I'm not sure how I feel about this. I understand the intent of the law, but from a small business, it doesn't seem particularly viable. A business will have changed a lot in a year, and even if the person coming back is able to perform their job, I'm not sure the business should just have to jettison whatever they did over that period and rehire the person. I'm not a big fan of the gov't essentially micromanaging a small business that way. Thoughts? http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/16/magazines/fsb/rehire_vet.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2007032209 Must I rehire an Iraq vet? Dear FSB: One of my best employees, who was an Army Reservist, shipped out to Iraq about a year and a half ago. We are a small shop (eight people, including me), and I had to hire someone to replace him. Now he is home, and he wants his old job back, even though because of a spinal injury he isn't physically able to do the work he did before: installing boilers. How do I handle this? --Dave Lounsbury, Narrowsburg Mechanical, Narrowsburg, N.Y. Dear Dave: Every once in a while (and not just every April 15), Uncle Sam expects us to step up and do something for our country. This may be one of those times. According to the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (dol.gov/vets), an employer, no matter how small, must rehire returning veterans, either into the jobs they had before or - thanks to the statute's so-called escalator provision - into more senior positions they would have attained had they not been called to active duty. If your former employee were still physically able to do his old job, you'd have to give it to him and let the new worker go. "It's a harsh result" for the replacement hire, notes Matthew Gilligan, a partner in law firm Alston & Bird in Atlanta (alston.com). "But, because the law requires it, you or your firm would incur no liability." Because this injured veteran can no longer perform his old job, it gets a little trickier. The law obliges you to find a job he can handle and give him that one - again, even if it means you have to reassign or sack whoever is doing it now. What if there is no such job? Do your best to create one. (Office manager? Bookkeeper? Telephone sales?). If it turns out that you have nothing this veteran can do and you can't invent a position for him, then the law allows you to decline to take him back. But that, too, would be a harsh outcome, and he may end up appealing. "Big employers generally have many more places to put people of varying abilities than small ones do," observes Gilligan. "So the burden of this legislation falls most heavily on small companies like yours."
given that these guys volunteered to be in the army, I don't think its fair. I think the law, and I'm just talking out of my arse as usual, was instituted because of the draft. or I could be wrong, but whatever reason it came about, it seems a little unreasonable especially for small businesses who can't afford to. I guess the other logic behind the law is that people won't volunteer during times we're at war if they know they will lose their job. in that sense its a national security issue and in theory it benifts everyone.
PGab, But he was a reservist, that was called to active duty. I think the law- though harsh on us business owners - is a good thing. DD
I understand he was a reservist, I don't think it makes much difference. he still volunteered to be in the army.
It's not a bad law in general. For most of the reservists who this affects, the employer knows when they are hired that there is a potential of them getting called back.
let me clarify that I think the I just think the law is unfair from a small business standpoint. if all companies could afford it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But if you've worked for a small business or as in the case of Major own one, you know that small businesses can't afford to keep employees they don't have work for. and then its unfair if someone has to be fired. is the government going to give them extra unemployment benifits for losing their job to a veteran?
Why can't the small business replace them with a temp worker until the soldier returns? That way, the new person will not expect to keep the job once the old person comes back, and the company won't have to carry an extra employee. Obviously this is not a perfect solution, but it seems fairly viable.
This is the solution that most businesses use. In this case however, the worker cannot do his job since he has been disabled. I do believe that the business owner should try to find some work that the man can do, but that may not be possible, especially for a very small business. This is a difficult situation to say the least.
They use the protection of their jobs as one of the primary recruiting tools to get them to join the Army. Some of them joined the Army Reserve because they knew if they joined their employment would be protected. To remove the protections after the fact doesn't strike me as the way to make things fair. If he is truly disabled and unable to do the job, then I appreciate that the owner should be able to release him, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to place the burden of proof (that he can't do the job) on the employer.
Depending on the job, it may not be viable. For starters, you have no idea how long the veteran is going to be gone. What if the job requires a lot of training? You can't just go and get temps to fill that type of position because you might have to invest a lot of money into training. Or, let's say its a computer programming job, and during the time the vet is gone, there are major software overhauls or improvements. Your employee is part of a team, and the new guy integrates with the team for 2 or 3 years and they come up with all sorts of new methods and ways of doing things. What if the new guy becomes a core part of the business? Is it really viable to bring the previous guy back? It would be one thing if you were talking about a few months tops. But this is very open-ended and could last years. Businesses change a lot over that kind of period. You could argue that the business could eat that kind of cost and just make a new position for the vet. But the vast majority of small businesses are lifestyle businesses rather than pure profit ventures. That is, the owners focus on making enough money to enjoy a decent life, but they don't try to squeeze every dime out of it. If the company only makes, say, $50k a year in profit, it can't just eat a $30k salary without major adverse effects.
I understand its currently the law, I think Major was asking what people think about the law in general not just this particular case. The temporary solution is a decent solution but like major points out, a lot can change in a year and a half. secondly, it would be hard to find someone to stay in that situation working for someone for an extended period with the high likelyhood of not ever being permanent
Lots of places have similar laws for maternity leave. So it's an inconvenience, but not necessarily unreasonable or unmanageable. The injury and not being able to do the job, though, raises a whole slew of problems for a small business. Seems there is some leeway...but tough to find a solution that pleases everyone here.
maternity leave and this are only similar in that they are time off. there is a set limit on maternity leave and it comes no where close to a year and a half.
That was my point, actually. Holding a job open while someone is otherwise not available. In my neck of the woods maternity leave is a year. It IS a challenge, no doubt, but companies get by.
I'm not doubting you but I think for most women maternity leave is no longer than three months to four months. a few weeks before the birth and a few months afterwards. but I maybe wrong.
What I am saying is that beyond it being a subject of law, fairness dictates that for the remainder of the war and until the Reserves are removed from active duty, it would be creating more unfairness than is remedied by changing the law. I am not arguing on the basis of legal jurisprudence. As far as whether the law outside of existing commitments is fair, the argument is that business owner’s benefit from the stable environment which is created in part ensured by the military. Following this it is not unreasonable to expect them to adopt troublesome practices which would help the government ensure the viability of that marketplace. From the article: [rquoter] Dear Dave: Every once in a while (and not just every April 15), Uncle Sam expects us to step up and do something for our country. This may be one of those times. [/rquoter] Whether you aprove of the war or not is irrelevant in this particular contract. You don't, for instance, get to choose to not pay income tax because you don't like how the government spends the money. In otherwords, I don't know that anybody has said that it isn't a hardship for the business, but it is not unreasonable to expect businesses to 'take one for the team' as it were.
