PDA

View Full Version : Get disabled and loose your sign up bonus



truthmatters
11-20-2007, 11:22 AM
http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html


There has to be some where else to cut corners.

Sir Evil
11-20-2007, 11:26 AM
Hopefully you would'nt loose anything being mentally disabled or do you already get some sort of benefits for that?

Joe Steel
11-20-2007, 11:30 AM
http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html


There has to be some where else to cut corners.

According the article, the "Jordan Fox, a young soldier from the South Hills," says: "I tried to do my best and serve my country."

Nonsense. If he wanted to serve his country, he wouldn't have taken the bonus.

He wanted the money and now he can't deliver what he promised. Too bad. He has to give-back the money.

It's the conservative thing to do. It's called "personal accountability."

LOki
11-20-2007, 11:52 AM
They can give him back his vision, and the time he served I suppose--call it square.

Joe Steel
11-20-2007, 12:25 PM
When you sell your soul to the devil, you have to expect a little heat.

LOki
11-20-2007, 12:48 PM
When you sell your soul to the devil, you have to expect a little heat.Yet, he delivered what he promised for the money...he signed. That's what "signing bonus" means. Those who put this fellow's life and limb at risk are the ones who put their $30k at risk--they should have invested this guy more wisely; they should have taken better care of him, they fucked up, and he doesn't owe them a cent over it.

Nukeman
11-20-2007, 01:00 PM
Yet, he delivered what he promised for the money...he signed. That's what "signing bonus" means. Those who put this fellow's life and limb at risk are the ones who put their $30k at risk--they should have invested this guy more wisely; they should have taken better care of him, they fucked up, and he doesn't owe them a cent over it.You know it was actually an "enlistment bonus". This means he is paid an advance bonus for enlisting with the expectation that certain obligations will be met. This is a common practice in a lot of market sensitive fields and if you do not fulfill your obligations than you are required to reimburse the employer for any amount of time you did not finish..

Now for the government to request/demand to be reimbursed the amount of time not served is rediculous due to the fact he was injured in the line of duty and his obligations should have been fulfilled. These type of clauses to recover money are usually for the people that refuse deployment or to honor their obligations. This is more than likely an oversight and of course the media has to make this into a mountain of trouble.. I am sure a phonecall to his congressman would have done a lot more than notifing the media..

Monkeybone
11-20-2007, 01:49 PM
yah, enlistment bonuses are usually honor'd upon the completion of boot camp and then your training (i think). unless otherwise specified in your enlistment contract. so who knows.

but my opinion is that this is not right. Like Nuke said, it's not like he backed out. if they medically discharged him then that is their own fault

Joe Steel
11-20-2007, 02:00 PM
Yet, he delivered what he promised for the money...he signed. That's what "signing bonus" means. Those who put this fellow's life and limb at risk are the ones who put their $30k at risk--they should have invested this guy more wisely; they should have taken better care of him, they fucked up, and he doesn't owe them a cent over it.

Are you saying the bonus is for signing only and that no actual service is necessary?

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 02:13 PM
The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.


There are thousands of these cases not just one.


http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/mi....2.571660.html

darin
11-20-2007, 02:21 PM
What do you know about the Bonus program, TM? Do you know if the soldiers must agree to the terms of the program before getting paid? Do you know if, in the agreement, the soldier agrees to pay back a portion for not completing a specified length of service?

IF the soldier agrees to those terms, do you feel they have a right to be angry for being held to their part of the bargain? Said another way, if both parties agree going in, what's the problem? Nobody is FORCED to take a bonus.




There are thousands of these cases not just one.


http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/mi....2.571660.html


Your link sucks.

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 02:32 PM
So its OK with you that they have to pay back their bonus because they got hurt in Iraq?

SUPPORT THOSE TROOPS BABY.

darin
11-20-2007, 02:43 PM
So its OK with you that they have to pay back their bonus because they got hurt in Iraq?

SUPPORT THOSE TROOPS BABY.

Are you going to answer my questions? I was PRAYING you'd have the balls to answer something DIRECTLY and honestly and reasonably. Do I need to pray harder?

Liesmatter
11-20-2007, 03:04 PM
hey cuzzin chewfs! is dis the bored u told me about where u were slappin round the pesky wepublicans? i red sum of the stuff on here and my head is ready to go BOOM! i cant beleeve you waist ur time tryin to splain stuff to these dum dums. lordy lordy, why do these peeples not like the chewf? seems like u post fact after fact for them en they still cant see it. they haf to be blind. any1 can see that the wepublicans are the cauze of ALL the wolds pwoblems!

if u aks me, i thikn they r jess messin wit you, nobody can be dat stoopid! i mean, i sometimes look stoopid but thats only becauze i am so smart that my fingers cant keep up wit my toughts which r so much faster.

how dare these peeples xpect udders to live up to there contrakshual obleegations! da nerve!

whew, my hedd hurts from readin so much gobbage in one sitting. i need my nap now to restores my sooperior intelect.

see U on tanksgivin cuzzin! kisses and smooochies!

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 03:14 PM
LOL sir evil

LOki
11-20-2007, 03:15 PM
Are you saying the bonus is for signing only and that no actual service is necessary?If it's a signing bonus, then yes--but then nukeman explained that these are enlistmment bonuses that have certain obligations attached. I will stand by my answer, however--I once agreed to go to work for an outfit, and part of the deal was a signing bonus; regardless of how all else worked out later, that cash was mine for signing on--if these are signing bonuses we're talking about, then I expect them to work the same way for those guys.

darin
11-20-2007, 03:22 PM
If it's a signing bonus, then yes--but then nukeman explained that these are enlistmment bonuses that have certain obligations attached. I will stand by my answer, however--I once agreed to go to work for an outfit, and part of the deal was a signing bonus; regardless of how all else worked out later, that cash was mine for signing on--if these are signing bonuses we're talking about, then I expect them to work the same way for those guys.

Every benefit a soldier gets carries conditions. For instance - if one didn't complete 5/6th of their enlistment, they will get a bus-ride home instead of a plane ticket. If one didn't complete 5/6ths of their tour over-seas they won't get credit for an overseas tour. If I didn't complete my initial training, and enlistment I wouldn't have gotten my Army College Fund money...etc.

These aren't signing bonuses as you may think; nothing like pro-sports.

Every soldier who signs does so after speaking with a counselor - and after they read EVERYTHING.

jimnyc
11-20-2007, 04:16 PM
"loose" your sign up bonus? :confused:

jimnyc
11-20-2007, 04:17 PM
hey cuzzin chewfs! is dis the bored u told me about where u were slappin round the pesky wepublicans? i red sum of the stuff on here and my head is ready to go BOOM! i cant beleeve you waist ur time tryin to splain stuff to these dum dums. lordy lordy, why do these peeples not like the chewf? seems like u post fact after fact for them en they still cant see it. they haf to be blind. any1 can see that the wepublicans are the cauze of ALL the wolds pwoblems!

if u aks me, i thikn they r jess messin wit you, nobody can be dat stoopid! i mean, i sometimes look stoopid but thats only becauze i am so smart that my fingers cant keep up wit my toughts which r so much faster.

how dare these peeples xpect udders to live up to there contrakshual obleegations! da nerve!

whew, my hedd hurts from readin so much gobbage in one sitting. i need my nap now to restores my sooperior intelect.

see U on tanksgivin cuzzin! kisses and smooochies!


LOL sir evil

You and your cousin have way too much in common! Haven't talked to Sir Evil lately, but I'll have to give him some rep if confirmed he impersonated you so well! :coffee:

MtnBiker
11-20-2007, 04:18 PM
I think it has something to do with fast women.

jimnyc
11-20-2007, 04:19 PM
I think it has something to do with fast women.

Oh, that's right, I forgot she is so smart that she thinks faster than most of us and can't keep up with the typing. :rolleyes:

jimnyc
11-20-2007, 04:29 PM
In all seriousness, this thread is a bunch of crap. We all sign contracts all the time and they always carry obligations that must be met.

What if there was an NFL player who got a $10 million dollar signing bonus, contingent upon him playing for the team for no less than 5 years. In the 4th year they go to the Super Bowl. On the last play of the game he makes the winning catch for a TD, but suffers a career ending concussion in the process. His contract states that if he doesn't fulfill his obligations for injury, breaking the law and serving time, getting traded, retiring... he must repay the bonus. That's the way the cookie crumbles! A contract is a contract.

Personally, I'd like to see those injured in combat receive said pay, but I'm not gonna be a nitwit and blame ANYONE for the contracts they signed.

MtnBiker
11-20-2007, 04:33 PM
Personally, I'd like to see those injured in combat receive said pay,

I think we can all agree on that.

LOki
11-20-2007, 04:39 PM
Every benefit a soldier gets carries conditions. For instance - if one didn't complete 5/6th of their enlistment, they will get a bus-ride home instead of a plane ticket. If one didn't complete 5/6ths of their tour over-seas they won't get credit for an overseas tour. If I didn't complete my initial training, and enlistment I wouldn't have gotten my Army College Fund money...etc.

These aren't signing bonuses as you may think; nothing like pro-sports.

Every soldier who signs does so after speaking with a counselor - and after they read EVERYTHING.Like I said, "...nukeman explained that these are enlistmment bonuses that have certain obligations attached." So if they're not signing bonuses, then we're not talking about signing bonuses.

If this fellow's obligations were not met by serving up time or an eyeball, then he must pay up. I think that it sucks that such contracts should be required, and they cast doubt upon the legitimacy of the tasks that might be asked of someone who might wind up giving up an eye, or a leg, or their life.

actsnoblemartin
11-20-2007, 06:13 PM
disgraceful!. This should not be tolerated by anyone, whether you agree with the war or not.


http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html


There has to be some where else to cut corners.

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 06:20 PM
I agree with you ANM. There are laws people trying to pass which says being blown up is not a failure to serve. If I were president I would make it happen in a day or two.

darin
11-20-2007, 06:30 PM
I agree with you ANM. There are laws people trying to pass which says being blown up is not a failure to serve. If I were president I would make it happen in a day or two.


Because you can't handle the truth, you simply ignore my questions - you change the topic because you don't have the balls to back up your opinion.

how nice for you! :)

Pale Rider
11-20-2007, 06:49 PM
In all seriousness, this thread is a bunch of crap. We all sign contracts all the time and they always carry obligations that must be met.

What if there was an NFL player who got a $10 million dollar signing bonus, contingent upon him playing for the team for no less than 5 years. In the 4th year they go to the Super Bowl. On the last play of the game he makes the winning catch for a TD, but suffers a career ending concussion in the process. His contract states that if he doesn't fulfill his obligations for injury, breaking the law and serving time, getting traded, retiring... he must repay the bonus. That's the way the cookie crumbles! A contract is a contract.

Personally, I'd like to see those injured in combat receive said pay, but I'm not gonna be a nitwit and blame ANYONE for the contracts they signed.

Exactly. I got a sweet reenlistment bonus when I reup'd. Then I got hurt and got out 45 days early. I had to pay back a portion of my bonus, so this is nothing new. It's been this way for years. I had no problem with paying it back either, because just like me, if you're injured while on active duty, you can apply for disability benefits anyway. What the fuck is the problem? :dunno:

Pale Rider
11-20-2007, 06:52 PM
Because you can't handle the truth, you simply ignore my questions - you change the topic because you don't have the balls to back up your opinion.

how nice for you! :)

D... you're talking to a liberal... :rolleyes:

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 06:54 PM
Exactly. I got a sweet reenlistment bonus when I reup'd. Then I got hurt and got out 45 days early. I had to pay back a portion of my bonus, so this is nothing new. It's been this way for years. I had no problem with paying it back either, because just like me, if you're injured while on active duty, you can apply for disability benefits anyway. What the fuck is the problem? :dunno:



Were you in theater?

Pale Rider
11-20-2007, 06:56 PM
Were you in theater?

Beirut, Lebanon, 1982. Suffered shrapnel to right lung.

truthmatters
11-20-2007, 07:04 PM
Beirut, Lebanon, 1982. Suffered shrapnel to right lung.

Do you think it was right?

Do you think any worker should have their contract effected as if they broke it because they are hurt on the job?

Seems like it pays the government to get people hurt under that burden.

Pale Rider
11-20-2007, 07:17 PM
Do you think it was right?

Do you think any worker should have their contract effected as if they broke it because they are hurt on the job?

Seems like it pays the government to get people hurt under that burden.

I signed on knowing that I'd have to pay a portion back if I separated early. No, I had no problem with that.

They gave me half up front, and then the remaining amount spread out as lump sums once a year for the remainder of my enlistment. I didn't have much to pay back, but I still paid some back. I see nothing wrong with it.

darin
11-20-2007, 08:10 PM
Beirut, Lebanon, 1982. Suffered shrapnel to right lung.

NICE

TM - Read this...this is what you got:

http://www.dotgame.biz/images/photos/pwn.jpg

Sir Evil
11-21-2007, 04:01 PM
LOL sir evil

:laugh2:

I have to say reading whoever that is posting is a riot but it's sure not me, I have already told you how stupid I think you are so it would be kind of a waste to make myself out to be someone else to just tell you something I already have.

Little-Acorn
11-21-2007, 04:12 PM
Get disabled and loose(sic) your sign up bonus

If that's the actual policy, it is despicable, and should be changed immediately.

Was it deliberately designed to take away the bonus of someone wounded in action, as this man was? Or did it merely contain vague phrasing such as "If he does not complete his 2-year time of service he must pay it back", without specifying whether he voluntarily quit or was discharged for reasons he couldn't help (getting wounded and disabled)?

Or, did it say something like, "If he voluntarily leaves, or is dishonorably discharged, before his term is up, he must pay it back", and some bureaucrat misread it?

It would be instructive to see the actual law in question.

BTW, who wrote it, and when?