This is esentially the same argument as anyone who complains about taxes being used for causes they don't support -- just more direct.

The point is that we need a military that is trained and ready for any conflict. We are unwilling to pay the expense that would be necessary to maintin a standing army of the size necessary for this. Instead, we have reserves who must fill in that role -- and in return for lowering YOUR (and my) normal tax burden, we both accept that those reserve forces will increase our financial burdens temporarily should they be called to service.

Yes, its regrettable that it costs money to maintain a military force (whether full-time or reserve) and we would all prefer to spend that money on infrastructure or food or education. But absent that ideal situation, we all get off a lot cheaper by financing reserves from time to time than if we had to pay ALL the time to keep them all on bases, away from their productive places in the civilian economy, year-round.

The reserve personnel get no vote in whether or not they are called up to duty. To allow them to be punished financially while serving would be morally wrong in every sense I can imagine, and that is why the law is written as it is.

Should they be called up for this duty? I doubt it. Should their jobs be protected while they are called up for this (or any) duty? Yes, absolutely and without question. Does this create a bad financial situation for some employers? Yes, undoubtedly, and perhaps some sort of compensation deal should be worked out by Congress for small businesses who cannot easily absorb the expense. Is our economy better off with this situation than one in which reserves can lose their jobs? Absolutely -- your company and mine both do better by having a strong military and well-trained, happy employees.