| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Returning to work a problem for Reservists |
| 2007-11-08 |
| WASHINGTON - Strained by extended tours in Iraq, growing numbers of military reservists say the government is providing little help to soldiers who are denied their old jobs when they return home, Defense Department data shows. The Pentagon survey of reservists in 2005-2006, obtained by The Associated Press, details increasing discontent among returning troops in protecting their legal rights after taking leave from work to fight for their country. It found that 44 percent of the reservists polled said they were dissatisfied with how the Labor Department handled their complaint of employment discrimination based on their military status, up from 27 percent from 2004. Nearly one-third, or 29 percent, said they had difficulty getting the information they needed from government agencies charged with protecting their rights, while 77 percent reported they didn't even bother trying to get assistance in part because they didn't think it would make a difference. Legal experts say the findings might represent the tip of the iceberg. Formal complaints to the Labor Department by reservists hit nearly 1,600 in 2005 — the highest number since 1991 — not counting the thousands more cases reported each year to the Pentagon for resolution by mediation. And a bump in complaints is likely once the Iraq war winds down and more people come home after an extended period in which employers were forced to restructure or hire new workers to cope with those on military leave, they said. Among the survey's findings: _About 23 percent of reservists reported they did not return to their old jobs in part because their employer did not give them prompt re-employment or their job situation changed in some way while they were on military leave. _Twenty-nine percent of those choosing not to seek help to get their job back said it was because it was "not worth the fight." Another 23 percent said they were unsure of how to file a complaint. Others cited a lack of confidence that they could win (14 percent); fear of employer reprisal (13 percent), or other reasons (21 percent). _Reservists reported receiving an average of 1.8 briefings about their job rights and what government resources were available. This is down slightly from the 2.0 briefings they reported getting in 2004. "Most of the government investigators are too willing to accept the employer's explanation for a worker's dismissal," said Sam Wright, a former Labor Department attorney who helped write the 1994 discrimination law protecting reservists. "Some of it is indifference, some of them don't understand the laws involved," Wright said. "But the investigators establish for themselves this impossibly hard standard to win a case. As a result, reservists lose out." Under the law, military personnel are protected from job discrimination based on their service and are generally entitled to a five-year cumulative leave with rights to their old jobs upon their return. Reservists typically file a complaint first with a Pentagon office, the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR), which seeks to resolve the dispute informally. If that effort fails, a person typically can go to the Labor Department to pursue a formal complaint and possible litigation by the Justice Department. A report by the American Bar Association as early as 2004 noted problems in which the government was "not seen as an aggressive advocate for the returning veteran." A presidential task force chaired by former Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson earlier this year found that agencies could do a better job of educating troops and veterans. The report did not address government enforcement of the law. Just ask Ret. Marine Lt. Col. Steve Duarte, who won a court judgment of more than $430,000 from Agilent Technologies Inc. in March 2005 after turning to a private lawyer after losing his job. Duarte was a senior consultant when he was mobilized twice from October 2001 to April 2002 and from November 2002 to July 2003. When Duarte returned from the second mobilization, Agilent did not reinstate his previous position but assigned him to a special project. He soon received a poor job evaluation that differed from previous positive reviews and was terminated four months later. Duarte said he contacted the Pentagon and Labor Department, both of which turned him away. Labor Department lawyers allegedly said he didn't have a case unless he specifically heard his employer say they were terminating him for military reasons. "I am not a lawyer, but I expected various government agencies like ESGR and the Department of Labor to help me," Duarte said in documents provided to the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, which is reviewing the Labor Department's practices. "I felt as though they were on the side of the large corporations," he said. Eileen Lainez, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said: "We carefully consider information our members provide, and we actively work to develop solutions where needed." The Labor Department has said it has been working to better educate troops and veterans about their rights. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who chairs the Senate Health Committee, said he was troubled by the findings. He said he plans legislation to hold agencies accountable by requiring them to collect and release employment data. The Labor Department currently releases an annual report on employment complaints to Congress, but the figures do not include Pentagon data. The report, which is due to Congress on Feb. 1, has yet to be released this year. |
| Posted by:Delphi |
| #10 OldSpook: Yours was my big point. Once you are out, nobody gives a shiat for you, except family. The only plus is that sometimes you can use that obstinate bureaucracy against those that try to mess with you. For instance, my HOR in the Army was Texas, for tax purposes. But I hadn't got the mud off my boots before the new State I was living in tried to dock me for back taxes for all my time in the Army. My response to them was a copy of my DD214, with a cheery note that if they had any arguments, to take it up with the Pentagon. They shut up real quick. These vets returning from service should *expect* to get screwed with by just about anybody, and to have *zero* support or respect by any governmental anything. They have to come home looking for a fight. When they show up for work, they should already have a copy of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (or "USERRA") in their pocket. If their boss says they are fired, before they leave the building, they should have shown it to him, the BIG boss, and the legal department, if they have one. If the stupid bastards were dumb enough to fire a reservist, then they are dumb enough to believe that doing so could put them out of business. If they still choose to fire him, they are boned. When he contacts a lawyer, he will probably slaver like a hungry pit bull facing a juicy steak at the prospect of utterly raping that business. From that point on, it may not even need to go to court, as the lawyer can call them up and demand not only reinstatement, but start demanding other stuff in exchange for not suing their pants off. In my case, I would demand the job of the boss who fired me, in place of him, who should be out on the street. And, if I'm in a surly mood, I might even ask for BACK PAY, for the time I was on active duty. With a drooling lawyer demanding it for me, they would hopefully be pooping themselves before they even hung up, and begging me to come back to work for them. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-08 20:03 |
| #9 unacceptable delays, refusals, and incompetence. Fix it!. that said, Teddy doesn't give a rat's ass either, except as an election sword |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-11-08 19:59 |
| #8 Having been thorugh the mill three or four times with the VA, and about to go again, I can truly state that half of those out there that are "trained" to help don't know which way to look to see the sun rise. I received three or four briefings before I retired, and 80% of the information I got was either useless or wrong. The same is true of just about every government agency that "offers assistance" to the average person - they know their job so well, they CANNOT explain it to someone that isn't as deeply enmeshed in the "system" as they are. A private attorney knowledgable in the system can do wonders. The same is true of talking to other Vets, but ONLY those that have been in the same or a similar situation. Some of the "counsellors" at the DAV can't explain how to convert military medical jargon into what the VA can understand, for instance, or tell you how to word a letter to get your point across. That failure will almost always get a request denied. The fact that the "right" path is usually so convoluted and inobvious even a snake couldn't follow doesn't help any. Government agencies exist to perpetuate and expand government agencies. Any other benefits are purely coincidental. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-11-08 19:15 |
| #7 #3 Something is amiss here. A Reservist returning from active duty should have a lot of cash sitting around, or at least a healthy reserve, unless his family has spent his money in his absence 'Moose, why should a reservist have a pile of cash when returning from callup? Most of the reservists have civilian lives, and civilian expenses, before they get called up. Many take a cut in pay when called up. The mortgage and other expenses don't go away during callup. If the reservist is a single kid, fresh out of high school, sure, he could come home with a wad of cash. However, if he is a married man (or woman) with a house, a car payment, and a couple of kids, making good money in the civilian world, most, if not all of the salary and benefits will get eaten up by the expenses back home. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-11-08 17:41 |
| #6 It's shameful that they don't get more help. I have to also feel a bit sorry for the employers. These guys are gone for a long time and they need to get on with their business. Do they just fire the guy that they hired to take his place? It's difficult for everyone and the government should help. Don't expect any help from the Dems. They are too busy making up bogus figures about 1 out of 4 homeless being vets. If they bitched about the plight of the reservists, they might actually have to do something helpful for the military members and they don't want to do that. |
| Posted by: Glaling Turkeyneck1651 2007-11-08 15:32 |
| #5 I can speak from experience that one they are done with you there is a very significant portion of the Army and VA that don't gve a rats ass about helping reservists or recently discharged. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-11-08 15:24 |
| #4 Moose, just google something like 'backlog civil court cases'. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-08 15:19 |
| #3 Something is amiss here. A Reservist returning from active duty should have a lot of cash sitting around, or at least a healthy reserve, unless his family has spent his money in his absence. Because this is a trial of fact, it is a slam dunk for any lawyer, with 10 minutes before a judge. There is no defense argument, except either "We didn't employ him before he left", or "We have gone out of business since he left." No excuses for delays or continuances, and the vet's lawyer asks for his own fees to be paid by the employer. Any extra costs should be the lawyer adding icing on the cake like the vet cannot be denied regular promotions, lose any regularly offered benefits at the time of his call-up, and cannot be terminated until a minimum time, say six months, has passed. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-11-08 13:36 |
| #2 Even worse a there is a good chance the that company move their jobs overseas while he was gone..... Something the congress seems to drool over. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-11-08 13:34 |
| #1 Well, yes. Our congresscritter wrote the law so that the action was civil and not criminal. The employee, of much less means, must sue the employer. The government doesn't represent the soldier/employee. He has to get his own representation. Meanwhile, government subsidized free legal programs would rather go into court to sue the government to force funding dictates in the great socialist collective, rather than expend resources representing people like this. This is fertile ground for the Donks to recover some points by moving it from a civil court status to a criminal civil rights status and put the Trunks on the defense of protecting businesses. I wouldn't bet on it, cause in their heart, they do hate the |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-08 09:27 |