Should it be a national law that empolyers make up the pay difference for guardsmen and reservists?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should it be a national law that empolyers make up the pay difference for guardsmen and reservists? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:39:48 AM EDT

Get activiated and your salary goes from say $50-60,000 year down to $30,000. That would be tough.

And just asking.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:41:07 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Get activiated and your salary goes from say $50-60,000 year down to $30,000. That would be tough.

And just asking.

Not unless you want to make it impossible for reservists to find jobs when they're home.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:41:42 AM EDT

[#2]

No.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:46:20 AM EDT

[#3]

No.

The gubmint has no business forcing private companies to do things like that. Keep the feds as far away from EVERYTHING as possible.

CMOS

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:47:41 AM EDT

[#4]

No.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:48:57 AM EDT

[#5]

It sucks, but NO.

There SHOULD be some way of compensating/showing gratitude by employers, but sadly, not in THIS day and age.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:48:57 AM EDT

[#6]

Hell no!

Mainly because employers would not be paying for, the consumer would be.

SGatr15

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:50:21 AM EDT

[#7]

Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:52:25 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Get activiated and your salary goes from say $50-60,000 year down to $30,000. That would be tough.

And just asking.

Not unless you want to make it impossible for reservists to find jobs when they're home.

And not unless you want to put a lot of small businesses out of business.

Of course, bankruptcy attorneys would probably love it.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:53:48 AM EDT

[#9]

nope

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:54:43 AM EDT

[#10]

They don't force companies to pay you if you are out on medical leave, that is what disability insurance is. That being said I say it depends... If you are talking about a mom and pop shop then probably not. It should be the same as FMLA which only protects you if your company has 75 or more emplyees. A company with five employees may not be able to afford to pay a guy while he is active, a company that has 100 employees and assets in the billions then yes... Large companies have so many damn tax shelters that it is insane. They should pay up

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:55:18 AM EDT

[#11]

From what I remember, Government jobs and (usually) government contractors will kick in the money to equal your salary.

Kharn

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:56:19 AM EDT

[#12]

No.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:56:32 AM EDT

[#13]

How about the government makes up the difference? Yes, it would cost lot of money but we shouldn't make it put additional burdens on people willing to serve in the armed forces. Furthermore, the federal government has much more of a responsibilty to be providing for the common defense than say putting people in jail for smoking pot and making welfare payments.

Posted: 5/20/2005 11:59:10 AM EDT

[#14]

Some Companies Do do that.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:02:52 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
How about the government makes up the difference?

Fuck that, too.

Rather than waste money on bullshit like this, maybe we should keep our military staffed at a proper manpower level where they aren't so dependent on the Reserves and Guard.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:04:05 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
How about the government makes up the difference? Yes, it would cost lot of money but we shouldn't make it put additional burdens on people willing to serve in the armed forces. Furthermore, the federal government has much more of a responsibilty to be providing for the common defense than say putting people in jail for smoking pot and making welfare payments.

No.
The reservist needs to find work that accomodates his serving.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:05:51 PM EDT

[#17]

NO

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:09:02 PM EDT

[#18]

I have to say no.
It would kill us trying to get a job.
Some employers do. Especially government jobs.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:10:40 PM EDT

[#19]

i have to say no as well. it would be nice and some companies will do it. But it should NOT be law

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:10:42 PM EDT

[#20]

I'll vote no...

This is possibly the ONLY question I've ever seen asked on ARFCOM that (so far) has unanimous votes...

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:11:42 PM EDT

[#21]

No

All the corporations I have worked for as a matter of policy continue to pay full salary to NG and Reservist called to active duty.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:19:30 PM EDT

[#22]

No.

What about all the guys who are active duty, who payts them "the difference" between the wages they earn all the time and what the reservists make "at home?"

A lot of these guys bitch every time they deploy, as if the contract was a one way street.

Don't like it, don't sign up, shitcan the benefits, retirement, etc.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:19:40 PM EDT

[#23]

Hell no! If I had an employee that was deployed I would do whatever I could to help out, but I draw the line when the gov. forces employers to pay anyone anything extra, that kind of law can destroy small businesses which is the backbone of our economy.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:21:21 PM EDT

[#24]

Hell, to do that you would first have to get the employers to give them their employment back after deployments!!!

It's cheaper to Pay the fine and replace the called up reservist anymore than to do without the employee for Their "second" or "third" year long deployment.

I' serious do you have any idea how many reservist are coming home to find out "their services are no longer required" or "their position has has been eliminated".

I don't like it and try not to support companies that are doing it, but it's a fact of life where the only values corporate america holds dear is Greed!!!

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:23:27 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.

Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

Posted: 5/20/2005 12:38:32 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.
Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

What do you mean: "that's not enough"?

Posted: 5/20/2005 2:49:14 PM EDT

[#27]

Another 'no' here.

The employer's already taking enough of a hit.

NTM

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:06:48 PM EDT

[#28]

I would say no...
However that said I think that there should be some relief for the families of people serving.
Maybe they could have some type of program that the bills ( CC, CAR, HOUSE) could be deferred for the lenght of time they are called up for. This should help out at least on the finacial end.
We should do our best to assist those fighting for our freedoms.

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:07:52 PM EDT

[#29]

No. Do that, and shitty companies will screen applicants to avoid hiring Reservists.
I encourage individual companies to take such measures on their own. It speaks very well of those who do. And when I read of a company maltreating its Reservists, that wighs in my purchasing decisions and I make damned sure to let them know it.

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:08:44 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.
Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

What do you mean: "that's not enough"?

The opposite of what he meant by "That's enough".

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:19:07 PM EDT

[#31]

No way.
That's nothing more than welfare.
There isn't a draft, so you must have volunteered at some point. Making the employer pay is a big mistake. If you pass this, nobody will hire reservists or guardsmen.

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:21:51 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.
Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

What do you mean: "that's not enough"?

The opposite of what he meant by "That's enough".

How cute.

Did you perhaps have something specific in mind for a solution for when...

"...they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc."

Or are you more the "somebody ought to do something" -type?

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:25:07 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.
Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

What do you mean: "that's not enough"?

The opposite of what he meant by "That's enough".

How cute.

Did you perhaps have something specific in mind for a solution for when...

"...they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc."

Or are you more the "somebody ought to do something" -type?

Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you couldn't want to make something better without having an exact solution.

Stop being a cunt.

These guys are going to other countries, some on a one way trip, to risk their lives to protect our country. For that, they get paid just about what they could make if they took a job at McDonalds.

I don't feel having a job to come back to (if they make it back) is "enough". But I also don't know the proper solution (and I never claimed that I did) nor do I want the government to force anything.

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:48:34 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Their jobs are already protected. That is enough.
Their job being protected really doesn't matter when they are gone for months on end and they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc.
So no, that's not enough.

But I still don't think the government should get involved.

What do you mean: "that's not enough"?

The opposite of what he meant by "That's enough".

How cute.

Did you perhaps have something specific in mind for a solution for when...

"...they can't afford the mortgage payment to the point that they lose their house, etc."

Or are you more the "somebody ought to do something" -type?
Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't know that you couldn't want to make something better without having an exact solution.

Stop being a cunt.

Please.
Control yourself.

So I guess the answer is YES, you are indeed the "somebody ought to do something" -type
You just said as much.

(If you're going to act obnoxious, don't start name calling when someone notices.
It's not very impressive.)

These guys are going to other countries, some on a one way trip, to risk their lives to protect our country. For that, they get paid just about what they could make if they took a job at McDonalds.

I don't feel having a job to come back to (if they make it back) is "enough". But I also don't know the proper solution (and I never claimed that I did) nor do I want the government to force anything.

Eventually, those who are in the reserves need to find suitable employment.
Either a .gov or municipal job that pays the difference, or a civilian job (like Shering Plough) that pays the whole salary when you're gone.

As of this Sept 11th, almost everyone who's in will have re-enlisted or enlisted well aware of the burden that lies ahead.
The time for excuses is over.

Of course an across the board RAISE for all servicefolk, OR an increase in In Theater Allowances would be nice.

Keep in mind, I'm a reservist. I'm mobilized RIGHT NOW. I will be so again in the future, as well.
I lost a business because of mobilization.
But I'm fine with that.
You adjust and find a better way.

If being a reservist means that you are going to lose your job and your home, you are eligible for a Hardship Discharge.

Posted: 5/20/2005 3:58:43 PM EDT

[#35]

As an employer, no.

IIRC, awhile back, there was a pilot program that let reservists buy "insurance" that would make up the difference. Unfortunately, it failed because there was no income requirement.

E-2s in the reserves, that made minimum wage as civies, were buying 5K/month insurance. Then they begged to be deployed and wham, 60K per year!

Off the top of my head, I would not have a problem with the gummit selling "mobilization" insurance that would make up the difference from civie to military pay. But it would be based on, say, last year's 1040 compared to the military pay.

Posted: 5/20/2005 4:13:20 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

So I guess the answer is YES, you are indeed the "somebody ought to do something" -type
You just said as much.

(If you going to act obnoxious, don't start name calling when someone notices.
It's not very impressive.)

Again, you are acting like a little cunt.

I see no reason to quote and respond to the rest of your post since it didn't refute anything I said, it just showed your own opinion (which I disagree with- which apparently makes you mad and act like an asshole).

Posted: 5/20/2005 4:19:00 PM EDT

[#37]

no

enough gubnimit telling people what they must do

Posted: 5/20/2005 4:55:17 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So I guess the answer is YES, you are indeed the "somebody ought to do something" -type
You just said as much.

(If you going to act obnoxious, don't start name calling when someone notices.
It's not very impressive.)
Again, you are acting like a little cunt.

I see no reason to quote and respond to the rest of your post since it didn't refute anything I said, it just showed your own opinion (which I disagree with- which apparently makes you mad and act like an asshole).

You're out of line.
Here's where we went astray:

"What do you mean: "that's not enough"?"

And you answer:

"The opposite of what he meant by "That's enough"."

Where I come from, that's just a smart-ass answer.

As far as "refuting anything you said" goes...

...you didn't say anything.

You expressed no opinion other that general dissatisfaction.

Calling me a "cunt" for acknowledging YOUR obnoxious attitude merely shows who you are, where you're from, and how you were raised.
Real men don't say things anonymously over a keyboard that would get them knocked down in person.
You seem to make a habit of it.

As far as this issue goes, I've now been in the Marines for 19 years (Infantry), and am currently a "mobilized" reservist (just like those of whom we are speaking).
I'll be in Iraq by August. Expressing my "opinion" about this issue quite personally.

You, on the other hand, just need to learn some manners.
Good luck.
Grow up.

Posted: 5/20/2005 4:57:15 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So I guess the answer is YES, you are indeed the "somebody ought to do something" -type
You just said as much.

(If you going to act obnoxious, don't start name calling when someone notices.
It's not very impressive.)
Again, you are acting like a little cunt.

I see no reason to quote and respond to the rest of your post since it didn't refute anything I said, it just showed your own opinion (which I disagree with- which apparently makes you mad and act like an asshole).

Damn dude, chill out.

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:22:59 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
You're out of line.

Nope, YOU are out of line and brought this to where we are.

Where I come from, that's just a smart-ass answer.

Only in response to a boy with too much sand in his vagina who comes here to start trouble. Hey, that would be you...

As far as "refuting anything you said" goes...

...you didn't say anything.

Well now that is clearly a lie. If I didn't say anything, why are you accusing me of saying things?

You expressed no opinion other that general dissatisfaction.

I expressed my honest opinion. Whether you want to recognize that is your own problem. Apparently what I said made you bleed from between the legs, so be it.

Calling me a "cunt" for acknowledging YOUR obnoxious attitude merely shows who you are, where you're from, and how you were raised.

I was raise to call a spade a spade. You want to act like a cunt, don't cry if I call you one.

Real men don't say things anonymously over a keyboard that would get them knocked down in person.

HAHAHAHAHA, That's good, keep thinking you are the tough guy... I just love keyboard commandos, you scare me soooo much.

What I called you here is the same thing that I would call you in real life if you acted like you have towards me in this thread. If you want to believe that you have the ability to knock me down afterwards, good for you, internet tough guys are a dime a dozen, you're nothing new.
You seem to make a habit of it.

As far as this issue goes, I've now been in the Marines for 19 years (Infantry), and am currently a "mobilized" reservist (just like those of whom we are speaking).
I'll be in Iraq by August. Expressing my "opinion" about this issue quite personally.

Wow, great, the 5th time I heard that.

Sorry, but that doesn't change my opinion and I really can't see why you would think it would...

You, on the other hand, just need to learn some manners.
Good luck.

I don't need to learn anything, certainly not from you. Like I said before, if you are going to act like a cunt I will call you one. Maybe next time you'll have a discussion like a gentleman, then you could expect to be treated like that.

Grow up.

Good advice, I'd suggest you take it.

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:26:08 PM EDT

[#41]

Nope.

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:28:01 PM EDT

[#42]

Nothing like showing one's true colors.
Thank you.

Good luck.

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:34:23 PM EDT

[#43]

No way in hell. It's hard for an active duty guy who makes jack $hit all year every year to feel to bad for some part timer who has to get paid as little as me for a whole year. It's bad enough they get all the same bennies we do now anyway, what is the incentive to go active any more?

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:36:47 PM EDT

[#44]

Isn't this why the Soldier Sailor Act is in place... so soldiers that would normally be able to pay their bills but get activated and take a huge paycut are "protected" from say a bank foreclosing on their house while their dodging bullets?

The Soldiers and Sailors Act is a law of the United States of America that provides that military personnel in a combat-zone, or in many cases merely "out of the country" on military-duty, shall have their position held in employment with all seniority and pay-raises based in seniority. Moreover, all loans were put on hold from suffering delinquency, late-fees and interest. Effectively, all business is put on hold for military-personnel.

Posted: 5/20/2005 5:41:54 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Nothing like showing one's true colors.
Thank you.

Good luck.

You're welcome.

Posted: 5/20/2005 8:51:14 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
No.

The gubmint has no business forcing private companies to do things like that. Keep the feds as far away from EVERYTHING as possible.

CMOS

+1

Posted: 5/20/2005 8:56:42 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing like showing one's true colors.
Thank you.

Good luck.

You're welcome.

At least Cincinnatus is currently serving our country and is in the process of being deployed to a combat zone.

What are you up to?

Posted: 5/20/2005 9:01:29 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
It sucks, but NO.

There SHOULD be some way of compensating/showing gratitude by employers, but sadly, not in THIS day and age.

My CO pays WHATEVER the diff in pay is for 6 months. That is base pay, does not include BAH or SEP or SUST or anything else.

So I get paid from .mil, then BAH and SEP, then 50% paycheck from my CO.

Can you say CHA-CHING!!!

All I have to do is...
Leave my home...
Leave my wife...
put my life in danger...

yup, and its an honor to be allowed to participate!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 5/20/2005 9:11:00 PM EDT

[#49]

No, but I sure respect companies that do.

Posted: 5/20/2005 9:16:45 PM EDT

[#50]

The whole premise is somewhat false to begin with. The majority of Guardsman/Reservists on active duty make more on active duty than they do in the civilian world.

Most Guardsman/Reservists in Iraq are taking home MORE than a civilian making $60K a year.

An active duty Staff Sergeant E-6 in the United States, not deployed, takes home (net), about $40K a year, giving him an equivelent civilian pay of around $60K. They also have pretty good bennies. That's stateside, a deployed serviceman makes more.

The junior soldiers make less, but 19 year olds aren't banking alot in the civilian world either.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should it be a national law that empolyers make up the pay difference for guardsmen and reservists? (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us