Your acceptance of the current situation is admirable. But if you were a good-looking young woman who found herself being groped repeatedly you might feel differently -- or if your wife or daughter were subject to that kind of treatment. This nonsense is not just unacceptable, it's actually a CRIME in most places. Let's not accept our new status as crime victims in the name of being "secure."

A reasonable analogy: When you leave your hotel at night, give all your money to the first tough-looking guy you see. Then you can't be robbed! You'll feel much safer, I'm sure.

Bruce

You are correct, sir. By law, companies are required to keep open the job of the folks who serve in the reserve when they are called up to active duty. When they get back, they are required to give them that job back or one that is similar.

They are not, however, required to pay them the difference between active duty pay and their regular salaries. However, many employers, because they don't want to see their employees go bankrupt while serving their country, make up the difference.

If I were running a company, I'd make sure that I took care of my employees who were called up. It's the right thing to do and it sure as hell would show that you do more than give lip service to employees being important.

gee, how about that goof in atlanta? the one who pushed his way past the old man at the exit?

tread lightly when commenting on the guard. i'm not a member myself, but i respect what they've given up to stand at the airport. maybe some of them are still getting a paycheck from their employer, but many are not. many have been pulled away from their families, and placed into a very high stress situation. and you can be darn sure that they are much more professional than any screener, federal employee or not, can ever hope to be!

I agree with doing the right thing. But, what if your company was impacted due to -any situation- and you were on the verge of going under. Maybe you are even paying some bills out of your own pocket. It happens. How can you justify leaving a position open, or paying money to a non-worker?

Again, not knocking our military, but sometimes reality gets in the way of "the right thing".

"We think its ludicrous to check the little old lady with a walker. I bet if in some case the lady was used to smuggle something on board - everyone would be yelling "Those idiots they should check everone." The security folks are in somewhat of a can't win situation."

Sigh,

The argument fails for a simple reason every time.

You could make what if's about anything if you want. What if the food onboard is poisoned? What if the fuel is tampered with?
What if the tires are spiked? What if the pilot is wearing a bomb stuffed up his left nostril?

Get it? I can make these up all day long. there is no way to truly secure such an open environment short of instituting the same protective measures for Air Force One for any other aircraft and that, is simply cost prohibitive. Cannot be done.

What can be done, is to focus MORE of the limited resources on more likely avenues of vulnerability. Older women with walkers are NOT as much of a threat as young men. Move beyond the politically correct "everyone is an equal threat" to the more reality based apprach of threat escalation.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Easy. It's the law to leave the position open, and if I violate the law, then I'm going to pay a hell of a lot more.

As for paying someone the difference in pay, I'm still paying less than if that person was working for me. And I'd just consider it to be my patriotic duty to take care of someone who is called up.

Well, I'd feel a lot better about paying someone who was called up if they had been called up for a good reason. Paying highly trained soldiers to stand around airport security checkpoints watching the Argen-not-so-brights and their ilk abusing passengers is not a good reason, in my opinion. They would be better off at their regular jobs, and so would we.

I am now putting on my asbestos suit.

Bruce

I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment act makes a specific exception to the requirement that a person on active duty must be reinstated if the employer can show that the employee would have been laid off, transferred or terminated had he/she not been called to active duty.

So no, Federal law is not going to make your company go broke by holding open jobs for Guardsmen when it really needs to lay people off.

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.

Just for clarification, I don't begrudge our military personnel one cent that they receive, from the government (tax dollars) or from their regular employers. I do believe that paying these highly trained folks to stand around at airport security checkpoints looking really serious is a complete waste of their time and should be stopped immediately. Either station them where they are really needed or send them back home. It would be better for them and for us.

Bruce

I think they have been called up for a good reason. The Guardsmen help create a feeling among the more neurotic people that things are safer. Of course, getting rid of the Argen-not-bright thugs will do a much more, but that's for another conversation.

Look, for people who are on the road a lot, we don't even notice the Guardsmen anymore. And when we do, we just smile and wave and they do the same back.

But your average American, who flies like three times a year on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and one vacation, sees them and thinks, hey, things are okay.

That's very important, unless you don't mind watching the feds backing up loans of airlines that are going belly up.

If you've seen the rates for police details at overtime pay, you'd realize that calling up the National Guard is really a low cost alternative for a show of force at airports.

If we let business owners vote on whether a call-up of the National Guard is justified, there would never be a call-up. We delegate these decisions to Governors and Presidents whom we elect. If you disagree strongly enough to vote for someone else the next time around, that is your right. Until then, it's up to Governors and Presidents, and if you don't like it, it's just tough, as it should be.

We don't have a democracy, we have a representative democracy and a constitutional republic.

"If you've seen the rates for police details at overtime pay, you'd realize that calling up the National Guard is really a low cost alternative for a show of force at airports."

Doubtful, at best. In addition to their regular pay you have to pay a whole slew of secondary support personnel such as clerks, armorers and the like, all of whom also are called up (and paid) to issue the guns and ammo and account for each round as it is turned in etc. Plus commo, maintenance, etc etc...

That off duty police officer is coming at a flat X/per hour and requires none of the secondary personnel/equipment support. Plus frankly, the police officer probvably qualifies more often and is more proficient with his weapon AND has the power of arrest. Far more useful in an airport environment than guys standing around in black berets (Thank the "Army of One" Shinseki for that stupidity) chatting up the security women.

Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: I've nothing against the black beret if you like dressing up as a frenchman.. doesn't do much to keep the rain/snow off your face or shade your eyes in summer though. Tactically it looks cool but isn't useful. Therefore it's dumb. Morale wise it pissed off terribly every ranger who ever earned the right to look french. AND WHY ARE THEY WEARING COVERS INDOOORS AT ALL!!! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif