State Leave Legislation

[jeders]

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.

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

[JeffDG]

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...

[AirDX]

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.

[Eclipse]

What is this word?

Overtime?

[husker]

The Alabama legislature passed a leave law last summer.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2009rs/bills/sb599.htm

[lordmonar]

That's outstanding!  Up to 168 hours a year.

[RRLE]

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.

[RiverAux]

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). 

[lordmonar]

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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   

[Eclipse]

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.

[JeffDG]

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.

[Eclipse]

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.

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.

[RADIOMAN015]

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.

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       
 

[Eclipse]

What about volunteer trainspotters?

[RiverAux]

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.