Org Mobile Site
I've seen a couple of news stories about this. People get signing bonuses when they join the military. Sometimes they get, you know, hurt before they can finish out their term of service. So what does our loving government do? Dun them for a prorated sum. Disgusting, no? Full article below the spoil. I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Originally Posted by Lemur:
I've seen a couple of news stories about this. People get signing bonuses when they join the military. Sometimes they get, you know, hurt before they can finish out their term of service. So what does our loving government do? Dun them for a prorated sum. Disgusting, no? Full article below the spoil. I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Whats particularly bothersome is the notion that a lost arm or leg somehow negates the ability to serve. If and when the soldier is able to get on with life after recovery the military should attempt to accomedate thier new circumstance through the remainder of thier service contract. Even if they cant the signing bonus money should never be in question. I've seen a couple of news stories about this. People get signing bonuses when they join the military. Sometimes they get, you know, hurt before they can finish out their term of service. So what does our loving government do? Dun them for a prorated sum. Disgusting, no? Full article below the spoil. I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Trying to do a war on the cheap is so rumsfeld
The appropriate term for this practice is "lame".
It is a complete disgrace that a wounded soldier becomes worthless in the eyes of the government the moment they are saved from death.
It is a complete disgrace that a wounded soldier becomes worthless in the eyes of the government the moment they are saved from death.
Link please?
The military offers several bonuses of various types, not all of which are refundable - but those 'signing' bonuses are.
Sadly, I expect to see more stories like this (mistreatment of soldiers/vets) in the coming 3-4 years, as Iraq winds down and today's active duty survivors become tomorrow's veterans.
The military offers several bonuses of various types, not all of which are refundable - but those 'signing' bonuses are.
Sadly, I expect to see more stories like this (mistreatment of soldiers/vets) in the coming 3-4 years, as Iraq winds down and today's active duty survivors become tomorrow's veterans.
I expect this to last about five minutes and suspect bureaucracy is part or all of the problem. Look at all the fallout from mold and cockroaches at Walter Reed. Put your knee back in its socket and provide a source please.
If you are hurt sky-larking off duty then fair enough or I suppose if you sprain you hand while typing in the office on duty.
But a frontline wounding (I presume he got a purple heart for that) or indeed a shelling of an office pool... should be exempt from the 'pay us back' policy.
Surely they don't ask the widow of the dead to pay back any signing bonus for those who die in the line of duty?
What should happen is that they get disability plus an extra signing bonus as compensation for no longer being able to sign up.
If they are going to play this bureaucratic game that is usually used on those in the luxury of safe civy jobs surely the soliders can counter with a claim of not providing a safe working environment just like civilians can... loss of future earning potential, physical anguish, mental anguish... it can't be just a one way street... want to test them like employees in a civilian job, then let the 'employees' counter claim like civilians.
But a frontline wounding (I presume he got a purple heart for that) or indeed a shelling of an office pool... should be exempt from the 'pay us back' policy.
Surely they don't ask the widow of the dead to pay back any signing bonus for those who die in the line of duty?
What should happen is that they get disability plus an extra signing bonus as compensation for no longer being able to sign up.
If they are going to play this bureaucratic game that is usually used on those in the luxury of safe civy jobs surely the soliders can counter with a claim of not providing a safe working environment just like civilians can... loss of future earning potential, physical anguish, mental anguish... it can't be just a one way street... want to test them like employees in a civilian job, then let the 'employees' counter claim like civilians.
Originally Posted by :
I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Too right , if the bonus is for fulfilling a term of service then failure to fulfill that term negates your right to the bonus . I dare anyone to defend this practice.
It is a job , getting blown up may be part of the job , if you are not happy with those job conditions then don't accept the contract .
Screw them , the job also has payments that covers injuries for getting blown up , take that and don't moan that the term bonus is lost .
Originally Posted by Lemur:
I dare anyone to defend this practice.
I dare anyone to defend this practice.
Ouch, my first post in the backroom is directly against a moderator...
Anyway, surely it boils down to this: They are soldiers => they get paid to fight => why should they get paid if they can't fight?
If it was somehow the military's fault that they got injured, (eg friendly fire), then maybe it would be different. But just being rendered unfit for service in your line of duty, damit, you're a soldier you either kill or be killed, thats is your job. If you don't like it, don't join the army.
Gods, things like his anoy me so much. They spout some meaningles patriotic drivel and join the army on a wave of "anti-terorist" patriotism, going out to "free the world form terror", and then guess what?! It turns out that someone is quite happy with his own ideas of "freedom" and would rather you didn't stick your oversized, gung-ho, american nose in his (mostly inocent) bussiness. So he shoots you. Big deal moron, what did you think he was going to do? Surrender to someone who has destroyed his country and enslaved thousands in the name of a "freedom" that the populace didn't even ask for?
Just be thankful you are still alive, and atleast try to use your experinces to relalise what the Bush administration is really like.
Originally Posted by Pharnakes:
Ouch, my first post in the backroom...
...and it shows... might want to wait until you grow up for the next one.Ouch, my first post in the backroom...
I am not trying to offend anyone here, but the point is this: Why do people go to war in the first place? There is no good reason to go to war. It is completly evil. In the words of someone or other, "war has no winners only a losser." Therefore, what can you expect from war, except pain, misery and death? To do so is foolish in the extreme, and will only result in your being disapointed, as in this case.
Anyway, before this degenerates into a discusion on the ethics of war, I still don't see why someone should object to returning money that he was payed in exchange for fufilling a task that he can no longer complete. Maybe he should get some compensation money, indeed, I think he should, but that is sepperate from the issue in hand. If you can't do your job, what right do you have to be payed for it?
Anyway, before this degenerates into a discusion on the ethics of war, I still don't see why someone should object to returning money that he was payed in exchange for fufilling a task that he can no longer complete. Maybe he should get some compensation money, indeed, I think he should, but that is sepperate from the issue in hand. If you can't do your job, what right do you have to be payed for it?
The word "recruitment bonus" sounds like you get it just for signing up, that means writing your name in the right place. If he got monthly pay as a normal soldier, he wouldn't get that anymore, makes sense.
But recruitment bonus sounds intentionally misleading if it means something like service-time bonus, why would you get a recruitment bonus for the last three months? Your recruitment was several months ago.
Not that it surprises me after what I heard about army recruitment but if he somehow signed a paper stating that he is only eligible for the full recruitment bonus if he serves the full time, then he should of course pay it back.
If they just gave it to him saying nothing more than "Hey, welcome to the army, here's your recruitment bonus!", then they should bugger off.
But recruitment bonus sounds intentionally misleading if it means something like service-time bonus, why would you get a recruitment bonus for the last three months? Your recruitment was several months ago.
Not that it surprises me after what I heard about army recruitment but if he somehow signed a paper stating that he is only eligible for the full recruitment bonus if he serves the full time, then he should of course pay it back.
If they just gave it to him saying nothing more than "Hey, welcome to the army, here's your recruitment bonus!", then they should bugger off.
This is true, I hadn't thought of it from this angle. 
Wow, talk about a biased report. Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement. Nice try Lemur, been drinking the bong water again?
Maybe I can explain it where you can understand it Lemus, say your hanging out with the Code Pink Gals and one of them says that they'll give you a Clinton if you run up to Dick Cheney, call him a warmonger and throw a half burnt American flag that is spread with vegan feces all over it. Well you get up to Cheney, call him a warmonger, but then a secret service guys tazes your ass just before you fling the half burnt flag with hippy poop on it. You go back to the Code Pink gal to get your Slick Willie and she refuses. Well guess what, you didn't complete what was needed for your BONUS. There, do you understand now?
Maybe I can explain it where you can understand it Lemus, say your hanging out with the Code Pink Gals and one of them says that they'll give you a Clinton if you run up to Dick Cheney, call him a warmonger and throw a half burnt American flag that is spread with vegan feces all over it. Well you get up to Cheney, call him a warmonger, but then a secret service guys tazes your ass just before you fling the half burnt flag with hippy poop on it. You go back to the Code Pink gal to get your Slick Willie and she refuses. Well guess what, you didn't complete what was needed for your BONUS. There, do you understand now?
"War is hell, so let's treat our wounded veterans like crap! Serves them right for doing something so evil."
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Wow, talk about a biased report.
Oh no you don't. I only get a nickel when Xiahou uses the word "bias."Wow, talk about a biased report.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
Speaking as someone who has received performance bonuses, signing bonuses, and all sorts of funny money, I have to say this is unusual. A bonus, in the real world, is a bonus, not substitute pay prorated over a term of service. I guess it's handled differently when feeding from the governmental teat.Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
A soldier who has been wounded in the service of our country should keep his or her signing bonus, at the very least. Saying this clearly makes me a pinko anti-American in your eyes, o shrill one.
Originally Posted by :
A soldier who has been wounded in the service of our country should keep his or her signing bonus, at the very least.
Why should they ?A soldier who has been wounded in the service of our country should keep his or her signing bonus, at the very least.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Why should they ?
Because HE is not saying he's unfit to fulfill the bonus conditions, Army Management is; therefore THEY are breaking the contract, not the GI.Why should they ?
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Why should they ?
Because it would be morally right and fair. This isn't about law and what can be done legally. This is about morals and politics.Why should they ?
I'm tickled pink at this thread, simply because Dave and Tribesy are on the same side.
And now, I will ask both of you to give your heads a good, hard, shake.
The military is offering signing bonuses in part because the Iraq war is fairly unpopular, and known to be very dangerous, which makes recruiting for same a more difficult proposition. So, they offer people $$ to sign up. Fair enough.
So now, let's leave the obvious (at least to anybody with a moral compass that hasn't lost its magnetism) answer (that it is nothing but dirty trickery to take money back from a soldier because he has gone over and been wounded performing his duty) out of this for a second.
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
And now, I will ask both of you to give your heads a good, hard, shake.
The military is offering signing bonuses in part because the Iraq war is fairly unpopular, and known to be very dangerous, which makes recruiting for same a more difficult proposition. So, they offer people $$ to sign up. Fair enough.
So now, let's leave the obvious (at least to anybody with a moral compass that hasn't lost its magnetism) answer (that it is nothing but dirty trickery to take money back from a soldier because he has gone over and been wounded performing his duty) out of this for a second.
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Originally Posted by :
Because HE is not saying he's unfit to fulfill the bonus conditions, Army Management is; therefore THEY are breaking the contract, not the GI.
He says he is unfit to join the policeforce , which has stricter medical / fitness requirements , the military or the police ?Because HE is not saying he's unfit to fulfill the bonus conditions, Army Management is; therefore THEY are breaking the contract, not the GI.
Next time you see a batch of soldiers marines or sailors on their way to Iraq look how many of them are gimped , they have all been passed fit for service havn't they , the military will not ditch you just because you are wounded , they will ditch you when your wounds are determined to exclude you from service .
Originally Posted by :
How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
How much easier and cheaper would it be to recruit and fill the quotas if there wasn't some nonsensical war/policy in Iraq ?How about this: the military gives bonuses to boost recruiting in difficult times, so how much more difficult (and more expensive) will it now be for recruiters to make their quotas when word gets out that soldiers are getting screwed out of that money at a time in their life when they need it most?
This is a simple case of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
A simple case of penny foolish and billions of dollars stupid .
Originally Posted by :
Because it would be morally right and fair.
No it wouldn't , the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .Because it would be morally right and fair.
They're not getting screwed out of anything if they signed a contract in which it was stated that they have to pay a certain amount back should they get wounded or leave the military otherwise. If you sign it, you shouldn't complain about it.
I'm not saying the recruitment stuff the army has is nice or that I'd sign it as well, but he did sign it so he should learn to live with the consequences. If he thinks that this is morally wrong or whatever, he should have never signed that contract. It's hard, but that's the way it goes.
Problem today is that most contracts are so long and complicated that you'd need a lawyer to be aware of what you're actually signing there.
I'm not saying the recruitment stuff the army has is nice or that I'd sign it as well, but he did sign it so he should learn to live with the consequences. If he thinks that this is morally wrong or whatever, he should have never signed that contract. It's hard, but that's the way it goes.
Problem today is that most contracts are so long and complicated that you'd need a lawyer to be aware of what you're actually signing there.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
No it wouldn't , the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .
Asking them to pay money back is not fair at all. And hey tribes, that's not for you to decide anyhow, the judge of that would be the american public, and I highly doubt that they agree with you.No it wouldn't , the morally right and fair part would be decent incapacitated veterans services and benefits , not bonus payments for a non-fulfilled contract .
Originally Posted by Husar:
If you sign it, you shouldn't complain about it.
Not true generally, if the contract you signed violates the law, then the contract is invalid.If you sign it, you shouldn't complain about it.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Wow, talk about a biased report. Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
Is that from the same playbook that says to leave your buddy in the field to die 'cause he was stupid enough to get shot? Wow, talk about a biased report. Anyway, AS someone who has recieved bonuses in the military, once for enlisting and once for reenlisting, bonuses are bonuses for what you provide. If you cannot uphold your commitment stipulated in the bonus contract (which is read before signing and explained to you as well by MEPS and the MPF), then guess what, you don't get your bonus and you have to pay back what you've already recieved because you did not fullfill your agreement.
I hear the commies do that....
One for one and none for all. Hoo-AHH!Originally Posted by :
Asking them to pay money back is not fair at all.
Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .Asking them to pay money back is not fair at all.
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you
)Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Too right , if the bonus is for fulfilling a term of service then failure to fulfill that term negates your right to the bonus .
It is a job , getting blown up may be part of the job , if you are not happy with those job conditions then don't accept the contract .
Screw them , the job also has payments that covers injuries for getting blown up , take that and don't moan that the term bonus is lost .
That may be cruel, but that is cold heartedly true.Too right , if the bonus is for fulfilling a term of service then failure to fulfill that term negates your right to the bonus .
It is a job , getting blown up may be part of the job , if you are not happy with those job conditions then don't accept the contract .
Screw them , the job also has payments that covers injuries for getting blown up , take that and don't moan that the term bonus is lost .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you )
It comes down to who accepts which portion of the occupational hazard risk.Of course its fair , if you are paid money on condition that you fulfill the terms under which the money is given yet do not fulfill those terms then it is unfair to not give it back .
If I paid you money on condition that you unblocked every gully on a road and you only unblocked half the gullies would you be entitled to keep the money or would it be fair if I took half the money back ? (though if it was me I would have included a clause that said I can take all the money back and claim costs and interest against you
)Traditionally, at least in democratic countries, it has been for the soldier to accept the physical risk (death or maiming) of going to war. It has been for a grateful government to accept the financial risk (spending x amount of dollars to train a soldier only to have him die or be wounded his first day in theater, then have to bear the cost of supporting him in future years) of sending men to war. This has pretty much been the social contract between citizen soldiers and their elected leaders in modern, free nations.
Tribes, if you can not see the intellectual difference between failing to unblock gullies because, oh I don't know, a guy got drunk and didn't complete the job, and failing to complete a tour of duty because you got your legs blown off, then I respectfully submit that you are being deliberately obtuse with respect to this matter.
Again, its a bonus that has stipulations that need to be fullfilled. And its not bonuses just for the "unpopular" Iraq war. I recieved all of mine during peace time both times. They do it for critical fields and stuff as well. But I never had to pay back my bonuses because I fullfilled those contracts. If I were to have been injured during that time and could not complete the agreement as perscibed by said contract then I would have to pay it back. Its been like that since Adam was a private and Eve was a dorm ho.
Its not even a moral arguement. The injured vets will get a salary for life from the VA. Its part of the risk with the CHOICE the troops made when they signed up in the first place. It is still an all volunter force whether you like it or not.
What is so hard to comprehend here?
Oh, and allow me to say this... TRIBES IS 100% CORRECT ON THIS. Now please excuse me, I'm going to go take a extremly hot shower with lots and lots of disinfectant soap. ;)
Its not even a moral arguement. The injured vets will get a salary for life from the VA. Its part of the risk with the CHOICE the troops made when they signed up in the first place. It is still an all volunter force whether you like it or not.
What is so hard to comprehend here?
Oh, and allow me to say this... TRIBES IS 100% CORRECT ON THIS. Now please excuse me, I'm going to go take a extremly hot shower with lots and lots of disinfectant soap. ;)
Originally Posted by Beirut:
Is that from the same playbook that says to leave your buddy in the field to die 'cause he was stupid enough to get shot?
I hear the commies do that....
One for one and none for all. Hoo-AHH!
Have you ever read or signed a contract?Is that from the same playbook that says to leave your buddy in the field to die 'cause he was stupid enough to get shot?
I hear the commies do that....
One for one and none for all. Hoo-AHH!Single Sign On provided by vBSSO