thedrifter
01-19-07, 11:28 AM
Employers more reluctant to hire reservists
By Karen Jowers - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jan 19, 2007 10:54:18 EST
Some employers, already pinched by mobilizations of workers who are in the National Guard or reserves, are saying privately they’ll be reluctant to hire new employee-reservists.
Discriminating against someone because of their military obligations is illegal, but 51 percent of employers who responded to an informal, online poll by Workforce Management magazine said they would not hire an employee who is a citizen-soldier “if they knew that a military reservist or National Guard member could be called up and taken away from their job for an indeterminate amount of time,” as the question was posed.
On Jan. 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced major changes in the way America’s reserve forces are used, limiting any one involuntary mobilization to no more than 12 months but rescinding a policy that capped at 24 months the cumulative amount of time an individual could be involuntarily mobilized.
In other words, each involuntary mobilization will be shorter, but the number of times a reservist could be mobilized potentially has no limit.
The intent, said David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, is to establish a predictable cycle for Guard and Reserve units of one year on active duty followed by five years at home. But that predictability is not there yet, and some members will have to deploy sooner than they expected, while others will have to serve longer than they expected.
“This new policy will be the straw that broke the back of employer support for the Guard and Reserve,” said Ted Daywalt, president of Vetjobs.com, a military-related job board sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “Employers I’ve spoken to said they will support their current employees who are members of the Guard and reserve, but they are not looking to hire anyone else in the Guard and reserve.”
Daywalt said he has spoken to human resources managers at 11 companies, “and not one said they would support this policy — in fact, it will force them to do some things they do not want to do.”
Daywalt said he is “appalled” by the numbers cited in the Workforce Management survey, and is concerned about other indicators that employers are increasingly stretched by the deployments of their workers who are Guard and Reserve members.
Gina Ruiz, a writer for Workforce Management magazine, said 348 employers responded to the poll, which is not intended to be scientific.
Casey Coane, a retired Navy rear admiral and executive director of the Naval Reserve Association, said his group “has always maintained two concerns with the call-ups and the pace of the war: First, the sustainability for both reservists and employers during multiple call-ups, where reservists are trying to serve two masters.”
“Second, if we are going to continue to use the Guard and reserve in this fashion of multiple extended call-ups, then Congress needs to address the compensation package that goes along with this service.”
Coane said he understands that Congress has no appetite for lowering the age at which reservists can begin drawing retired pay, currently 60.
“But if we’re going to use [reservists] for at least several years of active duty, then there needs to be an adjustment in compensation to reflect this increased usage,” he said. “Guard and reserve members are going to suffer from lack of promotions, lack of contributions to 401(k) if gone for extended periods.”
Sustainability is the main concern, he said.
“We never hear from people who do not want to go” when called for mobilization, he said.
In fact, he said his group often hears from people who want to extend their deployments.
“But part of our responsibility is making sure the other side is understood,” he said. “We have to recognize there are costs.”
Talk about your experiences with civilian employers.
Ellie
By Karen Jowers - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jan 19, 2007 10:54:18 EST
Some employers, already pinched by mobilizations of workers who are in the National Guard or reserves, are saying privately they’ll be reluctant to hire new employee-reservists.
Discriminating against someone because of their military obligations is illegal, but 51 percent of employers who responded to an informal, online poll by Workforce Management magazine said they would not hire an employee who is a citizen-soldier “if they knew that a military reservist or National Guard member could be called up and taken away from their job for an indeterminate amount of time,” as the question was posed.
On Jan. 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced major changes in the way America’s reserve forces are used, limiting any one involuntary mobilization to no more than 12 months but rescinding a policy that capped at 24 months the cumulative amount of time an individual could be involuntarily mobilized.
In other words, each involuntary mobilization will be shorter, but the number of times a reservist could be mobilized potentially has no limit.
The intent, said David S.C. Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, is to establish a predictable cycle for Guard and Reserve units of one year on active duty followed by five years at home. But that predictability is not there yet, and some members will have to deploy sooner than they expected, while others will have to serve longer than they expected.
“This new policy will be the straw that broke the back of employer support for the Guard and Reserve,” said Ted Daywalt, president of Vetjobs.com, a military-related job board sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. “Employers I’ve spoken to said they will support their current employees who are members of the Guard and reserve, but they are not looking to hire anyone else in the Guard and reserve.”
Daywalt said he has spoken to human resources managers at 11 companies, “and not one said they would support this policy — in fact, it will force them to do some things they do not want to do.”
Daywalt said he is “appalled” by the numbers cited in the Workforce Management survey, and is concerned about other indicators that employers are increasingly stretched by the deployments of their workers who are Guard and Reserve members.
Gina Ruiz, a writer for Workforce Management magazine, said 348 employers responded to the poll, which is not intended to be scientific.
Casey Coane, a retired Navy rear admiral and executive director of the Naval Reserve Association, said his group “has always maintained two concerns with the call-ups and the pace of the war: First, the sustainability for both reservists and employers during multiple call-ups, where reservists are trying to serve two masters.”
“Second, if we are going to continue to use the Guard and reserve in this fashion of multiple extended call-ups, then Congress needs to address the compensation package that goes along with this service.”
Coane said he understands that Congress has no appetite for lowering the age at which reservists can begin drawing retired pay, currently 60.
“But if we’re going to use [reservists] for at least several years of active duty, then there needs to be an adjustment in compensation to reflect this increased usage,” he said. “Guard and reserve members are going to suffer from lack of promotions, lack of contributions to 401(k) if gone for extended periods.”
Sustainability is the main concern, he said.
“We never hear from people who do not want to go” when called for mobilization, he said.
In fact, he said his group often hears from people who want to extend their deployments.
“But part of our responsibility is making sure the other side is understood,” he said. “We have to recognize there are costs.”
Talk about your experiences with civilian employers.
Ellie