Wake up the JAG.

manager of a Goodwill Industries store

Those stores are managed?

If you're fired in that time, do they ship you back home?.

He was lucky, though, because a band director's post opened for him at Des Moines East High School when he got home.

Must be some definition of "lucky" with which I'm unfamiliar.

I would bend over backwards to hold someone's job for them while they were out on military service. The people screwing over people for serving their country need a punch in the crotch or a mandatory tour in Fallujah.

FTFA:
...despite previously being named "Employee of the Year."


I am so jealous

How is it typically supposed to work, then? I ask this honestly: If someone goes to serve in Iraq, and is, say, the band director, are they supposed to hire a band director for X amount of years until he gets back, then dump the replacement as soon as he returns?

An investigation by The Des Moines Register shows that dozens of Iowa employers have not complied with a law protecting the civilian jobs of thousands of Americans serving on military duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places.

Companies and management actively violating federal and state law?

Unpossible!

Unfortunately I think this happens more often than we realize. I've seen it happen to two folks I work with and it was obvious that the reason they were let go was because they were called back to active duty.

The sickening part is that they worked for a defense contractor. You'd think that they'd at least have some understanding regarding what was going on. Guess someone needed their bonus more than they needed their jobs.

I'm sure PoF will be here shortly to tell us how these guys deserved it for serving their country.

Yeah, I figured that sort of thing was quite illegal.

/he didn't choose the war
//he chose to serve his country

I think the asshats that do this to deployed soldiers should be deployed themselves. That would end that shiat pretty quick.

Hotdog453: How is it typically supposed to work, then? I ask this honestly: If someone goes to serve in Iraq, and is, say, the band director, are they supposed to hire a band director for X amount of years until he gets back, then dump the replacement as soon as he returns?

Or x number of months. But yeah. Same as what happens with Maternity and Parental leave, things like that. Contract hires with option to renew (if the person out decides to not return to ther job) aren't exactly rare.

Hotdog453
How is it typically supposed to work, then? I ask this honestly: If someone goes to serve in Iraq, and is, say, the band director, are they supposed to hire a band director for X amount of years until he gets back, then dump the replacement as soon as he returns?

Depending on your state, It may be a better idea to engage an independent contractor, although yes, you can hire an employee with an employment agreement stating a termination date. It's actually the norm in the case of pro athletes and etc.

Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

Hotdog453

Yes.

Hire a temp until the service member has returned home, and typically the service member has 30-90 days to return to work after demobilizing.

From TFA: Although he had told his boss he had been awake in the middle of the night with nightmares from seeing a close friend killed in Iraq, he said his boss replied that it was "not his problem and that I had to deal with it."

That's a good PR move there.

However, I am also curious how this is generally supposed to work. I imagine in 99% of the cases it's not hard to keep a slot open for a soldier, but what if it's a specific job that you can only have one of? How is that usually handled with regards to filling the position temporarily? (band director is a good example -- you have to have one, but you only need one, and there might not be anyone else hiring for a hundred miles when he gets back).

BorgDrone: Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

Troll.

entropic_existence: Hotdog453: How is it typically supposed to work, then? I ask this honestly: If someone goes to serve in Iraq, and is, say, the band director, are they supposed to hire a band director for X amount of years until he gets back, then dump the replacement as soon as he returns?

Or x number of months. But yeah. Same as what happens with Maternity and Parental leave, things like that. Contract hires with option to renew (if the person out decides to not return to ther job) aren't exactly rare.

Okay, fair enough. That's what I figured. Still seems awkward as hell, though, especially in the case of teachers and such. Comparing it to maternity leave was a good comparison, didn't think of it like that.

Were these laws written with the initial idea that reservist would be deployed for short periods of time, like 3 months, or like today's current "you're in it for the duration" lengths?

this makes my blood BOIL.

I'm a lawyer: if any servicemember came to me with this issue, I'd represent them for free.

Hey asshat BorgDrone, am I the only one that thinks these employers are right to not pay their taxes because it's their money? Or not follow federal safety standards because it adds overhead?

Should we just let corporations choose the laws they follow?

Dumbass.

Hotdog453: How is it typically supposed to work, then? I ask this honestly: If someone goes to serve in Iraq, and is, say, the band director, are they supposed to hire a band director for X amount of years until he gets back, then dump the replacement as soon as he returns?

Worked for Judas Priest.

BorgDrone: Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

Being in the military isn't a primary job though. They need regular work here on the home front when not deployed. Yeah, they do it in their own free will but it's mostly public service. They're not taking time off for personal business, it's serving the general public, the government and national security.

Unknown_Poltroon: like today's current "you're in it for the duration" lengths?

The laws were written for "in for the duration" lengths, not todays finite tours of 3 to 18 months.

Navy & Marine tours average 7 months

Big Army is currently at 15

Air Force is like 45 minutes

BorgDrone: Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

I'd prefer to ignore your ignorant stupidity and short-sighted moronic logic but I feel compelled to say this:

You are but a ill-willed plague of sluggish duplicity and idiocy.

I feel no need to explain why I think so, for your intelligence will not comprehend it.

Thickheaded troll.

dukeblue219: From TFA: Although he had told his boss he had been awake in the middle of the night with nightmares from seeing a close friend killed in Iraq, he said his boss replied that it was "not his problem and that I had to deal with it."

That's a good PR move there.

However, I am also curious how this is generally supposed to work. I imagine in 99% of the cases it's not hard to keep a slot open for a soldier, but what if it's a specific job that you can only have one of? How is that usually handled with regards to filling the position temporarily? (band director is a good example -- you have to have one, but you only need one, and there might not be anyone else hiring for a hundred miles when he gets back).

A few years ago, the band director at one of the schools in my hometown got called up and sent to Iraq, the school found someone to fill in while he was gone and the local paper wrote a touching article about how all of his students were anxiously awaiting his return.

That's how it's supposed to work, firing the guy while he's gone and hiring a permanent replacement isn't generally the way it's done.

BorgDrone
Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

I'll bite.
So all people in the reserves shouldn't have other jobs to supplement their shiatty income? What about women who get pregnant and it wasn't planned but she took appropriate precautions to avoid it? Should she have an abortion instead of staying her fat ass at home? (I'm pro-choice btw).

Let's say you have to take some extended medical leave. Let's say, oh... you get in a car accident and you break your back or both your legs and you have to have extension rehabilitation therapy and therefore can't be at work for an extended period of time. They should fire your ass too, right?

World isn't black and white. If you had your head out of your ass, you'd know that.

On a side note, this isn't exactly news (it's fark, yada yada). This has been going on for just a little longer than this war.

BorgDrone isn't a troll. Here's a troll:

Maybe if more soldiers were fired from their jobs more often, we wouldn't have as many people willing to fight bullshiat wars.

extension = extensive**

Road Warrior: Hey asshat BorgDrone, am I the only one that thinks these employers are right to not pay their taxes because it's their money? Or not follow federal safety standards because it adds overhead?

Actually, I would argue that corporations should have the right to do both of those things, if they choose to.

Borgdrone
Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.

They're not right to fire these people when it's against the law.

The point about pregnancy is irrelevant and subject to different rules in some jurisdictions.

In either case, even without the force of law, many employers compete for employees just as employees compete for jobs. Many are happy to offer not just a marernity leave but a paternity leave as well to attract more candidates and also because the cost of recruiting and training a replacement may be higher than the cost of the offering the leave.

No, it would be stupid for them to resign as that could affect benefits, eligibility for pensions and etc.

ghoti_nap: I think the asshats that do this to deployed soldiers should be deployed themselves. That would end that shiat pretty quick.

That's a pretty good idea, actually. (But then, I believe in karma.)

BorgDrone: Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.
------------------------------------------

I'm with you. Just b/c it's a soldier people are blinded by their hero worship.
The company can't just go hiring people willy-nilly b/c someone volunteered to be in the Reserve.
It's the decision of the employer and should be in a contract somewhere.

/6 year Army veteran FYI.

Puke: I'm with you. Just b/c it's a soldier people are blinded by their hero worship.
The company can't just go hiring people willy-nilly b/c someone volunteered to be in the Reserve.
It's the decision of the employer and should be in a contract somewhere.

/6 year Army veteran FYI.

Ok, I'll bite. Can they go around and fire people willy-nilly because someone joined the reserves? You know... like what happened to one of the men in TFA?

I'm not defending the dumbass employers, but the article seems slanted for sensationalism. Are we honestly expected to believe that 304 employers vindictively fired servicemen as protest against their deployment? The article cherry-picks those that do, but what I've seen is that many of them just have no clue about the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. That's probably why 2/3 of the complaints got resolved--someone pointed the Act out to the dumbass employers and enlightened them.

/I run into this occasionally at my managers' conferences. When I mention the Act's existence, they're surprised and instantly call HR to fix it before there's a lawsuit.

brigid_fitch: I'm not defending the dumbass employers, but the article seems slanted for sensationalism. Are we honestly expected to believe that 304 employers vindictively fired servicemen as protest against their deployment? The article cherry-picks those that do, but what I've seen is that many of them just have no clue about the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. That's probably why 2/3 of the complaints got resolved--someone pointed the Act out to the dumbass employers and enlightened them.

/I run into this occasionally at my managers' conferences. When I mention the Act's existence, they're surprised and instantly call HR to fix it before there's a lawsuit.

That's pretty much what they were getting at. They were also stating in TFA that it was mostly ignorance of the companies, not knowing federal policies because they were only following state hiring/firing policies.

But hey, even the feds mess up too.

He sued, claiming discrimination and wrongful discharge because of his military obligation to serve his country.

That's big fail right there.

Why is he wasting his money and time in court with these people? When I processed out of Active duty back a few eleventy years, there was a few days at the end that I was not assigned to any unit and was attached to this E-7 as his driver/assistant. His entire job was going into courts around the northeast where the employers were dragged into for a "hearing."

All the ones I saw went like this: He "The Army" would state its case. Employer X (the defense) failed to comply with statute blahbitty blah blah and return the soldier to his job. The judge would ask the employer if they had documents showing proof that they had offered the solder his job back. The employers would say no and then start some sort of explanation. The judge would stop them and say he only wanted to know if they offered the job back or not. He wanted no reasons why. They never had any proof. The judge then says you will provide the soldier his job back AND you will pay him back pay to the date that his job should have been provided.

This guy had a lot of these to go to and he was booked for quite awhile. Takes a long time for each case to finally get into court. These places all end up paying these soldiers lots of cash because they are asshats. The guys already had another job already because you can't live on nothing for the year or so until court but that big chunk of salary coming their way musta been sweet.

It's all a Zen mind thing. There is no job.

Amy I the only one that thinks these employers are right to fire the people who out of their own free will chose to join the army reserve ?

This is exactly the same as women biatching about being discriminated for getting pregnant. If you accept a job in a company, you better well be prepared to actually do your job. If you plan on getting pregnant and sitting at home, or joining the army reserve knowing with near-certainty you will be called to active duty. Why the hell did you bother applying for the job in the first place, if you have no intention of actually showing up ?

The correct thing for them to do would have been to resign before leaving for duty.

If would be a different story if they were being drafted.


Look up and to the right, that's your appendix

wingnutx: Unknown_Poltroon: like today's current "you're in it for the duration" lengths?

The laws were written for "in for the duration" lengths, not todays finite tours of 3 to 18 months.

Navy & Marine tours average 7 months

Big Army is currently at 15

Air Force is like 45 minutes


Navy and USMC: 5-7 months
Army: 12 months
AF: 6 months (mine are 12 months)

/asshole

I'm wondering how the law applies to people who are held there longer than the traditional deployment terms.

I can't imagine how difficult it would be to have to hire someone for 2 years to fill in for someone sent overseas, and then have to fire them as soon as they came back (when are they coming back?) For farmhand jobs, that wouldn't be too much of an issue, but many more service men are in more professional jobs?

It's one thing when you have a basic manual labor job. You can hire temp workers from a pool of workers who are just looking for work (Or maybe, looking for a second job). But professionals are more rare and trying to find someone to fill their position temporarily is going to be expensive.

(I know I demanded an extra 30k/year for a 2 year position)

TFA: Ernest Jennings was a little surprised in 2003 when he heard a new band director had been hired at Des Moines North High School.

That's because he had never quit the job.

Jennings was in the Iraqi desert at the time, running hazardous truck convoy missions from Kuwait into Baghdad as a captain with the Iowa Army National Guard. He was lucky, though, because a band director's post opened for him at Des Moines East High School when he got home.

That sounds like they're in compliance with federal law, actually, Mr. Register. There's nothing that says the school board can't fill your position while you are deployed -- only that they have to rehire you at an equal or greater pay into a similar or better position. Sounds like they did just that.

This is a non-story. Some positions simply can't be left vacant for 2-4 years. The feds understand this, and the swapparoo is a valid and allowable action under these circumstances.

Its_A_Tarp: wingnutx: Unknown_Poltroon: like today's current "you're in it for the duration" lengths?

The laws were written for "in for the duration" lengths, not todays finite tours of 3 to 18 months.

Navy & Marine tours average 7 months

Big Army is currently at 15

Air Force is like 45 minutes


Navy and USMC: 5-7 months
Army: 12 months
AF: 6 months (mine are 12 months)

/asshole

12 months of what? Wearing your "Air Force gloves?"

/snicker

rynthetyn: dukeblue219: From TFA: Although he had told his boss he had been awake in the middle of the night with nightmares from seeing a close friend killed in Iraq, he said his boss replied that it was "not his problem and that I had to deal with it."

That's a good PR move there.

However, I am also curious how this is generally supposed to work. I imagine in 99% of the cases it's not hard to keep a slot open for a soldier, but what if it's a specific job that you can only have one of? How is that usually handled with regards to filling the position temporarily? (band director is a good example -- you have to have one, but you only need one, and there might not be anyone else hiring for a hundred miles when he gets back).

A few years ago, the band director at one of the schools in my hometown got called up and sent to Iraq, the school found someone to fill in while he was gone and the local paper wrote a touching article about how all of his students were anxiously awaiting his return.

That's how it's supposed to work, firing the guy while he's gone and hiring a permanent replacement isn't generally the way it's done.

No sympathy for the temp then. Because we all nkwo that learning to kill people makes for much better renditions of "I Believe I Can Fly" when invoted to the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. What if there is no replacemnet available? Tell the children to give up music and be glad that they're not being forced to speal Iraqi and become Muslims because of the WMD's? There is a breaking point and the present commander in thief has crossed it long ago. I have sympathy for the troops, but if its becoming that much of a burden to be deployed that long then speak up about the burden instead of expecting everyone else to accomodate you.

There is a constant chatter from freepers opposed to the bailout which is the only reasonable chance to save some people's jobs, yet we expect small businesses to bear this burded? Small businesses can't take the hit of providing health care to workers, but they can do this? I don't see how it can both ways. Maybe its time that people , including the military, acknowledge that war is too serious a thing to pursue it as Bush has done, with the public expecting to do its part by shopping.

Women went to work in factories during WWII and stayed after. Servicemen came back and went to school on the GI bill to get new careers. What are we doing now? No real GI Bill an just expecting small businesses to go with key employees for unknown months or years and pretend its not a problem?

ladyway905:
(...)

I'll bite.
So all people in the reserves shouldn't have other jobs to supplement their shiatty income?

You don't HAVE to be in the reserves. Either go into the army fulltime or just have a fulltime job. I can't just not show up for work for a few months because I can make more money doing a freelance job I prefer over my normal job and then expect the company to keep my seat while I'm out. Exact same thing.

What about women who get pregnant and it wasn't planned but she took appropriate precautions to avoid it? Should she have an abortion instead of staying her fat ass at home? (I'm pro-choice btw).

It's up to her to decide. Either keep the baby and quit, or keep the job and have an abortion.

Let's say you have to take some extended medical leave. Let's say, oh... you get in a car accident and you break your back or both your legs and you have to have extension rehabilitation therapy and therefore can't be at work for an extended period of time. They should fire your ass too, right?

No. That wasn't a voluntary decision, you can't choose not have an accident, that's why they call it an accident. You can choose not to join the army or not to have a baby. It's choice that matters. It's a question of keeping your promises. You're either committed to your company or you're committed to the army, you can't do both. CHOOSE. Make a decision and stick to it.

onomatopoetic: BorgDrone isn't a troll. Here's a troll:

Maybe if more soldiers were fired from their jobs more often, we wouldn't have as many people willing to fight bullshiat wars.

I case you didn't notice, The United States is not at war

wmoonfox: TFA: Ernest Jennings was a little surprised in 2003 when he heard a new band director had been hired at Des Moines North High School.

That's because he had never quit the job.

Jennings was in the Iraqi desert at the time, running hazardous truck convoy missions from Kuwait into Baghdad as a captain with the Iowa Army National Guard. He was lucky, though, because a band director's post opened for him at Des Moines East High School when he got home.

That sounds like they're in compliance with federal law, actually, Mr. Register. There's nothing that says the school board can't fill your position while you are deployed -- only that they have to rehire you at an equal or greater pay into a similar or better position. Sounds like they did just that.

This is a non-story. Some positions simply can't be left vacant for 2-4 years. The feds understand this, and the swapparoo is a valid and allowable action under these circumstances.


Who said the positions have to be left vacant? Especially with teaching positions, ther eis always a substitute option. Long term subs are common use for long abscences in schools.

There are jobs hiring "temporary" management positions as well as temporary labor & temporary assistive positions. No one "gets fired" as soon as the service member comes back as the person filling the slot was hired on a temporary basis.

Benjimin_Dover:

12 months of what? Wearing your "Air Force gloves?"

/snicker

Close - actually we (USAF Logistics Officers) are usually embedded with the Army doing convoys. Or we're with reconstruction teams living in FOBs.

But yes, wearing AF gloves is close.

iodine:
(...)
They're not right to fire these people when it's against the law.

Correct. But I can see why they do it and I don't think it's a fair law.

The point about pregnancy is irrelevant and subject to different rules in some jurisdictions.

It's the same thing, in both cases you don't show up for work because you think something else is more important. That's fine with me, but don't expect the company to jump through hoops to make your life easier.

In either case, even without the force of law, many employers compete for employees just as employees compete for jobs. Many are happy to offer not just a marernity leave but a paternity leave as well to attract more candidates and also because the cost of recruiting and training a replacement may be higher than the cost of the offering the leave.

Sure, and this works for big companies. But in a small company there often isn't someone who can take over a persons duties why he/she is away for several months. Especially if a replacement takes several months to get up to speed.

No, it would be stupid for them to resign as that could affect benefits, eligibility for pensions and etc.

If you can't actually go, then don't go. Just don't join the army. It's a simple case of not being able to be in 2 places at the same time, just choose one.

"Citizen Soldier" came up randomly on my itunes shuffle as I'm reading this, so I'm getting a kick...

/not kidding

BorgDrone

Ok yeah, that makes lots of sense. You're right. No woman with a job in this country should get knocked up because then she has to choose between her job and the baby - let's all get abortions because there's no need to perpetuate the human race, is there? Or for that matter, you don't need social security, do you?

Also, let's have all the people who join National Guard part time fired. That way no one wants to join, and when you do have one of those natural disasters like a wildfire in Cali, or tornadoes in the alley, or hurricanes that hit up Miami and Mississippi, there will be no one to call in because law and order have temporarily vanished. Not to mention the food and clothes thing that the Nat'l Guard is pretty decent at working with the Red Cross.

And by they way, you should never have gotten into that car in the first place, because it's a safety risk. You can choose to walk because it's safer. So the employer is perfectly right to fire you when you're declared at fault in the accident.

And I still say you're a jackass.