Michigan Lawmakers announce Civil Air Patrol Employee Protection Act

[Bulls729]

I did not see this posted, should be relevant to those in MI

Keep in mind these Bills have not passed, merely announced.

http://gophouse.org/lawmakers-announce-civil-air-patrol-employee-protection-act/

Senate Bill: http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(muq43ta55aniuhqgypcxsow2))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2015-SB-0310

House Bill: http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(szcxxcu41wa54mbcl4sqpfyr))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2015-HB-4537

"Senator Patrick Colbeck and Representative Andrea LaFontaine have introduced legislation to stop discrimination faced by employees who miss work due to their service in the Michigan Civil Air Patrol. The legislation has bi-partisan support.

Senate Bill 310 and House Bill 4537 create the Civil Air Patrol Employee Protection Act, which will protect workers from undue discipline or discharge when they are called up during emergency situations. The legislation also provides a means for employees to bring a lawsuit against an employer who levies unreasonable punishments or dismissal.

"When Michigan is most in need, selfless individuals like those members of the Michigan Civil Air Patrol step forward and offer their skills and expertise to save those in trouble," said Colbeck, R-Canton. "The idea that these hard-working employees could be disciplined for making such a selfless sacrifice is reprehensible. This legislation will protect them from unwarranted discipline and dismissal by employers."

"Those who serve in the Civil Air Patrol deserve employee protections because they're the people we rely on when faced with emergencies," said Rep. LaFontaine, R-Columbus Township. "Members of the Michigan Wing conduct search and rescue missions, aid homeland security and respond to disasters across the Great Lakes State. They should have employee protections, not workplace discrimination."

In addition, the Civil Air Patrol Employee Protection Act would allow employers to consider time spent serving in the air patrol as unpaid time off, thereby adhering to previously negotiated collective bargaining agreements.

SB 310 has been referred to the Senate Commerce Committee and HB 4537 has been sent to the House Committee on Commerce and Trade."

[Майор Хаткевич]

Isn't Michigan one of the "right to work" states? I don't see how this helps, when an employer can just terminate a worker for any other reason.

[N Harmon]

Isn't Michigan one of the "right to work" states? I don't see how this helps, when an employer can just terminate a worker for any other reason.

You mean an "at will employment" state. "Right to work" refers to an employee's right to not join a union. Michigan happens to be both. And while an employer could theoretically side-step this law by citing some other reason for terminating a worker, this law provides a negative consequence if they are discovered doing that.

[LTC Don]

Isn't Michigan one of the "right to work" states? I don't see how this helps, when an employer can just terminate a worker for any other reason.

You mean an "at will employment" state. "Right to work" refers to an employee's right to not join a union. Michigan happens to be both. And while an employer could theoretically side-step this law by citing some other reason for terminating a worker, this law provides a negative consequence if they are discovered doing that.

North Carolina is the same way.  But, we don't have the same protections this law provides, as the NG/Reserves receive. State employees, do receive up to 120 hours per year paid leave to perform emergency services missions, and attend encampments as staff.

[Holding Pattern]

WA Also has a law on the books regarding this IIRC.

[Sapper168]

Illinois has a Civil Air Patrol Leave Act. Went into effect in 2009.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2991&ChapterID=68

[JacobAnn]

I think it's great when state legislatures recognize the value provided by CAP.  I wish more did.

[catrulz]

We have a similar law in MO, unfortunately employers ignore it, and the State Attorney General will not enforce it, unless you are a state employee.  I salute all employers that allow their employees time to perform community service.  I work for a very large company that wants PR for community service, but allows no time off for it.  I had to turn down a mission a couple of moths ago due to this.

[Майор Хаткевич]

IL law is nice, too bad it doesn't apply to my business (2 people), and I'm a partner...so if I'm not there...it don't get dun!

[Johnny Yuma]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

[THRAWN]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

Lousy states rights....

[RiverAux]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

Technically true, but unless you've got some examples of this happening to CAP members, I"m not too worried about it.  The same could be said of National Guard/Reserve job protections and while there have been very rare cases of employers taking illegal actions, there are probably millions of examples over the decades of those who haven't had problems.

The members I know who live in at-will states with similar laws have had no issues. 

[jeders]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

And why would they do that? It costs employers too much to fire someone who is an asset (severance/benefits/unemployment/potential lawsuit) and then hire and train someone new for them to fire someone because the sky is blue. For most employers, if you are a good hard working employee, they won't fire you for going on an occasional mission or training exercise, even without these benefits. The ones that do, usually have much higher turnover rates anyway. Bottom line, that's not the bottom line.

Lousy states rights....

...and employee rights and employer rights...

[Johnny Yuma]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

Technically true, but unless you've got some examples of this happening to CAP members, I"m not too worried about it.  The same could be said of National Guard/Reserve job protections and while there have been very rare cases of employers taking illegal actions, there are probably millions of examples over the decades of those who haven't had problems.

The members I know who live in at-will states with similar laws have had no issues.

It all depends on the employer, of course. However the current job market is precarious with employers taking full advantage of this fact. These are the time when you find out how good a boss you really have.

I've been told by a couple folks I know who work in the HR that more and more employers are playing fast and loose with the ESGR laws thanks to a massive backlog of cases, not enough ombudsmen to work them and that even a few court cases that should have been slamdunks didn't go well for the Guardsman/Reservist.

[Johnny Yuma]

I had a long argument over on FB about this.

Bottom line is if you live in an employment at will state without union or civil service protection this law is worthless.

No, they can't fire you for going on a CAP mission. They'll just fire you because the sky is blue today.

And why would they do that? It costs employers too much to fire someone who is an asset (severance/benefits/unemployment/potential lawsuit) and then hire and train someone new for them to fire someone because the sky is blue. For most employers, if you are a good hard working employee, they won't fire you for going on an occasional mission or training exercise, even without these benefits. The ones that do, usually have much higher turnover rates anyway. Bottom line, that's not the bottom line.

Lousy states rights....

...and employee rights and employer rights...

That all sounds nice and good, the problem is the real world's changed.

Most employers today don't look at the help as an asset, but an expense that they're always looking to reduce. You've got people in the workplace now working 60 hour weeks and forfeiting vacation time because they don't want to be the least productive worker who gets the pink slip next quarter.

Turnover? What's that? In today's world they let you go and the work you did get divvied up among your work group, or someone else's workload just doubled. That the new workplace.

Today's reality is that the only employee rights you have are the ones your employer gives you, especially in an at will employment state, unless you have a CBA or some other employment contract.

[Holding Pattern]

If someone fires you using an out of band excuse instead of the actual reason to get around the law, you probably didn't want to work for them anyhow.

I have worked in both Right to Work states and non-RTW states, and in both cases I've had positive relationships with my employer. Which to me is more important than any RTW law or lack thereof.

[lordmonar]

If your company wants to/needs to fire you or lay you off.....they are going to IAW with any laws or contracts or policies that apply.

Fact of life with living in a capitalist society. 

[Holding Pattern]

As an aside, for those who want a law on the books to compare these pending bills to, here is the WA law:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.12.460

[RRLE]

Turnover? What's that? In today's world they let you go and the work you did get divvied up among your work group, or someone else's workload just doubled. That the new workplace.

And like it or not, it is those co-workers who are more likely to complain about your "playing at CAP" while they work. While you're "out playing", as they see it, they are doing your work and not getting paid for it. Meanwhile you get "to play". "Play" one too many times and the boss will have a choice to make - can your posterior and have a happy work group or let you "play" and keep listening to the complaining. It isn't hard to figure out which way the boss will go - who is also overworked and doing the job of two or more people.

[Майор Хаткевич]

If your company wants to/needs to fire you or lay you off.....they are [hopefully] going to IAW with any laws or contracts or policies that apply.

Fact of life with living in a capitalist society.

AD is not the Corporate/Blue/White Collar World. Admittedly I'm a "pup" in terms of work experience so far, but even in my short time I've heard plenty of horror stories. Are most managers/owners reasonable? Of course. Are there some who are abusive of the system? Definitely.