From: David Cole (DavidCole@tk7.net)
Date: Fri Mar 21 2003 - 06:27:18 PST
Unfortunately "poor job performance" means they are disqualified for
unemployment also at least in Indiana and I would guess others as well.
There seems to be no way to prove otherwise without a lawyer and a ton of
money, which is hard to get if you are unemployed.
> Anyone who thinks HR
> departments are there to protect the employee is mistaken
No doubt. HR is there to provide services to the employees and keep the
company legal with the employees.
Dimissing a reservist who has been called up for any reason is very poor
policy. I'm with the guys who are boycotting Pep Boys. Napa and Autozone
are looking better than ever. When Pep Boys reinstates those guys, I re-
enter the store.
I was recently riffed and am now out on my own. (Engineering services) I
should have done this years ago. I guess I just needed a push. Anyway,
hopefully those reservists are now driving camo vehicles in some safe
place.
(MV content inclusion)
Dave
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 19:25:41 -0800, Patrick Jankowiak <eccm@swbell.net>
wrote:
> It is always easy for a corporation to allege any reason for
> termination, and create or set up a smoke screen. Anyone who thinks HR
> departments are there to protect the employee is mistaken. I work
> amidst liberals and the french (and now peace protesters I recently
> find). Will I be next?
>
> FireflyArms wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for taking up bandwidth with this but...
>>
>> If you read the article, you'll see that in both of the cases mentioned
>> the
>> employees were terminated for "poor job performance" NOT specifically
>> because
>> of their military service.
>>
>> As in everything we read/see/hear in the media, I'm sure there are two
>> sides
>> to this story. I'll prefer to remember the phrase "innocent until proven
>> guilty" and withold my personal Pep Boys boycott until the case is
>> settled in
>> court.
>>
>> Sam B.
>> http://www.fireflyarms.com
>>
>> >===== Original Message From Ryan M Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> =====
>> >At 10:46 AM -0600 3/19/03, J Travis wrote:
>> >>I thought there was a law on the books against that? (There should
>> >>be, anyway.)
>> >
>> >There is a law, which makes Pep-Boys decisions all the more stupid.
>> >
>> >Section 4311(a) of USERRA provides as follows:
>> >A person who is a member of, applies to be a member of, performs, has
>> >performed, applies to perform or has an obligation to perform in a
>> >uniformed service shall not be denied initial employment,
>> >re-employment, retention in employment, promotion or any benefit of
>> >employment by an employer on the basis of that membership,
>> >application for membership, performance of service, application for
>> >service or obligation
>> >--
>> > Ryan Gill rmgill@SPAMmindspring.com
>>
>> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-
>> veh.org>
>> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
-- Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:25:54 PDT