Should Vets Have Their Job Guaranteed When TheY Get Home?

[Yurt]

I put this here instead of military, because I think the issue affects all of us, not just the vets.


The Veterans' Enemy at Home

Of all the troubles that U.S. troops may face when they come home, getting their old jobs back should not be one. Uncle Sam supposedly took care of that with a law saying civilians turned soldiers cannot be fired for serving their country--or denied the right to sue in federal court.

Which is why returning veterans should hear the story of Michael Garrett.

Thirteen years ago, Captain Garrett of the U.S. Marine Corps traded his camouflage utility uniform for the business-casual dress of a Circuit City service manager. The electronics company was booming, and Garrett could still get his dose of a soldier's life as a member of the Marine Reserve.

For almost a decade, Garrett ascended the company's ranks. But in October 2002, with war in Iraq near certain, his bosses asked whether he would go on active duty, according to Garrett. He said it was possible, and within weeks, the sniping began: his department took too long with repairs, one boss said, and its work was sometimes shoddy. Then, on March 17--two days before the U.S. invaded Iraq--Garrett got fired.

The company declines to comment, saying only that it "supports the mission and values of the United States Armed Forces." But Garrett says the timing was no coincidence: he lost his job because of his military status. If true, that would violate a 1994 federal law. So Garrett sued Circuit City, only to see it spring yet another surprise.

Garrett, the company said, had to take his case to private arbitration, a quasi-legal process offering sharply limited rights. Garrett acknowledged that his employment contract required arbitration, but he argued that the 1994 act overrode the contract. A federal judge in Dallas agreed in 2004, just before Garrett was activated for a 10-month tour in the Horn of Africa. Last year, though, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed that decision, becoming the first court to rule that a contract crafted to help employers trumps the law designed to protect the rights of veterans. "That just blows me away," says Garrett, whose case heads for arbitration.

No one knows how many veterans are in a similar bind, but the numbers are substantial--and will grow as more troops return home. Complaints under the 1994 act have increased steadily, to more than 1,500 in 2006 from about 800 in 2001. Some have become lawsuits, and employers may have tried to steer many toward arbitration, since about one-fifth of U.S. companies require the procedure for workplace disputes. In defense of employers, it's not easy reserving jobs for workers called to active duty. But Congress judged that the cost was worth the peace of mind of citizen soldiers, willing to sacrifice their time and perhaps lives to the military. Like predecessor statutes dating from 1940, the 1994 act's broad protections rest on the promise of a federal jury trial--with rights to evidence, a fair hearing and an appeal--if an employer fails to comply.

Companies like Circuit City say binding arbitration is faster and cheaper than going to court, though studies have cast doubt on both claims. What really bugs employees are the rights they lose in arbitration--and the apparent bias of arbitrators. There are strict limits on gathering evidence for arbitration hearings, and it is virtually impossible to appeal them. Arbitrators don't necessarily have to follow the law, and studies suggest they favor companies that regularly hire them. Still, the courts generally uphold arbitration clauses unless a law makes absolutely clear that the employee can go to court, arbitration be damned. That pretty much describes the 1994 act, as three federal courts have ruled.

But the magic of law is that even federal judges can give it surprising twists, as the court of appeals judges did in Garrett's case. Sure, they explained, the act says the rights it grants can't be limited. But the judges said that referred to "substantive rights" like the guarantee of a job. Whether such rights are enforced in court or arbitration, the judges thought, is just a matter of process. It's hard to believe, though, that Congress thought a second-class justice system like arbitration was just as good as the federal courts for veterans. As Bob Goodman, Garrett's lawyer, says, "Taking away the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is no way to treat the troops." Or to welcome them home.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1633071,00.html

[Yurt]

Seems to me they were promised this by the Government, so I think the arbitration thing is wrong, the federal law should trump.

As to a free market and businesses dealing with the issue I am not so sure.

[Gaffer]

Definately federal laws should trump arbitration. The judge had no business or right to make that ruling. But I can't say I'm surprised as judges all think they are above the laws, the law makers and the people.

Reserve and guard units especially need the protection of their jobs now days.

40 years ago I could not get a job because I was subject to be drafted. There was no lottery at that time. And anyone with a job was subject to lose that job if they got drafted. Employers were suppose to rehire you when you returned. But they didn't have to rehire you for the job you were doing before you left. A lot of the laws today stem from what went on back then.

[Pale Rider]

Just plain yes. Their jobs should be waiting. It's the law, and the country owes them that.

[Psychoblues]

Should the person that replaces them in their absense be paid less wages even though they continue the duties of the absentee?


Just plain yes. Their jobs should be waiting. It's the law, and the country owes them that.

Seriously?

[Kathianne]

Yes, they should get their positions back and the law regarding vets should trump arbitration.

[Pale Rider]

Should the person that replaces them in their absense be paid less wages even though they continue the duties of the absentee?
If that person is in the other person's exact position and doing their job, hell no.


Seriously?
Did you think that was a tricky question? :cuckoo:

[Psychoblues]

No


If that person is in the other person's exact position and doing their job, hell no.


Did you think that was a tricky question? :cuckoo:

And you didn't answer it. Did you have a problem with the premise or the delivery?

[SassyLady]

As a business owner and as the wife of a soldier I can see both sides, however, I absolutely feel our returning soldiers deserve to have their job waiting for them.

The person doing their job while they are gone should be paid equally. The challenge is when the soldier returns - what to do with the person who filled in during their absence. Where do they go? No matter what, the employer has to deal with a difficult situation.

Laws to protect our returning soldiers should trump laws designed to benefit employers.

Employers should look at this as their contribution to helping maintain an effective defense system for our country.

[Pale Rider]

Question:
Should the person that replaces them in their absense be paid less wages even though they continue the duties of the absentee?

Answer:
If that person is in the other person's exact position and doing their job, hell no.


And you didn't answer it. Did you have a problem with the premise or the delivery?
I swear psycho... when you come on the board late at night like this, you're one fucked up dude.

I ANSWERED YOUR FUCKING QUESTION... AND I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEAR... LAY OFF THE CRACK AND MAYBE YOU'LL COMPREHEND IT!!!

[Psychoblues]

You are so silly, pr, and you ain't answered shit.





Question:

Answer:


I swear psycho... when you come on the board late at night like this, you're one fucked up dude.

I ANSWERED YOUR FUCKING QUESTION... AND I CAN'T MAKE IT ANY MORE CLEAR... LAY OFF THE CRACK AND MAYBE YOU'LL COMPREHEND IT!!!

So lemme get this straight. You are saying that whomever replaces the activated troop should receive a lesser grade wage or whatever is convenient?

BTW, I don't and never have done any "crack" as you intimate. Maybe that is a problem that YOU have.

[Pale Rider]

You are so silly, pr, and you ain't answered shit.

So lemme get this straight. You are saying that whomever replaces the activated troop should receive a lesser grade wage or whatever is convenient?

BTW, I don't and never have done any "crack" as you intimate. Maybe that is a problem that YOU have.

I tell ya what pb... I'm just going to leave this little exchange as it is, and see if anybody else can figure it out, and you better hope they can't, or you're going to look real stupid.

[Psychoblues]

You already look pretty stupid to me.


I tell ya what pb... I'm just going to leave this little exchange as it is, and see if anybody else can figure it out, and you better hope they can't, or you're going to look real stupid.

You obviously don't understand the question, you aren't asking for specifics or clarification, you are happy with throwing shit and howling, really, just how stupid can you get?

[Pale Rider]

You already look pretty stupid to me.

Oh gee... I'm crushed... what can I do to rectify that your highness? :laugh: - - :fu:

[stephanie]

You better damn sure bet.................they should have their jobs..when they come back.......

No, ifs ands or buts...........

[Mr. P]

Unless I am missing something this article is very misleading.

This guy was a reservist that was fired BEFORE he was ever activated.
That has nothing to do with a vet returning to their former job.

It looks like he lives in Texas. Texas is an 'at-will employment' state, employers may generally fire or layoff employees at any time, for any, no or even unfair reasons.

My guess is the company will prevail even if he was able to use the federal court.
The company doesn't need to provide a reason for firing him so the burden to prove they fired him for being in the military ( a violation of the 1994 law) is on him. The arbitration clause he signed is also totally legal and binding in an at-will state.

[JohnDoe]

As a business owner and as the wife of a soldier I can see both sides, however, I absolutely feel our returning soldiers deserve to have their job waiting for them.

The person doing their job while they are gone should be paid equally. The challenge is when the soldier returns - what to do with the person who filled in during their absence. Where do they go? No matter what, the employer has to deal with a difficult situation.

Laws to protect our returning soldiers should trump laws designed to benefit employers.

Employers should look at this as their contribution to helping maintain an effective defense system for our country.


I think the person that replaced the soldier temporarily should be told UPFRONT that they will be replaced by the soldier when he or she returns.

I think the replacement employee should be eligible for unemployment compensation when he is let go, and the the business owner is not penalized for this with a higher unemployment "tax" ... per say.


Also, I agree with the premiss of your entire post.

[JohnDoe]

Unless I am missing something this article is very misleading.

This guy was a reservist that was fired BEFORE he was ever activated.
That has nothing to do with a vet returning to their former job.

It looks like he lives in Texas. Texas is an 'at-will employment' state, employers may generally fire or layoff employees at any time, for any, no or even unfair reasons.

My guess is the company will prevail even if he was able to use the federal court.
The company doesn't need to provide a reason for firing him so the burden to prove they fired him for being in the military ( a violation of the 1994 law) is on him. The arbitration clause he signed is also totally legal and binding in an at-will state.

It is my understanding that he had notified his employer that he was going to be deployed.

His contention is that he was fired before being deployed so that they would not have to keep his position opened for him when he returned, perhaps?

[Yurt]

Unless I am missing something this article is very misleading.

This guy was a reservist that was fired BEFORE he was ever activated.
That has nothing to do with a vet returning to their former job.

It looks like he lives in Texas. Texas is an 'at-will employment' state, employers may generally fire or layoff employees at any time, for any, no or even unfair reasons.

My guess is the company will prevail even if he was able to use the federal court.
The company doesn't need to provide a reason for firing him so the burden to prove they fired him for being in the military ( a violation of the 1994 law) is on him. The arbitration clause he signed is also totally legal and binding in an at-will state.


The firing did occur "before" but "after" he told them there was a good possibility that he would go on active duty. And then to be fired two days before the war started is a little suspicious.

At will employment does not mean you can ignore the laws of the land. Retaliatory firings are not safe under at will employment. I also think that the federal law trumps the at will law and the arbitration clause.

Kurtsprincess makes a good point, that it is hard on both parties. That is why I am unsure of the solution. My gut is to say, hell yes, they are serving our country and should not be screwed for it when they come home. However, it is hard on the business owner. I think the post above made a great point, if they are temps, let them in advance.

We have maternity leave, so I see no problem with war leave.

[nevadamedic]

Just plain yes. Their jobs should be waiting. It's the law, and the country owes them that.

These people are overseas putting thier life in danger 24 hours a day 7 days a week and then they come back and we fuck them, that's really nice. These people have enough to worry about without having to worry that they are going to loose their job because they are protecting the freedoms that their employers enjoy everyday. Personally if I ever herd of a business doing this, I would never do business with them again.

[Mr. P]

It is my understanding that he had notified his employer that he was going to be deployed.

His contention is that he was fired before being deployed so that they would not have to keep his position opened for him when he returned, perhaps?


The firing did occur "before" but "after" he told them there was a good possibility that he would go on active duty. And then to be fired two days before the war started is a little suspicious.

At will employment does not mean you can ignore the laws of the land. Retaliatory firings are not safe under at will employment. I also think that the federal law trumps the at will law and the arbitration clause.

Kurtsprincess makes a good point, that it is hard on both parties. That is why I am unsure of the solution. My gut is to say, hell yes, they are serving our country and should not be screwed for it when they come home. However, it is hard on the business owner. I think the post above made a great point, if they are temps, let them in advance.

We have maternity leave, so I see no problem with war leave.

Like I said, the article is misleading, he wasn't a 'returning' vet.
Did he get fired because he might get deployed? Maybe, but like I said the burden is on him to prove that.

Yurt, poke around 'at-wiil' law, retaliatory firing does not apply here and yes arbitration trumps the fed stuff. It was part of the employment contract he signed.

[Yurt]

Like I said, the article is misleading, he wasn't a 'returning' vet.
Did he get fired because he might get deployed? Maybe, but like I said the burden is on him to prove that.

Yurt, poke around 'at-wiil' law, retaliatory firing does not apply here and yes arbitration trumps the fed stuff. It was part of the employment contract he signed.

The burden shifts you know, once you bring a prima facie claim. This guys claim is good enough to get past any judge.

The article is not misleading; it deals with the fired guy and discusses the big picture. Are you saying that you have no problem if these soldiers/troops/officers get fired 2 days before they leave simply because some "supervisor" in circuit city says they did shotty work?

Look into federal preempt law. "at will" is state law. And at will does not mean: I can do anything, anything, screw you.


I understand where you are coming from though. And I appreciate your responses here. Are you basically saying that if "I" choose to go off and fight in "some" war for this country, that "I" am taking the risk of not having a job when I come home?

[Mr. P]

The burden shifts you know, once you bring a prima facie claim. This guys claim is good enough to get past any judge.

The article is not misleading; it deals with the fired guy and discusses the big picture. Are you saying that you have no problem if these soldiers/troops/officers get fired 2 days before they leave simply because some "supervisor" in circuit city says they did shotty work?

Look into federal preempt law. "at will" is state law. And at will does not mean: I can do anything, anything, screw you.


I understand where you are coming from though. And I appreciate your responses here. Are you basically saying that if "I" choose to go off and fight in "some" war for this country, that "I" am taking the risk of not having a job when I come home?

I'm saying that the article misleads, that's all.. this case is NOT about a returning vet.

Yes it is wrong to fire someone who is in the Reserve or National Guard because they may be deployed. But that must still be proven. In an at-will state that is virtually imposable since the employer doesn't need to give a reason.

I have looked into 'at-will' and it does mean, with a few exceptions, you can be screwed. Hey, it happened to me once. The no cause crap.."You do a great job, but". Bye. The real reason was obvious, proving it was impossible.

[Yurt]

I'm saying that the article misleads, that's all.. this case is NOT about a returning vet.

Yes it is wrong to fire someone who is in the Reserve or National Guard because they may be deployed. But that must still be proven. In an at-will state that is virtually imposable since the employer doesn't need to give a reason.

I have looked into 'at-will' and it does mean, with a few exceptions, you can be screwed. Hey, it happened to me once. The no cause crap.."You do a great job, but". Bye. The real reason was obvious, proving it was impossible.


"may be deployed"

who should prove? The soldier going off to war? Should he have to prove his case from there? Well, no, but then if not from there, how is it he is going to prove it after being gone from this country for possibly over a year or more?

So you see the exceptions.

[nevadamedic]

You better damn sure bet.................they should have their jobs..when they come back.......

No, ifs ands or buts...........

The employer's know the situation before they hire them. They should expect this time to come. If they have a problem with it then they shouldn't hire them.

[Yurt]

The employer's know the situation before they hire them. They should expect this time to come. If they have a problem with it then they shouldn't hire them.

huh?

[Psychoblues]

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!



You better damn sure bet.................they should have their jobs..when they come back.......

No, ifs ands or buts...........

Or something like it!!!!!!!!!!!