A motion was put out to New Bedford’s City Council for increasing paid leave for city employees in the military. The changes would consist of “an increase in the number of paid military leave days, from 17 to 40, for the 26 city employees it applies to and provide full pay for the first 30 days of extended duty” (Dunlop). City Council members wanted more information pertaining to what would be coming from the taxpayers pocket, rather than turn it into a vote purely based on the emotions of those voting. The council members wanted to make it clear that they were not opposing the bill but rather felt it their duty to figure things out for the taxpayer.
From what the article says, it seems as though the decision was a bit rushed. The intentions are good and clear, but it seems a bit misguided. The one quote they pulled which stuck out to me from Councilor-at-Large Brian Gomes was, “There’s no dollar figure on any service person,” and I have to disagree. Enlisting in the military, although an incredibly courageous act, is really just another career when it comes down to it. The same logic is applicable to police officers, firefighters, and EMT workers. Yes, these people save lives, but to offer them benefits with this argument of not being able to put a price on any service person, would be irresponsible and unfair to the taxpayer. In all scenarios, no matter how commendable a person’s work may be, a limit must be placed.
This is extremely hypocritical of me to say as the extremely lucky recipient of the post 9/11 GI-bill which will pay for three years of any public college I can get into due to my father working over 25 years in the US army. Unlike these city employees, my father worked solely for the military. He was not raking the benefits from a second job. This is not to say that these city employees should be ostracized for enlisting, but they should not be rewarded for started a second job in the middle of their first. Above all, their enlisting in the military should not come at the expense of the taxpayer under any circumstance. Nobody asked these people to enlist while working another job. If you cannot handle the responsibilities of your first job, then that just means you do not get a second job. If you passionately want to work at another job, then you quit your first. They already pay enough for the military, to have them pay even more for city workers in the service would be unfair. An easily arguable quote coming from Ward 2 Councilor Maria Giesta is as follows, “We can’t come up with excuses for not paying for the people who protect us,” but the fact of the matter is that we come up with excuses daily. Everytime we take away money from veteran funds or shut down fire stations, we are making excuses. Additionally, it is not as if these people are not being paid for their service. They are simply not being paid for a job that they are incapable of doing since they are out of the country. A person enlisting in the military after being hired for the city would give these workers the benefits of two jobs while only working one. The rest of the taxpayers did not choose for this person to join the armed forces. They are already paying taxes for unpaid leave, and the service members are already getting paid for being in the military, so I am a bit lost as to why this bill was necessary in the first place. Who advocated for this motion besides people of the armed forces who are also employed by the city? The article leaves much to my imagination, which makes me uneasy and a bit doubtful in the necessity of the motion.
Dunlop, Kiernan. “New Bedford City Council Debates Upping Paid Leave for City Employees in Armed Forces.” Southcoasttoday.com, Southcoasttoday.com, 29 Mar. 2019, www.southcoasttoday.com/news/20190329/new-bedford-city-council-debates-upping-paid-leave-for-city-employees-in-armed-forces.