Should Vets Have Their Job Guaranteed When TheY Get Home?

[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!!!!!!!!!!!