Us history question- civilians giving up their jobs.?

Question

Do you think that civilians should have been forced to give up their jobs after the war to returning veterans? Explain.

Answer 1

ah...ya! it's a no-brainer! A veteran, who has risked his life to save the freedoms of all workers, should be allowed to keep his/her job.

Veterans are the reason the worker was employed to begin with.

Edit: The Rosie the Riveters, knew full well that this was a temporary arrangement, to help their country win. We are far too selfish these days, to understand the greatest generation.

Answer 2

First of all, during the war (WWII), over 10 million men, ages 18 to 35, were enlisted into the war effort. The jobs that they performed were taken over by a lot of women that wouldn't have necessarily worked in the jobs that they inherited. But, because the war was going on, and because these jobs needed to be done, and because we are a patriotic nation, women filled the voids. Something that would not have happened (women working at men's jobs) had there been no war. After the war was over, and the heroes came home, I'm sure the majority of the women were happy to give up their jobs and return to family life and care for their children, who they basically had to neglect during the four years of war. Rosie the Riveter wasn't in it for the long haul. She was just going to fill in for a while. So, I don't think that it was so much that these women were fired, as they were happy to get back to what they really wanted to do. Remember, this was 1941 to 1945, and the culture was that women stayed at home to take care of the kids. It's only been since the late '60s that many women have branched out to have a family AND work. The answer by the previous person, doesn't take into account the history and culture of the times.

Answer 3

The only time a person would/should give up their job for the vet is when the vet is returning to the job after service. Every company I have ever worked for has filled a departing serviceman's position with a person who is told that his job may be temporary. The vet is guaranteed his job when he returns.
The serviceman is voluntarily (or not - in the case of a draft) protecting our country and our way of life. It benefits everyone including the company he works for. The company and the temporary employee owe him, at least, that much.
Now, no one should be made to give up a job solely because a vet has applied for the job, but it is not the job he held before he was called to duty. The employer has the right to take past experience into account when selecting a new employee and should have the right to lean toward or against a vet or anyone else.

Answer 4

It is a federal law that if you as an employer have an employee that is in the reserves or National Guard who gets depolyed over seas then you have to keep his orginal job opening avalible for them upon their returning. Now if you are talking about WWII and Korea. I still feel that you should not force other people out for troops but they should have a good job waiting on them when they get back home.

Answer 5

The vast majority of women during WWII were told to "go home where you belong". Nice huh, after they worked their fannies off to help the war effort.

That should have been a major wake up call to the women in this country, they should have raised some hell. But no, that generation dutifully went home and got pregs with 2.5 kids and were mommies their whole life. No wonder many of those women are so bitter. I hope women wise up someday.

Answer 6

Unless the vets were specifically promised that they could have their jobs back, no. If you're thinking of WWII, most women got married as soon as they could and went home to have babies, voluntarily removing themselves from the labor market (with the prodding of government propaganda). Forcing change was unnecesary.