wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,719
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 14, 2011 20:28:43 GMT -5
They could have chosen to do a lot of things to cover her absence but they have chosen not to do those things. Unless they told her differently today. She doesn't need the money, is moving to a different state, and wants to go into another industry, makes this an easy decision.
It is shady of them and gin's employer to give their word and take it back.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,416
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 14, 2011 21:00:43 GMT -5
Pammy, sending <<hugs>> your way!
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 15, 2011 11:14:16 GMT -5
Just thinking out loud - regardless of our personal feelings about this, it doesn't seem like a smart business move for the bank.
Whether or not they'd realistically lose business if word of this got out, it's simply not politically shrewd to play games with military spouses like this. If OP had requested time off for the tennis tournament and her boss had pulled a stunt like this, no one would care. But she specifically requested time to be with her husband who was home from the war, and on a random message board some people are so mad they'd be willing to boycott the bank over it.
I can't imagine why that risk is worth making a stink, from any angle. They may not give a rat's ass about her personally, but if they're short on people, they have to hire and train a new person, PLUS they run the risk of negative media attention for being so cold and unfeeling.
We can all say that the circumstances behind PTO don't matter - but they do. If you're taking the day off to play Frisbee in the park, your boss is totally free to ask you to come in anyway if something comes up (although they should probably still let you make the final call if they already said yes). If you're taking the day off to attend a funeral, it's off limits - period. Any good boss knows that.
And I would say that visiting with your husband who is on leave from a war falls MUCH closer to the latter end of the spectrum. Any good boss knows that too.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 15, 2011 11:29:46 GMT -5
"We can all say that the circumstances behind PTO don't matter - but they do. If you're taking the day off to play Frisbee in the park, your boss is totally free to ask you to come in anyway if something comes up (although they should probably still let you make the final call if they already said yes). If you're taking the day off to attend a funeral, it's off limits - period. Any good boss knows that.
And I would say that visiting with your husband who is on leave from a war falls MUCH closer to the latter end of the spectrum. Any good boss knows that too. "
Not sure I agree that it falls closer to that end of the spectrum. A funeral is an "emergency". I would say it falls closer to that if your husband were home from 1-2 days. Having him home for 2 weeks and asking her to work a day or 2 I think falls much closer to the first example. (again completely dependent on whether those are the only 2 days she's working, or in addition to her scheduled days...and whether or not she requested specific days off or just said she needs "some time at some point".
I think there's a major difference between "I need this one day off for a specific event" and "I want a few weeks off to hang out with someone".
I do agree it's not politically shrewd only because people want to make a bigger deal about "military families" than they should.
|
|
michelyn8
Familiar Member
Joined: Jul 25, 2012 6:48:24 GMT -5
Posts: 926
|
Post by michelyn8 on Mar 15, 2011 11:50:46 GMT -5
I have to ask - as a PT employee, are you even entitled to vacation? Its one thing to have that benefit and be able to schedule time off versus asking to take off 2 weeks.
As much as I appreciate what our servicemen and their families sacrifice, I do have mixed feelings about this situation. On one hand, I can understand why the OP would want to spend as much time as possible with her husband while she is home, but on the other hand I find myself agreeing with schildi and hoops. This bank is a business and the assistant manager is there to do her job (and I'm sure cover her @$$ with her higher ups by ensuring that the branch is sufficiently staffed). If the time off was not requested per policy, the OP was in the wrong.
If it were me, I'd work the two Saturdays. Most banks are only open 1/2 days and this would give your husband time to sleep late, spend time with friends or run some errands. It would be simple to plan to meet for a lunch out after you're off work and do something together that afternoon. That way, he wins, you win and the bank wins. 8 hours in a two week timeframe is small change.
Its not how much time you get to spend with your husband but what you do with that time that matters. If his plans are to be a vegetable half the time he's home, you at home hovering is not going to help him do what I'm sure is such much needed relaxing.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 15, 2011 11:54:17 GMT -5
I think there's a major difference between "I need this one day off for a specific event" and "I want a few weeks off to hang out with someone".
I do agree it's not politically shrewd only because people want to make a bigger deal about "military families" than they should.
Hoops, I really do admire your logical brain but this isn't a case where logic wins the day. Wanting to spend every possible second with your husband who may not make it home again is *very* different from simply "hanging out with someone."
When you're not sure if you'll ever see your loved one alive again, the rules change. People "make a big deal" about military families because basic decency allows for this.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 11:58:17 GMT -5
Just thinking out loud - regardless of our personal feelings about this, it doesn't seem like a smart business move for the bank. Whether or not they'd realistically lose business if word of this got out, it's simply not politically shrewd to play games with military spouses like this. If OP had requested time off for the tennis tournament and her boss had pulled a stunt like this, no one would care. But she specifically requested time to be with her husband who was home from the war, and on a random message board some people are so mad they'd be willing to boycott the bank over it. I can't imagine why that risk is worth making a stink, from any angle. They may not give a rat's ass about her personally, but if they're short on people, they have to hire and train a new person, PLUS they run the risk of negative media attention for being so cold and unfeeling. We can all say that the circumstances behind PTO don't matter - but they do. If you're taking the day off to play Frisbee in the park, your boss is totally free to ask you to come in anyway if something comes up (although they should probably still let you make the final call if they already said yes). If you're taking the day off to attend a funeral, it's off limits - period. Any good boss knows that. And I would say that visiting with your husband who is on leave from a war falls MUCH closer to the latter end of the spectrum. Any good boss knows that too. A would disagree. We are talking two half days out of a two week period, that is nowhere close to the latter end of the spectrum imo. If he was there for the weekend only ... different story. Or if they would ask her to work every day of those two weeks. But from what I read, that's not the case. But it's ok to disagree as well. That's why I think it is reasonable for the OP to quit the job on short notice also.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 18:47:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 12:08:51 GMT -5
My thing is businesses have gotten too used to that they make all the rules, in my case and in the OPs case, it is not true because we can afford to quit. Bosses have forgotten that they can't just decide things because their employees may leave. I can't wait till the economy picks up and more people start leaving and remind bosses of this. However, I shall be reminded my boss early
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,416
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 15, 2011 12:53:49 GMT -5
gin, I totally agree. A lot of companies have been using the bad economy as an excuse to treat their workers poorly, basically with the attitude that "they can't quit, because there's nowhere else for them to go." When the economy gets back to normal, we are going to see a lot of people leaving employers that treat people like dirt.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 15, 2011 14:09:10 GMT -5
Amen to that. Some of these businesses need a major comeuppance.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Mar 15, 2011 14:33:51 GMT -5
there will only be 3 tellers and there's nothing else she can do.
"poor management on your part, does not equal an emergency on mine" "I quit".
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,719
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 15, 2011 17:57:04 GMT -5
I've worked as a temp before and taken time off. I've simply told my supervisor what days I would be gone for. All critically important things were done before I left.
And honestly if she's only getting $300/2 weeks just how many hours do they realistically need to cover?
I'd have to agree with firebird on it being a bad political move. Bad publicity is bad publicity and even if you think we make too big of a deal over military families, there will be news outlets pick the story up and run with it. That is not the kind of publicity you want.
For myself I don't need the hassle of working with a company who can't keep their word. Furthermore I think its her business if she wants to spend every second with her husband. I'd rather be sleeping in on Saturday morning with my husband than getting out of bed and going to work at a job I knew I'd be leaving in a few months anyway.
That bank and the bank who bought them out are located in areas where a lot of people end up serving in the military for lack of other viable options. They support the military families. The buying bank is located in an area where the sheriff is sure to be thrown out in the next election for firing a deputy who was a veteran. Whether or not you agree with that, its the climate in the area and one you won't change overnight if ever.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 15, 2011 22:43:55 GMT -5
For myself I don't need the hassle of working with a company who can't keep their word. This keeps on coming up, but I don't agree, for several reasons. First of all, it was one supervisor (and apparently not the one in charge of approving vacations) that the OP first talked to. That I would not consider "a company not keeping their word". Next, it is absolutely not clear what exactly happened. It sounds like the OP talked to a supervisor (again, who is not in charge of approving vacation) about "a couple weeks off three months down the road", most likely no definate dates, no formal requests. From what I hear, the reply was: "should not be a problem". Heck, in my book, that's not an agreement to have a vacation from April 1st through April 15th. Not at all. And last, the OP did get the two weeks off, except two half days. So what really is the problem? I have myself experienced much, much worse, and had to adjust vacation plans. It has in the past also involved visiting family that I see only once every two years, and I did go in to work to cover a few real important issues. But I did not "insist" on my right to have that time off. I think the issue here is being taken wwaayy overboard, including even the suggestion to boycott this bank. My opinion only, of course, and I could be wrong. I hope pammy has not taken these opinions here (incl. mine) the wrong way, it can be hard when people do not exactly agree with you. But she has not reported back what actually happened yesterday. Would be interesting to know. I still think it would be 100% up to her to quit if she decides to do so.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 16, 2011 11:36:31 GMT -5
And last, the OP did get the two weeks off, except two half days. So what really is the problem?
As people have suggested, what if they had vacation plans? It's one thing if you're a high-ranking employee and your work has a genuine emergency that requires your presence. It's really annoying to be expected, as a low-ranking employee who does a job that someone could easily do in your absence, to rearrange a vacation just to accommodate a half-day of work.
I dealt with this when I was a waitress - we'd make vacation plans, I'd tell my manager about it months in advance and request the time off, only to find that I was on the schedule for one or two shifts during the week I had requested off. So... I'm supposed to... come back from my vacation three days early... to work a shift because you don't feel like finding someone to fill in for me even though I asked plenty far enough in advance to give you time to do so?
That bites. I don't care for employers who treat their lower-ranking employees that way. It's one thing if you're indispensable - but if you're not, that sword should cut both ways. You can be easily replaced, ergo you shouldn't be expected to come in when someone else could easily replace you.
None of that has anything to do with this particular situation, it's just a minor pet peeve of mine. I still maintain that she shouldn't have to do a damn thing when she asked for this time off already and she might never see her husband again. Some things are more important than any job.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 16, 2011 11:51:48 GMT -5
And last, the OP did get the two weeks off, except two half days. So what really is the problem?As people have suggested, what if they had vacation plans? This does not seem to be the case. The reaction at the bank could have been completely different in that scenario also, we do not know that. You could now add all kinds of what-if scenarios. But that is pretty much useless imo. I mean, what if there is her DH's mom's 4th wedding on that second Saturday at 11:30AM?
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Mar 16, 2011 12:08:40 GMT -5
I'd love to hear an update, and hope we get one. Everyone has made good points for both sides of the issue.
I especially liked the one about how the husband might want to come home and just be a vegetable. Military service is intense, and can be very structured. He may want nothing more than to just drift for a little while, and if she has to work, he can do so without feeling guilty.
The point about the difference between "hey I made need some time off in 3 months" (likely if the husbands break was not yet finalized) and "I'll need May 2nd through May 14th off" is also very valid. I can see how each person in the conversation hears something different with the first verbiage.
OP, please let us know whats happening.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 16, 2011 12:10:22 GMT -5
"As people have suggested, what if they had vacation plans?"
If she had vacation plans I would suspect she would have been able to say "I need March 22nd through April 5th off", rather than "I need time off while my husband is home whenever he happens to come home".
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,719
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 16, 2011 18:21:34 GMT -5
You know I might the buy the needing to change vacation plans if she were a higher ranking employee. Let's face facts here, she is a bank teller. She is easily replaceable and I bet most of the people who work at the bank could cover teller shifts. I'd be suprised if they couldn't. Seems like a good policy to cover your backside in case of mass call offs. And if they've been in banking for awhile, they probably worked as a teller at one point in their life.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 16, 2011 18:54:36 GMT -5
You know I might the buy the needing to change vacation plans if she were a higher ranking employee. Let's face facts here, she is a bank teller. She is easily replaceable and I bet most of the people who work at the bank could cover teller shifts. I'd be suprised if they couldn't. Seems like a good policy to cover your backside in case of mass call offs. And if they've been in banking for awhile, they probably worked as a teller at one point in their life.
That was basically my point, but you said it more clearly than I did. If an employee is easily replaceable, then it shouldn't be a big deal to replace them for a single day or week so they can go on vacation like normal people.
If you're higher ranking and your actual person is actually required when you're supposed to be on vacation, that's different. Presumably you are accordingly compensated for the fact that you aren't replaceable, which means that you need to accept the fact that sometimes your vacations will need to be altered/cut short.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,719
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 16, 2011 20:07:20 GMT -5
She's said she doesn't need the money that they can survive on her DH's salary. She's leaving the area to move several states away when he returns in June. Definitely a tell them to kiss it situation.
And if her DH wants to do nothing more than lay around the house so be it. Time you can spend with your loved ones is precious when you might not get much more time. I spent my last college spring break at the hospital and nursing home with my grandpa. He didn't make it half a week after I went back to school and he was doing very well the day I left.
My then boyfriend had an absolute fit when my aunt implied I was there instead of on vacation bc we couldn't afford it. He would have paid for me to be on a cruise with my friends but I was where I needed to be.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 7:24:15 GMT -5
"If an employee is easily replaceable, then it shouldn't be a big deal to replace them for a single day or week so they can go on vacation like normal people. "
Assuming she had specific dates actually requested and approved...I agree. On the flip side, if she's easily replaceable then she's not worth making an exception over if she didn't have specific dates actually approved.
"Of course, if your spouse is in active service, the leave that you don't have with him may be the last time you see him alive."
Which is why it would be ridiculous to not allow her any time off at all. Having her work a couple days in a 2 week span is far less intrusive on their time together. Who wants their wife smothering them 24/7 for 2 weeks even if you haven't seen her in a while? OP has made no mention of going on a trip or doing anything than hanging around the house, so all the comparisons of how this is like a funeral as opposed to someone taking the day off to go to the park are off base imo. This is exactly like taking a day off to go to the park. It's not a one day emergency that if lost is irreplaceable. Is there really 24 hours of planned activity every day for 2 weeks? Heck if she didn't actually request specific days that were approved and simply asked for "some time off in a few months" it seems frankly quite generous of the bank to give her 2 weeks off which were unapproved and only asking that she work a couple days when she'll already be around town anyways.
Again, under the assumption that she didn't actually request specific days (which may not be true), it seems silly for the employer to essentially punish other employees by making them work just because she'd like some time off. There are several types of "political" issues here. One is the idea that the bank becomes viewed as unfriendly toward military families. The other though is that the bank alienates their own full time employees by giving preferential treatment to a part time employee who has no intention of staying employed there long term anyways.
"I spent my last college spring break at the hospital and nursing home with my grandpa."
I would point out that the life expectancy of an elderly person in the hospital is a lot less than that of soldiers in our current military. Everyone seems to want to act as if being in the military is just a presumption of death when the facts are that the death rate is ridiculously low in comparison to how people seem to want to portray the risk. It's far from a realistic presumption that this is the last time she's likely to see her husband.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,719
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Mar 17, 2011 7:47:37 GMT -5
Its not an automatic presumption of death. Its life anything could happen. Which is why I think if you haven't seen someone in awhile and you have an opportunity to spend time with them you should take it. To be blunt no one is guaranteed tomorrow and she could die in some freak accident before he returns in June. And its not like she came on here in a situation where they need her paycheck to get by and asked for permission to quit a job bc they wouldn't give her the entire two weeks off.
We are operating on a whole lot of assumptions here and for all we know she requested March 15-March 30 off and they said ok. Furthermore whatever processes apply to normal employees for requesting time off probably do not apply to her as a temporary employee. I never had a system to enter anything into or paperwork to fill out when I worked as a temp. I just let my supervisor know which days I would be gone.
She's an adult, it is her decision to make. I'm not seeing much downside to her quitting so if that's what she wants to do that is the decision she should make. Life's too short to be unhappy.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 7:59:29 GMT -5
I agree there doesn't seem to be much downside to quitting. I don't even think it's necessarily a bad idea. I just don't think the bank is necessarily being as unreasonable as people want to make it out to be given the unknowns in this situation.
She's not a temp, she's a part time employee (based on what she says at least, I'm assuming her characterization is accurate). Any place I've ever worked the procedures are exactly the same for part time employees, the only difference is they aren't workign 40 hours per week.
"Which is why I think if you haven't seen someone in awhile and you have an opportunity to spend time with them you should take it."
I agree, but that's precisely why I think it's ridiculous to make all of the "look how they treat military families" propaganda. You don't deserve special treatment because your husband chose one career over another. There's no indication you're being treated differently because of it. Just quit and be done with it if you like.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 8:48:59 GMT -5
Having her work a couple days in a 2 week span is far less intrusive on their time together. Who wants their wife smothering them 24/7 for 2 weeks even if you haven't seen her in a while?For some couples, this is true. For others, it's not. Entirely depends on their personalities. DBF and I like hanging out together, but we need our alone time too (so two half days of work for me during a two-week span would probably be okay for us, even under these circumstances). My good friend hates being away from her DF even for the duration of the work day (and vice versa). If they could spend every last second of every day together, that would suit them just fine. So it's totally dependent on the people involved. However, I agree that if she didn't specifically request the two week block the bank is not out of line. To be honest, I never really thought they were; I just also didn't think it was a good idea to make a big mess over this considering the politics involved, and in OP's position I probably wouldn't give a rat's ass if they did anyway. OP, I second or third the call for an update. Can you tell us what happened? We're all riveted
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 9:02:59 GMT -5
Again, under the assumption that she didn't actually request specific days (which may not be true), it seems silly for the employer to essentially punish other employees by making them work just because she'd like some time off. There are several types of "political" issues here. One is the idea that the bank becomes viewed as unfriendly toward military families. The other though is that the bank alienates their own full time employees by giving preferential treatment to a part time employee who has no intention of staying employed there long term anyways.
Again, I can only speak for myself - but I'd be more than happy to work a few extra shifts as a full time employee so a colleague (even a part time one) could spend time with her husband who was home on leave. I bet if they asked, they wouldn't be perceived as being unfair to their full time employees, especially if they didn't require them to come in - I bet they'd have volunteers for all the hours they needed.
I would point out that the life expectancy of an elderly person in the hospital is a lot less than that of soldiers in our current military. Everyone seems to want to act as if being in the military is just a presumption of death when the facts are that the death rate is ridiculously low in comparison to how people seem to want to portray the risk. It's far from a realistic presumption that this is the last time she's likely to see her husband.
Again, true in it's way. But... she mentioned that some of her husband's troop had already been killed. There is a BIG difference between run-of-the-mill military service in a peace zone and being deployed somewhere that people are actively getting killed.
Yeah, none of us knows the day or the hour and all that... but as I said earlier, logic doesn't win the day here. My boyfriend's mom died recently in a freak accident that no one could have ever predicted and that's not likely to happen to any of us ever again (a tree fell on her house during a bad storm and killed her while she was sleeping).
And EVEN THOUGH it was a freak accident that's (probably) never going to happen again, it's been difficult to let him out of my sight since then (and vice versa). When you're in close proximity to death, your perspective changes significantly. It is more difficult to let go, even when the odds are pretty solidly in favor of Nothing Happening. So I can sort of imagine how I'm feeling right now magnified a few thousand times, and it's easy for me to understand why OP wants to spend every last second with her husband.
And at least I DO know that the odds of DBF getting randomly killed are very slim. OP has no such assurance. In other words, it's reasonable for DBF and I to get past the innate nervousness that grips us when we part right now, and go on with our lives - in time, that will get better - but I see absolutely no reason why OP should be made to feel like wanting to spend every second she can with her husband during these precious two weeks is at all unreasonable. It isn't. Even if the odds are technically in favor of her husband coming home, it just isn't.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,448
|
Post by Firebird on Mar 17, 2011 9:12:10 GMT -5
I agree, but that's precisely why I think it's ridiculous to make all of the "look how they treat military families" propaganda. You don't deserve special treatment because your husband chose one career over another. There's no indication you're being treated differently because of it. Just quit and be done with it if you like.
Okay, I promise to make this my last post where I harp on this point, but hoops, you're making me cringe here. Yes, it was her husband's free choice to become a soldier, but that doesn't mean that that his family doesn't deserve special treatment for that choice. Please don't tell me you're against the various military benefits that are extended to soldiers (and not the private sector) in return for their service. Some careers are not equivalent to others, freely chosen or not.
It's a big deal when someone decides to put their country over their family. It's a big deal when they decide to risk making the ultimate sacrifice to voluntarily fight for our country. It's a noble choice. Sure, you *probably* won't get killed in a war. But you might, and it's your duty to do so.
Special consideration can be taken too far, like anything else, but a modicum of it is certainly not unwarranted for people who are willing to put their lives on the line so that you and I can continue to enjoy our freedom.
It's not just military - I feel the exact same way about police officers, firefighters, and anyone else who does a dangerous job to keep other people safe. I would never in a million years say that those jobs are equivalent to just any old career, or that their families don't deserve special consideration for what they do.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 18:47:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2011 9:16:02 GMT -5
I agree, but that's precisely why I think it's ridiculous to make all of the "look how they treat military families" propaganda. You don't deserve special treatment because your husband chose one career over another. There's no indication you're being treated differently because of it. Just quit and be done with it if you like.Okay, I promise to make this my last post where I harp on this point, but hoops, you're making me cringe here. Yes, it was her husband's free choice to become a soldier, but that doesn't mean that that his family doesn't deserve special treatment for that choice. Please don't tell me you're against the various military benefits that are extended to soldiers (and not the private sector) in return for their service. Some careers are not equivalent to others, freely chosen or not. It's a big deal when someone decides to put their country over their family. It's a big deal when they decide to risk making the ultimate sacrifice to voluntarily fight for our country. It's a noble choice. Sure, you *probably* won't get killed in a war. But you might, and it's your duty to do so. Special consideration can be taken too far, like anything else, but a modicum of it is certainly not unwarranted for people who are willing to put their lives on the line so that you and I can continue to enjoy our freedom. It's not just military - I feel the exact same way about police officers, firefighters, and anyone else who does a dangerous job to keep other people safe. I would never in a million years say that those jobs are equivalent to just any old career, or that their families don't deserve special consideration for what they do. I will second the last post. If some people are willing and courageous enough to take a bullet or run into a burning building for me; I am more than willing to make a few exceptions for them. Yes they do know what they were getting into but I do appreciate it tremendously that they did. I don't say give them the world but geeh... let the spouses spend some time with their loved ones because it might be the last time, buy them a drink if you run into them at the bar, or let them get ahead in a waiting line. Is that really too much?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 9:30:46 GMT -5
I won't go into a rant on what I think of the idea that military is somehow a noble choice, but I disagree with nearly everything you've written. I'm intentionally trying to keep my thoughts on the topic off this thread.
Specifically I disagree with the idea that the military is fighting to "protect our freedom" as opposed to various other reasons we send them places, that it's a noble choice vs a career choice like anyone else makes, and the idea that even if you did consider it a noble choice and deserving of reward that someone private citizens who happen to be married to those people deserve special treatment in their private sector jobs.
For the sake of the thread though I'm just going to leave it at "disagreeing" rather than delve into specific arguments for each. I think for the topic of the thread it's enough to say that we vastly disagree.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 17, 2011 9:34:26 GMT -5
"If some people are willing and courageous enough to take a bullet or run into a burning building for me; I am more than willing to make a few exceptions for them."
For the record (i realize i didn't make it clear in my last post), my views on police/firefighters who actually protect people in this country vary greatly from my ideas on people going into other countries to push the US political/economic agenda. Not necessarily on quality of the people because I don't think the military is of poorer quality human beings, but on the nobility of the choice and the subsequent rewards deserved.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 17, 2011 9:49:12 GMT -5
This message has been deleted.
|
|