That Reuters article doesn't do much either. It strikes me as a entitlement mentality that any employer is going to steer clear of if they got a whiff. Employers should be the ones to connect applicant's experience to their requirements? Okay....

I would also add that there have been changes on the military side to address these problems such as the AARTS/ACE transcript or having medics get EMT-B certifications during initial training (something that wasn't done when David Berry was medic 25 years ago). More to do, but it's a start.

There also needs to be some realistic expectations. You're not going to be given "a department" to run as your entry job with just PLDC/WLC under your belt, regardless of your confidence in making it dance.

no extended overseas deployments or interventions for the purpose of subsidizing the European and ME markets and US investors in overseas markets.

Of course, the hollowed out economy that the US has become, encouraged by those same political and economic leaders who gleefully send N.G. units overseas, is an issue.

The best example from the article, and most to the point, is the grunt who had a choice of working as a grocery bagger in the US or as a defense contractor in Afghanistan.

Our nation is falling apart, but did you hear about the exciting developments in Helmand?

I would perhaps give your rhetorical fireworks more credence if you were to describe the "actual purpose" you see for the National Guard. Do you disagree with its current role as an operational reserve, rather than a strategic one? Or its lead-role in defense support to civil authorities missions?

Or are you painting with a wider brush, and suggesting that all overseas deployments--regardless of whether Active- or Reserve-Component--are folly and fodder for political elites?

Just trying to understand your argument ...

yes, most overseas deployments are political fodder.

But to the Guard. They are basically the militia. Their purpose should be local, and more generally domestic, defense and local- and more generally domestic- crisis management. That's why they are not affected by Posse Comitatus. The dual federal and state usage is a backdoor way of employing the guard abroad, an ongoing gift to centralized power from the WW1 era. And what was that war but a foreign intervention to protect Wall Street's foreign investments?

So, most definately they should not be an operational reserve and should only be a strategic reserve of last resort. Just because they've been misused since WW1 doesn't make it right.

Got it. You take exception with the Militia Act of 1903, which, as I understand it, created the National Guard in current form, including the presidential power to federalize that force.

Unfortunately, we have to fight with the Army we have. That includes the National Guard and Reserve.

The dual use by state and federal authority, as you put it, is as much a way to prevent states from using National Guard troops against the Union, as it is "a backdoor way to employ the guard abroad." Think of it as the flip side to Posse Comitatus: Governors cannot use their troops to, say, enforce segregation, but any use of the federal Army to enforce the laws of the land must be based in the Constitution or an act of Congress.

No matter. If any state or territory wants to muster a "state guard," "state defense force," "military reserve force," or "militia," it is free to do so. Many of them do.

My premise regarding the civilian employment of citizen-soldiers (or, if you wish, state militiamen) is the same, regardless of whether your assumed mission set is to supplement the Active Component overseas, or to train for domestic response: It's a readiness issue.

If the volunteer firefighter can't find civilian employment in a community, she'll have to move out of that community. Or, if being a volunteer hurts her employability, she'll have to quit putting out fires. If that happens, the community can either go without fire protection, or pony up and hire full-time firefighters.

If citizen-soldiers can't find civilian employment, we won't have citizen-soldiers.

If the United States can't go to war without the Reserve Component, or respond quickly and effectively to natural disasters and acts of terror at home without the National Guard, then higher-than-average unemployment of citizen-soldiers is a threat to national readiness.

Thanks for the opportunity to explore some of these thoughts on the page ...

I can add nothing, being in full agreement, except the inability of a civilian-soldier to find work in his/her community further erodes the organic connection between the N.G. and its home community.

I was thinking specifically of the National Defense Act of 1916 in my above response, the Militia Act of 1903 isn't so problematic. The Guard should be ready for more general domestic use.

1) Quick google searches haven't turned anything up - do you have a link?

2) The behavior or his "aussie family" seems strange. What was "the sort of thing that Americans do"? Practicing murders or killing people who upset them in the workplace?

3) USMC doesn't have medics - it uses Navy corpsmen. Is that what you meant?

4) No matter the answers to 1-3, I'm missing your point - what is it exactly?

You go from making some fair and even handed, non-conspiracy laden comments in other posts and then fall right back into inaccurate points and spin that sounds like you got it from Urban Myths. I'm waiting for the other foot to drop and you tell me there is a cover up and that is why it's not showing up on the net.

Sorry Kunino, it is on the net, the guy was a 51 year old former Marine, not a Corpsman and no mention of the family practice session or the comment "that this was the sort of thing Americans do" but the story you posted was in the ball park. So, what was the point of it though? Also, a disturbing amount of other stories about nurses and having their throats slit, a very disturbing amount.

... and I thank ESIII for his courteous apology. As earlier reported, this is a story that ran for some days in the Australian news, and is found easily on the Web. I think the report below takes readers to the first day of the murder trial. Other assertions in my original post arose from court reporting in later days of the trial -- in which I had only [passing interest. Of course, I do not know the family of this former marine but believe my characterization of their involvement is fair and accurate.

I hope it will be recognized that my original, melancholy post was "fair and even handed, non-conspiracy laden". I think its point was clear. The last paragraph below is poignant.
_______________________________________
Nurse's killer used military technique, court told
Louise Hall
September 15, 2011

Michelle Beets ... the nurse had her throat slit as she arrived home.
A FORMER US marine murdered the nurse manager Michelle Beets using a technique that he learnt during his military training to kill an enemy sentry, a NSW Supreme Court jury was told yesterday.

Walter Ciaran Marsh, 50, came up behind Ms Beets as she arrived at her Chatswood home, slit her throat and stabbed her eight times in the chest using a flick knife, the Crown Prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi, QC, said.

Mr Marsh hated Ms Beets because she did not extend his contract as a nurse in the emergency department of Royal North Shore Hospital and he believed she was giving him ''bad references'' to prospective employers, Mr Tedeschi said.

Advertisement: Story continues below
On the night of the murder, Mr Marsh allegedly told his Vietnamese wife, Samantha, that he killed Ms Beets and their lives would improve as the bad references would no longer prevent him from getting work.

He also told her ''important details that he couldn't possibly know unless he was the killer'', Mr Tedeschi said. He had cut electricity to the house to disable the sensor light and had broken a window to make the murder look like a robbery gone wrong.

Mr Tedeschi said approaching a victim from behind and grabbing their chin is ''a technique that every single marine is taught at boot camp''.

''[It's] how to be a marine 101 - how to kill an enemy sentry with minimal opportunity from them to call out and alert other people.''

Mrs Marsh is expected to tell the jury that her husband practised the technique on her and her brother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, in the weeks before Ms Beets's murder.

Outside the court, Ms Beets's partner, David Grant, said he continues to grieve her ''tragic and deeply distressing'' death.

''The trial presents the opportunity for justice. It will also be a testing time for all of us,'' he said.

Mr Marsh, a US citizen, was desperate to get work as a nurse because, without employment in that field, his 457 visa would become invalid.

The couple could not live in the US as Mrs Marsh had been denied entry to the country.

Yonge Street is definitely in downtown Toronto so I suspect your guesses correct! Toronto is a city with a horrible climate but even still is one of the very best run big cities in North America. It is invariably clean and safe which is more than I can say for Atlanta or Phoenix or a host of other metropolises in this country. It would do no harm if a number of American mayors and city managers visited that town to see how they do it.

- Deploying to Iraq and/or Afghanistan is not an accomplishment. If you can, talk about something to did over there to further your mission. If you present your deployment as your accomplishment, I'm going to assume you went over there and counted the days until redeployment (like I know some do!).

It pains me to agree with Tom. As a reservist with feet firmly planted in both worlds, I have had my eyes opened during this recession to just how pampered our active duty folks are-at least those who are not deployed at the moment. As the civilian world becomes even more cutthroat, the wars have prompted us throw more and more bennies at the 1% who do the fighting. That may be great for retention, but once we downsize we are going to see a plethora of disillusioned vets on the unemployment lines.

The average Cpl with four years service believes he is entitled to 20 minute smoke breaks every hour, time during the work day to PT, 30 days leave, a 96 for every holiday, PTAD, tuition assistance for college, and free medical care for life, all while being treated to free meals, school supplies, and sports tickets by a grateful public for his service. To make matters worse, who is going to explain to them that they are not going to find this in the civilian world? The senior enlisted and officers don't know any better, as they haven't been in the job market for 20+ years. In fact, some of the SgtsMaj have been the most blind to the problem. We are setting vets up for failure, and a week of TAPs isn't going to offset 4-20 years of experience on the gravy train.

What kind of MOS or NEC did these guys have? I notice a big difference in work ethics between groups in the service, so curious as to what a lot of these guys did while in the military.

That's the answer. They're lazy because they're POGs.

If you have not seen a difference in work ethic, even from branch to branch then I must have been in a different military. I cannot tell you how many times dealing with admin or supply folks I could have sworn they were in a Union and I had just missed the meetings or something. Especially with the Navy and Army being the worst as far as the individual branches go, the Air Force was very professional and the Marines were far more consistent overall with work ethic. Everyone has their "loads", including my own but you cannot tell me you never noticed a difference?

I'd never bother with generalizations like that when hiring. For example, even though I've had some tough luck with hiring vets, I still give vet applicants full consideration.

The reason I don't bother with generalizations is that they are not useful. It isn't as if I'm hiring 'the Navy' or 'infantry branch,' I'm hiring former-[insert rank] Eric Stratton and I want to know how his experience as an [insert MOS] has prepared him to work for me and how his performance compared to his peers.

Trying to find a pattern among the performance related to someone's past MOS or branch is silly for two reasons:

- It doesn't tell you anything useful about the person sitting across the table.
- It has a discriminatory feel that I'm not really comfortable with.

It was a question, simple as that, curious if you had seen any patterns, that is all, if you want to act as though you did not see any after so many reported interviews, great. Also, if you are asking how their job in the military applies to what they are perhaps going to do for your company when you hire them, wouldn't you then know what they did in the service?

Lastly, didn't ask you to actively profile Tom or hire/fire based on MOS/NEC, just if you had seen patterns from the people you had hired, a legit question but thanks for the self-righteousness just the same ;)

That was my experience too, except I hired military, for part time work, that were still on active duty. On a store visit one day I see this guy out in the parking lot working on his car while he's on the clock. After asking the manager what the story is, he tells me this guy (active duty) bragged that he was only there until he made enough to buy a $230 plane ticket, and he wasn't going to do any work in the meantime. He was fired five minutes later. My question is, why didn't the store manager (retired military) take care of this?

Speaking of the store manager, this guy was a retired Army Lt. Col. He couldn't move faster than a snails pace if his life depended on it and he mismanaged store cash so badly that my audit turned up an almost $5000 shortage. He didn't steal it, but his stupidity did allow another employee (active duty) to steal it. My question is, how in the hell did this guy make it above Capt.?

Another active duty guy thought it was a good idea if he modified customer checks and pocketed the difference. None of the management team (all ex-military) caught it, a civilian bank teller did. Accepting counterfeit $10 bills that have obviously been made on a copier? Ditto. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is far too many ex-military make crap employees.

I firmly believe that the cream of the crop rises to the top (mostly) so if you have your act together you shouldn't have a problem with taking an entry level position. Civilian employers (mostly) still value a good work ethic.

I have to say that I am pretty surprised though, would not think that most folks from the military get out and carry that type attitude and work ethic to the civilian side. I would have hoped that the things that Drifter talks about in a post below would be the more common trait you noticed among vets.

I thought I was making a helpful response earlier, so I'm not sure how this turned snippy. But here goes:

No, I haven't noted any pattern of one MOS or branch having greater success over another one.

Coming from a combat arms background, I completely understand the tendency to stoke a rivalry between the different branches and different corps. I also expect that sort of thing to die down after someone either leaves active duty or turns 24 (except for the Army-Navy game of course). It's kid stuff - and that's coming from someone who's 33.

I just have no use for trying to get my experience to fit someone's narrative of a particular branch or corps as 'better' than the others. I'd rather hire the best muleskinner over a mediocre fighter pilot. A employee's performance in relation to his or her peers is more important to me than the clannishness that some guys adopt after having served.

Lighten up, I even used an emoticon ;)

I just do not see how you could not see a pattern, I do not think it has anything to do with what they will do for you but rather where they come from as far as work ethic goes, if a person in their formative years is not asked to do much, is not tasked with much in the way of work load and responsibility then it will have effects on them after they go out. If I see one IN the military then not sure how you could avoid seeing one when you interview and track military applicants. Nothing to do with branch rivalry or anything like that, not sure how you got that out of my question. If you do not see one, that is that and I will leave it alone.

Fair enough! We'll have to leave it at that.

Also, emoticons confuse me.

Thanks Tom for your comments. I've heard the same from nearly every single one of my friends that got out. Each of them noted that the "ones that couldn't hack it" had similar attitudes as the ones you conveyed. As I transition to a civilian career, I've taken what I feel is a different tack--eating some humble pie. I had a pretty effective Senior TAP instructor start his class with the question, "So a veteran and a civilian go in for a job interview. All things equal, the civilian employer hires the veteran every time, right?" A retiring senior NCO began to spout the strains familiar to those getting out--"Of course they do!" He then began to list the virtues of military service. He talked about veterans' superior work ethic. He even mentioned how veterans always show up on time, ready to work before and after the day is through. The retiring senior NCO was so into his passionate speech that he failed to notice what all of us and the instructor noticed: a quarter of the class was walking in late and also notably, not in the attire required for the TAP workshop. The TAP instructor asked, "You mean like these guys?" while pointing to the late arrivals. Still, the majority in the class held onto their smug, entitled attitudes.

I play for the home team: I'm a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am from a family full of veterans, two of them disabled. So it pains me to agree with you. Had I not exposed myself to the impending challenges by talking with both military and civilian friends, I might have the same attitude as those guys. Thank goodness I have honest friends who care enough to prepare me for starting my civilian career. The most effective one said while reviewing my resume: "Dude, THEY DON'T CARE! If you can't tell them what all that military jargon and mumbo-jumbo can do for them, you're not going to get hired. Plus, it reads like you have a chip on your shoulder!" It hurt, but was a necessary wake-up call. Your words were too. Thanks again.

But it sounds like you have one. Are you hiring?

Who has 10 or less employees and therefore does not invest in people who actually contribute to society, promote growth in the business and provide a stable environment for their families.

contracting or consulting!

Do you have a website? I've got some, um, friends that are interested.

Most professions are varied, and one's particulars differ from another's. However, there are constants throughout: hardwork, dedication, ingenuity, punctuality, and timeliness to name a few. I'm a staff officer currently deployed in Kuwait. While my day-to-day activities have no real value outside of my shop, the above are displayed constantly. Luckily for me, I have a civilian job...one with a unique skil set, and one I know is waiting for me once I redeploy.

The above is analogous to my college major: Latin. While the particulars of Latin may not be terribly helpful to the modern world, the forms--critical thinking, analysis, attention to detail, problem solving, writing, not to mention the etymology and vocabulary building--which a classical education brings are all skills that can be taken into any profession...if the person sells himself/herself properly. I was fortunate enough, however, to get a teaching job, so I get to teach the aforementioned skill sets to students through the lenses of the classics.

Can't we just stick to possible reasons vets are not being hired or even looked at before we go down the economic philosophy debate again? I can already hear RCC coming and the socialist vs libertarian models being tossed back and forth! I thought I was combative at times, sheesh! ;)

Fair enough. I've been paying too much attention to what is or is not going on with the military in Greece, and believe that It Can Happen Here.

I'm going to have to see much more data before I conclude that the reason unemployment rates among veterans is higher is simply because they are not being hired. Why is it when African-Americans are not hired it is because they are too lazy to get out there and work, while with vets it is must be because of some sinister discrimination? Right now I think it's systemic, which is why I keep hammering the Big Picture nail.

I can tell you this: within the federal government, and in some states, veterans are often (privately) considered a backside pain. Officially they are welcomed with open arms and accorded serious preference in hiring - if it is an open-to-public position and a minimally qualified veteran applies, that veteran must be offered the job. The veteran cannot be unqualified, but does not have to be well-qualified to beat out far stronger applicants. This causes resentment, as it seems to go against the principles of meritocracy. Simply put, it is a form of Affirmative Action - nothing more, nothing less.

Once in a government position, of course, the veteran can basically do nothing and enjoy a long career, provided he/she commits no actual crimes and at least shows up most of the time. Most veterans know this, and though only some abuse it, it sort of affects how all of them are viewed.

And the whole I've-Been-There-Done-That-And-You-Haven't stance, however true, is mostly irrelevant with regards to installing mufflers, arguing cases, cleaning teeth, or bagging groceries. And it can be very threatening to a supervisor who has not served.

Then again, if I am a businessman, and a reader of Doonesbury, do I really want to take a chance hiring a BD or a Ray or a Toggle? Couldn't I presumably hire and fire un-damaged, in-debt, college grads until I come across one who can perform, without having to take time off to go to his therapy or whatever? For Christ's sake, I'm already being taxed to much to pay for all that therapy, right? I mean, I'm running a business here, not a charity, right? Hard-ass, I know, but isn't that how it works in the Free Market?

Just glad to see you are not a cynic or think there are ulterior motives behind everything ;)

I don't know why Vets are not being hired, no idea really, as for the affirmitave action, ehh...ANYONE can join the military so it is not based on race, color, creed, sex and now even sexual orientation, not the same thing as some of the other federal programs. So to the reasons why they are not getting picked up for jobs, just not sure if it is a work ethic, did the majority of vets getting out now have a sense of entitlement? Is the stereotype of them being inflexible or that they are all damaged out there even though it is not the case? Is it simply a very tough job market and military skills don't always transfer well? Is it a combination of those factors? Harvard Business Magazine had a great series of articles on the advantages of military experience and also cited the differences between the types of leaders that come out of each branch and where they would best be placed and at what type of companies.

Also, side note, no private companies that I know of give pref. and only certain states do and then only in civil service jobs. Feds are the only ones I know who give a pref.

ESIII,
that sounds like an interesting article. Have a link or citation?

Multiple articles spotlighting "leadership lessons from the military."

Table of contents here:
http://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR1011

Hat tip for the cite.