Reservists Filing Complaints

[UpInArms]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24036-2003Nov10.html

More Report Discrimination in Returning to Jobs

Some veterans coming home from military duty say they are getting a cold reception when they return to work.

About 1,300 National Guardsmen and reservists filed complaints with the Labor Department in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, saying they suffered discrimination at work when they returned to their regular jobs after their tours of duty, government officials said. It couldn't be learned whether any were returning from Iraq. The number of complaints is up from 900 complaints in 2001.

<snip>

The United States has become increasingly reliant on National Guard and reserve forces, which now make up about half of the U.S. military personnel in Iraq. Since Sept. 11, 2001, 306,000 Reserve and Guardsmen have been mobilized, including about 163,000 now on active duty.

...more...

coming home to the unemployment situation - not a good thing

[Erika]

1. What a Thank You!

I remember Rummy saying if the economy is bad, find a job in the military. Sick.

[gasperc]

10. maybe that's the reasoning to push the draft, lower unemployment #'s

force people to sign up and if they show up at the unemployment office re-route to the draft board, alas they are avoiding the draft therefore won't apply for unemployment benefits!!!!

Remember, Reagan changed the unemployment counting to suddenly INCLUDE military personel in the count temporarily and artificially lowering the unemployment rate.
<snip>
"In 1984, the Reagan administration requested and received of the BLS another definitional change. Previously, all military personnel were excluded from the civilian unemployment rate. Since then, the BLS has included domestically-based military personnel in its calculations. Obviously, adding employed persons to the labor force results in a lower national unemployment rate."
<snip>
also, "During the Reagan presidency, officials suggested changing that definition to 18 years of age or older. Since younger persons typically have higher unemployment rates, their elimination from the labor force would automatically reduce the number of unemployed and the overall unemployment rate."

nothing about creating jobs, just lower the "published rate"

[politicat]

2. RE: coming home to the unemployment situation - not a good thing

And most of them make a fraction of the money while they are active that they would make at their regular jobs.

I am so glad we are out.

Politicat

[LeftistGorilla]

3. How...

unpatriotic....

[haele]

4. My father works with a Guard/Employer advocacy group

run by volunteer reservists that are either too old or have retired to help both employers and reservists during activiation. He indicates that a lot of the problems he sees is that with long deployments, reservists often come home to find themselves downsized because the employer cannot afford to just keep a position open for an unspecified amount of time for the reservist. How long was the reservist supposed to be gone? Three months? Six months? A year?

The resentment felt towards a deployed reservist is almost understandable when looking at the situation from an employer's side. No matter what size of business or what sort of financial situation the business is in, employers are stuck with freezing the job position rather than hiring a temporary to fill the position because of the costs - as by law, benefits such as vacation accrual, unemployment and disability taxes, family medical and insurance still have to be covered by the employer while the reservist is gone, even if they aren't being paid. HR and accounting still have to process the absent reservist along with all the other employees as scheduled, so overhead costs associated with the reservist are still being borne by the employer.

My father has had to deal with at least two businesses that were skirting with bankruptcy and closure, due to the costs of maintaining employees that wasn't there or contributing to the assests of the business. The tax breaks of employing a reservist are almost non-exsistant; it's always a burden to small or medium sized businesses when deployments cannot be planned for or take longer than two weeks or so.

The other issue hurting reservists are that they are not medically processed before being thrust back into the civilian world. He has seen a lot of still physically and mentally injured reservists that were "bandaged" and sent back to their employers without follow-up treatment or therapy options; the employers health benefits are supposed to foot the bill for rehabilitation.
Much of the discrimination they are experiancing is discrimination due to the re-adjustment period - when before he or she left, you had a highly trained employee that was "in the groove", and now they are back and are having issues with what was previously easy or routine becuase they are having to go back to the learning curve - especially when being compared against the temp that might have been hired to fill the job position while they were gone - in this highly competative job market, it's very difficult not to be returned with open arms and understanding.

Heck, if you've ever been out for any length of time on worker's compensation, you'll understand a bit what the average reservist returning from a long deployment is like when they return to work - just remember to include the exponent factor by every day they've been deployed of difficulty in terms of being able to return to the level they left at.
The problem nowdays for both reservists and employers is the reality of the economy; higher unemployment and underemployment creating job competition and employer's costs in an underregulated financial services marketplace that inevitably result in lowered entry and re-entry wages, reduced benefits as compared to even 5 or 6 years ago.

Having been a reservist myself, I know that if I were to be deployed for about 8 months to a year, I would probably prefer the ability to just go active duty for 2 - 4 years, so that I could afford to go back to school while having my family cared for, build my life back up, and be able to start anew on my career path- and possibly be eligible to fully "retire" and be able to recieve that retainer and those guarenteed health/dental and perscription benefits that can supplement entry wages and benefits on the civilian sector upon my return.
Unless you're talking about an engineer or lawyer (- in which case, why aren't they officers and getting enough pay and benefits to afford that mortgage, etc -) on average, most reservists, if allowed the choice, would be able to afford to go back active duty and still be able to take care of their families and bills because of the benefits and extra pay schedules most of them are qualified for.

I know, I know - the whole concept of reservists and active duty volunteer military is an "economic draft" - but given the choice nowdays between providing for one's family and sticking to political or ethical idealism, realistically, what are the options most reservists and Guards have - especially for those who signed up originally when it looked as if the international playground was heading towards a more peaceful arena and they thought they would be participating more in community or disaster relief?

Most reservists signed up to support their communities; not to play soldier in far-off lands fighting for corporations and other strangers.

Haele

[Walt Starr]

5. From a manager's point of view

I have spoken with peers and many consider current National Guard or Reserve membership to be automatic disqualification for consideration for employment. In today's job market, it is usually easy to find somebody with the same qualifications as the Reservist, then never make any mention of the Reservist's status. Simply claim the other candidate was a "better fit for our environment" and hire the other candidate.

Keep in mind, if the Reservist or Guardsman does not disclose membership and is hired, then called to active duty, the employer has every right to fire them on the spot. You are required to disclose this sort of membership when applying for a job.

I'm afraid we'll see more and more of this sort of quiet discrimination before the fact as cost issues are visited by management of any size company. The costs of emnploying a Reservist or National Guardsman are higher than employing those who are not memebers of this nation's reserve forces, and those costs have skyrocketed over the past three years.

[denverbill]

8. That's sad. Can't say I blame you though.

One other problem for returning vets is this: the company often realizes they managed to get along just fine without you for a whole year.

My past employer had a guy deployed for GW I. He came back, but was fired soon after returning cause they realized he was expendable.

[Walt Starr]

11. Not me, I consider Reserve status a plus for candidates

I just know many managers who refuse to ever hire another Reservist or Guardsman due to costs.

[Bandit]

6. I am a small business owner and know exactly what you are saying

It is to the point that I look long and hard at anyone in the National Guard or Reserves. They must be extremely well qualified to land a job with me. I have absolutley no problem with two weeks a year and every other weekend but one year deployments are too severe. We need a National Guard . We have an Active Duty Military. We need local help when necessary. I can not in good conscience support Bush*'s war for oil by keeping Guard members on payroll without any body doing the job. Sorry guys just how I feel and I need to stay in business to feed my family.

[salin]

7. given the nearly 69% increase in # of complaints

I would say that your analysis of why so many employers are behaving in this way is spot on.

Suggests that as we have changed our policies in how we regularly use reservests (for long deployment for ground troops rather than emergency situations), it suggests that a fundamental change in policy is required to support employers, and returning reservists (including access to medical/psychological services that were made necessary due to their deployment.)

This administration is NOT business friendly, nor civilian friendly, nor service friendly. Cronies are the only ones who benefit - at the expense of all others.

One Nation, under the wealthy, for the wealthy and the expense of all others.

[Boomer]

9. Obviously, a no-win situation for everyone

At this rate the entire system of the National Guard is going to be completely undermined. The original purpose -- to serve as emergency help for a region under stress -- has given way to the short-term goal of shoring up the regular military forces. Soon, we'll have neither.