National Guardsman Loses Home After Serving in Iraq

[powayseller]

House Broke

This is a sad story. A National Guardsman serves his country, and then finds his previous job was filled during his absence. He takes 2 new jobs, but the combined pay is 1/3 less than the job he had before he went to Iraq. While in service, his adjustable mortgage went up to almost 10%, and now he’s in foreclosure.

[Bugs]

Really bad combo; the home was only affordable with the 2 ARMs, they had a new child, and he had a Reserve commitment. If it had been one less wrinkle they could probably have worked it out.

[powayseller]

I find the government expecations and treatment of National Guardsmen quite despicable. I’ve heard many stories of men who marched off to duty, only to return to a job that was lost, and their finances ruined. Guardsmen need better government mandated financial protection during to cover their tours of duty. At least the employer should be required to leave the job open; but then, I guess it would make guardsmen less attractive to hire…

[bmarum]

These people need to talk to lawyers — employers must hold their jobs open for them. Sounds like they might have a good lawsuit or two.

[PerryChase]

There already is requirement for employers to hold jobs (at least similar ones) for military personal. I beleive the requirement affects only employers of certain sizes.

My feeling is that military is just a job like anything else. When they signed up, they should’ve thought about the risks and rewards. If one can’t live with the risk of serving in the military, one should not join. Taxpayers pay enough already to train and employ the military, we don’t need to pay more. Many enlisted/reservists could barely graduate high school. We spend tremendous amounts of money training them.

I’m sorry, to me, sad as it is, a guardsman loosing his house is just like any other employed person loosing his house.

The financial problems come from the guardsman relying on his regular job income plus his national guard (week-end) income, never thinking that he would have to serve for long periods in a conflict. Remember, military personel get paid fairly when they serve.

[barnaby33]

That argument doesn’t ring true. Nobody joins the reserve or guard thinking they will have to goto war, they are gambling against it. Of course the govt is taking the other side of the gamble.

For the most part, people who enlist are not the top rungs of the socio-economic ladder to begin with. Expecting them to be as sharp as the top layers is a bit pedantic. People used to join the military for the pay and benefits, most people seem to stay now for the retirement.

I’m not saying that this guy losing his house is anybody elses fault, but there is a limit around what you can expect people to be able to comprehend. If as you say and I happen to agree, alot of the people in the military are not from the brightest segments of society, shouldn’t they be offered some form of protection?

As far as job guarantees, I believe that the law says a company of more than 50 employees must have a similar job at the same pay available upon his return.

Oh and before any of the pro-military crowd goes rabid, I was in the reserves for 6 years, I know what I am talking about.

Josh

[bmarum]

USERRA applys to all employers, regardless of size and to all employees, regardless of how long they have been employed, or how many hours they worked while they were employed. 38 USC §§ 4303(3), (4)(A) & 4312(a). An employee who took military leave is entitled to be reinstated so long as:

–the cumulative leave(s) have not exceeded five years, with certain exceptions;

–the employee provided the employer with proper advance employee’s military service; and

–the employee must report back to work or submit an application for reemployment within the statutory time frame, as determined by the length of the employee’s military service. 38 USC § 4312.

[PerryChase]

I read the article and nowhere does it say that the previous employer did not hold his job open for him while he served. Maybe he did not want the similar job the employer offered him upon return?
If anything, the extra combat pay (and this mortgage cap of 6%) helped him kick the can further along. Perhaps he’s no longer a reservist, hence his lower income.

Sounds to me like this article is using the flag and patriotism to make the story more emotionally appealing. Powayseller who is normally so sharp feel right into the trap. The article is about ARM more that it is about the plight of the military.

Here’s the quote from the article.

” That’s exactly what happened to the Howells. In November 2004, Howell, a 36-year-old National Guardsman, was deployed to Iraq. While he was away, the combat pay helped to offset the monthly mortgage payments as they began to creep up. In addition, under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, his mortgage rate was capped at 6 percent as long as he was in active military service. But when he finished his tour in Iraq this January, the cap no longer applied and he stopped getting combat pay. Worse, while he was gone, someone had filled his old job. He found work as a stable manager for a nearby horse farm, and as a law enforcement dispatcher for the state’s Department of Fish & Wildlife; but, even with the two jobs, he was earning about one-third less than he had in 2004. Meanwhile, the interest rate on the couple’s largest mortgage climbed to 9.9 percent. ”

[PD]

Anyone who joins does so with the full knowledge that they may be sent elsewhere to fulfill the terms of their contract. Everyone knows the risks when they sign their name. This guy knew he could be sent away and failed to make his financial decisions with that in mind. He over-leveraged himself and got caught in a bind. I feel as bad for him as I do for all those other people who signed stupid loans. It is not the government’s fault that the guy is in financial distress and was the victim of predatory lending.
I get really sick of people eager to remove responsibility from the individual and blame the government.
Military service is voluntary.
Getting a crazy loan is voluntary.
Spending equity on a flashy car is voluntary.
Living in an expensive city is voluntary.
Living in a flood zone is voluntary.
Taking personal responsibility is a requirement.

[ybc]

Yes, all behavior is voluntary. But while we insist individual takes responsibilities, how about the government, and how they use our military? I don’t think that national guardsmen are supposed to be used in long-term combat missions overseas…if they really think that the war is so good, they should send their own kids and nieces and nephews (who of course are so privileged that they don’t need military benefit to go to colleges, etc) there, and/or bring back the draft. I’m sure that the draft dodgers’ kids are good draft dodgers too.

Anyway, I’m off topic. I do think that that particular guardman perhaps has overextended himself. But one would think that the country should be more grateful towards those who served and cut them some slack…

[Bugs]

They would probably have still made out if not for the 2 ARMs, OR the extra child OR the intial cost of the house. All of these were decisions they made that came after the decision to enlist with a Reserve commitment.

It’s just like any active-duty service member who spends their enlistment bonus on the big car. Although we are a grateful nation they still have to make their car payments or they’ll lose their car; they still have to pay their rent or they get evicted.

[powayseller]

It says, “while he was gone, someone had filled his old job.”, and that he took 2 other jobs which combined paid less? So PerryChase, he did lose his job. Anyway, I am against the massive spending on military and our government’s offensive use of military. I was just feeling bad for this guy. As barnaby said, many join the military because they have few good options in life, so this guy may not have been the sharpest card in the deck, and was uninformed about his rights.

[Author]

Posts