It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ETHICS: Troops Losing Jobs Upon Return Home

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   
OK no matter our Differences on the Issues of the day we ALL agree that we support our troops. I am of the Opinion that WHOEVER Wins this election needs to do something about this. IMMEDIATELY, this is like telling our men and women thanks for serving our country, YOUR FIRED!!
 



I was out shopping with my wife and child and I ran Across this article. And I was just disgusted. How in the world can we treat our people this way? the companies that are doing this need to be Reprimanded and COMPLETELY ashamed of themselves. Horrible, as Americans we should have more respect for our people than this.




posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Uh, the article clearly stated that they were trying to find a way to work that out, and that for employers who were unwilling to cooperate, civil suits were filed. If you are refering to people who can no longer do the jobs they once did, I don't imagine the employer has a choice in the matter. It's not so much a firing as it is a no win situation. The police force, for example, lost a good officer, just as the injured soldier lost a job, however, I don't imagine the returning soldier could run a footrace to catch a crook.

regs out...



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 05:10 PM
link   
A Civil Suit should have never had to have been filed in my opinion Regs.These guys should be Honored but now they are going through the legal system just to keep the jobs they had before being called up.Granted Injuries that Limit work should be taken into account. And Disability pay Given to those Physically unable to preform there duties.I just think it is a sad way to treat the men and women who put there butts on the line...I personally am going to find a List of National companies doing this and BOYCOTT their products and I encourage those who feel the same to do the same.



posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Truth Hunter, this isn't a presidential issue. It is a departmental issue. It is a corporate issue. Yes, it is a shame that a gaurdsman has to grovel for a job he or she already had before being sent to Iraq. Yes, the job should be protected, but, it isn't an issue that the president can control, for the most part. Imagine you are a business owner and have an employee who has been sent to Iraq for a year. Now, you have customers to satisfy, therefore, you must hire someone to take the gaurdsman's place for a time. Your employee ends up being gone for 6 months to a year. Now, this temp employee does a magnificent job. Customers are happy. Business is booming. Is it fair for the temp employee to get forced out of a job, either, now that the gaurdsman is back?

Enough on that, though...reread the article you posted and see if you can get the gist of it, instead of jumping to conclusions that the US workforce is such a corrupt place.

regs out...



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
OK I didnt fully read this article, I kinda skimmed it. But from what I can make its saying that these people are suffering from problems when they come back from their posts in Iraq. How can you tell someone who has been fighting for their coutry that thanks for a good job, now you dont have one.

However like Regs said, it aint down to the president but that point he brought up about hiring of new people, is a good issue, how can you tell these people thanks, you did a good job now you have to leave.

If this is the continuing case, then they should maybe say to these members of staff, that they are either temporary, or their might be some compertition when the old staff returns.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join