Junglejett

Your point is what?

F4E Mx

My point is that the guardsman is often taking advantage of his coworkers, many of whom served in the military themselves and know exactly what the score is.

Jetjok

That's crap! If you're serving in the Guard or Reserve, your employer has to make due. As for your co-workers, that's not your problem, that's your employers'. The guy said he has plenty of time off and the guard commitment could probably be flexible enough so as not to conflict with his primary job, with the exception of "summer camp" or any deployments. As for them terminating him, if I were him, assuming he's got a good record and has been at that job for a while, I'd look into hiring an attorney. They just can't fire someone for no reason, and in today's day and age, they better have some documentation to show the courts what a bad employee he was to begin with. I believe the term is wrongful termination. The problem is if he goes that route, and wins, will he even want to hang around that company. There might be a pot of gold at the end of the trial or plea bargain, but that's a different issue.

Grumble

No one cares, USERRA is law. It's not taking advantage, and employers should be proud of their support and not whining about the burden.

This, my unit has been shying away from non-airline guys for the same reason. Non-airline employment makes it hard for a guy to be useful or stay current. They can become a burden to keep current with limited availability and/or nonproductive. It takes a special combination of locality, employer, situation for it to all work out. Federal employees, law enforcement not wtihstanding.

Junglejett

Let me guess, you had to do some extra work because a troop went off to do his duty and you got left with the work. So, its his fault and your bitter.

Flying Boxes

And the guardsman is working even more and harder than the civilian friends. And they are doing nothing to preserve their freedom because the guardsman is pulling their weight to preserve their freedom for them.

JohnBurke

Irrelevant if he's in a right to work state.

Someone need not be a bad employee to merit termination or a forced resignation or a separation, and an employer need not be a bad employer for an employee to quit. Your view of the employer-employee relationship is myopic.

Without formal participation in the guard or reserves, USERRA will likely be little help; it may serve as an influence or pressure, but will have no teeth. The fact that the employer took this step, however, speaks poorly of the employer, and I would suggest that the original poster consider putting his resume out there, too. His current gig might be comfortable, but an employer that takes that tack for a pilot seeking to perform military service isn't worth working for. Drop it like a hot rock as fast as you can find something else.

galaxy flyer

JB

Right to work state has nothing to do with it, without union representation, any job is "at will".

GF

Jetjok

John,

I could very well be myopic, however, I don't believe that the "Right to Work State" that you're talking about has anything at all to do with employers terminating employees. Following is what Wikipedia has to say about "Right to Work."

A "right-to-work" law is a statute in the United States that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers, that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. Right-to-work laws do not aim to provide general guarantee of employment to people seeking work, but rather are a government regulation of the contractual agreements between employers and labor unions that prevents them from excluding non-union workers,[1] or requiring employees to pay a fee to unions that have negotiated the labor contract all the employees work under.

Right-to-work provisions (either by law or by constitutional provision) exist in 24 U.S. states, mostly in the southern and western United States, but also including, as of 2012, the midwestern states of Michigan[2] and Indiana.[3] Business interests represented by the Chamber of Commerce have lobbied extensively to pass right-to-work legislation.[4][5][6][7] Such laws are allowed under the 1947 federal Taft–Hartley Act. A further distinction is often made within the law between those employed by state and municipal governments and those employed by the private sector with states that are otherwise union shop (i.e., pay union dues or lose the job) having right to work laws in effect for government employees.

Anyway, getting back to your next comment: "Someone need not be a bad employee to merit termination or a forced resignation or a separation, and an employer need not be a bad employer for an employee to quit." Thankfully, most (although not all) companies, in this day and age, usually document their poor performers. It's just a fact of life, as they want to make sure that if/when said employee is let go, the company will be able to show the court (should a lawsuit arise from said termination) that they (the company) counseled the employee but the employees' work didn't improve. People are rarely let go for no reason. At least that's been my observation after a full career in a non-flying work environment. That said, I agree that the OP should seek employment elsewhere if he intends to try for a Guard or Reserve job.

JohnBurke

Right to work has a lot to do with it, depending on the state in which the employment takes place. A contract removes the issue of at will, and replaces it with a potentially legally binding agreement. There are various forms of contract, and not all of them are binding in all locations, or under all conditions. A union doesn't change the legality of a contract, but it does impact the weight that can be thrown around to achieve it, in terms of labor force protection and in terms of legality in negotiation.

The previous poster stated that someone can't simply be fired for "no reason," and that is untrue.