Coming Back Home
(This is the second in a two-part series on
counties and the impact of call-ups on military
reservists.)
In the case of disability, HR should be quick
to work with the returning soldiers to ensure a safe return to
their former positions. If not, the organization should go far
beyond the obligation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and make sure that it figures out a creative answer, if
at all possible, to maintain the soldierÕs employment in
productive public service work. This positive intervention
approach may extend to providing job counseling for an
employment search by the spouse of the returning
soldier.
The ADA requires that an employer reasonably
accommodate a qualified person with a disability. This must be
done up to the point where the agency can demonstrate that
accommodation would be an undue hardship.
The HR Doctor's position is that with an
employee who is disabled through military combat, there should
hardly be any circumstances in which the undue hardship is
demonstrated. A non-combat disability, on the other hand,
should also require the sympathetic support of the employer
but is, arguably, different qualitatively in our national
conscience than a combat injury.
There is another dimension to employerÕs
support for military service that is more frustrating for an
employer and is unrelated to a particular national crisis.
That is the fact that orders for training or military service
may come, not as the result of crisis, but as a result of
volunteer desire for additional service credit on the part of
an employee serving in the Reserves or National Guard. As the
person approaches retirement or a promotion, they may seek out
all possible opportunities to attend schools, accumulate
additional hours of service or otherwise volunteer for
activities, which may help their military pension
objectives.
In such cases, the employer may find repeated
shorter periods of activation, which can be disruptive to
schedules. The most responsible and accountable employees will
take steps to balance their interests in additional military
service credit with the need to be respectful of the
employerÕs interest as well.
When this doesn't happen, the results can be
another effect of a mandated expense for local government in
the form of additional overtime for other people or
frustrations in scheduling problems for the
supervisors.
A final note about health-related
uncertainties associated with military service. We are now in
a world paying more attention to biological weapons and
chemical weapons. We have learned, or should have learned,
that weapons designed to help win a war may, in fact, actually
increase the victor's losses over time. A case in point is
Agent Orange, with long term and perhaps catastrophic health
affects.
There is often an initial federal response to
such issues, denying any responsibility or denying any links
between health problems such as Gulf War syndrome problems and
military service. When this happens, the burden shifts Ñ again
Ñ to local government benefit programs to bear the burden. In
effect, this contributes to additional costs in insurance
premiums for every employee and member of their families as
well as the local agency.
While local governments support federal policy
through military leave programs such as those described above,
wouldnÕt it be great if the federal government put down the #2
pencil of denial and picked up a shiny fountain pen of support
and understanding for the sacrifices made by local public
employees and by cities and counties throughout the country?
The HR doctor thinks the answer should be a clear "yes" as
loud as a bugle call on a quiet morning. One can only hope
that, Congress and the president will agree that these
examples of unfunded mandates deserve to be
addressed.
Meanwhile, the HR Doctor, formerly known as HR
Captain Rosenberg, salutes his colleagues who may be on active
duty and wishes them a safe deployment and a joyous
return.
Phil Rosenberg
The HR Doctor http://www.hrdr.net/
|