What is up with this crap?
GRAND RAPIDS — A Michigan school district told a teacher activated for military duty that he must cover the cost of a substitute during part of his absence and give the district some of his military pay.
How is that even, you know, legal? Isn’t military duty covered by state salary contracts? At any rate, if National Guardsmen were treated like this back in say, 1972, then it’s not hard to understand why Bush might have wanted out.
(Ed. I guess that’ll have to pass for humour on this blog.)
You’re right, I don’t think it’s legal. What is that guy paying union dues for anyway?
The bigger irony is that this happened around the time when many states are having primaries which means school levies. The Michigan school levies may be over for this year, but from what I’ve seen, School levy votes have long memories. They won’t see this as an endearing quality of their school distract.
Moreover, I don’t even understand these two lines.
1)”the district continues to provide Bernhardt with all his other benefits during his absence”
–That’s nice except that the military covers you during the time when you are on duty, even in the national guard, so if he didn’t have his benefits during that time (which are in essence paid by the teacher anyway) he would still be covered.
2) “In the end, the teacher will receive $573 more than he would have after the two-week military leave”
- what does this even mean? $573 more than what? He’s making money? because he’s not giving all of it to the school for serving in the military?
In the end, it’s just sad that people who serve in the National guard, people who have not committed to the military full time, but are ready to go whenever and wherever their country needs them, have to pay a fee for something they wouldn’t have to pay for if they were sick or giving birth.
It’s the state of our country. Honestly, I’ve not seen anything like it since that documentary on Vietnam.