let me tell you what actually happens though. What happens is a guy gets called up for a deployment. His employer replaces him immediately. Done deal. Federal protection, yeah right. The guy does what he has to do for a year or longer and then comes back to his "federally protected" job, which actually isn't there. What is there is one day (or maybe a week or so) of work to retain the appearance of compliance with the federal law.

Yes, I know that no system is perfect, and there are abuses on both sides. "Fascist unions" and all that ... the problem with Right-To-Work, for veterans at least, is they have no job security or protection. If you're cool with that, fine ... don't pretend like it's there though. It's not. (It still is in the non Right-To-Work states.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ted08721 View Post
People that I know that went on to become weekend warriors after their time was up did so for the extra money, they were not forced.
People who join the National Guard are typically expecting to spend one week-end per month and two-weeks per year performing their National Guard obligations. However, as we have seen and has been the case since WW I, the National Guard is regularly activated and sent into combat with the same tour of duty as regular Active Duty military personnel.

Failure to comply with deployment orders is punishable under Article 87 of the UCMJ. Therefore, it is forced and not voluntary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,400,833 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
Glitch, I agree with all of the principles you state here. Sure, bad employees should be let go and good employees should be retained. Let me tell you what actually happens though. What happens is a guy gets called up for a deployment. His employer replaces him immediately. Done deal. Federal protection, yeah right. The guy does what he has to do for a year or longer and then comes back to his "federally protected" job, which actually isn't there. What is there is one day (or maybe a week or so) of work to retain the appearance of compliance with the federal law.

Yes, I know that no system is perfect, and there are abuses on both sides. "Fascist unions" and all that ... the problem with Right-To-Work, for veterans at least, is they have no job security or protection. If you're cool with that, fine ... don't pretend like it's there though. It's not. (It still is in the non Right-To-Work states.)
Why should a business not immediately replace the loss of their employee? Deployments can, and often do, last for more than a year. Why should the business suffer while their employee is deployed? When that service member returns, providing they meet the law's criteria, they are entitled to their old job back and the seniority that would have been theirs had they never left.

I have also seen businesses do reorganizations and eliminate positions completely in the process. Which means that a service member who returns from deployment may find that their old job no longer exists. In such cases that veteran should be entitled to a preference when applying for a different job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:35 PM
 
Location: PA
5,562 posts, read 5,673,464 times
Reputation: 1962
Benefits for groups, status are not the defining decisions on jobs!
Unless your a minority race and or have government lobbyist telling everyone via laws you have to hire under qualified people based on color and quotuas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:35 PM
 
15,706 posts, read 11,746,741 times
Reputation: 7019
I think vets get too much preferencial treatment when it comes to government hiring. I spent 2 years trying to get an entry level federal job, and some job listings I was competing against 10,000 other applicants. Some of those jobs had minimum scores of over 100, meaning it's absolutely impossible for a civilian to get them (only military vets can score over 100). Most of the other scores were 96-100, which meant vets were still the most likely to get them.

People with Ph.Ds and 10-20 years of experience are getting turned down for vets who don't meet nearly the same qualifications.

I've basically given up trying to get in the federal government, because unless you have 1) connections 2) lots and lots of experience and/or 3) are a military vet, it's too hard to get a federal job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:41 PM
 
43 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
Look Clownster, I don't beat my own chest as having more courage than anyone else. I agree with you that cops and inner city teachers also put themselves out there to serve their communities, and they deserve some benefits for doing so as well. You're not going to hear me complaining about the pensions and benefits that cops, teachers and other public servants get.

What I disagree with is your statement that the vast majority of military personnel are in no virtually no danger at all. In case you've missed it, we've been at war for the past decade. I haven't seen someone walking around without a combat patch on their right arm in years. (Most have several patches to choose from.) Those who deloyed to combat zones but didn't see action still had to contend with roadside bombs every time they travelled and rockets and mortars being shot at their FOBs night and day.

A few extra points on applications for federal jobs is too much to ask for? Seriously?
If you were deployed to combat, stands to reason you'd see combat badges. But we have over 800 bases worldwide (including such fiery hotspots as Japan, Germany, etc.), and ships at sea. You're telling me the majority of those people are in more danger than a cop on the beat? Come on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:42 PM
 
43 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Don't know any vet thats says what you have stated....

I don't know what a PX clerk is either? Never seen a green suiter behind a cash register....your telling lies to help you out...so please stop...

The vast majority...what BS, as those guys in Ft. Worth....
99% of the military has deployed...there are few that have not...
Wanna back that up with a link? And deployed....where, exactly? 99% ended up in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:44 PM
 
43 posts, read 25,407 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestCobb View Post
Of course if they are from so called "Right to work" states, they have no such protection. Companies are free to fire them at will and attribute it to something other than their service to their country.
The ironic part? So many of those who hold themselves out to be troop-supporting patriots are of the exact same political stripe as those who think "right to work" states are deities themselves, far superior than any state that allows such job protections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 12:50 PM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
28,355 posts, read 16,317,241 times
Reputation: 10467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Those in the military make both good and bad employees, just like everyone else. An employer should not be forced to keep a bad employee, whether they are in the military or not. I have absolutely no problem with giving a veteran their old job back, but there is no guarantee that they will be able to keep that job....

I think what he's saying is that it isn't that these people are "problem employees", they have just been effectively replaced during their absence. So, they bring them back on-board just long enough to satisfy the law and then lay them off, since they already have someone doing that job.

It happens to good workers. I promise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:40 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top