Some see employer bias against reservists

It’s tough to prove.

But a Gonzaga University law student believes National Guard soldiers and other reservists are having a harder time finding jobs because of the uncertainty over future deployments, even though both state and federal law forbids such discrimination.

“It’s very, very, very hard to prove,” said student Matt Crotty, who also serves as a Washington Army National Guard major.

Crotty is pushing lawmakers for stiffer penalties against those who violate hiring laws. He’s also seeking tax incentives for employers who hire Guard members.

He said the need to improve hiring protections for guardsmen was brought home when one soldier in his 97-member military intelligence unit said he had been advised by a colleague to take his Guard experience off his resume.

He had been turned down repeatedly for jobs, said Crotty. A job offer materialized not long after the military experience was deleted.

While military experience can be highly valued by employers, some National Guard members say finding a job can be difficult if employers fear they will be deployed overseas.

One recent Washington State University graduate said his search for a teaching job was over almost as soon as it began, as school district after school district rejected him, in one case even blatantly telling him it was because of the Guard.

“I said, ‘I’m in the Guard, and am anticipating having to leave in February for training.’ They said, ‘Don’t bother because we won’t hire you if you can’t work the entire school year,’ ” said the National Guard lieutenant, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing future job opportunities.

Job discrimination based on Guard duty is illegal under both state and federal law, but enforcing those laws is almost impossible when it pertains to hiring, said Crotty.

It could be easier for Guard members if laws were changed to force employers to document specifically why a guardsman or reservist was passed over for a job, he explained.

But that kind of change is unlikely, particularly at the state level.

Washington state Sen.-elect Chris Marr, for example, opposes creating a separate standard. Allegations of discrimination require a higher standard of proof than just assuming the employer is at fault, Marr said.

“Truthfully, there could be other things that come into play,” he said.

Marr added that he thinks military service and its impacts on individuals and businesses need to be re-examined in light of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Expectations for the Guard have changed, Marr said. What was once a “weekend warrior” job now requires a higher level of sacrifice. Both Guard members and their employers may need more help.

Washington State National Guard spokesman Maj. Philip Osterli said he’s heard anecdotal evidence to support Crotty’s assertions, but he’s never seen any hard data.

Some employers seek out National Guard soldiers because of the discipline they learn in the military, said Osterli.

It’s hard to know how many turn down such candidates for fear of long absences from work, but Tom Riggs, a transitional assistance officer for National Guard and Reserve troops returning from deployments, said he sees more employers seeking out Guard members than turning them away.

Riggs said discrimination against Guard members isn’t an issue.

“I see it in kids who use it as an excuse because they don’t want to get jobs, but not so in reality,” he said.

But those who say they’ve experienced discrimination say financial hardships come with it.

The teacher/guardsman interviewed for this story now lives with his parents because he can’t afford his own place on the $80 he makes each day he substitute-teaches and his monthly gross of $400 in National Guard pay.

“For most people it’s not a problem once you have a job, it’s a problem getting a job,” he said. “It’s frustrating, because the way the laws are written, they’re not enforceable.”