GovernmentExecutive.com

Tension overflows as managers look for ways to hire without feeling hamstrung.

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.

Yet it is an open secret that there is deep disdain among many federal managers toward veterans preference. Former Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James acknowledged that in September, when she told federal human resource officials at a conference that she knew managers were asking them to find ways to pass over veterans. James was an ardent supporter of veterans preference, making enforcement a top priority. She urged HR officials to resist managers' requests to avoid it.

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

• Excellent comment by Mr. Westover. I only differ on OSC being able to help. I presented a case to OCS involving a 30-year-old, black, female 5-point veteran who emailed a question to the Naval Acquisition Intern Program (NAIP) at the Naval Acquisition Career Center (NACC) where I worked. She said the selecting official at NAVSEA02 Contracting Directorate, to whom we provided a hiring certificate, told her on the phone that the job was only for 20 and 21-year-olds, and that the cost-of-living in Washington DC was too high for her to live as a GS-7. She voluntarily declined further interest becasue she was over 21 and the manager was able to "reach" the non-veteran for selection that she was "blocking" ont he certificate. Management at NACC and the Navy DACM responsible for the hiring chose to do nothing, so I filed a complaint with OSC on the veteran's behalf at risk of losing my job. I was redirected to the VA, who redirected me to OSC. OSC said even though the law was broken, I could not raise a complaint because only the veteran could. Herein lies the problem. The prefence eligible veterans who are illegally passed over are not aware of the schemes and intense planning to usurp the hiring laws. They know they are not having any luck getting hired, but don't realize they should even file a complaint. They are unaware that in todays Federal workforce there are managers who say "We don't want no stinkin' vets" and that is a quote from the year 2007 heard many times. They are unaware that similar travesties are occuring every day in the Federal Government. Come on America, let's comply with the law for our veterans who laid their life on the line for us. Dan Diviney Posted November 9, 2007 5:41 PM
• From my first-hand experience, there are a lot of less than A-rated vets using preference to get cushy federal jobs. A job I applied for was cancelled and re-advertised four times over six months to get some disabled vets off the list. This last time I applied, I was passed up for an interview because of a disabled vet who, even with the 10-point preference, scored an 83 compared to my non-adjusted 90 on a GS-10 position! Hello?!? If the feds are so hard up for qualified workers, how about listing all candidates based on their final scores (with vet points) instead of only "professional and scientific jobs). You'd be hard pressed to tell anybody working in public affairs that their job isn't "professional." I'm all for giving vets a leg up, but do we have to give them handouts? Why shouldn't they compete based on their qualifications just like everyone else? AG Posted September 19, 2006 3:28 PM
• In measuring the value of veterans preference, be careful of statements like the mentioned 450,000 veterans alleged within the present government workforce. Veterans preference actually applies to a small subset of veterans, such as disabled veterans or those who have served a specified length of time during a war or campaign. The count in this article offers nothing in evaluating veterans preference. In addition, the claim by managers that they are forced to hire unqualified candidates is wrong. Veterans preference does not apply to applicants reviewed as unqualified for the vacancy. In 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law the Veterans Preference Act, establishing a clear process of recognizing the contribution of veterans competing for employment within the federal government. The legislation mandated the addition of either 5 or 10 points to an examination score for eligible veteran applicants. In addition, the Act set in motion special guidance to help disabled veterans (when rated by the VA as 30% or more disabled) in seeking employment. There was a time when one vacancy was filled through one announcement, and veterans preference was actually applied to eligible veterans. Now, the Office of Personnel Management seems committed to ensuring that this practice never gets in the way of a manager who only wants to hire his friend. Eligible and disabled veterans are now referred to as “stoppers,” resulting in frequent cancellation of competitive vacancy announcements. Disabled veterans are not wanted in the federal workplace, and their numbers have dropped to record lows since the inception of the Veterans Preference Act. Methods exist for “passing over” a qualified preference eligible veteran. However, managers seem more willing to disregard the language and law of the Veterans Preference Act (1944) than to select a qualified veteran. More cases of discrimination such as the article has suggested need to be brought and litigated through the Office of Special Counsel. Only with this new enforcement of the laws will managers be encouraged to hire among qualified preference eligible veteran applicants. John Westover Posted July 18, 2005 5:41 PM