Should the 44 contractors be paid for crucial support despite being considered "unfit" by the California Guard?

  • Pay Up! Contracts Are Binding!

    Yes, the 44 contractors that worked for the California National Guard should be paid the sign-on bonuses that they were promised for interpretation services. Arguments have been raised that these contractors were considered "unfit" due to age and other health related factors. However, these considerations do not supersede the much much important factors, including binding contracts and satisfactory performance, that guarantee these contractors their due pay. The California National Guard appears to have ignored the fitness qualifications only upon hiring these contractors, but is now reintroducing them in order to avoid full and final payment.

  • Contractors provided service and deserve bonus

    It is one thing to determine that someone is unfit to serve prior to beginning their term of service. However, these contractors were only determined to be unfit for service after they had already completed their services. It is wrong that the California National Guard has now failed to honor its agreement with these people.

  • Payment should be rendered for work done

    Yes, I think that the 44 contractors should be paid for their support. Regardless of the California Guard's decision about the whether or not the contractors were fit for service, if they were used for work purposes they should be paid in full. The California Guard should have done a better job at vetting its contractors.

  • No, they should not be paid

    The contracts should not be paid because the quality of the services they were offering was unacceptably poor. As it is, contractors already charge very high prices for their services. In my opinion, the California Guard can be trusted to give a fair assessment of the contractors' fitness to work.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.