Posts Tagged ‘dismissal’
Under intense pressure to trim its budget, the Army is dismissing a rising number of soldiers who do not meet its fitness standards, drawing from a growing pool of troops grappling with obesity.
Obesity is now the leading cause of ineligibility for people who want to join the Army, according to military officials, who see expanding waistlines in the warrior corps as a national security concern.
Between 1998 and 2010, the number of active-duty military personnel deemed overweight or obese more than tripled. In 2010, 86,186 troops, or 5.3 percent of the force, received at least one clinical diagnosis as overweight or obese, according to the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center.
The trend has prompted the military to reexamine its training programs and is driving commanders to weed out soldiers deemed unfit to fight. “A healthy and fit force is essential to national security,” said Cmdr. Leslie Hull-Ryde, a Pentagon spokeswoman. “Our service members must be physically prepared to deploy on a moment’s notice anywhere on the globe to extremely austere and demanding conditions.”
During the first 10 months of this year, the Army kicked out 1,625 soldiers for being out of shape, about 15 times the number discharged for that reason in 2007, the peak of wartime deployment cycles…
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling said he was floored by what he found in 2009 when he was assigned to overhaul the Army’s training system. Seventy-five percent of civilians who wanted to join the force were ineligible, he said. Obesity was the leading cause.
“Of the 25 percent that could join, what we found was 65 percent could not pass the [physical training] test on the first day,” he said in a recent speech. “Young people joining our service could not run, jump, tumble or roll — the kind of things you would expect soldiers to do if you’re in combat.”
RTFA for details and the many directions the report describes as health and fitness failures among those trying to enlist, today. There’s a lot there to ponder. Not just obesity from inactivity and overeating keeping out recruits; but, soldiers who thought they had a career being dismissed from service, from their job.
A Pentagon investigation has found insufficient evidence that General Stanley McChrystal, the former US and Nato commander in Afghanistan sacked by Barack Obama last year, violated military policy.
McChrystal’s dismissal came after publication of an article in Rolling Stone, The Runaway General, which portrayed him and his inner circle as being out of control, and making contemptuous and dismissive remarks about the US civilian leadership…
The investigation expressed doubts about the version of some events reported in the article, written by Michael Hastings, who spent several days with McChrystal and his team. The investigation added that it could not substantiate some of the quotes.
The investigation, carried out by the Pentagon’s office of inspector general, concluded: “The evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of applicable department of defense standards with respect to any of the incidents on which we focused. Not all of the events at issue occurred as reported in the article…A polite way of saying Hastings is a liar and Rolling Stone is opportunist and unconcerned with journalistic standards.
The article, published in June last year, suggested that McChrystal was unimpressed with Obama at their first meeting, and that one of his team viewed the White House national security adviser, James Jones, as a clown. His team was also alleged to have been dismissive of vice-president Joe Biden and the late state department envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke.
At the time, McChrystal apologised after the piece, saying it was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. He flew back to Washington to see Obama, who dismissed him, saying: “The conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general.”
The investigation’s conclusions open Obama to charges that he was too hasty in dismissing McChrystal.
The former general, though no longer in the army, was partially rehabilitated last week when the White House invited him to join a panel to try to improve the life of military families. The report reached the White House 3 days before the job offer.
The new investigation is more favourable to McChrystal than an initial one published in August last year.
There are lots of details in the report. Mostly boring high dudgeon over situations and context as unimportant than who gives the finger to whom in your daily commute.
It probably explains the how and why of Obama inviting General McChrystal into the Administration, last week. As admission that our news-as-entertainment-media prompted the removal of a significant military leader from the South Asian theatre. The only surprise is that the Kongressional Klowns didn’t follow through with their usual opportunism, sound bites and slapstick. Yet.
A Manhattan woman has failed to persuade a U.S. appeals court that Starbucks Corp should be held liable for severe burns she suffered after spilling tea served in a double cup.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld on Tuesday a lower court’s dismissal of a $3 million lawsuit brought by Rachel Moltner against the world’s largest coffee chain…
She spilled tea onto her left leg and foot when she tried to remove the lid from a “venti”-sized cup of tea, causing burns that required a skin graft. Her hospital stay later resulted in other injuries, including bed sores as well as herniated discs caused by a fall out of bed.
The plaintiff accused Starbucks of serving tea that was too hot in a double cup — one cup placed inside another — that was defectively designed. She also said Starbucks should have warned her the tea could spill.
Starbucks should post a sign saying “We retain the right to refuse service to klutzes”.
The appeals court rejected her case, saying “double-cupping is a method well known in the industry as a way of preventing a cup of hot tea from burning one’s hand…”
This is not the first time a restaurant or coffee retailer has faced a lawsuit over hot beverages.
In perhaps the best-known case, a jury in 1994 ordered McDonald’s Corp to pay $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, an Albuquerque, New Mexico, woman who said she scalded herself with the restaurant’s coffee. The parties later settled.
And that’s why the “Stella” in my headline. The term is dedicated to lawsuits of this type. Opportunist, trying to make someone else accept responsibility for the plaintiff’s mistake.
A German company that fired a man for the theft of US 2¢ worth of electricity had no grounds for sacking him, a court ruled, dismissing the firm’s appeal against his reinstatement.
Network administrator Oliver Beel lost his job after charging his Segway, a two-wheeled electric vehicle, at work in May 2009. After he connected the vehicle to the firm’s power source for 1-1/2 hours, his boss asked him to remove it.
The court ruled that dismissal was disproportionate to the offence, especially given the “minimal electricity cost involved, the plaintiff’s 19-year employment by the company and the fact other employees charged mobile phones and digital photo frames at the firm’s expense without punishment.”
A chief executive was beaten to death as he tried to pacify a group of workers sacked from his manufacturing plant. Lalit Kishore Choudhary, 47, bled to death inside the car parts factory yesterday after being attacked by more than 130 men.
Police have arrested 63 former employees of Graziano Transmissioni India in connection with his death. Another 73 are facing charges of disturbing the peace.
Babu Ram, the police superintendent for Greater Noida in the state of Uttar Pradesh, said the men had been called in to settle a dispute that led to the dismissal of more than 100 staff in recent months. The meeting turned sour and the unemployed men began vandalising the machinery, turning on Choudhary when he tried to reason with them.
Demonstrators blamed “outsiders” for the killing. “We were demonstrating peacefully to get our jobs back,” one of the workers, Rajpal, told the Hindustan Times newspaper. “Outsiders may have assaulted the CEO leading to his death. Firing by the guards agitated workers and they clashed with the staff,” he said.
Nothing insightful to say about this one. Unfortunately, really no informed statements, either.
The folks on strike tell a completely different story from the corporate executives – who, of course, weren’t on the scene at all.