Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Springfield, Va.
    Posts
    2,843
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Question Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    National Guard and Reservists, listen up.

    Recently released surveys show that civilian employers say they are less inclined to hire members of the National Guard and Reserve due to the increasing likelihood that they will be mobilized and deploy in support of the war In Iraq.

    Tell us, is this true? Are civilian employers showing bias against Guard and Reservists? Or have you not noticed any difference?

    What has your experience been?

  2. #2
    The Universal Curmudgeon_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    Quote Originally Posted by CommunityEditor
    Recently released surveys show that civilian employers say they are less inclined to hire members of the National Guard and Reserve due to the increasing likelihood that they will be mobilized and deploy in support of the war In Iraq.

    Tell us, is this true? Are civilian employers showing bias against Guard and Reservists?
    I presume that what you actually mean is "Are civilian employers refusing to hire members of the National Guard and/or Reserves with any greater frequency than they are refusing to hire people who aren't - but who have the same likelihood of not showing up for work for extended periods of time (and who could be replaced if they didn't?"

    If I were hiring and had to pick between equally qualified applicants where

    [a] was a member of the NatG/R and was 40% likely not to come to work
    [b] wasn't a member of the NatG/R and was 40% likely not to come to work
    [c] was a member of the NatG/R and was 60% likely not to come to work
    [d] wasn't a member of the NatG/R and was 60% likely not to come to work
    [e] was a member of the NatG/R and was 10% likely not to come to work
    and
    [f] wasn't a member of the NatG/R and was 10% likely not to come to work

    I'd hire in the following sequence [e], [f], [a], [b], [c], and [d] - as would 99% of all employers.

    However, in the pairings "[a]/[b]", "[c]/[d]", and "[e]/[f]", if there were a difference in qualification, I'd go for the most qualified applicant - as would 99% of all employers.
    :cheers:

  3. #3
    jbanna_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    What about the question:

    Would you hire a reservist who is the most qualified person, if he/she promises to return if activated?

    I have encountered several situations where my job interviews went great, every qualification was met, the personality fit was there, I stated that I would not be a volunteer for any deployments, and would come back for sure if involuntarily activated, and etc., but found out I was the "second choice". Of course, each interviewer had many specific questions about my reserve commitments. While I cannot prove that my reserve status cost me these jobs, I am highly suspicious. So, the results of this new poll conducted by Workforce Management do not surprise me, even though the question was somewhat loaded and the survey completed in a non-scientific manner.

  4. #4
    rjmcnary Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    My situation does not deal with whether or not an employer would hire me due to my Reserve status, as I have worked in the same field, for the same employer, but in different departments, for nearly 20 years and my job is protected by Civil Service regulations. What I'm finding is that transfers to desirable assignments and promotions are also affected by one's Reserve status. I'm in the USCGR and am 3 1/2 months into my 3rd activation since 9/11 (the first was in 2003 for 6 months and the second was in 2005 for 3 months). This is projected to run until Sept of this year. I have, on several occasions, applied for transfers to desired assignments, only to be told that I don't have enough experience. It's kinda hard to believe that one since I've been doing the same job for 18 1/2 years, with my evaluations being either "Very Good" or "Outstanding."

    On the flip side, I will say they are very good about maintaining my pay and benefits while I'm gone. I receive the difference between my military pay and civilian pay and all benefits (i.e health insurance, vacation/sick time accrual, pension contributions) are maintained. This is the one bright spot, since I know that once I return to civilian employment, I'll likely end up with an assignment a monkey could do well at.

  5. #5
    JRT00888 Guest

    Angry Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    can tell you personally that I have (and continue) to experience my same civilian employer of almost 10 years having great issues with regards to promotions. I was originally deployed from Oct 2001 to Sep 2002 for Homeland Defense (Operation Noble Eagle), returned to my civilian employer...re-learned all operational systems, etc. A promotional opportunity came up of which I was the only rational/established candidate that completely fit the profile out of 27 associates. Upon going through 4 interviews, my employer rounded it down to "the top 3" candidates; whereas one of the candidates was disqualified, which left myself and one other. Approximately 2 weeks before a final decision was to be made, I was activated to proceed to the desert March 2003....within the next 3 days, I was on a plane. About a month later, I found out that they went with the only individual left. When I had the chance, I spoke to the JAG's office and they told me there was nothing I can do until I get off of active duty. October 2004 I was finally released from duty and returned to my civilian employer and spoke to my director & Human Resources about the situation. They basically were biased the whole time and stated: "Well, what were we supposed to do, the other candidate was the only one left?" (Note-this job was about $20,000 more a year than what I was making). Needless to say, they back-tracked and stated: "let's see what kind of change we can find and that we can appreciated you didn't bring any outside entity into this situation." Within 2 weeks, I was given a measley 2% raise....what a slap in the face!!!! I contacted the ESGR, was assigned an ombudsman (who eventually stated this is the worst employer he had to deal with in the 12 yrs he has been doing this). It eventually went to the Dept of Labor (2 months later), where as my employer buried them in 12" thick worth of paperwork that got them off the main reason why we even doing this; after 5 months it is currently up to the US Attorney General's office. The DOL has told me that this is the toughest thing to prove of an employer, but I am/will not give up. If it weren't for the people like me (and you), these employers would not have a business to operate). All in all, it has been a very bitter experience and I am continued to be asked about "in-depth" questions about my military time/experiences, length of deployments, how often, etc. and it boils down to he said/she said.....which is obviously ultimately zero protection for the Reserve or Guard member! Good luck if you have experienced any of this.

  6. #6
    SGTB74_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    I am a Sergeant with 10 years of active duty. I left the Army in 2003 and since then have been working as a union laborer doing highway construction. In 2006, I reenlisted with the PA Guard. The unit I am in is transforming to a STRYKER Brigade and our current drill schedule is intense, with all of the NET training required. There have been months, where I have had to go to "Drill" for two and three weekends. Personally, I love it because I love wearing the uniform. But when I have bills to pay and a family to support it makes it hard. I only get paid by the hour. If I miss a day for drill, I do not get paid. And being a union laborer, I make really good money. Anyway, with the current drill schedule and all the NET training going on. I would miss at least 5-7 days of work easy. My employer was upset over this and in November, I was laid off due to "lack of work." After talking with people around the company it was really due to my drill schedule. I talked to union representatives and was told that there is nothing that can be done. I was also told that with my future drill schedule, over the next year, it would be hard to place me in another job. Why would an employer hire me on to do a job, when I will have an Annual Training period that will last at least 30 days, a drill schedule and NET training that will require me to miss at least two weekneds a month, and the very real possibility of a deployment in the very near future? I see both sides of the situation. But I am in stuck between a rock and a hard place. You try raising a family on unemployment pay! It sucks.

  7. #7
    CW3_guest Guest

    Default My opinion...

    I worked in a company that fully supported my involvement in the National Guard. The division I worked in had 3 employees. But when I was deployed, 1/3 of their workforce disappeared for 12-18 months. (At the time, I didn't know for sure how long I was actually going to be deployed.) So this company had a tough decision to make. Do we hire another employee, OSHA train them (HAZWOPPER 40 hours) MSHA train them (40 hours), knowing that it is only a temporary position? Looking back, this is what the company HAD to do, and this employee couldn't really "work" for over three weeks until the training was completed. What a financial burden! Was the temporary employee a member of the National Guard? No they weren't. Then when I did return, I needed to take the OSHA and MSHA refresher courses BEFORE I could do any work!! This makes for a very easy decision for me to stay a member of the National Guard. I've put in my military time of over 20 years. It's now my time to support my employer, and not the employer supporting the guard.

  8. #8
    douglas.j.james_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    In July 2006 I returned from 16 months of military duty, 12 of them in Afghanistan. My employer complied with the law, but not the spirit of the law. I have a job with the same salary level, but was transferred back to a position that I started in seven years ago. Further, the position is a dead-end with no opportunity of advancement.

    I have spoken with management and career advisers about what skills I need to add to improve my skills for advancement, with no response. I am retiring from the National Guard to try to salvage my career as a systems programmer.

    There is no overt discrimination, but I have definitely been made to feel unwelcome. I am being punished for my service.

  9. #9
    Skweegee_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    As the Devil's Advocate, why wouldn't civilian employers shy away from hiring guardsmen and reservists? Once you put aside all the talk about patriotism and supporting the troops, the employer is stuck with a vacancy when the person leaves. Maybe he can hire a temp, but the temp pool may have a limited number of qualified persons willing to take the job on a temp basis until the reservist returns. If he hires a permanent replacement, he will likely have to let someone go when the reservist returns. By not hiring a reservist in the first place, he can avoid these hassles.

  10. #10
    jhawk_guest Guest

    Default Re: Are civilian employers showing bias against National Guard and Reservists?

    It is my experience in the NYPD that they do not enjoy military members of the service. There are so many incidents whereas the member either going away or returning ended up on the short end of the stick; not just to OEF/OIf but to guard/reserve duties.

    There are several units within the NYPD that do not want military members when transfer requests to specfic units come in to them. There was one federal case where a NYPD member who is the military and was denied a position within the NYPD Aviation unit; he ended up winning but the judge's instructions to the jury regarding the law in USERRA did not do much for closure to the case. With that type of ruling, it will not force the NYPD to make changes.

    How can we make changes?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •