On Monday President Obama signed into law the bipartisan jobs bill for veterans. The bill called the “VOW to Hire Heroes Act” will provide tax credits of up to $2,400 for employers who hire veterans who have been unemployed at least 4 weeks; up to $5,600 for hiring veterans who have been unemployed longer than 6 months; and up to $9,600 for businesses that hire veterans who have service-connected disabilities and have been unemployed longer than 6 months. There are many articles on the law one of which, by CBS news, can be read here.
The question I have is this; Do you think veterans, who voluntarily chose to enlist and to serve, should receive favorable treatment in terms of hiring incentives over any other unemployed worker in this country? Is this fair? I feel that in terms of health care, the the government should absolutely take care of the vets when they return, especially if they are disabled. However, why does serving in the military on any level equate with special privileges when it comes to finding a job? There are many unemployed people in this country who have not chosen to go to join the military and because they have not chosen to do so, they now have a disadvantage in simple terms of incentives to employers, when looking for work. What are your thoughts on this?
In no way did I say that in a truncated way "being a vet is arbitrary." I am strong believer in supporting the people and their families in the military, and we have multiple programs to support them and their families publicly, in addition to private endeavors.
My grandfather was drafted as infantry during WWII, landed on Normandy D-Day +1, fought through the Battle of the Bulge, was ambushed in Germany and shot through the neck, and sent home with a Purple Heart. Both my dad and my uncle were deployed to Germany on high alert when the USSR invaded Afghanistan and served there for years while my mother and I stayed here alone. I have many friends who have served, one for example who did two full tours in Iraq, another who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and after serving in the latter country is dealing with a lot of problems because of what he experienced. Then I have some friends that quite literally pushed a pencil behind a desk in an office all day and that was the extent of their experience.
Absolutely they should all be rewarded for their service, regardless of what they did. I think education and healthcare provisions are very appropriate, among other things, pensions, etc. There are a lot of ways publicly and privately that we can and do, and will, make an attempt at a fair trade for veterans.
However, what I find arbitrary is that as a U.S. citizen in the job market, where I am attempting to make a livelihood so I can eat and live and support my children, like anyone else, and all other things being a toss-up to some gradient, someone has the potential to take precedence over another, not because of some qualifying nature implicitly related to a job position, but because the government flashes golden dollar signs in the company's face, if only they'll pick one over the other. I find this scenario arbitrary in the employment world. In what other scenario would anyone see this as appropriate, as much as we have already reformed employment laws to fashion "equal opportunity"?
"opportunity regardless of something so arbitrary." It does come across that way in your statement. I see nothing wrong with the government fairly rewarding service members by offering incentives for them to be employed. Unemployment among former military members is extremely high at much higher rates the general population overall because of discrimination. Many employers don't hire recently discharged members because they are still in whats called the ready reserve system where they can be called back into service for years after they "get out" or because of misguided notions about what military members did. Its even worse for the National Guard members who get turned away all the time even though its illegal to take that into consideration.
Certainly... pardon my phrasing.
but they were well-paid for serving the country, weren't they? that "trade" has been already done.
An E-2 (second enlisted rank) gets a base monthly pay of around $1600 U.S which is better than it used to be a few years ago when it was around $1300 U.S. for the same rank. Other allowances and extra pay depend on several things. Not a gravy train that's for sure. For comparison in the Italian military which became all voluntary in 2004 for anyone born after 1985 the average military member made around $54000 US compared to the average Italian citizen that made $30000 U.S in 2009. Only people who have served at least one year in the Italian military can become police or customs agents along with many other benefits. As you can see there is big difference in how Italy treats its soldiers better than we do in the U.S
uhm, actually the soldiers' situation in usa is quite different from the italian situation. thanks for having explained it to me.
Hey you were the one that commented on a "soldier situation" in another country first so its fair game. The fact is Italian service members are paid better for their service which is a good thing. It stands to reason that for you to have the opinion that U.S service members are "well-paid" you would draw from the knowledge of your own nations pay and incentives at the levels they are at currently are at and think that a country like the U.S would pay its members equally. Make no mistake I'm not saying anything negative about Italy in this respect in fact quite the opposite it’s a positive. When Italian soldiers are putting their lives on the line all over the world in the missions that Italy is involved in they should be paid well. I realize there is a complicated history and citizen relationship with the military in Italy so I'm not going to claim to understand all of it for sure I'm just pointing something out as a comparison.
it was a mistake of mine, i should have checked the US soldiers' wage before leaving my comment.
a soldier risks his own life being in a war mission, so i think too it's good for him to be paid better than a simple office worker.
years ago i watched a documentary filmed by an italian director, alberto d'onofrio, about the gulf war and the financial troubles US veterans got into when they discovered that their children's health was seriously damaged because of depleted uranium and crappy vaccines: the US nation was responsible for it but did nothing for it's soldiers, and it is a behaviour i can't accept from a state so proud of its military and national strength.
however, even though i have great respect for their job, isn't their choice to be a member of the US army? it's not a rhetorical question, i'm seriously asking it because i didn't understand it.
if they are volunteer soldiers, i think it wouldn't be correct to give them an advantage in respect to every other individual who is looking for a job as well as they are doing too.
i know that what i'm going to say maybe could sound too "socialist/communist" to you but, for example, also labourers work for you and for the country: they build your houses, and they risk their own lives to do it... should them be advantaged in some way for this reason? don't they deserve it as well as soldiers?
They are engaged in their trade, though, and go home to their families each night. We ask laborors to build houses, not kill other human beings who are trying to kill them (not an insignificant difference).
sure, labourers are engaged until they do their job, as soldiers are engaged until they work as soldiers (anyway my question is still unsatisfied: are they forced to join the army after the military service or is it their own choice? i didn't understand it, actually).
building houses climbing on building stages is dangerous like embracing a machine gun to kill other human beings. and in my opinion it's more useful for you common citizens than fighting wars around the world in order to gain economic advantages for the government (and not for you). neither americans nor italians are threatened by iraqi soldiers, but you would have some trouble if you would spend the night being outdoors during winter, wouldn't you? :)
however i want to reassert it: i respect soldiers' job and i think they should be well-paid in respect of the risks they run.
Behold! A person who thinks that building a home is on par with killing other human beings and dealing with the hell that is war. I'm truly in awe right now. How many carpenters, I wonder, suffer from PTSD compared to combat veterans?