Pep Boys fires manager for being called up by the Navy,

Tucson Citizen ^ | March 15, 2003 | Oscar Abeyta and Irwin M. Goldberg

[Vindibudd]

A federal lawsuit alleges Pep Boys fired a store manager because of his military obligation.

Automotive supply chain Pep Boys fired a Tucson store manager because his military Reserve duties took him away from work, according to a federal lawsuit filed here.

[bimbo]

Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed?

With many companies now considering themselves "multinational" this type of complaint will become more and more common.

[TexKat]

ping

[this_ol_patriot]

Pepe Boys..Le Pew.

[E.G.C.]

I might add also for those who think it's a good thing what Pep Boys did you might give some thought that a lot of these military people are sacrificing their lives so people like you and I would have the freedom to do all sorts of things like participate in these message boards.

Pep Boys is a private business of course and yes they can do whatever they want but that doesn't always make it right. What they did here was wrong and you know it and I know it.

And to those on this thread bad-mouthing the military, my question to you is would you rather see a mushroom cloud erupt over some part of the country? I say that becasue that's what would most likely happen if we didn't have those people available to defend our country.

There are far more important things in life than selling auto parts and National Security matters is one of them.
Regards.

[Pete'sWife]

Here's mine:
Mr.Furtkevic,

It has come to my attention that Pep Boys has seen fit to terminate the
employment of Mr. Erik Balodis, manager of your Tuscon store.

Mr. Balodis, as a military reservist, has stepped up to the plate to put his
life on the line to defend our Freedoms, even your freedom to terminate his
employment.

Yours was a cowardly act and, in my opinion, is beneath contempt.

I have purchased auto supplies from Pep Boys in the past, and have had my
vehicles serviced at your facilities.

However, until such time as Mr. Balodis is rehired, and restored to his
previous position, WITH NO LOSS OF SALARY OR SENIORITY, I will refrain from
doing business of any kind with Pep Boys.

Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

[glory]

Anything we can do to help this family?

[AndyJackson]

the U.S. armed forces is operating under severely dysfunctional conditions in which many areas that used to be part of the military's primary mission are now being staffed almost exclusively by reservists.

This is not dysfuncitonal but a deliberate result of sound planning to make more effective use of the reserve. One of the points is that there are a lot of skills which required a lot of training and experience, but are not so physically demanding. For these jobs, the 35 year old reservist who has done this for 15 years is much more valuable than the 22 year old who has done it for 7 weeks.

[RightOnline]

"Well, if you're in the oil-filter-selling business it is! Why should Pep Boys provide a place for the government to stash its soldiers when they're not immediately needed? This business of calling up reservists for a year or so every few years isn't fair to the reservists or their employers. We need bigger standing forces and an end to this cut-rate staffing of the military with 'temps'."

You couldn't possibly have meant to say this.

Tell me you didn't, even if you did.

[glory]

Well Pep Boys are welcome to lobby for such changes, but in the mean time, they have no right firing this guy.

[Grut]

What are you suggesting? That all the reserves be folded into active-duty?

That the regular military have enough stand-alone capability that we don't need to call upon reservists for essential support any time we want to actually use the regulars. The present system cynically exploits employers to carry the cost of supporting the support troops 'between' wars and injures the reservists by turning them into 'problem' employees.

[Alberta's Child]

This is not dysfunctional but a deliberate result of sound planning to make more effective use of the reserve.

I tend to agree with you. The (legitimate) concern here is that this is not just being done for the reasons you stated, but because the U.S. military is simply looking to save a lot of money.

[ZULU]

The PEP Boys can be contacted at the above address.

You can tell them politely what a bunch of unpatriotic misanthropes they are.



http://www.pepboys.com/about/contact/index.html

[KingPin]

Pep Boys isn't owned by the french, is it?

[Core_Conservative]

I disagree that you would call the reservists cut-rate staffing. My wife (ODC_GIRL) is in the guard, and they have in the past beaten the pants off of Active Duty Unit in head to head competitions!

[ZULU]

Based on their website, it seems to be an American company.

[archy]

This business of calling up reservists for a year or so every few years isn't fair to the reservists or their employers. We need bigger standing forces and an end to this cut-rate staffing of the military with 'temps'.

The question of the ratio and role of reserve/militia forces to those of the regular *standing army* that our nations founders warned us were a threat to the liberty of our nation has long been a matter of debate and political consideration.

But as one of those reservists, I tend to agree at least in part with at least some of your words, if perhaps less so with the apparent tone of them. If my reserve functions are ever called upon, it'll likely be as a result of a reinstituted draft and callup of at least three divisions worth of trainees to build the core personnell for about three divisions, around 50,000 conscript troops- and that'll be just at the training facility I'd be at, no telling how many similar units would be so engaged at present and former, now-inactivated military training centers.

But at the same time as I see such efforts as a real matter of desperation in desperate times, I'm no great fan of the idea of hiring the young as mercenaries to do the dirty work either. Maybe a limited draft for national service for roles besides the military, and with those in military positions limited to duty within the Continental United States [CONUS] might be a workable compromise. Or maybe not.

I am sure of two things, however: whatever course is adopted, it will fall short of perfection and have to be reworked to fit the circumstances of its need. And if it's needed hurriedly, the need will indeed be desperate.

-archy-/-

[Grut]

They are cut-rate in the sense that the government is getting their services more cheaply than if it employed them full time, but I agree that their quality isn't cut-rate at all. But I still say that deliberately setting up the military to routinely need reservists is pure exploitation; there's a sort of "don't call us, we'll call you" feel to it that's a long way from the 'loyalty from above' the troops deserve.

[Iris7]

Although I can see where you are coming from, remember that a citizen military, that is draftees and reservists, is characteristic of Republics. Empires historically have used long service troops and reservists that are members of regular regiments not reserve units. We are in the transition to Empire from Republic, and have been since 1861.

The traditional meaning of "Army" from Confucius' day is "the People." (I am talking about traditional Chinese ideographs.) The Swiss system requires all men to be in the army, and until recently good army service was required to earn the right to vote. The Israeli army is patterned after the Swiss. These a Republican ways of organization. Our reserve and Guard organization is a remnant of our Republican past. Do not be in a hurry to reject it.