GovernmentExecutive.com

There are few topics in federal management as emotionally charged as veterans preference, which gives former military members a leg up in federal hiring.

Talk to veterans groups and you'll find they are inundated with complaints from veterans who say they were passed over for jobs. Many - even those who should get special consideration because they are disabled - tell about applying for, and being rejected for, job after federal job.

It's easy to point to statistics that challenge the notion that veterans don't get their due. There are 450,000 veterans in government's civilian ranks. That's 25 percent, much higher than the 11 percent in the U.S. workforce overall. In 2003, 33 percent of new federal hires were veterans. That would suggest veterans preference is highly successful.

Managers say it is veterans preference - not veterans themselves - that they dislike. They say it enables unqualified candidates to get jobs in their programs. If managers are going to be judged on program results, they contend they should be able to hire the most qualified people.

Some say that, in their experience, retired military personnel with 20 years of service seek federal jobs so they can coast to a pension five years later. (Such employees are called ROADkill, for "retired on active duty.") Others who want to hire people just out of college, or minorities, say veterans take jobs those candidates could fill.

Others have less-than-defensible reasons for disliking veterans preference. In one such case, the Office of Special Counsel sought a manager's removal at the Fish and Wildlife Service for passing over a disabled veteran who was listed as the top candidate. The manager is accused of canceling the job announcement and then re-advertising it at a grade level for which the veteran couldn't apply. The job went to a contender who allegedly was the manager's friend and who had trailed behind the disabled veteran on the original list of qualified candidates.

Canceling job announcements and then reposting them is one of the old tricks for managers who want to avoid hiring a veteran. There are numerous such end runs in the complicated web of federal hiring regulations. Another is to use one of a variety of special hiring authorities in which veterans preference doesn't apply.

Veterans preference has long been tied to the "rule of three," which requires hiring from among the top three candidates on a list from human resources offices. Preference gives veterans a better chance of ending up on that list. When Congress created the Homeland Security Department in 2002, it granted agencies the authority to ditch the rule of three and instead use "category rating," in which an unlimited number of candidates can qualify for the job. But few agencies have adopted the new system. One reason: Veterans preference is part of category rating, just as it is under the rule of three.

Good managers want to hire the most qualified. Veterans want their service and sacrifice to give them an advantage in federal hiring. The tension between those two has veterans feeling left out and managers feeling hamstrung. If there's a way to have a clear-headed discussion about working out that tension, it is overdue.

COMMENTS

• When I read the comments I understand where everyone is coming from. The truth be said being a vet helps and it should; however, being a vet does not gaurantee a job. The realitiy is it is about net working. The best advice if you want a job go volunteer where you want one. Do things that make your face known. Work with the system not against it. I want to be part of changing the current system, but right now I am using it to my advantage. One day I will be at a level to impact change! Janet Lynn Posted June 26, 2007 9:43 PM
• I was hired at the Survey 12/85 as a Cartographic Tech 5 and assigned to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Library to perform photo indexing and general organizing of archival imagery. In my previous life, Platoon Sergeant Squad Leader and senior NCO (E-6 ) EER-125, SQT-96 slated for E-7. According to OPM regulations and terms of hiring conditions, the agency (USGS) was supposed to establish a training program (appointees with less than 15 years of education) of which never happened. Currently a professional cartographer GS-11, step 8, or 13 years as an 11 with full performance to 12. Performance ratings at GS-11 are numerous "excellents," one "outstanding" and as of late "full successful." Veterans, especially black ones, really don't get too far from what I've seen. Albeit, I'm the only veteran in my office and I only know of only two other vets. It's all about pedigree and veterans are excluded. Lee E. Fowler Posted July 14, 2006 6:21 PM
• Director Federal HR Midwest I would like to point out that the system is not set up to "give" a veteran their first job. One look into this system and one only sees waste at an astronomical level. Positions being filled by one person who in 6 months decides to leave because they do not like the area, at taxpayer expense none the less. Other positions being filled by a person that has personal ties to the hiring manager or is currently in the system. You guys at OPM are attempting to keep up with many applicants, that I can appreciate the difficulty in. I have spoke with the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs about this very subject, being a veteran I am upset with how OPM uses loopholes to their advantage. For instance, I have 2 BS Degrees, one in Resource Economics and the other in Natural Resource Management. I have applied for various positions in my field of expertise and have never even been interviewed. One such position, I spoke with HR and was told I rated 95 and top three, only to have the job "cancelled." This is an economic issue when we strip away all the laws with regard to hiring. It costs less to bring in someone who already holds a similar position and would cost more to train a new hire. Chris Posted February 4, 2006 12:57 AM