Compensating Reservist for pay cuts

[Duty Honor Country]

There is a bill kicking around congress that would compensate members of the reserve and national guard who take a pay cut because they are called to duty. I have heard of reservists who have lost homes and such because their military pay cannot cover the costs back home. The price tag on this bill would be around $1 billion.

Should the US government compensate those weekend warriors who take a pay cut to serve their country?

 

[Darcia]

If it is only in the billions then yes, after all we are sending 1 billion to the Tsunami areas now, I think it should be passed.

 

[Charge 7]

Yep, it's a real problem. It should be considered part and parcel in the cost of calling them up.

 

[03USMC]

I'm not sure on this one. On one hand I say yes we need to help and some private Companies such as Sears have stepped up in regards to their employees in certain cases.

On the other hand I don't think that I would expect my dept. to make up the difference in my salary if it were me. Nor would I expect the Feds to I knew going in I could be deployed and activated.

 

[SAINT]

Yes.. but up to a limit. Some reservists may hold high paid jobs and some pay are hard for the DoD to determine if it's monthly or just irregular salary.
:rambo:

 

[Lil Hulk 1988]

To a certain level only....if I take the offer I have on the table at the moment and get activated, I would not want to put the burden on the government to make up my pay differences. My company covers the first 6 months, then you are on your own. I think that the government should be able to stop all bill payments while your activated, not pay you, but have a law that puts all your debt on hold until you are released from reserve status, this would be fair and not put the burden on taxpayers that are willing to pay the rates for the active duty personnel, but why would you have an E4 being paid more than a Colonel if he is a senoir engineer in a company? That would not be fair, but if you tell that CPL that his debt is on hold and his salary is going to his family to support them while he is out, then it is fair. Just my two cents...

 

[Duty Honor Country]

I know the soldiers and sailor's act is suppose to address the issue of debt while in a combat zone. If, as a soldier, you use the act, all your debts will go to 6% interest and you do not have to make payments. I am not sure if the soldiers and sailor's act covers morgages. If the act covers everything to include morgages, then a lot of pressure can be taken off service members by enabling the act. All you have to do is send in a letter saying you want to be covered by the act and a copy of your orders.

That would solve a few of the problems that are out there. I do believe the government should compensate in some situations. But some US companies do their part. I was deployed with a guy who worked for Nextel. For the 1st 6 months, Nextel paid him a normal salary. After that, Nextel made up the difference between his army and civilian salaries. That boy made some serious bank over in Iraq.

 

[AussieNick]

I personally don't think they should. Australian army reserves pretty much take a pay cut over what they'd earn at work, by about half on average. I think it goes with the territory of being a reservist. You know the risk, but it is your passion and your patriotism that is your pay.

 

[Charge 7]

The Soldiers and Sailors Act has lapsed in enforcement. You're supposed to get your job back when you return for employment after being mobilized, however, many employers are finding "loop holes" in this and many reservists have lost their jobs let alone their incomes. Yes, I agree there should be a limit. The government shouldn't be responsible for mortgage payments on a million dollar home for example, however, it should be accountable for reasonable expectations of care. What those "reasonable expectations" should be would best be decided by a full financial investigation by Congress. Not something we at this forum can just hatch up in our discussions. Not to say we can't comment on what we think is a "reasonable expectation". And yes, reservists are told they could be deployed and made to be aware of the consequences. I get really pissed when I hear some 10%er on the news saying it was a shock to them to find out they would ever have to go someplace. However, if the government is going to continue to rely more heavily on the Guard and Reserve than it has done in decades past it is time for this issue to be re-examined and new criteria established.

 

[soldierzhonor]

I dont think compensation should be liable by the government. Im a reservist and dont expect the taxpayer to compensate me for a job which is most likely not the job i am performing on active duty. If I wanted to make that amount of money, why would i take the chance of losing any amount unless I get deployed and make sacrifices already. Are they going to take money away if the military pays me more on active duty than in civilian life? I doubt it.

i.e. Say Im a great civilian foreman in a warehouse. Yet in the military I'm just a E-4 cannoneer number 1. To me that doesnt entitle me to be compensated since the jobs arent online with each other. Plus the fact that the military hasnt decided to put me in a leadership role. So now I should be earning the same as someone in a leadership position? Just doesnt make sense to me. Thats just my opinion though

 

[Strongbow]

I personally don't think they should. Australian army reserves pretty much take a pay cut over what they'd earn at work, by about half on average. I think it goes with the territory of being a reservist. You know the risk, but it is your passion and your patriotism that is your pay.

I totally agree with Nick but it is tough if you are married and have a young family with a huge mortgage.

 

[Charge 7]

Then if you agree with him, don't get married and have a family and be prepared to live dirt cheap. :?

 

[CavScout]

I think that within pre-defined limits the Government should. I say this because if they don't then you can very easily end up with a "class" military. By that I mean only a certain class (white collar, blue collar etc.) of individuals would be in the Reserves defending the rights of the more affluent and that is NOT right. I say affluent and it is this countries interests in general but the end result is the same. Maybe the governement should not pay for it but it simply not allow that kind of harship to take place. Regardless of the word lawyer'ing..... it's just plain wrong folks.