thedrifter
09-17-04, 06:28 AM
09-16-2004
For Guard & Reserve Members, Service Comes at a Price
By Paul Connors
In the days immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many members of the National Guard and other reserve components voluntarily stepped forward in defense of the Republic. Others were immediately activated, either by state governors or by presidential order, to provided needed military support for recovery, homeland security, and other vital services. In the three years since the attacks, literally hundreds of thousands of reservists and guardsmen have been activated to support the war on terror and overseas operations supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. As this article is being written, more than 163,000 reserve component members of all services are on active duty supporting foreign missions and providing security here at home.
While it is true that patriotic fervor in the days following 9/11 surged to near all time record highs, the current state of affairs is dramatically different from those dark days, when every American felt violated and fearful of the future. During those early days, military members were greeted as heroes and saviors, and Americans again rejoiced knowing that they possessed the strongest and most capable military on the planet. In those first days, however, many did not realize that large numbers of reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen would be needed to provide additional backbone and support for the military’s enlarged world-wide footprint.
In the blinking of an eye, the days of reservists being viewed as “weekend warriors” ended as thousands of Army Guardsmen and reservists were called upon to protect vital infrastructure, guard airports, bridges, nuclear power stations, and other high value targets. Members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command stepped forward, volunteering to support Air Force missions worldwide. Air National Guard fighter wings around the country, especially those assigned to First Air Force, headquartered at Tyndall AFB, Fla., flew air defense missions twenty-four hours a day to ensure that a repeat of 9/11 would not occur.
During the intervening three years, there has been a decided loss of support for the military and its worldwide missions. Some of that has been the direct result of the constant carping of the left-leaning mainstream media, but perhaps more is the result of the deliberate disinformation and misstatements of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who have used and abused the war in Iraq for purely political purposes.
Immediately after U.S. forces toppled Saddam’s venal regime, Americans again applauded the military’s efforts and successes. When the difficulties with the post-war occupation of Baghdad came into the homes of American TV viewers (as they did in Vietnam), opinions began to change. These were not just political views as American companies again began their subtle, but insidious moves against members of the Guard and Reserve. The most common form of discrimination came in the form of job eliminations while service members were activated and deployed. For others, it was a door slammed in their faces when they came home, only to be told that “times were tough and their job no longer existed.”
American companies that do not reemploy or resist reemploying returning Reservists and Guardsmen represent a wide spectrum of the American business community. In Oregon, the 1st Bn., 162nd Infantry Regiment, Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG), recently returned from its deployment to Iraq. Returning members of the battalion seem to have had more than their fair share of reemployment problems as several who deployed (and some who didn’t) reported job related discrimination resulting from military service.
Guard and Reserve members have reported being passed over for promotions while away, lost pay raises, or problems with restoration of seniority and benefits. Others have relayed stories of being laid off under “suspicious circumstances.” Despite the illegality of their actions under Federal and many state laws, American companies have shown a marked degree of ingenuity when they decide to screw a returning veteran. Especially disturbing is that most employers who violate the USERRA laws are never prosecuted or punished.
Brent Hunsberger, a reporter for the Portland Oregonian, in an article for the paper on Sept. 6, 2004, related the stories of several Reservists and Guardsmen who deployed overseas, and their experiences when they returned home and requested their old jobs back. Hunsberger’s article featured an Air Force Reserve Master Sergeant with twenty years service named Michael Sapp who was fired by his employer of six years because he “volunteered” for a deployment to support his unit in Qatar. Master Sergeant Michael Sapp spent one week in pre-deployment work-up status away from work and was then told his deployment was postponed. He then reported back to work at his civilian employer. He was still on alert for his deployment, but his civilian employer was incensed that he had “volunteered” rather than waiting for orders. His employer, a company named Vescom, fired him three days later without explanation.
Sergeant Sapp subsequently served five months in Qatar, before returning home. He later filed suit against his former employer. It is not clear what degree of support he received from his Air Force Reserve unit or the Departments of Labor and Justice in his quest for redress under the USERRA statutes.
Another member of the 1st Bn., 162nd Infantry, Patrick Bright, enlisted in the Oregon Army National Guard on July 30, 2004. He did so after watching U.S. troops in Iraq, and because he needed to supplement his $33,000 a year income from his position as a loan officer with St. Helens Community Federal Credit Union. Three weeks after his enlistment in the National Guard, his employer let him go. The credit union blamed the layoff on rising interest rates which had caused a downturn in demand for mortgages. Bright told the Portland Oregonian that he suspected discrimination and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. He pointed out that his supervisor had made unfavorable comments to him when he informed the credit union of his decision to enlist. To further support his claim, Bright pointed out that his former employer is now advertising for a financial analyst, a position he believed he could have easily trained for.
While it is illegal under federal statutes to discriminate against a member of the Guard or Reserve, it is also illegal to discriminate in hiring one when that information comes out during an interview. Despite the federal laws barring such corporate behavior, it happens all the time. It is, however, difficult for the job candidate or the newly fired employee to prove such discrimination.
As a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the weaknesses in many state laws regarding protection for members of the Guard and Reserve also became apparent. My former employer in New York State refused to recognize the Governor’s authority to call Guard troops out in the immediate aftermath of the attacks in New York City. My immediate supervisor informed me that as a new employee with less than three months service with the company, if I left on a state activation, my job might not be there when I returned. This was not a subtle warning, it was quite plain. My supervisor at the time told me that the company only recognized federal orders under Titles 32 or 10 of the U.S. Code. So with the immediate threat of the loss of a new job, I had to contact my ANG unit and ask that I be ordered to active duty under one of the federally funded sections of the U.S. Code.
It was not until more than a year later that Governor George Pataki signed into law strengthened NY State Law that protected members of the National Guard on state active duty from punitive actions or termination by their employers.
The sad fact is, however, that many employers continue to give their Reserve and Guard member employees difficulties when it comes time for military leave. Even sadder is that while the federal government has enacted laws to protect service members, it seems quite reluctant to enforce them. In the meantime, employers know they can flaunt the law and not have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
As the war against terror and the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq continue, reemployment rights will be just one of the issues returning service members will have to consider when it comes time to decide whether or not they will remain a member of the Reserve component. And just like all of the other issues that an over-worked Guard and Reserve System has had to contend with, mistreatment by employers of returning veterans is an issue that needs to be addressed before it too adds to the looming retention crisis.
©2004, Paul Connors
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=635&rnd=358.0239853533245
Ellie
For Guard & Reserve Members, Service Comes at a Price
By Paul Connors
In the days immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many members of the National Guard and other reserve components voluntarily stepped forward in defense of the Republic. Others were immediately activated, either by state governors or by presidential order, to provided needed military support for recovery, homeland security, and other vital services. In the three years since the attacks, literally hundreds of thousands of reservists and guardsmen have been activated to support the war on terror and overseas operations supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. As this article is being written, more than 163,000 reserve component members of all services are on active duty supporting foreign missions and providing security here at home.
While it is true that patriotic fervor in the days following 9/11 surged to near all time record highs, the current state of affairs is dramatically different from those dark days, when every American felt violated and fearful of the future. During those early days, military members were greeted as heroes and saviors, and Americans again rejoiced knowing that they possessed the strongest and most capable military on the planet. In those first days, however, many did not realize that large numbers of reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen would be needed to provide additional backbone and support for the military’s enlarged world-wide footprint.
In the blinking of an eye, the days of reservists being viewed as “weekend warriors” ended as thousands of Army Guardsmen and reservists were called upon to protect vital infrastructure, guard airports, bridges, nuclear power stations, and other high value targets. Members of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Command stepped forward, volunteering to support Air Force missions worldwide. Air National Guard fighter wings around the country, especially those assigned to First Air Force, headquartered at Tyndall AFB, Fla., flew air defense missions twenty-four hours a day to ensure that a repeat of 9/11 would not occur.
During the intervening three years, there has been a decided loss of support for the military and its worldwide missions. Some of that has been the direct result of the constant carping of the left-leaning mainstream media, but perhaps more is the result of the deliberate disinformation and misstatements of politicians (on both sides of the aisle) who have used and abused the war in Iraq for purely political purposes.
Immediately after U.S. forces toppled Saddam’s venal regime, Americans again applauded the military’s efforts and successes. When the difficulties with the post-war occupation of Baghdad came into the homes of American TV viewers (as they did in Vietnam), opinions began to change. These were not just political views as American companies again began their subtle, but insidious moves against members of the Guard and Reserve. The most common form of discrimination came in the form of job eliminations while service members were activated and deployed. For others, it was a door slammed in their faces when they came home, only to be told that “times were tough and their job no longer existed.”
American companies that do not reemploy or resist reemploying returning Reservists and Guardsmen represent a wide spectrum of the American business community. In Oregon, the 1st Bn., 162nd Infantry Regiment, Oregon Army National Guard (ORARNG), recently returned from its deployment to Iraq. Returning members of the battalion seem to have had more than their fair share of reemployment problems as several who deployed (and some who didn’t) reported job related discrimination resulting from military service.
Guard and Reserve members have reported being passed over for promotions while away, lost pay raises, or problems with restoration of seniority and benefits. Others have relayed stories of being laid off under “suspicious circumstances.” Despite the illegality of their actions under Federal and many state laws, American companies have shown a marked degree of ingenuity when they decide to screw a returning veteran. Especially disturbing is that most employers who violate the USERRA laws are never prosecuted or punished.
Brent Hunsberger, a reporter for the Portland Oregonian, in an article for the paper on Sept. 6, 2004, related the stories of several Reservists and Guardsmen who deployed overseas, and their experiences when they returned home and requested their old jobs back. Hunsberger’s article featured an Air Force Reserve Master Sergeant with twenty years service named Michael Sapp who was fired by his employer of six years because he “volunteered” for a deployment to support his unit in Qatar. Master Sergeant Michael Sapp spent one week in pre-deployment work-up status away from work and was then told his deployment was postponed. He then reported back to work at his civilian employer. He was still on alert for his deployment, but his civilian employer was incensed that he had “volunteered” rather than waiting for orders. His employer, a company named Vescom, fired him three days later without explanation.
Sergeant Sapp subsequently served five months in Qatar, before returning home. He later filed suit against his former employer. It is not clear what degree of support he received from his Air Force Reserve unit or the Departments of Labor and Justice in his quest for redress under the USERRA statutes.
Another member of the 1st Bn., 162nd Infantry, Patrick Bright, enlisted in the Oregon Army National Guard on July 30, 2004. He did so after watching U.S. troops in Iraq, and because he needed to supplement his $33,000 a year income from his position as a loan officer with St. Helens Community Federal Credit Union. Three weeks after his enlistment in the National Guard, his employer let him go. The credit union blamed the layoff on rising interest rates which had caused a downturn in demand for mortgages. Bright told the Portland Oregonian that he suspected discrimination and filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. He pointed out that his supervisor had made unfavorable comments to him when he informed the credit union of his decision to enlist. To further support his claim, Bright pointed out that his former employer is now advertising for a financial analyst, a position he believed he could have easily trained for.
While it is illegal under federal statutes to discriminate against a member of the Guard or Reserve, it is also illegal to discriminate in hiring one when that information comes out during an interview. Despite the federal laws barring such corporate behavior, it happens all the time. It is, however, difficult for the job candidate or the newly fired employee to prove such discrimination.
As a result of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the weaknesses in many state laws regarding protection for members of the Guard and Reserve also became apparent. My former employer in New York State refused to recognize the Governor’s authority to call Guard troops out in the immediate aftermath of the attacks in New York City. My immediate supervisor informed me that as a new employee with less than three months service with the company, if I left on a state activation, my job might not be there when I returned. This was not a subtle warning, it was quite plain. My supervisor at the time told me that the company only recognized federal orders under Titles 32 or 10 of the U.S. Code. So with the immediate threat of the loss of a new job, I had to contact my ANG unit and ask that I be ordered to active duty under one of the federally funded sections of the U.S. Code.
It was not until more than a year later that Governor George Pataki signed into law strengthened NY State Law that protected members of the National Guard on state active duty from punitive actions or termination by their employers.
The sad fact is, however, that many employers continue to give their Reserve and Guard member employees difficulties when it comes time for military leave. Even sadder is that while the federal government has enacted laws to protect service members, it seems quite reluctant to enforce them. In the meantime, employers know they can flaunt the law and not have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
As the war against terror and the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq continue, reemployment rights will be just one of the issues returning service members will have to consider when it comes time to decide whether or not they will remain a member of the Reserve component. And just like all of the other issues that an over-worked Guard and Reserve System has had to contend with, mistreatment by employers of returning veterans is an issue that needs to be addressed before it too adds to the looming retention crisis.
©2004, Paul Connors
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=635&rnd=358.0239853533245
Ellie