Well, Rand was a little indelicate, but he's right. The posts are confusing because the details seem to contradict each other.
So, Mark, if I am getting this right, you had some work on on your car, got it aligned, then got new tires. Those tires were on the car for some amount of miles (how many?), never rotated, then they were taken off for winter (?), then they have been put back on in the same position when they came off - and you are wondering both about the wear on the tires (Question #1) and why the shop put the tires back into the same position instead of doing a rotation (Question #2).
So if I am correct - and you need to correct me if I'm not - then the answer to question #2 is that, perhaps, there is enough wear difference on the tires that the shop felt the deeper treaded tires needed to go on the rear - and that just happened to be where they came off.
But question #2 has included a word that I think is key to understanding why you asked that question - abuse - and the thinking would be that you would want to even out the abuse. - Right?
Well, sort of. There is some logic to that if the tires are being regularly rotated - BUT - there is a point where the "abuse" is so bad, that putting abused tires on the rear is less safe than putting them on the front.
Put a different way, you want the best tires on the rear.
And I think I have answered Question # 1 earlier.