OT:(slightly)Sears and jobs for military

Page 2 of 2  
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)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

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.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They can't fire a serviceman for being called to active duty, but they don't have to pay them anything while they're not at work. Some companies pay soldiers the difference between what the military pays them and what they would have made had they remained at work- there is no law forcing them to do this, it's just something some employers do to support their employees. It's the right thing for them to do for young families- besides being good PR, and probably a decent tax write-off to boot.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Has anyone caught wind of this story??
http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/NewsDetails.asp?News_id 306
Just Sears going the extra mile for our troops... Love to hear your thoughts...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:30:41 -0800, hoppie_2k3 wrote:

Yup, we caught wind. Google up the lengthy discussions as we probably don't need to go all through it again.
- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This article is not about Sears' pay policy, it is about "free holiday shipping promotion to include APO/FPO addresses". I don't think this was mentioned above... Still sounds good, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks for the clarification - and they are still offering the reduced shipping rates too for post holiday shipping, which is very commendable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.