We need businesses in this country to step up and make family- sustaining jobs available to returning veterans. --- opinion noted.
Soldiers in the United States Army are compensated through a combination of taxable basic pay, tax-exempt allowances for subsistence and living quarters, and other benefits such as health care and retirement. in August of 2011, President Obama challenged the private sector to hire or train 100,000 veterans and military spouses by the end of 2013. And over the past two years, businesses across America have answered that call. By last August, they had already filled 125,000 jobs, with commitments to hire 250,000 more. And today, we are proud to announce that America's businesses have hired or trained 290,000 veterans and military spouses, almost triple the original goal. In addition, companies like Wal-Mart, UPS, Home Depot, the Blackstone Group, Target, and McDonald's have committed to hire or train another 435,000 veterans and military spouses over the next five years. So we're making real progress. We're encouraged that the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans dropped by 2.2 percent in 2012. But it is still too high; because as long as any veteran or military spouse who needs a job is unable to find one, then we still have work to do. That's why, in his budget, President Obama proposed a permanent extension of the tax credits he signed into law for businesses that hire unemployed veterans and wounded warriors. We've also been working with governors and state legislators to revamp state laws to give our troops credit for the skills they've learned in the military when they apply for professional licenses and credentials here at home. In addition, we've created new partnerships between the armed forces and the manufacturing and information technology industries to ensure that our servicemembers are trained for good jobs. On May 9, 1:09 pm, lew <[email protected]> wrote: > Union boss Trumka calls out Walmart for having the audacity to hire veterans > townhall.com > posted at 12:41 pm on May 9, 2013 by Erika Johnsen > > Last January, Walmart announced their upcoming initiative to *offer a > job*<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732423510457824347191870...>to > any honorably-discharged U.S. military veteran, set to begin on May 27. > It was an idea that the White House > *applauded*<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/wal-mart-to-announce-extensive-p...>, > with Michelle Obama saying that “Wal-Mart is setting a groundbreaking > example for the private sector to follow.” > > As you might imagine, the AFL-CIO doesn’t like that at all. Behold, *a > statement*<http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Statement-by-AFL-CIO-...>from > their president, Richard Trumka, on the “White House facilitating > Walmart’s public relations move”: > > Walmart’s recent announcement of a plan to hire returning honorably > discharged veterans is more about public relations than honoring our > heroes. That this effort was valorized by President Obama and Vice > President Biden reflects an acceptance of economic failure out of line with > America’s history or future. > > We owe it to our returning veterans to make sure they are treated as the > heroes they are, rather than as symbols used to “greenwash” Walmart’s > eroding brand. After facing enemies abroad, is an $8.81 an hour part-time > job the best we can offer returning veterans? > > Already, working families and our economy are struggling against an > epidemic of low-paying, low-benefit, part-time work. Instead of > legitimizing that trend, we need to treat the talents of our veterans—and > of all of America’s people—as a critical national resource. > > We need businesses in this country to step up and make family-sustaining > jobs available to returning veterans. Previous generations of heroes > returned from overseas service to critical jobs in manufacturing, > construction and public service, jobs that enabled veterans to help build > the nation and support families. With the right policies, including those > in President Obama and Vice President Biden’s American Jobs Act, we can > live up to the standards of our past and empower our veterans for the > future. > > Er, *so what* if it’s a PR thing? In this country and in this day and age, > it is worth companies’ while to maintain a good public image, and that is > very a good thing. The free enterprise system is a version of the most > direct form of democracy there is, and dollars are like votes; you can > decline to send your dollars to a company whose business practices you > disapprove of, and companies are plenty aware of this. It is also good for > company’s bottom lines to “be green” and reduce their environmental > footprints, to give some of their profits to charity, to sell products that > work, and etcetera, but you rarely hear anyone complaining about that. > > And find as much fault as you will with Walmart’s low-wage labor, but it’s > no secret and people still shop there *in droves* — because that low-wage > labor is directly related to their vastly less expensive products. As *Charles > Kenny*<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/give_sam_walton_the_...>put > it over at FP last week: > > More than 1 billion people still live in the borderlands of absolute > deprivation, scraping by on less than $1.25 a day. Nevertheless, many have > more access to goods and services than they did only a few years ago (even > if they’re not yet buying their cassava at the Ouagadougou Walmart). That’s > in part because companies around the world have figured out how to make and > ship the stuff that poor people want at lower cost, which makes lives > better. Call it the global Walmart effect. > > There are two ways to help poor people buy more of what they need. One is > to help them make more money. The other is to make the money they have go > further. And Walmart has proved incredibly adept at that second approach. > Take food, for instance. Walmart is the world’s biggest food retailer, and > it offers foods at prices considerably lower than those at traditional > supermarkets — as much as 25 percent lower, according to economists Jerry > Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag. Factor in all the other stuff it sells, and > Walmart’s overall impact on its shoppers’ spending power is even greater. > > Unions have had longtime beef with Walmart, and it can’t help their mood > that union membership across the country is *steadily > declining*<http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2013/1/why-union-membersh...>. > Criticizing Walmart’s very solid initiative as an example of “acceptance of > economic failure,” rather than everything that’s *actually* wrong with the > economy (much of it stemming from big-government initiatives, I might add), > is just dumb. -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
