Pink slips greet returning soldiers

WorldNetDaily ^ | 27 dec 2003 | Timothy W. Maier

[solitas]

When U.S. Army Maj. Joe Cherry left his federal job at the National Labor Relations Board in Chicago because he was called up to fight the war in Iraq he received an unexpected going-away present. The major wouldn't have to worry whether his government job would be there when he returned - the federal government made that decision for him, firing him on the spot.

Cherry is not alone. In the last five years 5,690 veterans have lost their jobs in both the private and public sectors while activated to serve a tour of duty, according to a U.S. Department of Labor report presented to Congress this year. Those numbers are expected to increase because, of the 300,000 deployed reservists, as many as 25,000 veterans are expected to return home in 2005 to reintegrate themselves back into civilian life after a tour of duty in the global war against terrorism. Of those 300,000, about 20,000 work for the federal government.

While Cherry received his pink slip prior to being deployed, veterans' advocacy groups charge that many others have yet to learn that the government which sent them to war may have little use for them afterward. Concerned that employers may fire veterans from both the private and public sectors who are called to active service, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao recently issued a public-service announcement reminding employers that they have both a moral and legal obligation to those returning from active duty. "They did their job - now let's do ours," Chao said.

[solitas]

WRONG - just plain wrong! If anybody knows of companies/corporations firing military personnel before/during/after their service, please post the company's name here. Also: does anyone know of a website with company/corporate names?

[garbanzo]

Isn't there a law against that?

[kennedy]

It is particularly ironic that he was fired by the federal government from a job on the National Labor Relations Board. I can only hope that there is a Bush political appointee at the top of the agency who can fire whoever made that decision and replace hime with Maj. Cherry.

[tbeatty]

I believe it's against the law. The key sentence is the last one of the piece. He was let go before he was called up. It may have been completely unrelated to his call up.

It is very clear where I work that persons who are called up have protected jobs. They also have coordinated salary (i.e. they retain their civilian salary levels with the company picking up the difference between the military pay and their civilian pay). But that doesn't mean that people who are in the military or reserve can't be terminated or laid off when they are not called up on active duty.

[Prime Choice]

I thought it was illegal for a firm -- any firm -- to fire a reservist for serving his country. There's something missing in this story here...

[templar]

Isn't there a law against that?

I think that it would be legal if his job were eliminated while he was gone. If someone else had been hired to do his job in his absence, I think he could demand his job back, but not if his job was simply gone. But, that is from my memory of the law of some 30+ years ago and I may be wrong or it may have changed. In any event, it's a shameful situation.

[discostu]

It's illegal to fire them for serving our country. But if they're in a right to work state you can fire them for cause. Cause is getting more and more popular in this day of unlawful termination suits too, if you give a reason you run the risk of a jury deciding your reason wasn't good enough, if you fire them just cause there's nothing for the jury to object too.

[gg188]

These are just the kind of people a company would WANT.

Meanwhile, in corporations many women are out 1/3 or more of the time with pregnancy, PMS, Family Leave, daycare issues and logistics, women-in-business conferences, drug rehab, bereavement, anxiety, migraine and depression. (Not all mind you, by any means. I worked with a VP who brags about how she was on the phone with clients in the delivery room after plopping the baby out; 48 hours later she was back working.) I report, you decide. I am speaking from the belly of the beast.

Family Leave, extended leaves granted for pregnancy, and other government mandates like affirmative action have forced firms to keep lots of people on the payroll who produce nothing, doing jobs for whom two people have to be assigned because one is going to be out or incompetent much of the time. Still, it would seem like they could keep military people on the payroll and hold their jobs for them.

[Hotdog]

Agree...wrong....step forward and say who's doing this!...I'll write to the Presedent myself and promis this will not happen!

[Chu Gary]

This post makes me suspicious. I don't doubt the factual content of the article is perhaps accurate. However, Solitas (the poster) has been around since late April of this year and has no home page. Now he posts an article derogatory toward the military, etc. - gives one a reason to pause and think.....trying to foment discontent maybe.

[CindyDawg]

When's the last time you heard of a government employee being fired? I didn't think it could happen. Don't they just get paid vacations instead?

[solitas]

to all:

it IS against the law - as is stated further-down in the article. I copied an excerpt from the full article and DID click the 'exerpt' box on the submission page - I though THAT would bring up an 'excerpt' flag in the posting... Guess not. Please click the link to read the whole thing.

[TSgt]

http://user857109.wx8.registeredsite.com/members/thelaw.asp?c=userra0.html

Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton on October 13, 1994. Congress amended the law in 1996, 1998, and 2000. The version shown here includes all amendments through October 1, 2001. If further amendments are made, we will include them here. USERRA is codified in Title 38, United States Code, Sections 4301-4333 (38 U.S.C. 4301-4333).


CHAPTER 43--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS
OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL

4301. Purposes; sense of Congress.
4302. Relation to other law and plans or agreements.
4303. Definitions.
4304. Character of service.

SUBCHAPTER II--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND
LIMITATIONS; PROHIBITIONS

4311. Discrimination against persons who serve in the uniformed services and acts of reprisal prohibited.
4312. Reemployment rights of persons who serve in the uniformed services.
4313. Reemployment positions.
4314. Reemployment by the Federal Government.
4315. Reemployment by certain Federal agencies.
4316. Rights, benefits, and obligations of persons absent from employment for service in a uniformed service.
4317. Health plans.
4318. Employee pension benefit plans.
4319. Employment and reemployment rights in foreign countries

SUBCHAPTER III--PROCEDURES FOR ASSISTANCE, ENFORCEMENT, AND
INVESTIGATION

4321. Assistance in obtaining reemployment or other employment rights or benefits.
4322. Enforcement of employment or reemployment rights.
4323. Enforcement of rights with respect to a State or private employer.
4324. Enforcement of rights with respect to Federal executive agencies.
4325. Enforcement of rights with respect to certain Federal agencies.
4326. Conduct of investigation; subpoenas.

SUBCHAPTER IV--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

4331. Regulations.
4332. Reports.
4333. Outreach.

[shiva]

When's the last time you heard of a government employee being fired?

You got that right!!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The link doesn't work:

Pink slips greet returning soldiers

[solitas]

This post makes me suspicious. I don't doubt the factual content of the article is perhaps accurate. However, Solitas (the poster) has been around since late April of this year and has no home page. Now he posts an article derogatory toward the military, etc. - gives one a reason to pause and think.....trying to foment discontent maybe.

Get bent. The article is specifically NOT against the military - keep your hands off yourself long enough to TRY to concentrate and READ the article - it doesn't have THAT many big words.

Companies AREN'T supposed to do this, it IS against the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994, and I requested readers to post incidents of companies disregarding this act.

[CheneyChick]

Nice language....

[Delta 21]

Click here

[solitas]

I don't know why the link doesn't work - maybe it's got something to do with the "excerpt" box that i checked... I probably should've just copied the entire text instead of just an excerpt. I won't make THAT mistake again! :)