As the Missouri Wing builds on the successful passage of legislation last session recognizing CAP members as state employees for liability and work comp coverage when flying state-funded missions, our next step will be the passage of legislation allowing CAP members time away from their jobs without being penalized while participating in actual missions.
I believe several other states already have such legislation in place.
Texas? California? Iowa? Suggestions?
Any and all help is greatly appreciated,
Dr. Dave
Chair, Legislative Committee
Missouri Wing
An employment protection bill was introduced into the Colorado legislature just last week.
The bill is HB 08-1097, "Protections for Emergency Volunteers." The bill's sponsor, Rep. Lambert, was originally approached by COWG. However, the sponsor thought that expanding the bill to include other volunteer emergency services workers would be a good idea, hence the broad title. Trying to expand it became more complicated and encroached on Rep. Lambert's deadline for introducing the bill. He reverted back to wording that includes only CAP.
CAP and other groups are working with Rep. Lambert to reword the bill, hopefully to include other volunteers, so the current version will change.
Here is the link to the bill's homepage where a PDF copy can be downloaded.
Colorado HB08-1097 (http://tinyurl.com/35alza)
Mike
Good luck on getting it passed, I really wish we had a law like that in WI.
I don't believe Ca. has anything like that for CAP. I know of some members who's employers do it on a case by case basis, but there is no law that I am aware of.
"AND THE LEAVE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE MEMBER GIVES EVIDENCE TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL SERVICE".
^ Does that mean the mission must be a successfull mission. As we saw in the recent National Search a few months back, it was not successfull.
I hope this goes through, everyone in CAP is deserving of some added protections.
However, I can see members using the 15 days of leave to go work at an AF Base for the new VSAF program. They may treat it like vacation. I see some major abuses coming in the door through that route.
EXAMPLE: Joe blow has been grinding away at Pinky Computer Products all year, has 6 days of vacation saved, and decides he needs to get away. He volunteers for the VSAF program, gets a job from 10AM-2PM at the local Air Force Base and goes to volunteer there for 7 days. He could claim "A full day" of AFAM, for all 7 days. He gets over his "burnout" and heads back to making keyboard keys at Pinky. So instead of using vacation like everyone else does, he weasels out.
I think if members are to receive Work leave for CAP missions, then the VSAF mission should not be part of allowable CAP missions.
Thanks for the info and link to the Colorado legislation.
Much appreciated!
Dr. Dave
Pennsylvania as well
QuoteVOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS - PROHIBIT EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION FOR TIME LOST
Act of 1977, P.L. 249, No. 83
An Act
Prohibiting employers from firing employees who lost time from employment in the line of duty as volunteer firemen, fire police and volunteer members of ambulance services and rescue squads; and providing penalties. (Tit. Amended Dec. 5, 1988, P.L. 1102, No. 131)
http://nvfc.org/page/719/Pennsylvania__Volunteer_Firefighters.htm (http://nvfc.org/page/719/Pennsylvania__Volunteer_Firefighters.htm)
I havent bothered to test the theory yet, but I assume CAP falls under the heading of volunterr rescue squad.
mk
Louisiana gives CAP members the same rights and protections as national guard members if they're activated. I don't have the exact verbage in front on me to clarify further, but you can get the general idea.
Depending on who wins this presidential race, I'm hoping NY'ers will get similar legislation. However, why is this a state level movement? Why not get federal legislation? We generally get activated by the Federal government. Why not make that same government protect us? ALL OF US?
I'd hate to see a situation like 9/11 or Katrina and members in various states trying to figure out why the most competent, trained and equipped wings can't show up (due to lack of employment security in their state)
Depending on who wins this race, a lot of people will get a lot of things that they're "entitled" to. But I bite my tongue on that topic.
^ :-*
Indiana has it....IC 10-16-19
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title10/ar16/ch19.pdf
We also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title20/ar33/ch2.pdf
Thanks all for your assistance, comments, and links!
Dr. Dave
Arkansas - up to two weeks, but applies only to state or municipal employees
Arkansas Code 21-4-104
California allows time for CAP only if your a State Employee, I was talking to a USAF Reserve Technician who told me he gets 5 days leave for CAP.
Quote from: wingnut on January 22, 2008, 04:02:57 AM
California allows time for CAP only if your a State Employee, I was talking to a USAF Reserve Technician who told me he gets 5 days leave for CAP.
Yet another reason to have a FEDERAL law for this. USAFR ARTs are federal employees.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 07:48:54 PM
"AND THE LEAVE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE MEMBER GIVES EVIDENCE TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL SERVICE".
^ Does that mean the mission must be a successfull mission. As we saw in the recent National Search a few months back, it was not successfull.
Edit by myself.....
No what that means is that you have orders cut to let you go on the mission with an estimated time of completion, or you have orders cut when you are done with the mission releasing you back to your employer.
Quote from: sardak on January 16, 2008, 08:36:32 AM
An employment protection bill was introduced into the Colorado legislature just last week. The bill is HB 08-1097, "Protections for Emergency Volunteers."
Here is the link to the bill's homepage where the history of the bill is documented and a PDF copy of it can be downloaded.
Colorado HB08-1097 (http://tinyurl.com/35alza)
Mike
The bill passed the House on a vote of 62-1 last week and was introduced into the state Senate today, February 20. The bill contained five amendments which were more or less expected. Though the bill originally stated protection just for CAP, the bill's author wanted the bill to cover all volunteer emergency services workers, and the amendments did that. Intricacies of public law making are more complex than simple, so it took five amendments to achieve what most of thought could be done in a couple of sentences. The link above is still valid for viewing the bill and its history.
Members of COWG, the Colorado Search and Rescue Board, Colorado State Fire Chiefs Association and Colorado Division of Emergency Management spoke during the hearings.
Three concerns were voiced by others during the hearings. The points are valid and I bring them up not to start some off topic discussion, but simply for information. These are points of view that those of us involved in volunteer emergency services might be blind to.
One was that the bill forces employers to support volunteer activities that can interrupt their businesses. This clearly affects small employers more than large ones.
A second concern was that the bill forces an employer to support an activity that the employer might not otherwise believe in or support.
The third was the bill discriminates against volunteers in non-emergency services.
Mike
Not really in Texas, not the employment protection/leave anyway. Hope to get something like that soon, but election years are a bad time.
Quote from: John Bryan on January 17, 2008, 10:09:27 PM
Indiana has it....IC 10-16-19
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title10/ar16/ch19.pdf
We also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title20/ar33/ch2.pdf
Col. Bryan,
Does that mean the school must or can grant that leave? I've got a cadet(give you 3 guesses which one and 2 guesses don't count;-) that wants to be able to do this but I didn't think the law had been passed yet.
Quote from: mikeylikey on January 16, 2008, 07:48:54 PM
"AND THE LEAVE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF THE MEMBER GIVES EVIDENCE TO THE EMPLOYER OF THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE CIVIL AIR PATROL SERVICE".
^ Does that mean the mission must be a successfull mission. As we saw in the recent National Search a few months back, it was not successfull.
I hope this goes through, everyone in CAP is deserving of some added protections.
However, I can see members using the 15 days of leave to go work at an AF Base for the new VSAF program. They may treat it like vacation. I see some major abuses coming in the door through that route.
EXAMPLE: Joe blow has been grinding away at Pinky Computer Products all year, has 6 days of vacation saved, and decides he needs to get away. He volunteers for the VSAF program, gets a job from 10AM-2PM at the local Air Force Base and goes to volunteer there for 7 days. He could claim "A full day" of AFAM, for all 7 days. He gets over his "burnout" and heads back to making keyboard keys at Pinky. So instead of using vacation like everyone else does, he weasels out.
I think if members are to receive Work leave for CAP missions, then the VSAF mission should not be part of allowable CAP missions.
The legislation simply says they cannot fire you for doing CAP work. It doesn't require your employer to pay you.
Joe Blow can take the time off CAP, but Pinky isn't obligated to pay him for that week.
Wish IL had this, not just for CAP but vollunteer Fire and EMS as well.
WIWG might be getting leave now. Just got word that the state will be voting on allowing unpaid leave for CAP ES missions. Unfortunately its short notice and they will be voting on the 13th so we have to hurry to submit our opinions.
The bill gives permission for unpaid leave as long as the following conditions are met.
Quote1. The employee is a member of the Civil Air Patrol.
2. Prior to the emergency service operation, the employee notifies the employer in writing that the employee is a member of the Civil Air Patrol.
3. For an emergency service operation that begins before the employee is required to report for work, the employee provides a written statement from the employee's wing commander certifying that the employee was participating in an emergency service operation at the time of the leave of absence, if required by the employer.
4. For an emergency service operation that begins after the employee reports for work, the employee, in ddition to providing that written statement if required by the employer, secures authorization from the employer to leave work before leaving to participate in the emergency service operation.
5. The leave of absence does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.
The bill also prohibits employers from discriminating against or terminating employment because of membership in or participation in the activities of CAP.
Its number five that botches it for me. Im a manager so taking time off on short notice tends to cause undue disruption.
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on March 07, 2008, 05:47:54 AM
WIWG might be getting leave now. Just got word that the state will be voting on allowing unpaid leave for CAP ES missions. Unfortunately its short notice and they will be voting on the 13th so we have to hurry to submit our opinions.
The bill gives permission for unpaid leave as long as the following conditions are met.
Quote1. The employee is a member of the Civil Air Patrol.
2. Prior to the emergency service operation, the employee notifies the employer in writing that the employee is a member of the Civil Air Patrol.
3. For an emergency service operation that begins before the employee is required to report for work, the employee provides a written statement from the employee's wing commander certifying that the employee was participating in an emergency service operation at the time of the leave of absence, if required by the employer.
4. For an emergency service operation that begins after the employee reports for work, the employee, in ddition to providing that written statement if required by the employer, secures authorization from the employer to leave work before leaving to participate in the emergency service operation.
5. The leave of absence does not unduly disrupt the operations of the employer.
The bill also prohibits employers from discriminating against or terminating employment because of membership in or participation in the activities of CAP.
Its number five that botches it for me. Im a manager so taking time off on short notice tends to cause undue disruption.
Looks good except for #5, but I can understand #5 though... IMHO it wouldn't be fair to the employer if you could just pack up and go if you were the only supervisor to manage two or one employee since they could not lock up and they would not have a clue when you would be back. OTOH, if the wing is understaffed for that particular call out then the fact that one person could not respond because of #5 can put a hindrance on operations if that person were in dire need.
Pretty much the case. I've been lucky though, all but one of the missions I've been on have landed on my off days. The one day I took off was before I was a manager though.
Mind if I ask what you manage SARKID?
-- Just curious seeing as you could be a Sr in HS or a Soph in College.
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 07, 2008, 07:34:29 AM
Mind if I ask what you manage SARKID?
-- Just curious seeing as you could be a Sr in HS or a Soph in College.
I night manage a franchise Piggly Wiggly, and I'm a first semester college dropout.
Illinois has similar legislation pending:
http://tinyurl.com/yrgjyn
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Civil Air Patrol Leave Act. Requires that an employer, including the State and units of local government, grant unpaid leave to its employees who are civil air patrol members performing a civil air patrol mission. Exempts employers with fewer than 15 employees. Bases the maximum amount of leave on the size of the employer's workforce. Protects the employee's pre-leave benefits, requires restoration of benefits after the leave, and authorizes civil enforcement actions. Preempts home rule.
Funny how the state that lost the most during 9/11 and claims to have the best prepared personnel to fight terrorism and natural disasters doesn't have these laws. Also funny how a certain senator from the same state who is running for president on the platform of taking care of people and of national security hasn't creates such in her state.
Turkal,
Having been in a similar position at Pick 'n Slave BITD
(a wednesday) that you are in, I'd venture that your absence, while causing inconvenience to your boss, would not necessarily cause undue disruption.
Public Safety officers such as PD and FD personnel, sure. A grocery manager... not so much. I'd hope that your employer is already familiar with what you do. Being that you are fairly active and have the support of your awesome squadron CC to back you up, I'd like to think that the employer will accept the law if passed. Surely there are other managers in the store to face the product and tell people where the Durkee fried onions are. :D
Plus, it's not like the bill would allow carte blanche absence from work for exorbitant periods of time. It looks pretty tame as it's written.
YM
and fried onions aisleMV
Quote from: afgeo4 on March 08, 2008, 05:25:31 AM
...Also funny how a certain senator from the same state who is running for president on the platform of taking care of people and of national security hasn't creates such in her state.
Please leave elected-official bashing out of this thread. Regardless of anyones opinion, it tends to go south fast.
Quote from: tedda on March 08, 2008, 05:55:24 AM
Turkal,
Having been in a similar position at Pick 'n Slave BITD (a wednesday) that you are in, I'd venture that your absence, while causing inconvenience to your boss, would not necessarily cause undue disruption.
Public Safety officers such as PD and FD personnel, sure. A grocery manager... not so much. I'd hope that your employer is already familiar with what you do. Being that you are fairly active and have the support of your awesome squadron CC to back you up, I'd like to think that the employer will accept the law if passed. Surely there are other managers in the store to face the product and tell people where the Durkee fried onions are. :D
Plus, it's not like the bill would allow carte blanche absence from work for exorbitant periods of time. It looks pretty tame as it's written.
YMand fried onions aisleMV
I see what you're getting at, but our store is a bit different. PigWigs tend to be a bit smaller, and ours doubly so (it used to be a Sentry, which ran even smaller than an average Pig). The day hinges on the manager in charge. Without them there, there would be a lot of chickens with their heads cut off (and not just in the meat department (hehe, grocery humor)). The manager schedule is pretty well locked. We actually have five managers, the head manager, myself, and three guys that work about one day a week because they hold down full time jobs and go to college. Its dang hard for me to change my schedule after its written, especially on short notice of the REDCAP persuasion.
That being said, number five is still my problem. I'd very much like it if they did one of two things. First, and this is horridly unlikely, strike it all together (not happening). Or second, define what constitutes "undue disrupt" so that when my boss says "no CAP for you" I can definitively say that I'm not causing undue disrupt to the store.
Perhaps if your store was more like this, you could Force (http://www.blamesociety.net/chadvader/index.php) the change. ;)
Mike
Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2008, 09:59:36 AM
Perhaps if your store was more like this, you could Force (http://www.blamesociety.net/chadvader/index.php) the change. ;)
Mike
THAT. WAS. EPIC.
Can't say I've done Vader, but I did wear fuzzy bunny ears for Easter last year.
Quote from: tedda on March 08, 2008, 05:55:24 AM
Turkal,
Having been in a similar position at Pick 'n Slave BITD (a wednesday) that you are in, I'd venture that your absence, while causing inconvenience to your boss, would not necessarily cause undue disruption.
Public Safety officers such as PD and FD personnel, sure. A grocery manager... not so much. I'd hope that your employer is already familiar with what you do. Being that you are fairly active and have the support of your awesome squadron CC to back you up, I'd like to think that the employer will accept the law if passed. Surely there are other managers in the store to face the product and tell people where the Durkee fried onions are. :D
Plus, it's not like the bill would allow carte blanche absence from work for exorbitant periods of time. It looks pretty tame as it's written.
YMand fried onions aisleMV
Quote from: afgeo4 on March 08, 2008, 05:25:31 AM
...Also funny how a certain senator from the same state who is running for president on the platform of taking care of people and of national security hasn't creates such in her state.
Please leave elected-official bashing out of this thread. Regardless of anyones opinion, it tends to go south fast.
No matter who you support or don't support, the fact that New York doesn't have such a law is a sad fact.
Quote from: sardak on March 08, 2008, 09:59:36 AM
Perhaps if your store was more like this, you could Force (http://www.blamesociety.net/chadvader/index.php) the change. ;)
Mike
Indeed epic/funny too!
The Colorado bill passed today. Tentative signing day will be CAP Day on April 24, 2008.
The bill provides employment protection very similar to that for the Guard and Reserve for CAP members on actual ES missions, up to 15 work days per calendar year. For CAP members who are public employees, the bill provides for leave with pay, private sector employees are provided leave without pay.
Other "qualified [emergency] volunteers" (SAR, Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) are covered as well. There are a couple of differences between protection for these volunteers and CAP members. For qualified volunteers:
a. Employers do not have to provide leave to more than 20% of their employees on any work day. This was included instead of trying to define what size employer should be exempt.
b. Leave does not have to be provided to employees deemed "essential," the definition of which is in the bill. For private employers only, employees "whose duties include disaster recovery for the employer" are not covered by the law.
The provisions for qualified volunteers are far more involved than what we thought was necessary, but we'll take it.
The bill as passed, in PDF, is here: Colorado CAP Employment Protection Bill (http://tinyurl.com/yqm42w)
I hate to distract from the celebration, but I have to mention that in all the votes on the bill in the House, there was one nay voter each time, Representative Douglas Bruce. For Coloradoans, the name is familiar. For others, I direct you to Rep. Bruce's Wikipedia page: Doug Bruce Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Bruce)
This is Rep. Bruce's first term in the legislature. Before he was even sworn in, he was involved in two incidents, one which led him to become the first member in history to be censured by the Colorado House. After he was sworn in, he was assigned to the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, to which the CAP bill was assigned.
Every year this committee passes a resolution honoring the military men and women of Colorado. Rep. Bruce refused to sign the resolution, saying resolutions are frivolous and a waste of legislators' time. He was promptly booted off the committee. The district Rep. Bruce represents is in El Paso County, home of NORTHCOM, US Space Command, NORAD, Peterson AFB, Schreiver AFB, the US Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, COWG HQ and RMR CAP-USAF HQ.
Mike
Edited for punctuation.
Congratulations on getting the bill passed!
I just thought of something - If I can read through all the laws for other states concerning CAP leave, and find a culmination of definitions of which employees are "essential" to employers, I might be able to form a definition of sorts giving me good leverage in number 5 of the WI bill...
I say Hooray for our side, Let's get the ball rolling in California
Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on March 08, 2008, 08:19:37 AM
The day hinges on the manager in charge. Without them there, there would be a lot of chickens with their heads cut off ...
I have always believed that if a manager cannot take off at a moment's notice, then something is wrong with management. After all, what would happen to the store if you were hit by a bus on the way to work? Somehow the store would get by. Most CAP missions would be a few days at most. Sure it would be an inconvenience and someone above you may have to fill in for a bit, but that's part of the job of senior management.
I'll grant this doesn't help your immediate situation, but it's something to think about.
Congratulations, Colorado!
We're working on it in Missouri.
Again, my sincere thanks to all who've added to this discussion.
Would a list of the state bills I've accumulated, and their links be helpful for this thread?
Dr. Dave
Ultimately, CAP needs to be covered under the Federal leave act for Reserve and National Guard troops. State leave acts are great, it's a step in the right direction but it's my opinion that CAP as the USAF Aux. should be covered under the Federal military Leave Act for actual ES/AF Missions.
QuoteWould a list of the state bills I've accumulated, and their links be helpful for this thread?
Dr. Dave
Yes, diefinetely!
QuoteWe also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
WIWAC, Our parents simply called and told the school we wouldn't there. There was only one time anyone ever questioned it and he was answered with a reply from my father that I'm unable to print.
That vice principal never again questioned parental authority to excuse their children from classes ever again from my parents.
Okay, heres the word folks. The bill didn't get passed because the session ended before it could be voted on. BUT, I was talking to the wing king over the weekend (WIWG cadet comp) and he said that we had the full support of our legislation. The bill will be reintroduced next session, and is expected to be passed with out any trouble. So not only will we get our law, but we've also introduced many of the states representatives to CAP and put our name and reputation into the mix.
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 15, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
QuoteWe also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
WIWAC, Our parents simply called and told the school we wouldn't there. There was only one time anyone ever questioned it and he was answered with a reply from my father that I'm unable to print.
That vice principal never again questioned parental authority to excuse their children from classes ever again from my parents.
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2008, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 15, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
QuoteWe also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
WIWAC, Our parents simply called and told the school we wouldn't there. There was only one time anyone ever questioned it and he was answered with a reply from my father that I'm unable to print.
That vice principal never again questioned parental authority to excuse their children from classes ever again from my parents.
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
That is sad, because CAP excuses cadets for school activities! However, sports practice is important too so there has to be a balance; which is why many cadets whom I've met in my squadron are all doing sports rather than CAP because of time constraints and for the reason they get reprimanded when they miss practice.
I don't see why a coach couldn't excuse them from one or two practices since CAP is more than willing to excuse cadets for school activities otherwise.
Quote from: mynetdude on March 17, 2008, 02:53:57 AM
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
That is sad, because CAP excuses cadets for school activities! However, sports practice is important too so there has to be a balance; which is why many cadets whom I've met in my squadron are all doing sports rather than CAP because of time constraints and for the reason they get reprimanded when they miss practice.
I don't see why a coach couldn't excuse them from one or two practices since CAP is more than willing to excuse cadets for school activities otherwise.
Frankly, and my bias will show, because most schools no longer place sports in the perspective they should be. One situation was on Memorial day when a coach would not excuse a cadet to march in a parade on a day when the school itself was closed.
As I understand it, the cadet quit the sport.
Perspective, coach.
I agree on pricipal that as kids hit high school age they need to start learning that life is choice, and that despite what they have been told, they can't do
everything, but no student should have to make a choice between sports or CAP for a situation like this.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2008, 03:47:35 AM
Quote from: mynetdude on March 17, 2008, 02:53:57 AM
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
That is sad, because CAP excuses cadets for school activities! However, sports practice is important too so there has to be a balance; which is why many cadets whom I've met in my squadron are all doing sports rather than CAP because of time constraints and for the reason they get reprimanded when they miss practice.
I don't see why a coach couldn't excuse them from one or two practices since CAP is more than willing to excuse cadets for school activities otherwise.
Frankly, and my bias will show, because most schools no longer place sports in the perspective they should be. One situation was on Memorial day when a coach would not excuse a cadet to march in a parade on a day when the school itself was closed.
As I understand it, the cadet quit the sport.
Perspective, coach.
I agree on pricipal that as kids hit high school age they need to start learning that life is choice, and that despite what they have been told, they can't do everything, but no student should have to make a choice between sports or CAP for a situation like this.
I agree, as I see it in both ways... now requiring practice on a national holiday just kindof goes against it especially if the cadet wants to participate in a parade march for CAP or whatever service organization they participate (AFJROTC, whatever).
When I was a kid, I didn't get the opportunity to be a cadet. But then again I wouldn't have ever had time or could do well anyway. Now I'm an adult, I am able to decide how/what I want to do yet I still can't do everything either.
Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2008, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 15, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
QuoteWe also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
WIWAC, Our parents simply called and told the school we wouldn't there. There was only one time anyone ever questioned it and he was answered with a reply from my father that I'm unable to print.
That vice principal never again questioned parental authority to excuse their children from classes ever again from my parents.
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
IMHO, this is where the schools need to be sharply reminded as to who's the parent and who's simply a school employee paid for by said parent's tax dollars.
But then again, I had a H.S. principal who was a guardsman and pretty much treated CAP cadets like we had a duty outside of school when it came to missions. His Vice principals, however, were a different story...
I wonder if this applies to the cadets of the school programs ::)
Bump
WI is introducing our leave bill again. Hopefully this session we won't run out of time and actually get the darn thing passed! :)
http://resdon111.googlepages.com/2009LegislativeBillLRB-1340.pdf
Quote from: Eclipse on March 17, 2008, 02:50:53 AM
Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 15, 2008, 06:28:54 PM
QuoteWe also protect cadets who miss school for missions IC 20-33-2-17.2
WIWAC, Our parents simply called and told the school we wouldn't there. There was only one time anyone ever questioned it and he was answered with a reply from my father that I'm unable to print.
That vice principal never again questioned parental authority to excuse their children from classes ever again from my parents.
Sadly, I have had more than one occasion where a >COACH< refuses to excuse a cadet from practice for a CAP activity.
Ridiculous.
Probably not from the coach's point of view or the other members of the team. An ES mission perhaps, but not for an activity other than that. You join a team, you make a commitment. And frankly, one of life's lesson is that you can't do everything.
Quote from: Ricochet13 on February 17, 2009, 12:03:13 AM
Probably not from the coach's point of view or the other members of the team. An ES mission perhaps, but not for an activity other than that. You join a team, you make a commitment. And frankly, one of life's lesson is that you can't do everything.
I tend to agree, and could be quoted here and elsewhere telling people that "life is choice", however with that said, a lot of high school coaches need to get over themselves and realize that they aren't coaching pro teams and missing an occasional practice, or even a game, for something
else worthwhile should not be the end of the world.
I could see a huge problem with an employer if the CAP member employee starts recruiting people at his/her work place. I wouldn't blame a boss or manager from getting upset. Although, I dont see a lot of people clocking out to go look for an ELT and loose a day of pay.
I would anticipate some of your fellow employees who are Reservists or Guard members might be giving you the cold shoulder. I wouldnt be walking around my work place making a huge deal out of taking time off to go look for an ELT.
Its interesting CAP is pushing for the same protection as a military member who is involuntarily called to duty. CAP members CHOOSE to get "activated". Military members don't.
As far as cadets leaving school to go look for ELTs...Uhhhhh...No. And I dont blame coaches for telling a cadet they need to make a decision either.
There are a number of members here who claim they have told their cadets they need to choose or risk being tossed from CAP. - (I edited/added this)
The coach has a job to do. Telling a student/cadet they need to choose isnt evil. Some of you are going to fall out of your chairs, but I would have no issue at all if a cadet placed CAP on the back burner for a sport. None. We'll put the cadet on hold, and when they return they can pick up where they left off. I have had many cadets who have only been able to attend 2 meetings per month because of a deal they struck with their coach. No problem.
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 17, 2009, 12:10:57 AM
I could see a huge problem with an employer if the CAP member employee starts recruiting people at his/her work place. I wouldn't blame a boss or manager from getting upset. Although, I dont see a lot of people clocking out to go look for an ELT and loose a day of pay.
Be interesting to hear whether they continue to complain about the loss of pay when they're summoned for jury duty, though...
Quote from: Flying Pig on February 17, 2009, 12:10:57 AM
I could see a huge problem with an employer if the CAP member employee starts recruiting people at his/her work place. I wouldn't blame a boss or manager from getting upset. Although, I don't see a lot of people clocking out to go look for an ELT and loose a day of pay.
I would anticipate some of your fellow employees who are Reservists or Guard members might be giving you the cold shoulder. I wouldn't be walking around my work place making a huge deal out of taking time off to go look for an ELT.
Its interesting CAP is pushing for the same protection as a military member who is involuntarily called to duty. CAP members CHOOSE to get "activated". Military members don't.
Generally this is not for ELT's, this is is for extended missions such as we just had in KY - some members were down there more than a week and off work at least 5 days.
Unlike the military, CAP deployments are generally incredibly last-minute, and very short-term (1-2 weeks max).
Unlike the military, CAP members are not receiving pay of any kind (other than possibly a small per diem), and are likely
either taking vacation time or unpaid leave.
I don't think its unreasonable to expect that their job is protected when they "have" to leave to go help someone else, especially when you consider all the other situations which are now protected for extended leave, not the least of which is FMLA that can be activated with little warning for any number of reasons leaving a boss with an empty, protected chair for up to 12 weeks.
Yeah.....I guess Im middle of the road with this. As long as the CAP member is smart about it, and we police our own ie. people using CAP as an excuse to take a day off, it would be a huge plus for CAP. With this economic climate, I guess I feel for the business owner who has yet another mandated law to let people leave. Not to mention the business managers who are forced to call an employee in on Overtime to fill the loss. Like I have said before, Im not opposed really. Losing volunteers, Air Crews, Ground Crews, etc. because they will get fired from their job could really cause CAP to suffer in its roles.
There is now a proposal into the New York State legislature for authorization for paid leave for Civil Air Patrol members performing duties for the organization.
The proposed bill allows for up to 20 days of paid leave to perform training and/or actual missions for State and local government employees. The bill doesn't specify that Air Force orders must be present and states that the training/mission must be approved by the member's CAP commander. The bill also stipulates that the member's seniority and position must not be lost during that leave.
I think it's a great idea that must be extended to private sector employees as well. Not enough senior members would be activated in New York if you only activated the ones who work for the government. I also think the word "training" should be better clarified. As it is, "training" could mean regular meetings, SAREXs, random flights with training mission numbers, encampments, etc. I think using the law for all those would be abusive to the employers. I think activations for Disaster Relief missions, search and rescue missions, and encampments should be the criteria. Why? Because the rest of the training can easily be and usually is done on weekends or during free time. Paid time off for encampments is essential to keep encampments well staffed and for the members not to go crazy using up half of all their annual vacation time working.
You can't force the private sector to give people paid anything. The military is not afforded a benefit like that, why would CAP?
I'm all for job protection for emergencies and disasters, especially because in many cases you might be piling sandbags at or near your employers front door, but going to an encampment, or NESA, is a personal choice, and allowing protection in those cases would leave a pretty wide door open for abuse.
It should be mission-number based activities only, preferably on written orders.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 01, 2011, 08:29:20 PM
You can't force the private sector to give people paid anything.
Sure you can. Whether or not its a good idea is another story.
Quote from: afgeo4 on September 01, 2011, 07:26:28 PM
I think it's a great idea that must be extended to private sector employees as well.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I don't know about New York, but if they tried doing that here in Texas, it would never pass. In fact, it would probably result in a whole bunch of CAP members being laid off.
Quote
Paid time off for encampments is essential to keep encampments well staffed and for the members not to go crazy using up half of all their annual vacation time working.
We seem to be doing fine without it.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 01, 2011, 08:40:18 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 01, 2011, 08:29:20 PM
You can't force the private sector to give people paid anything.
Sure you can. Whether or not its a good idea is another story.
It would never pass, nor would it stand up to a court challenge.
It's one thing to offer job protection, which in theory is cost-neutral, it's another to mandate paying someone for not being there.
Well, whether or not it would pass is entirely different from whether or not a state could pass such a law. There are all sorts of things that states can legally make companies do and pay for and I don't see any difference here.
Again, not that I'm in favor of it, but it could be done.
Quote from: afgeo4 on September 01, 2011, 07:26:28 PM
There is now a proposal into the New York State legislature for authorization for paid leave for Civil Air Patrol members performing duties for the organization.
The proposed bill allows for up to 20 days of paid leave to perform training and/or actual missions for State and local government employees. The bill doesn't specify that Air Force orders must be present and states that the training/mission must be approved by the member's CAP commander. The bill also stipulates that the member's seniority and position must not be lost during that leave.
I think it's a great idea that must be extended to private sector employees as well. Not enough senior members would be activated in New York if you only activated the ones who work for the government. I also think the word "training" should be better clarified. As it is, "training" could mean regular meetings, SAREXs, random flights with training mission numbers, encampments, etc. I think using the law for all those would be abusive to the employers. I think activations for Disaster Relief missions, search and rescue missions, and encampments should be the criteria. Why? Because the rest of the training can easily be and usually is done on weekends or during free time. Paid time off for encampments is essential to keep encampments well staffed and for the members not to go crazy using up half of all their annual vacation time working.
You've never operated a business have you? Such laws, even with unpaid leave, are significant burdens on small businesses in particular. You have an employee who can be called away at the drop of a hat, and if you make such leave paid, then that employee is both (a) not being productive, and (b) costing you money.
I know HR people in a state with such a law that would probably recommend against hiring such prospective employees.
For State and Federal government, giving employees paid leave for CAP (or other disaster-related agencies and services), would, in many cases, be coast-neutral or even positive.
John makes $100 a day, for the state no matter where he is standing, and assuming his job is not mission critical, if he goes to throw sandbags or fly an observation sortie, that's still only $100 day, vs. his $100 + whatever the bagger or observer would cost to hire outside.
In public service, it is ultimately the same pool of money.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 02, 2011, 03:26:11 AM
For State and Federal government, giving employees paid leave for CAP (or other disaster-related agencies and services), would, in many cases, be coast-neutral or even positive.
John makes $100 a day, for the state no matter where he is standing, and assuming his job is not mission critical, if he goes to throw sandbags or fly an observation sortie, that's still only $100 day, vs. his $100 + whatever the bagger or observer would cost to hire outside.
In public service, it is ultimately the same pool of money.
That makes an assumption that that employee would do no productive work during that time...I'll admit it's not an outlandish assumption when applied to government employees, but...
Joe takes a day of mandated paid leave for CAP - he's backfilled by someone being paid overtime. Net result is Joe's $100/day costs $250/day to the company. Or Joe isn't backfilled and his work remains. He's then paid overtime or comp time to compete the work he should have done while he was off CAPing.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
What is this word?
Overtime?
The Alabama legislature passed a leave law last summer.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2009rs/bills/sb599.htm (http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2009rs/bills/sb599.htm)
That's outstanding! Up to 168 hours a year.
Raise your hand if you want to go in and tell your boss you want to go 'play with CAP' and it doesn't matter since your job is noncritical to the government agency or private employer and/or it can 'wait until you get back'.
Did you raise your hand? Good - you also just put yourself at the head of the list for the next downsizing.
I know several folks that have been doing it for years and they haven't been downsized yet. Could it happen? Sure, we hear stories every now and again about employers who violate the rights of those in the NG and Reserves so I could imagine it happening to CAP members (or SDF members or CG Aux members in states with leave legislation for them).
One would assume....law or no law......employees would work with their employers when they are requesting this time off.
If you job is really that critical.....or that close to the chopping block.....I would not expect you to jepordise your career just for CAP.
What this does do....is give CAP members to flexibility to donate their time to CAP with out sacraficing things like rent, food, car payments, family vacation time.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 02, 2011, 11:18:12 PM
I know several folks that have been doing it for years and they haven't been downsized yet. Could it happen? Sure, we hear stories every now and again about employers who violate the rights of those in the NG and Reserves so I could imagine it happening to CAP members (or SDF members or CG Aux members in states with leave legislation for them).
The problem with some reservists & guardsman is that they continue to "volunteer" for duty because they can't make up their mind what 'career' they really want to be in, yet expect their employer to be happy about this. I am not talking about personnel that are involuntarily called up, surely the law should protect them; HOWEVER, there's abuse in taking advantage of this law and even some government agencies are not happy with their employees doing this.
The same thing applies to Civil Air Patrol duties, each member needs to talk with their employer and see what if anything can be done. HOWEVER, policy wide if you do it for one employee in one voluntary organization, likely you have to do it for every voluntary organization.
The bottom line in this is employers hire personnel to staff their company/agencies and there's an expectation that the individual will be on the job EVERY day, doing what is best for that company/agency. Regardless of any laws (or even policy), career wise being off the job doing something else can be detrimental to an individuals' career. That's a decision each Civil Air Patrol member is going to have to decide for themselves.
RM
RRLE and Radio - I know this may come as a shock, but there are thousands of companies which actually encourage and even fund employees
doing volunteer service. There's even a few hippie-co's that require it.
Also, if you refer to it as "playing CAP", then you deserve to be excluded.
Most people with flexible situations won't need these protections, and those in mission critical roles generally can't use them, but if nothing else
they legitimize our efforts and existence in the fairly formal world of labor relations and employment policies.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 03, 2011, 01:27:38 AM
RRLE and Radio - I know this may come as a shock, but there are thousands of companies which actually encourage and even fund employees
doing volunteer service. There's even a few hippie-co's that require it.
Also, if you refer to it as "playing CAP", then you deserve to be excluded.
Most people with flexible situations won't need these protections, and those in mission critical roles generally can't use them, but if nothing else
they legitimize our efforts and existence in the fairly formal world of labor relations and employment policies.
There's a huge difference between a company voluntarily encouraging community service (I have an understanding with my company that permits me to leave on short notice for emergency services), and a state mandating paid time off for the same.
Quote from: JeffDG on September 04, 2011, 01:57:14 PMThere's a huge difference between a company voluntarily encouraging community service (I have an understanding with my company that permits me to leave on short notice for emergency services), and a state mandating paid time off for the same.
Yes, agreed. But RRLE and Radio seem to believe that companies have no community service interest whatsoever, and if you're not working you have no value to the organization.
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2011, 02:12:22 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on September 04, 2011, 01:57:14 PMThere's a huge difference between a company voluntarily encouraging community service (I have an understanding with my company that permits me to leave on short notice for emergency services), and a state mandating paid time off for the same.
Yes, agreed. But RRLE and Radio seem to believe that companies have no community service interest whatsoever, and if you're not working you have no value to the organization.
I'm betting that in most wings there's some 'retired' members readily available to perform (especially the flying) tasks at hand and others that have enough flexibility to provide most other support.
You can pass all the laws you want and every company can decide that they will allow a certain amount of time "on the clock" away from the workplace performing community service. HOWEVER, again it gets down to the "reality" of the workplace and the sense of the member on how his/her absence may affect their career and on the job relationships.
Frankly I think most local/state/federal civil service workers get enough time off/ and excellent benefits as it stands right now. Looking at the Alabama law, guardsmen/reservists are getting paid for their activation and I would sincerely hope that the citizens aren't also paying their state full salary at the same time, there's a good double dipping example.
As an example in my state's state police, there was a 'flaw' in the policy that allowed the guardsmen/reservists that were performing "inactive" duty for training (e.g. your typical weekend type duty) and not having to take vacation time, I'm not sure IF they were drawing pay from the state also, BUT basically now if it's "inactive" duty for training it's vacation time or "no pay" status.
I have a relative that supervises a small town DPW function, and a few of the crew (under 10 people in the department, approx 25% are Vol fd) where also on the town's volunteer fire department. Well every time there was a call they would have to leave the job. He finally asked the town manager how this should be handled, because again they are "volunteers", he has a budget, and the work they are getting paid to do isn't being done while they are fighting fires/responding to other type emergencies. So in essence his department is subsidizing the volunteer fire department.
I'm not sure at least at the taxpayer funded local/county/state government level that I want my tax dollar subsidizing employee "voluntarily" doing other things that have nothing to do with the job that they were hired for. IF they want to take unpaid leave, that's fine with me BUT I don't think I need to be subsidizing this.
HOWEVER, what a private company or non profit organization decides on their own, without any "cram down" laws, is also fine with me, except again with the member knowing the 'reality' of the organizational dynamics and making an informed decision.
RM
What about volunteer trainspotters?
Boy, if I was that town manager I might be prompted to say that I'd rather pay full time salaries for a fire department and tell your relative to see if he can find some volunteers to do public works. That town has made the active choice to not have a paid fire department and to depend on volunteers and to gripe about losing some time from public workers who are volunteer firefighters is just dumb. While it may make the DPW job a bit harder overall they're saving the city a ton of money.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 04, 2011, 03:41:37 PM
Boy, if I was that town manager I might be prompted to say that I'd rather pay full time salaries for a fire department and tell your relative to see if he can find some volunteers to do public works. That town has made the active choice to not have a paid fire department and to depend on volunteers and to gripe about losing some time from public workers who are volunteer firefighters is just dumb. While it may make the DPW job a bit harder overall they're saving the city a ton of money.
Well again I'm giving examples of how a good intentioned policy can affect other departments that also have operational duties. So would your answer change IF it is in the middle of a blizzard or the aftermath of a hurricane, where the roads have to be opened or remain open ???
RM
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on September 04, 2011, 03:18:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 04, 2011, 02:12:22 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on September 04, 2011, 01:57:14 PMThere's a huge difference between a company voluntarily encouraging community service (I have an understanding with my company that permits me to leave on short notice for emergency services), and a state mandating paid time off for the same.
Yes, agreed. But RRLE and Radio seem to believe that companies have no community service interest whatsoever, and if you're not working you have no value to the organization.
I'm betting that in most wings there's some 'retired' members readily available to perform (especially the flying) tasks at hand and others that have enough flexibility to provide most other support.
You can pass all the laws you want and every company can decide that they will allow a certain amount of time "on the clock" away from the workplace performing community service. HOWEVER, again it gets down to the "reality" of the workplace and the sense of the member on how his/her absence may affect their career and on the job relationships.
Frankly I think most local/state/federal civil service workers get enough time off/ and excellent benefits as it stands right now. Looking at the Alabama law, guardsmen/reservists are getting paid for their activation and I would sincerely hope that the citizens aren't also paying their state full salary at the same time, there's a good double dipping example.
As an example in my state's state police, there was a 'flaw' in the policy that allowed the guardsmen/reservists that were performing "inactive" duty for training (e.g. your typical weekend type duty) and not having to take vacation time, I'm not sure IF they were drawing pay from the state also, BUT basically now if it's "inactive" duty for training it's vacation time or "no pay" status.
I have a relative that supervises a small town DPW function, and a few of the crew (under 10 people in the department, approx 25% are Vol fd) where also on the town's volunteer fire department. Well every time there was a call they would have to leave the job. He finally asked the town manager how this should be handled, because again they are "volunteers", he has a budget, and the work they are getting paid to do isn't being done while they are fighting fires/responding to other type emergencies. So in essence his department is subsidizing the volunteer fire department.
I'm not sure at least at the taxpayer funded local/county/state government level that I want my tax dollar subsidizing employee "voluntarily" doing other things that have nothing to do with the job that they were hired for. IF they want to take unpaid leave, that's fine with me BUT I don't think I need to be subsidizing this.
HOWEVER, what a private company or non profit organization decides on their own, without any "cram down" laws, is also fine with me, except again with the member knowing the 'reality' of the organizational dynamics and making an informed decision.
RM
What happens, at least in CA when a cop gets activated is that they get their cop salary for 30 days. After that, the agency pays the difference between their Guard pay and their cop pay so that they can at least meet their basic pay. Lets face it, you have a cop making a pretty decent salary, and then they get activated for a year, you woud destroy someone by doing that. Going from making my pay to making E-5, I would lose everything. So they at least make sure I get my base pay. But I do get that deal once per year for the two weeks. I would actually get 30 days per year paid for military service. Not excessive by any means.
Now..I DO NOT get that deal for training, drills, etc. If I decided to re-enlist today and left for a 6 month tech school, I would making E-5 pay for those 6 months. In my case, my schedule my be Fri Sat Sun Mon for my work days. If I have drill, its on me to make that up. I can sign up for shifts on straight time to make up the difference or take vacation. But if your a reservist, my dept is pretty good about not assigning you to work weekends.
I had a guy at my last agency who was doing his drills and then signing up to cover shift to make up his hours. Should have been doing it on straight time. Instead, for about a 3 yr period, he was clocking it as overtime. I believe he is now a sales rep at a local used car dealership. In addition, he was putting himself on active orders through the military. He was going in the morning, then excusing himself in the late morning and then coming back and working OT shifts at work. He got nailed from both ends. Lost a 15 yr cop career and went from Army Guard E-7 to Pvt and booted. I dont recall hw many thousands of dollars the Guard determined he had "stolen" in falsified drill attendance.
As far as private industry, if a company wants to take a loss by letting you go, thats on them. I believe they should be required to do it for military service, but not mandated by law so I can leave to volunteer. I do have issue also with governemnt allowing people to leave to volunteer. Reminds me of a guy in my Marine unit who was allowed by the command to get off early to go volunteer? Huh???
I think CAP is trying to draw and coorelation and comparing themselves to much with the Reserves with this leave act issue.
I could see a provision for say up to 2 weeks for CAP service in a declared disaster (by a state's governor for example) but that's about as far as I would go. Otherwise I could see a potential for abuse by some.
As for military reserve component service that's whole different animal and should be treated as such. This year alone I've taken nearly 8 weeks of leave (some military and the rest annual/vacation) to cover my military training. I'm almost out of vacation at this point. I've managed to not go on military LWOP this year but not next year as the training commitment will only get bigger. 70 something days in addition to drill weekends. They've gone to 1 year title 10 mobilizations from the 16-18 month mobilizations that used to be the norm. Sounds good in the papers but the total training is really the same. What you do is spend 2 weeks on orders come home for 2 months go on orders for 4 to 6 more weeks then come home for 3 months the actually mobilize for a year just as an example. Plays havoc with insurance, civilian employment and especially young enlisted troops as far as a place to live etc. Personally, I think your better off mobilizing on title 10 for a straight shot.
But I digress ;D