Comments on: MILITARY: Service retirees discriminated against

By: tuddo

tuddo — Sat, 01 May 2010 20:42:39 +0000

CRB9000, if you read the actual section, it starts off by saying “For the purposes of this section…” That is what the letter writer left off. Its a standard way to write legal stuff. The terms have to be described exactly so when it is used later it will not be confusing as to what it means. If you leave off that opening, then yes, it might seem confusing.

By: CRB9000

CRB9000 — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:06:16 +0000

Oh, I’ll say this, the language of the law is bad. It does, at first read, sound dismissive of full term veterans.

By: CRB9000

CRB9000 — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:05:29 +0000

The Federal Gov’t does the same thing. A veteran who retires and then enters Federal service starts at year 1 when computing service dates. A veteran who did not retire gets to count his/her service time towards Federal service.

It helps avoid double dipping on the retirement.

By: tuddo

tuddo — Sat, 01 May 2010 17:00:31 +0000

nanook, please read my response above. You are a veteran, but if you were a state employee at the time you entered service, you do not get the same rights to automatically return to state service with all of the back pay raises and seniority like veterans do who do not receive a military pension. The letter writer took a tiny portiion of state personnel rules out of context. I hope he contacts state human resources if he was a state employee at the time he entered service. He can get the real info from them.

By: nanook

nanook — Sat, 01 May 2010 15:18:24 +0000

That is interesting . . . My 23 years of service don’t count? I’m not a military vetern? What sort of craziness is that? Why is this law on the books?

By: tuddo

tuddo — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:30:15 +0000

I was outraged until I found out the context of the rule you referenced. You left out an important part of the statement, and that is the definition only applies to automatic reinstatement to state service. The section you reference is a common one for states that was developed when there was a draft to allow a person to go off to military service for a brief time and retain their seniority in the job they held, be reinstated without going through the usual application processes and receive all the benefits they would have accrued while they were gone in terms of seniority and automatic pay increases. If a person is drafted or has a tour or two in the military, the law gives them these rights and does not count it as another career apth. If a person voluntarily chooses another career, even if it is the military, and receives retirement benefits, medical care and pensions based on that other career, I do not think they should be able to use that other career to give them seniority rights and longevity toward state retirement. I think the current approach is a practical solution and gives people a chance to serve their country without being penalized, but does not unduly reward those who choose to leave state service for an extended period to pursue another career path.