• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Employment question for the legal eagles

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Addressing just your screed about military disability benefits -

So Joe Serviceman puts in his time knowing that there is some risk he might lose body parts if not his life, and you want to leave him there on the sidewalk with a tin cup begging for money to live on? (I do not care if you agree or disagree with the foreign policy that sent Joe Serviceman to where he got blown up. He went in what he thought was service to his country, thus service to you.)

Or what about Joe Serviceman who puts 20 or 30 years in service, at a pay scale much lower than most of the rest of working Americans? His "contribution" to that defined-benefit retirement plan was time and risk. It was in the contract he signed when he enlisted/was commissioned, and in every one he signed when he reenlisted/accepted a commission at a higher rank. But I guess breaking contracts is OK with you.

Just where do you get the $1,500/month left after paying housing and food costs? I'd like to see both the source and the figures.

As for living on $200/month (even after housing and food) - please come back in about 90- days and tell us how that worked out.

Civillians can buy disability insurance. Service members cannot - because insurance companies specifically disallow injuries due to acts of war and define any military service as an act of war. Change that so servicemembers can buy quality disability insurance at the rate offered to civillians and see how many flock to purchase it - it's going to be better that what you get from the government. (And I say that as a disabled vet who actually thinks the care he gets at the local VAMC is outstanding - in some regards better than what I waas getting through private pay until the premiums I had to pay because of my disability (pre-existing condition) grew to more that my monthly income.)

Translate that to cops, firefighters and the like who also voluntarily put themselves at higher risk in order to serve you. Have you thought how the recruitment of replacements would go if those benefits were not part of the deal? (Yes, I admit some contracts have outrageous benefit plans. but those are all negotiable based on municipalities refusing to go further in debt along with a willingness to risk lesser service due to some folks leaving because of the change in benefits.)

There are things I would like to say about someone who espouses the notions you do. I contracted with the owners pof this site not to use that sort of language here on their site, and I will honor a contract I have made.

stay safe.

I think you missed the point of my post, I was being sarcastic and attempting to point out that eye95 is opposing laws mandating fair treatment of employees and of certain benefits while he is retired from the government collecting the same types of benefits he opposes for private sector workers.

I am not seriously advocating we cut retirement and government employee benefits. I have no problem with the current pay scale and benefits the military recieves. I do however have a problem with eye95 wanting to take us back to 1870 working for 10 cents an hour 350 days a year in 12 hour shifts with no family leave, workmans comp, disability, or safety equipment.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
"Mandating fair treatment" is in no way comparable to compensation that was an agreement between the employer and the employee. The former is a violation of property rights. The latter is the embodiment of them.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
"Mandating fair treatment" is in no way comparable to compensation that was an agreement between the employer and the employee. The former is a violation of property rights. The latter is the embodiment of them.

Well I suppose it could work a different way, like workers organizing and demanding an employment contract and refusing to work until getting one.... Oh wait you're opposed to that too...

So basically contract ensuring your fair treatment, being at big corporate America's mercy for everything else. We already tried the type of society you advocate, it didn't work out so well.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Well I suppose it could work a different way, like workers organizing and demanding an employment contract and refusing to work until getting one.... Oh wait you're opposed to that too...

Please don't tell me what I am opposed to. Discuss what I actually say or piss off.

Moving on.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
It makes me sad to see someone asking for help only to have the thread hijacked for someone else's political agenda.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

builtjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
323
Location
South Chesterfield, VA
For f@ck sake, can a mod just lock this thread and let it die? I'd delete the damn thing but that doesn't seem to be an option.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
My 2 cents - not so much legal as social- says if you guys can make it on one income, let Mama be a homemaker. That IS A JOB.

Down the road she will be able to home school your children, and be supportive of you in your profession.

She , and the kids will be safer at home than out on the dangerous streets . You won't be budgeting for her commute fuel, lunches, work clothing, HEADACHE MEDICINE, etc.

By any chance did your wife work for a national grocery store chain ? Just wondering..................(past experience)

Good luck to you, the Mrs., and the family.

When the little one gets bigger, suggest to your wife that she check out being a "Bellaroma" merchandiser. ( Aromatic candles, lanterns, melters, and such.) Homemakers love that stuff.
They do those house party promotionals. Supposed to be a lucrative enterprise - just a thought.
 
Last edited:

builtjeep

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
323
Location
South Chesterfield, VA
Not a grocery chain, but a large hummus manufacturer. Thanks for the advice on the scenty stuff, i'm sure she'd be into that. We have discussed home schooling, though the rural area where we are planning to move still has decent schools.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

CDT COX

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
277
Location
NC
She has decided not to pursue anything legally and just walk away, not worth the headache.

CDT COX - She WANTED to continue working through the pregnancy, she WAS NOT allowed to, we are fortunate to be in a position where we can get by on one income, what if she weren't married? Insist that anyone who wishes to keep a job just abort? If you wish to have a family you simply can't have a job as well? How do you think that would work out for the country?

Perhaps the company I work for just has a different view on treating people like humans, but I've seen several people go out for a number of reasons, including a high risk pregnancy, and not be terminated for not coming back before the doctor cleared them. I suppose you would be completely ok with being terminated on the spot if you notified your employer that you'd been diagnosed with cancer or such and would be out for several months? No reason for them to respect your doctors orders or help you maintain health insurance no matter how long you'd been there right? Do me a favor, if you have nothing constructive to offer, go ahead a piss up a rope.

Sorry, but I must have missed the memo that said after X amount of time the rules no longer apply. Could I borrow your copy?

As I understood the OP, she was still being carried on the books as an employee - one on some not-well-defined-to-us status. Employers have rules about how they treat employees.

Unless the memo, the one I seem not to have gotten, changed that.

stay safe.

In the military, broads get 42 days. Over half a year? Give me a break. There is compassion, and feelings, and all that good stuff... and there is the bottom line that companies are in business to make a profit. Employees are employed to make those profits. If an employee can not be at work for 7 months, tough **** if the company decides to let them go.
 
Top