Subsidizing Pay for Soldiers - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

f6twister · 06-30-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Officer's pay to be subsidized

Cedarburg votes to offset loss when guardsman ships overseas

Posted: June 27, 2005

Cedarburg - City taxpayers will make up the difference between a police officer's salary and his lower military pay while he is called up for active duty, the Common Council decided Monday night.

Officer Michael McNerney's military pay would fall about $1,795 a month short of his police pay, according to city officials.

Aldermen voted unanimously tochange the city's military leave policy to allow for the city to compensate an employee for the difference between the normal city pay and military pay if the military pay is lower.

Under the existing policy, any employee called up for active duty was considered as being on an unpaid leave of absence. But Police Chief Tom Frank stated in a memo to city officials that municipal employees called up for active duty and their families could face "tremendous financial hardship" because of the gap between their city pay and military pay.

Frank, on behalf of McNerney, earlier this month had asked aldermen to consider making up the difference in pay.

McNerney, who served with the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division from 1993 to '97 and is an inactive member of the Wisconsin National Guard, has been with the Cedarburg Police Department since Feb. 14, 2000. His current annual salary is $55,585.

As a soldier serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, his compensation would be about $34,043 annually, including base pay, housing and subsistence, and combat pay, according to city records.

Aldermen said making up the pay difference was the right thing to do. They said the majority of the constituents who contacted them said the city should pay the difference.

"The taxpayers feel this is something we need to pay," Ald. Sandra Beck said.

Ald. Robert Loomis said the leave policy will be reviewed in a year.

McNerney, who is married and has two young children, said he must report for duty on Sunday.

In an interview after the vote, he said he is 99% sure he will be sent to Iraq.

After leaving the Army in 1997, McNerney was placed on inactive reserve status until 2001. In 2000, he signed up for a six-year commitment with the Wisconsin National Guard but became an inactive member and did not participate in training. He received a $1,500 signing bonus, but no other benefits, according to city documents.

He said he was surprised to be called to duty because inactive reserves typically are not called up. However, he earlier told city officials he likely was called up because there is a shortage of people entering the military.

In the interview, McNerney said he was grateful for the support from the city and its citizens.

"It's a big weight off my shoulders," he said about the city agreeing to make up the pay difference.

Only one person spoke out against providing the pay differential.

Sue Lundsten said other people who are not city employees are in situations similar to McNerney's. She said it was the responsibility of families "to support each other in times of crisis and not city government."

Cedarburg's move to make up the difference in pay isn't out of the ordinary. The state and some other municipalities have similar policies.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/jun05/337006.asp

This story had me wondering because two people I work with spent two years in Iraq without any compensation. Their families had to rely solely on the military pay and whatever their spouse brought home to support the family. I would like to see this type of support become federal law. Since the employer must return the person to their job anyway, why not help the family while that person is out of the country on military orders?

pan6467 · 06-30-2005, 10:03 AM

I laugh at these neo cons and their continuous want for bigger federal tax cuts.....

The cities, counties and states just raise theirs. And it is sad that now cities and localities have to "subsidize" our military and the men/women have to buy their own gear.

This is going to go on for years? Yeah, right.

If we continue this war the federal tax rates will have to go up. Communities doing things like this, while nice in gesture will not last (there is no feasible way the can do this indefinitely) nor will the people's blindness to the fact that the administration is more worried about Haliburton making it's billions than our men and women's safety and the families ability to afford to live.

Ustwo · 06-30-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f6twister

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/jun05/337006.asp

This story had me wondering because two people I work with spent two years in Iraq without any compensation. Their families had to rely solely on the military pay and whatever their spouse brought home to support the family. I would like to see this type of support become federal law. Since the employer must return the person to their job anyway, why not help the family while that person is out of the country on military orders?

I see, so you are saying employing a reservist should be a burden on the employer?

Think about it and the implications.

Ustwo · 06-30-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I laugh at these neo cons and their continuous want for bigger federal tax cuts.....

The cities, counties and states just raise theirs. And it is sad that now cities and localities have to "subsidize" our military and the men/women have to buy their own gear.

This is going to go on for years? Yeah, right.

If we continue this war the federal tax rates will have to go up. Communities doing things like this, while nice in gesture will not last (there is no feasible way the can do this indefinitely) nor will the people's blindness to the fact that the administration is more worried about Haliburton making it's billions than our men and women's safety and the families ability to afford to live.

You know, posts far less then this in the 'non-contributing' factor have gotten me warned. Whats your secret pan?

Perhaps we could cut spending else where, like the entitlement programs.

StanT · 06-30-2005, 10:24 AM

I work for a Fortune 500 corporation that has always done this. National Guard and reservists submit paperwork claiming their service pay, my employer pays them the difference from their regular pay. It is considered another benefit (and one that I support). They also continue to carry corporate insurance for their families.

While I wouldn't want to see it made into law, it seems like responsible corporate citizenship.

j8ear · 06-30-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

I work for a Fortune 500 corporation that has always done this. National Guard and reservists submit paperwork claiming their service pay, my employer pays them the difference from their regular pay. It is considered another benefit (and one that I support). They also continue to carry corporate insurance for their families.

While I wouldn't want to see it made into law, it seems like responsible corporate citizenship.

I work for a similar employer.

I also agree that it should not be mandatory.

What is mandatory is signing a contract committing to your national guard or reservist responsibility which could very well involve activation and deployment. This righteous indignation of a burden placed on those who volunteered and signed up KNOWING the implications is concerning to me.

Good for the city of Cedarburg. Nicely done. Hopefully they can afford it.

-bear

ObieX · 06-30-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I see, so you are saying employing a reservist should be a burden on the employer?

Think about it and the implications.

For state or city jobs I don't see a problem with it. Thats what it is in this case.

And the reservist is already a burden on the employer, they're not exactly working while they're out shooting people on the other side of the planet.
Same goes for the thousands of other folks over there now and the businesses they're taken from. I don't think it should be law for regular businesses, the war already has them taking an employment hit. But for city/state/federal jobs, yes i think it should be law. The individual has shifted from an every day government job to one where they are running a major risk of getting killed, they should atleast make what they made at their other government job. To pay them less is an insult.

martinguerre · 06-30-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I see, so you are saying employing a reservist should be a burden on the employer?

Think about it and the implications.

There are already a number of laws concerning reservists as employees. granting extended leave can be a huge burden for a company that has to find a reliable temp, and still keep the job waiting for the reservist when they come back.

that said, i think the proper funding source for making up this shortfall is not the employer, but the federal government. i'd like to know what it would cost before endorsing it, but as a concept it seems reasonable.

Marvelous Marv · 06-30-2005, 07:15 PM

I think it's great when a corporation sees its way clear to do such things.

On the other hand, I'll say the same thing I always say in regard to making it mandatory for government jobs.

This is addressed to the people who would like to give away the taxpayers' money:

"It's not YOUR money. It's wrong for you to give away other people's money."

pan6467 · 07-01-2005, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I think it's great when a corporation sees its way clear to do such things.

On the other hand, I'll say the same thing I always say in regard to making it mandatory for government jobs.

This is addressed to the people who would like to give away the taxpayers' money:

"It's not YOUR money. It's wrong for you to give away other people's money."

How is demanding soldiers get paid liveable wage and not have to pay for their supplies out of pocket, wrong? Because one of the purposes of government is to protect and a well equipped, well paid military is vital for that.

Well equipped so that the they may fight they enemy with at least the weaponry the enemy has............ Well paid because I don't want soldiers out there worrying whether their wives and children have enough moeny to pay the mortgage/rent, utilities and food.

Or are you discussing a possible demand from corporations? In which case you are right, it's cool a company will pay and help but to expect or demand is not right nor acceptable.

martinguerre · 07-01-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

I think it's great when a corporation sees its way clear to do such things.

On the other hand, I'll say the same thing I always say in regard to making it mandatory for government jobs.

This is addressed to the people who would like to give away the taxpayers' money:

"It's not YOUR money. It's wrong for you to give away other people's money."

It's not my money? I didn't pay federal income taxes (wages and cap gains)? I didn't pay my state government either? And my landlord didn't take a portion of the rent to pay the local and county governments?

Yeah, that is MY money. I paid my fair share in to the system, and as such, i think i have a right to have a voice opinions about spending priorities.

I think that claim is such a distraction.

sapiens · 07-01-2005, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

It's not my money? I didn't pay federal income taxes (wages and cap gains)? I didn't pay my state government either? And my landlord didn't take a portion of the rent to pay the local and county governments?

Yeah, that is MY money. I paid my fair share in to the system, and as such, i think i have a right to have a voice opinions about spending priorities.

I think that claim is such a distraction.

Good point! Tax money exists and is collected from all of us. It seems reasonable to voice opinions about spending priorities. People do it all the time.

Marvelous Marv · 07-01-2005, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

It's not my money? I didn't pay federal income taxes (wages and cap gains)? I didn't pay my state government either? And my landlord didn't take a portion of the rent to pay the local and county governments?

Yeah, that is MY money. I paid my fair share in to the system, and as such, i think i have a right to have a voice opinions about spending priorities.

I think that claim is such a distraction.

I could have worded that more clearly. The politicians, who love to beat their chests about all the good "they" do, are not the owners of the money. The taxpayers are.

It was never the intent of the founding fathers that our government take money from some to give to others. In fact, it was anathema.

Thomas Jefferson was once called to task because he wanted to give government funds to a widow. He was told in no uncertain terms, "That's not a proper function of our government." I hope that clears up my statement.

Back to the discussion at hand: You will not find a bigger supporter of our military than I. However, if you require "pay supplements" to all government employee reservists, you've just screwed over all of the self-employed and non-government workers.

You want to give reservists a raise? Fine by me.

Just give it to ALL of them. Don't create a favored class of government workers.

(Corporations can do whatever they want. They're not tax-supported.)

06-30-2005, 10:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I laugh at these neo cons and their continuous want for bigger federal tax cuts..... The cities, counties and states just raise theirs. And it is sad that now cities and localities have to "subsidize" our military and the men/women have to buy their own gear. This is going to go on for years? Yeah, right. If we continue this war the federal tax rates will have to go up. Communities doing things like this, while nice in gesture will not last (there is no feasible way the can do this indefinitely) nor will the people's blindness to the fact that the administration is more worried about Haliburton making it's billions than our men and women's safety and the families ability to afford to live. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-30-2005, 10:24 AM	#5 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	I work for a Fortune 500 corporation that has always done this. National Guard and reservists submit paperwork claiming their service pay, my employer pays them the difference from their regular pay. It is considered another benefit (and one that I support). They also continue to carry corporate insurance for their families. While I wouldn't want to see it made into law, it seems like responsible corporate citizenship.

06-30-2005, 07:15 PM	#9 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	I think it's great when a corporation sees its way clear to do such things. On the other hand, I'll say the same thing I always say in regard to making it mandatory for government jobs. This is addressed to the people who would like to give away the taxpayers' money: "It's not YOUR money. It's wrong for you to give away other people's money."