posted on August 16, 2004 03:56:25 AM new
Many Reservists Return to Joblessness
By LARRY MARGASAK, AP
WASHINGTON (Aug. 15) - 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.
Getty Images
Staff Sgt. Stephen Muncy of Berkley, Massachusetts embraces his 8-year-old son Matthew as the National Guard's 1058th Transportation Company is welcomed home from a 15-month tour of duty in Iraq.
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.
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, 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 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 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.
posted on August 16, 2004 06:40:14 AM newThe complaints represent a small percentage of the quarter-million Guard and Reserve troops who have left active duty since the Sept. 11 attacks.
1.4% Not bad considering how many have gone over... Those employers that eliminated jobs are required to also to offer another position if available. You will have dirt bags in every part of society this is not the administrations's fault as the title here would leave some to believe..
Those employers found guilty of not upholding their end of the act will not be happy... also you forgot to mention that wounded soldier who can no longer be a police officer will be receiving a check for the rest of his life from Uncle Sam...
I am surprised the socialist slanted article didn't pick that up... hmmmm guess wouldn't of made that big an impact telling the whole truth.
posted on August 16, 2004 08:13:21 AM new
I read about another loop hole the employers are using. They only have to re-employ the person for one day and then the protections no longer apply.
posted on August 16, 2004 09:19:15 AM new
Twelvetoes, One soldier,one thousand or five thousand soldiers without a promised back home job is too much. Like other republicans on this board you have a cold,cold heart thinking the percent is low. Forget the percent think about the people for a change. If it happened to you, or someone in your family you would scream like a STUCK PIG.
VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS THEY WILL CLEAN UP THE BUSH CHENEY MESS.
posted on August 16, 2004 10:30:17 AM new
I agree with yellowstone. It is not Bush's fault. It is the fault of the Company's and their CEO that don't know the ins and outs of running a company. Getting their jobs back has been for quite some time and ignorance is not acceptable for those companies. Now if a company has gone out of business then of course there is no job but if the company is still there then their job should have been secure. If these companies don't comply I see some major law suits.
If you can give reasons why it is Bush's fault then state them, but this would have happened if anyone had been President.
Reamond that is loop hole with anyone if illegally let go from their position and they are reinstated because of a technicality the company that has to take the employee back can also fire him the next day. It is also in real life and not just in the service.
posted on August 16, 2004 10:41:51 AM newIf you can give reasons why it is Bush's fault then state them, but this would have happened if anyone had been President.
They do it because they know Bush will turn a blind eye to it.
posted on August 16, 2004 10:43:12 AM newReamond that is loop hole with anyone if illegally let go from their position and they are reinstated because of a technicality the company that has to take the employee back can also fire him the next day. It is also in real life and not just in the service.
You're absolutely wrong. This is not a wrongful discharge situation.
posted on August 16, 2004 12:09:55 PM new
Read it and weep Reamond.
{B}April 17, 2003, 11:50PM
Jobs secure for reservists coming back
Labor secretary warns employers to obey law
By L[/B].M.[B] SIXEL
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao warned employers Thursday to observe the federal law that requires them to treat reservists returning from the Iraq war as if they never left[/B].
So far, 62,000 reservists have been "demobilized," and many more are expected to be cut loose soon, Chao said.
And as they return home, they should be able to slip back into their job or a similar one with the same pay, status and benefits they would have received had they not left for military duty.
Unlike many other labor laws that exempt certain kinds of companies, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, passed in 1994, covers all public and private employers regardless of size.
Chao said getting the thousands of reservists and National Guard members smoothly back to their civilian work lives is one of her highest priorities.
She even put Labor Department officials on board the USS Constellation and USS Abraham Lincoln to bring reservists up to speed on their rights and the law.
In addition to learning their rights, reservists should inform their supervisors when they'll be back to work and make sure they have health coverage if they don't go back immediately, Chao said.
When problems have popped up, most of the time it's because employers don't realize what the law requires them to do.
Employers have been very supportive, said Chao, emphasizing that problems have been relatively rare.
In fact, in a wave of patriotism, many employers are making up the difference between the salary their reservists earn and what the military pays. Many also continue to provide health insurance for the reservists' families so they don't have to change doctors at a time of stress.
But some companies may not have been as supportive.
One example: Michael George said he was hired in June as the regional sales manager for Internusa Ceramic, an Indonesian company that wanted to distribute its Essenza line of porcelain tile in Texas and five other states.
In October, he got a call from his commander in the Naval Air Reserves that he was on the short list to join the USS Roosevelt and would need to report in five days if he were chosen. George said he quickly called his boss and passed along the news.
In the end, George wasn't chosen, but his boss asked about the likelihood he would be called up again. George said it was possible, and a week later, he was fired from his sales manager job.
"I was in absolute shock," said George, who was earning $60,000 a year plus a bonus.
George said he believes the reason he was fired was the company didn't want him to leave for military duty, so he sued under the law protecting reservists return-to-work rights.
Internusa Ceramic didn't fire George or discriminate against him because of his military service, said Jim Cleary, Internusa's attorney. He was terminated because he wasn't doing the job he was hired to do.
"We knew he was in the military reserves when we hired him," Cleary said. "If we really wanted to discriminate for military service, we would not have hired him in first place."
The Labor Department is investigating George's complaint.
Todd Slobin, an employment lawyer with Shellist, Lore & Lazarz in Houston, who is representing George, said he suspects George's story isn't as rare as the Labor Department would think.
Many people don't know their rights, Slobin said. While it's a law that's been around a while, it's just not something that's talked about much.
When a racial slur is made toward you at work, you know that's against the law, Slobin said.
But lots of reservists don't know their boss can't fire them for getting called up for active duty.
George hasn't found another job yet. To make ends meet, George's reserve unit has been providing some work here and there.
posted on August 16, 2004 04:29:37 PM newBush isn't responsible for anything and can not accomplish anything.
Com'n Reamond you have to give Bush credit for accomplishing something. He was able to turn a surplus into a deficit faster than the twin towers fell. I think that is a Guinness World Record of some sort.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
YOU CAN'T HAVE BULLSH** WITH OUT BUSH.
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on August 16, 2004 06:10:21 PM new
That was when the troops went to Iraq. Yes I did Raemond but evidently you didn't read the article. Someone who is a smart as you are should have known that. It also states that in 1994 all employers were to abide by the rule that service men got their jobs back.
It doesn't matter the date of the article it has been in effect for all corporations since 1994. No exceptions.
posted on August 16, 2004 08:35:19 PM new
Libra63, We all know that under Bush America has lost 2 million good paying factory jobs. Bush replaced only 60,000 of those jobs this year. You really need to become better informed by going to WWW.JOHNKERRY.COM
A BETTER AMERICA WILL COME TO 98% OF AMERICANS WHEN WE OUTSOURCE BUSH/CHENEY THIS YEAR
posted on August 16, 2004 09:21:51 PM new
Well bigpeepa that is not what is being discussed in this thread. Please read the heading and the responses and then maybe you can answer this honestly. But then again maybe you can't.....
This thread like most of the others can't stay on topic.
But to answer your question?
Well who signed the NAFTA bill. If Bush can't replace jobs tell me how JK will do what he has said 218,000.00 new jobs. Kinda stretching things isn't he. Maybe Teresa will open a corporation and hire that many then we can't call him a liar.
posted on August 16, 2004 09:32:54 PM new
Raemond get serious. Go back and read it again and be sure you read all of it. Not just the parts you want to. Yes it is up to the corporations to know the laws. If not them who is? See if you can answer that. I am sure if those corporations don't comply they will get some stiff fines and still have to employ that service man. I sure hope so as they deserve it.
Bush had nothing to do with this law as you can tell by the dates but then again you and bigpeepa have selective reading and only pick the parts that you want to debate.
posted on August 16, 2004 10:21:11 PM new
The amount reservists that have mustered out after 2001 with a projection of 1,440 complaint's is very good. The average complaint's was 900 before 9/11. when very few reservist & national guard personal served on active duty. but of course clinton was in charge for 8yrs.
posted on August 17, 2004 03:14:03 AM new
Libra63, my heading said.
"TROOPS COME HOME NOW NO JOBS".
The second heading said.Posted on August 16, 2004 03:56:25 AM
"Many Reservists Return to Joblessness
By LARRY MARGASAK, AP"
Libra63 said posted on August 16, 2004 10:30:17 AM
"It is not Bush's fault".
My reply was. Posted on August 16, 2004 08:35:19 PM was.
Libra63, We all know that under Bush America has lost 2 million good paying factory jobs. Bush replaced only 60,000 of those jobs this year. You really need to become better informed by going to WWW.JOHNKERRY.COM
A BETTER AMERICA WILL COME TO 98% OF AMERICANS WHEN WE OUTSOURCE BUSH/CHENEY THIS YEAR
Libera63, when you can read better and become better informed. I will gladly discuss the topics with you. Until then I have better things to do like getting people to vote for John Kerry.
posted on August 17, 2004 05:47:12 AM new
fred the socialists don't care about percentages and that maybe some of these people are just natural born complainers....
However it is against the law not to rehire someone that has gone off for the military and the myth of the "one day" is pure BS...
Some jobs may of disappeared however the employer is still obligated to offer another position...
they just want to piss and moan and have more reasons to blame President Bush...
nothing more, no substance... of course following a traitor seems to fit well with some posters here... peepee you make Lenin proud...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on August 17, 2004 07:00:50 AM new
I find it funny that it's usually the dems complaining about vets benefits....when they're the group that doesn't support maintaining a large military to begin with. They'd just as soon see the funds used for our military go to more social programs......but they're always there everytime any thing is mentioned about how some vets are in need of help....pointing out to as many as possible how they're not being taken care of in one way or another.
Here's a link for any vet having trouble getting their job back....and I'll post another to the law that requires employers to protect the jobs they leave to serve our country. If they are injured - like in the foot example in the opening post....the company is still required, under the law Libra mentioned, to find another job they can do.
posted on August 17, 2004 10:14:14 AM newHowever it is against the law not to rehire someone that has gone off for the military and the myth of the "one day" is pure BS...
No it isn't. All the employer need do is provide proof that the employee was fired for "cause" and there is no further protection for the soldier.
But it is all moot if you have a president that is not pro-active in enforcement.
But that's what happens when you have a military deserter for commander-in-chief.
posted on August 17, 2004 10:23:47 AM new
Sure there is reamond....a lawsuit. It would be pretty remarkable for a company to fire a returning vet after only one day back on the job ...for 'cause'. I think they'd have a hard time proving that.
Besides most companies have regulations they have to follow. Like verbal warning first, written warning second...they firing. Nobody would buy they could all occur in ONE day.
posted on August 17, 2004 10:57:45 AM new
Once again a neocon shows their total lack of understanding or knowledge of the REAL world.
Corporations are NOT democracies. They only follow their own "rules and regulations" which can change in a New York minute. They are in control of the "documentation" and can make it prove anything they want it to.
There are no laws protecting workers if a company decides to fire them. If the employee feel they were fired unfairly they better be prepared for a long, aggravating, costly(to them) battle....laws or no laws.
Our president treats the vets like dirt why would a corporation be any different ?
posted on August 17, 2004 11:01:15 AM new
Linda_K, once again you got it all wrong or are just trying to spread more of your lies.
What Democrats are against is two things. First they are against the bad war Bush so foolishly started with no planning.
Second most middle class and working class people of both parties are getting tired of sending their kids off to war, while the rich kids duck out of war like Bush and Cheney did.
Linda I am glad to see you took my advice and stopped using the quoit form that convicted felon Oliver North. It really didn't make you look very good quoiting a felon.
posted on August 18, 2004 09:09:18 PM new
"Our president treats the vets like dirt why would a corporation be any different ?"
When I returned from Vietnam, I was hired by a large corporation 6 months before I mustard out. The paid me a salary while I was in rehab for 8 months. They didn't have to do that. I retired after 35 yrs.
I have found that under President Bush, the Vets are very well taken care of. Service Men & Women have received a 21 percent increase I pay since he has been in office.
I spent time recently at Walter Reed. Yes Vetrens are very will taken care of..
