Any company is required by law to keep their job available for them. There are a few companies like sears that will make up the difference in pay and I know of one company that still pays their employees their full pay so the employees get two paychecks while in service.
Heard on the radio today that Sears has a policy of maintaining active duty and reserve service members jobs while they are serving our country. Not only that, but they supplement their military pay to bring it to the level of pay they were receiving as employees. Don't know about you all, but I'm spending my money with Sears for as much as I can. I think that is a very admirable policy and should be supported. Our military needs as much support as they can get as far as I'm concerned. I applaud Sears for their policy. Thomas
Yes, this is a very admirable thing that they don't have to do. Be sure and let them know that is why you are shopping there so they will be more likely to continue the policy. Perhaps more employers will follow suit.
Frank
They also maintain current levels of health benefits.
We went around with this a few weeks ago (here on the 'wreck'). I always liked Sears - not so much for their own brand of power tools, but for the way they run their business.
When I walk into a Sears store, I feel real "comfortable" about it - if that makes any sense. 40+ years of buying their appliances (and other stuff) - and the few complaints were addressed promptly.
A good company to deal with.
Lou
I can't find too much to admire in the way they run their business. Their marketing practices often border on outright deception.
Heck, post the name off the company. SWMBO could use a job like that. :)
Tom B
I had a boss, 2900 miles away from my office, who could be a 'challenge' at times, but the 6 hour flight, and the fact that HIS boss was right down the hall from me made it a little more manageable. ;-)
However, when one of our guys 'disappeared to Afghanistan' on reserve duty, right after 9/11, this 'challenging boss' took almost a year to let HR know that he was off, serving the country. Paid him his group bonuses and everything. "Screw the rules. Do the right thing."
I came to appreciate that boss a lot more thereafter.
Patriarch
So do some others.
However, let's think about some facts. The majority of retail jobs, like many of those at Sears, are McJobs. How much pay matching do they really have to do?
The company I work for employs highly paid, skilled, unionized technicians. The guys who work for me typically make more than double what they made after 20 years of active duty technical work in the Air Force or Navy. In this case, the match is expensive, but it's also a bargained for contract item. I doubt the company would match if it wasn't in the contract. Position protection is totally different and has some legal protections.
It's interesting that this always seems to come out at holiday shopping time. Was Paul (the undercover shill) Harvey "reporting" the news?
Barry
Well you have an ideas of how Sears markets, now all you have to do is figure out how everyone else's marketing borders on deception.
Leon responds:
Marketing is marketing is marketing...except in a very few, very specific instances, among which Lee Valley shines. But they have advantages no corporation of Sears or WalMart's size has had for many decades: small, family run, pride in both product and presentation. I very much doubt you'll ever see a non-family owned billion buck corporation working that way.
Charlie Self "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." Edgar Bergen, (Charlie McCarthy)
Exactly. Actually some one will always find something to complain about and not even LeeValley is exempt. If you will recall, a troll was here a few weeks ago and condemned Lee Valley because of the difference in what Canadians are charged vs. those in the U.S. I agree however that Lee Valley is way up on the honorable list.
I maybe opening a Pandora's box with this question, but since I live in Canada, I'm not knowledgeable about this.
I was under the impression that when people were called to duty, it was the law that their jobs and positions had to be maintained? Is this not so? Or, does the reality of the situation find a way to ignore the law (if there is one)?
Upscale asks:
There is such a law, with provisions for some escapes. But the law does not require the employer to supplement military pay and benefits, and very few do so.
Charlie Self "Ambition is a poor excuse for not having sense enough to be lazy." Edgar Bergen, (Charlie McCarthy)
I don't know of any other business who's been hauled off to court for false and deceptive advertising more often than Sears. It's just not an isolated incidence or two. Seems like it's ingrained in their business philosophy. Maybe it's in their corporate mission statement too.
Their positions yes, but the law does not required that they be paid by their employer for the time that they are away on government service.
A good part of the reason for that is that they are such a prime target - big, lots of advertising, somewhat subject to the discrepancies of the manufacturers who they contract with, all of which makes them a tasty morsel for the greed gods that look for targets like this.
"Close", but not exact. Just for starters, there are two separate conditions where laws kick in. 1) a _routine_, *scheduled*, short-term call up (typically _two_weeks_) for refresher/training purposes. 2) a unit 'activation' for full- time, *indefinite*duration* (usually _minimum_ 6 months) services.
There have been a few cases litigated in the area, with defaulting employers generally getting nailed to the wall.
For case 1), employers are required to hold the *specific* job open for the reservist, _and_ to give =unpaid= leave if requested (so that the employee is *not* required to consume 'vacation' time),
For case 2), employers are required to provide "equivalent" employment -- in terms of job duties, seniority, pay scale, etc. -- to the reservist, when he returns from the active-duty call-up. It does -not- have to be 'exactly' the same position -- could be in a different department, or reporting to a different manager, etc.
'Fringe benefits', especially ones that are (at least partly) funded by employee contributions are a sensitive area.
*MANY* employers, especially the _larger_ ones, make it a policy to go _well_ _beyond_ 'what the law requires'. The "cost is *comparatively* trivial; it is good 'employee relations' to do so; and it doesn't hurt them in the eyes of the public, either. It's the _little_ shops that have real problems with compliance. If a call-up takes out 40% of your work-force (2 of 5 total employees), you don't have the choice of leaving the positions vacant until the people return. Then, when they _do_ come back, you have to either 'lay off' those temporary replacements -- with the resulting damage to your 'unemployment insurance' rating, and greatly increased UI liability for the next _five_years_ -- or you've now got a work-force of 7, instead of 5. If you can't create enough work for all 7, you've got a problem.For a large employer, like a Sears, they can usually re-work employee schedules so that there is no need to take on any 'temporary replacement' employees. They can simply assign some extra hours to some part-time employees. And cut back on those hours when the called-up employee returns.
And, of course, a Sears is *far*less*likely* to have 40% of _its_ work-force called up. They'll have _maybe_ a few hundred call-ups, out of a national work-force that is probably well into 6 digits.
I'm _not_ picking on Sears with the above. The situation is near-identical for *any* large employer.
Sears *is* to be commended for 'going beyond the requirements', and 'doing what is *RIGHT*'. Both for their employees and for the country.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. No other big box stores land in court nearly as often as Sears.
Walmart, Kmart, Used Car lots, New Car Dealerships just to name a few that make national news.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.