Seems NYC offered employees being called up for active duty in the Guard a deal - the city would continue their salary and benefits, and the Guard members would repay the city when they returned - or, they could forgo the deal and live on their Guard pay and benefits.

The problem is, NYC is counting gross pay - including the amounts deducted for SS, Medicare, etc., and non-cash benefits such as housing and medical care - as part of the amounts that have to be repaid.

NYC & Guard

I could see asking them to repay the net cash they received as military pay while they were on active duty - but gross pay, when it appears they will not be able to recover the amounts they paid for SS, etc. (and, they were paying these items double - once from their NYC salaries and again from their military pay). And I think counting non-cash benefits as part of the amount to be repaid is just plain wrong.

To add to the mess, NYC has only now started seeking repayment, and for some of these people it has been 4 years since they did their active duty, and they didn't think the city was actually going to try to collect. Especially because, as at least one reports, he was assured when he took the deal that it was unlikely that NYC would actually seek repayment.

I understand that every city has budget problems, now and always. But it seems to me there is a major element of unfairness in what is going on. Read the article and see what you think.

By Crystal915 on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 06:57 pm:

I thought it was a protected right of the NG and Reservists to keep their job and pay if activated. When my ex was activated after 9/11, he made quite a bit of money from the NG pay (TDY pay, and other special pays), but he didn't have a civilian job at that time, so I don't remember what the policy is on that. Either way, I think that's unfair, because the NG and Reservists didn't ASK to be called up, they were doing their duty.

By Bobbie~moderatr on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 07:09 pm:

Crys, I know they have to hold the job for the NG/Reservist but I do not believe they are required to pay them or carry insurance while they are active duty. When BIL was sent, my sister was PG and I know they switched to active duty coverage and their coverage through his work stopped. I would have to check with my sister but she is out of town. She, my BIL and his brother are all in the NG.

By Vicki on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 08:26 pm:

I have always been under the same impression as Bobbie.

How do I feel about the article? Well, I do feel for them, but it even says in there that they didn't read the fine print. And just because it took them a while to come after the money doesn't mean that it is yours to spend.... I feel for them, but I also think that they made their own bed so to speak.

By Ginny~moderator on Saturday, September 23, 2006 - 08:32 pm:

I do think they should have read the fine print - but time was short. I also feel very strongly that NYC should only be going after the net pay - after the deductions and without counting the non-cash benefits.

You should not be penalized because you served your country, and the way NYC is going about it right now is penalizing them.

In the article, it says New York State does it differently - the state either makes up the difference between your state pay and your military pay (or you give back to the state the difference, if your military pay is higher), so the pay stays the same, and the state keeps all the benefits in force except the part of the retirement benefit that would be deducted from the employee's paycheck (if I understand it correctly). That is fair.

By Crystal915 on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 04:21 pm:

Vicki, I also agree you need to read the fine print, but many times reservists and NG are called up on very short notice, and have to do prep work that your average Active Duty family already has in place. (Tricare coverage, ID cards, will, Power of Attorney, etc) There is a lot to do in a short amount of time, and a LOT of stress, even in the best case scenario.

By Vicki on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 05:00 pm:

I do understand that believe me, but I still think that before they agreed to something, they should have known what it was about!! That seems to be just common sense!! It isn't like it wasn't in the information, they just didn't read (or understand) the entire thing. Never a good idea to sign and agree to something that you don't read and understand.

By Bobbie~moderatr on Sunday, September 24, 2006 - 10:06 pm:

We also have to remember that most of those people (NG/Reservist) are no more than children. The great majority are wet behind the ears and don't understand fine print. They were told something and they took it at face value. Now they are going to be financially strapped to pay back something they didn't understand to begin with. I am with Ginny, paying back is one thing but paying back something that has already gone back into the governments pocket is just wrong. Live and learn, as they say...