The READINESS Act
As if trying to perfectly prove my point that we need tangible changes for military families, the READINESS Act came up for a vote in Congress and met some (not so) shocking opposition. The bill passed with a vote of 30-13 and now heads to the full House for approval, or it may be folded into the National Defense Authorization Act. Overall, this should be a win for military families. However, the comments made in dissension still further prove the point that what we need is not a holiday celebrating spouses but a fundamental perspective shift on what it means to serve.
The full name for this act is The Resilient Employment and Authorization Determination to Increase National Employment of Serving Spouses. Or READINESS for short. I always wonder if they come up with the acronym or title first, although I would place my money on the acronym. Anyway, this bill is designed to help decrease the massive unemployment rate that military spouses face primarily due to PCSs.
This act would allow spouses who are being forced to move due to their servicemember's job to keep their position to the best of their ability. They would either work remotely on a temporary basis, be reassigned at the new duty station, or be transferred into a similar position. If none of those options are possible, which is often the case for anyone moving overseas, then they can request to be put on non-pay status for up to six months. This means an employee would receive all non-financial benefits for the interim, and the group can rehire for
the position.
While this only really applies to anyone working in a federal job, whether through the base or overarching government, it is still a win for military families across the board. For one thing, just because we may not be able to use the benefit today doesn't mean we never will. Even more important, though, is that thriving in this life means being a community. We have to believe that a rising tide raises all ships. Therefore, we should celebrate the spouses who have just been granted a little bit more security in their careers.
Obviously, anything going through Congress will never have a perfect vote. Things are just too political these days for all teams to agree on one thing. That being said, this vote passed with a pretty distinct majority. And while there were 13 dissenters, two really stuck out. The first is Michael Cloud, who represents the state of Texas. He said, "I think we're going down a dangerous precedent when we begin to say that federal bureaucrats' jobs are guaranteed for life." That statement alone shows a lack of understanding of what the act aims to achieve.
First and foremost, I think anyone reading that act will realize that it does not guarantee their job for life. In the best-case scenario, we get to keep working the same job with the same group as if we never moved in the first place. Our career progression would be more similar to that of our spouses and civilians because we could work our way up rather than starting over at each new place. And in the worst-case scenario, we enter non-pay status for six months. I don't really know what benefits a federal job provides that we wouldn't already receive for being military spouses. Things like healthcare or access to programs are pretty much the same whether we are the employee or the spouse. It also does nothing to solve the fact that the majority of military families need that second income to get by.
Do I think that everyone should be guaranteed their job for life just by virtue of being a military spouse? Absolutely not. People who are very bad at their jobs should seek a different role that suits their needs better. That's not at all what this act gives, though. Anyone who would be let go for poor work skills or interpersonal complaints would still be fired. We still have to show up and do our jobs to the best of our ability for this act to have any real value in our lives. That being said, Cloud's remarks pale in comparison to Scott Perry from Pennsylvania. Perry said, "We cannot fashion our decisions on national security based on the individual needs of people that signed up of their own volition for a job that they wanted to pursue. We're happy that they want to serve. We're happy that they want to sacrifice, but that's what comes with the territory. If that's not for you, we need insurance salesmen and we need people to clean pools and we need all kinds of things in America."
Honestly, I have a lot to say about this quote and its many problems, but I think I'll save that for Wednesday. Just simmer on those thoughts for now, and maybe double-check your voting registration. If you agree, then you have all the information you need to keep people like this in office, and if you disagree, then you need to be out at the polls making a difference. One good thing that came out of Covid was the rise of absentee voting, making it easier than ever for military families to vote no matter where they find themselves in the world.