Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Newark Star-Ledger
October 2, 2008
Pg. 13
By Bob Braun, Star-Ledger Staff
Imagine the fear. The double whammy. To be sent to Iraq where people aim to kill you - at a time when grim faces on televisions and laptop screens are talking about the collapse of the American economy and the possibility of a second Great Depression.
"It's one thing to worry about it here - another to worry about it there when there is not a lot you can do about it," says John Smith, a retired New Jersey National Guard officer and civilian attorney who works at Fort Dix.
Nearly 3,000 members of the Guard are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; they left just as events on Wall Street and in Washington started to spin out of control. And, while maybe it's an illusion that anyone anywhere has control over the fate of their livelihoods, it's not comforting to be away from your job when your job might disappear.
Laws protect soldiers from job discrimination based on military service; they don't protect them from losing jobs because of an economic downturn. Smith and others say soldiers worry they might be more vulnerable to layoffs if they're away.
"It's very fact-sensitive," says Smith, a former deputy attorney general. "Every case of job discrimination is different."
A touchy, emotion-laden subject. The Guard's success depends on the willingness of soldiers to leave for active duty - and the support of employers to protect their jobs.
State unemployment rose this month to 5.9 percent, up from 4.2 percent a year ago, according to the most recent figures provided by the state. The number of financial sector jobs fell by 7.9 percent - all before the latest bad news about frozen credit lines.
"We're all concerned and we're all worried," says Carmen Venticinque, a retired Guard colonel who heads up the New Jersey chapter of a program called Employer Support of the Guard and Reserves. It's a national group that supports part-time soldiers; it's staffed by volunteers, but run by the U.S. Defense Department.
"The difference is those men and women are facing combat and they shouldn't have to be worried about their jobs."
Venticinque says he hasn't seen a "dramatic" increase yet in complaints, but concedes it is still early in the most recent deployment - and in the most recent troublesome news about failing financial institutions and fears frozen credit might lead to the failure to meet payrolls.
Regular Army soldiers are working at their jobs when they are overseas - or anywhere. But citizen soldiers are away from theirs - and worried.
"Of course, they should worry - we all should worry," says Samuel Wright, a retired Navy captain whose Washington-based practice is almost completely limited to dealing with matters of military service and employment.
Wright, one of the nation's top experts in the field, helped the state bar association create the Military Legal Assistance Program to give free advice to Guard members and reservists in employment, matrimonial, disability, and other cases.
He says citizen soldiers are protected by a federal law - the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act - that forbids companies or government agencies from discriminating against employees because they serve in the military.
But it doesn't protect jobs lost to an economic downturn. "You can get your job back - if your job still exists," says Wright.
Like all workers, members of the Guard or reserves are out of luck if their company folds or eliminates job categories. A more difficult problem occurs when some, but not all, of the employees in a company are laid off.
Wright says part-time soldiers might be vulnerable but have some protections. It depends on the criteria used by the employer to determine who faces the ax. If the soldiers were unionized, they would maintain seniority rights.
"But most private companies don't have unionized work forces now," Wright says. "So, you have to look at the criteria the employers used to decide on layoffs."
This obviously gets subjective. "The question really is whether that person now serving in the guard would have been laid off anyway," Wright says. If there is evidence military service played a role in the layoff, the burden of proof switches to the employer.
"If the employer says, `We didn't lay off that soldier because he is a soldier and has been away from his job,' then we can say, `Prove it, Mr. Employer.'"
But if the job was lost to uncontrollable forces, the fight is futile.
October 2, 2008
Pg. 13
By Bob Braun, Star-Ledger Staff
Imagine the fear. The double whammy. To be sent to Iraq where people aim to kill you - at a time when grim faces on televisions and laptop screens are talking about the collapse of the American economy and the possibility of a second Great Depression.
"It's one thing to worry about it here - another to worry about it there when there is not a lot you can do about it," says John Smith, a retired New Jersey National Guard officer and civilian attorney who works at Fort Dix.
Nearly 3,000 members of the Guard are deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; they left just as events on Wall Street and in Washington started to spin out of control. And, while maybe it's an illusion that anyone anywhere has control over the fate of their livelihoods, it's not comforting to be away from your job when your job might disappear.
Laws protect soldiers from job discrimination based on military service; they don't protect them from losing jobs because of an economic downturn. Smith and others say soldiers worry they might be more vulnerable to layoffs if they're away.
"It's very fact-sensitive," says Smith, a former deputy attorney general. "Every case of job discrimination is different."
A touchy, emotion-laden subject. The Guard's success depends on the willingness of soldiers to leave for active duty - and the support of employers to protect their jobs.
State unemployment rose this month to 5.9 percent, up from 4.2 percent a year ago, according to the most recent figures provided by the state. The number of financial sector jobs fell by 7.9 percent - all before the latest bad news about frozen credit lines.
"We're all concerned and we're all worried," says Carmen Venticinque, a retired Guard colonel who heads up the New Jersey chapter of a program called Employer Support of the Guard and Reserves. It's a national group that supports part-time soldiers; it's staffed by volunteers, but run by the U.S. Defense Department.
"The difference is those men and women are facing combat and they shouldn't have to be worried about their jobs."
Venticinque says he hasn't seen a "dramatic" increase yet in complaints, but concedes it is still early in the most recent deployment - and in the most recent troublesome news about failing financial institutions and fears frozen credit might lead to the failure to meet payrolls.
Regular Army soldiers are working at their jobs when they are overseas - or anywhere. But citizen soldiers are away from theirs - and worried.
"Of course, they should worry - we all should worry," says Samuel Wright, a retired Navy captain whose Washington-based practice is almost completely limited to dealing with matters of military service and employment.
Wright, one of the nation's top experts in the field, helped the state bar association create the Military Legal Assistance Program to give free advice to Guard members and reservists in employment, matrimonial, disability, and other cases.
He says citizen soldiers are protected by a federal law - the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act - that forbids companies or government agencies from discriminating against employees because they serve in the military.
But it doesn't protect jobs lost to an economic downturn. "You can get your job back - if your job still exists," says Wright.
Like all workers, members of the Guard or reserves are out of luck if their company folds or eliminates job categories. A more difficult problem occurs when some, but not all, of the employees in a company are laid off.
Wright says part-time soldiers might be vulnerable but have some protections. It depends on the criteria used by the employer to determine who faces the ax. If the soldiers were unionized, they would maintain seniority rights.
"But most private companies don't have unionized work forces now," Wright says. "So, you have to look at the criteria the employers used to decide on layoffs."
This obviously gets subjective. "The question really is whether that person now serving in the guard would have been laid off anyway," Wright says. If there is evidence military service played a role in the layoff, the burden of proof switches to the employer.
"If the employer says, `We didn't lay off that soldier because he is a soldier and has been away from his job,' then we can say, `Prove it, Mr. Employer.'"
But if the job was lost to uncontrollable forces, the fight is futile.