Return to Article: Senators concerned by veterans' preference loopholes
-
80729
I am a disabled vet with a master in education. I have been trying to apply for a job for the last four years to further myself. I always make the list of eligibles and I am told I am highly qualified but...the job announcement is always canceled. When I ask why I am told the selecting official changed their mind about what they wanted. Why is this loop hole allow to continue. I am more than qualified as avet so why is this happening. I am told how great I am great at my job. What can I do?
-
77163
I know a young lady who has spent four yrs in a national park position and will soon gain a masters degree..whats interesting is, since she is not a ten point vet, she now can't even apply for the same position! because of medical porblems she can never join the military so therefore it appears she will never work for the park service! I have worked for the park service,,,alot,,,of the vets that ended up working with me were not really qualified for the position,,,but they were vets. yes,,I am a vet,,and yes I was more then qualified for the nationial park position. after retiring from the army...every job I gained I did it thru hard work,,not because I was a vet. It appears the national park service will try to get by with a bunch of substandard people,,if the main requirement is you must be a vet...don't you see a problem here? oh,,by the way I spent three yrs in combat,wounded twice,inf,abn inf,special forces and delta..and I would never use my vet status to gain a job...thank you
-
60800
Dear Army Wife,
You had the opportunity to sign up and serve just like your husband did, but you chose not to. That was your choice, now that you see the error of your ways you're complaining that the system isn't fair.
BooHoo
-
53164
I can see where those who were drafted and disabled should deserve some compensation, but this should be done through disability funds or some type of federal program. My husband's uncle has Agent Orange from Vietnam and has been in a wheel chair for years and the government still won't give him the prosthetic leg he deserves. But, he doesn't feel he should receive any type of preference over those who are also qualified. He is highly qualified because of his work experience in the military as a leader, not simply because he's a vet. I agree with the person that wrote that the Vet's preference has turned into a welfare system for many vets. The only thing that should matter is the question of whether or not that person is the best qualified person for the job. Nothing else should matter. Many vets are, but not all. Why should you get preference over a qualified candidate who went to college, obtained the necessary experience and who apply for a job that they are more then qualified for? I will keep working in my current position until I can "break the code" as they call it. This is not meant to be a complaint but a reasonable frustration for those of us who are more then qualified. I think most of us also despise the fact that most agencies already have someone in mind before they make their selections and often waste everyone's time. I just had a friend who was hired for a GS 9 (prom. to an 11) position and the description was literally written for her. She was not GS before and worked as a lodging finance officer. I just really think we need to review who is best qualified and stop all this preference treatment. The point of working is you do your job and if you're hired, you should be the most qualified. How many wars you've fought in or how much your career was diverted by the military is nonsense. You chose the military as a career so be proud of it and stop with all the post-military expectations on special treatment.
-
53163
After reading these posts, I'm going to speak the truth for a lot of frustrated workers who have been trying to get into the federal system for years. I've been an army wife for about 4 years now and the city in which I am employed has one of the poorest job markets I've ever seen. I've even gone back for my masters degree to obtain a decently paid job. I've been trying to get a GS job the entire time we've been stationed here but I do not qualify for Spousal Preference or any other type of preference as yet, although I was married before my husband got orders for this town. Let me say that I do not mean to discredit vets in any way but why does a vet deserve a job over any other qualified candidate? I have dealt with numerous Army soldiers and their wives who complain constantly about everyone and everything and I can't imagine one of these men getting out and getting preference over myself. Not to mention, many don't do their jobs or much of anything else while they are in the service. As an officer's wife, I have also been "expected" to become an FRG leader through deployments and during several commands on top of my own work schedule. These jobs are time consuming and exhausting. They are also unpaid positions.
-
52511
I think vets should get 1st pick and the people too sorry to sign up and protect second. If it wer'nt for them, there would be no government job.
-
45928
The posts here that are adamant about how veterans should get the job only when they are the most qualified make me laugh. I am a federal employee and have to say that the lions share of jobs I see are written for a "preferred" person. In other words since the job is written specifically for "me" theoretically I am the best "me" there is. The specifics of the job posting usually have less to do with hiring qualified people than they do with hiring our friends and toadies.
-
16379
I won the first round of the Outstanding Scholar fight. MSPB refused to grant OPM a stay (Dean v. USDA). The woman hired over me did not have any experience in the field. I had nine years experience and a three years Career Internship. I hold and earned master's plus 30 hours. Did I have more of a right to the job than she? Yes I did because I am a disabled veteran. If you can read this; thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a vet.
-
15950
Does Dan Blair really think the agencies/departments will tell him they have used this practice? Wake up and smell the coffee!
-
15942
When ever the subject of job competition comes up, it is a hot issue. People naturally want any advantage they can get, especially now that the number of available jobs is shrinking fast. Any program can be abused, with unqualified people put into positions "just because." After 19 years as a federal employee, I have seen men and women hired just because they looked good, because their alma matter was the same as the boss', because they socialized at night with the boss, or because they had been born and raised in the area and therefore "deserved" the job. I am a vet myself, but have lost many jobs to vets with points, even if these are not disabled individuals, but only earned the points for serving at the right time in history. I can understand why it seems unfair to those with no preference.
Someone asked why employers want to hire vets anyway. Those reasons vary, but usually, it's because they have learned a stricter job ethic, discipline, and respect for others that can't be learned in a classroom. Not all of them bring those qualities to the job, or they tend to lose them after 20 years, and their attitude of entitlement can put others off. However, one of the reasons vets are supposed to get preference by law, is to make up for a diverted career path. While many of their peers are earning degrees or gaining work experience, military members are often unable to attend college, and their assigned MOS may not be the most lucrative upon their discharge. Vets' preference is not a guarantee of employment, but it can offer them a chance to at least be considered.
-
15922
I have no problem with veterans' preference, as long as that person is truly the best person for the job. Now, on the matter of reassignment to force an employee to quit, that practice has been going on for a long time in Arkansas and will continue to do so because I do not foresee any changes being made to prevent it. Especially if Congress denies its use and existence. If employee removal on basis of conduct, work ethics and production were more available as a resource, this practice would be nonexistent.
-
15906
Elizabeth--
You missed the point. No one is saying they disrespect vets -- or at least they shouldn't be. Your attitude, however, that only vets deserve credit for what our country is more than a little over the top and insulting to those of us who serve the nation in other ways --and yes, there are other, less celebrated not to mention less well-paid ways to serve.
The point is that the system, as now used, is ripe for abuse, either of the kind you experienced, or in the opposite direction. And it would seem to me that any desire to avoid vets probably comes from the sort of experiences described down-thread. What I suggested is simply that the 10 point system doesn't work well when evaluations of candidates, theoretically on a 100-point range, more often than not lump every applicant within a 30-40 point range. The problem is not with vets' preference which is deserved, but with a system that can inflate it, resulting in, yes, people being pushed where they shouldn't be and the resultant backlash wrongly experienced in cases like yours.
-
15904
Charlie, I did cite a percentage in my comment. Not from an actual figure or other resource. My personal experience is 95 percent of my DoD co-workers are veterans. Most do an excellent job and improve the work environment. That being said there are some bad apples. It shouldn't be that way. Non-vets have some room for argument there. It's not only veterans' preference that needs to be examined and discussed, it's all the preferences.
-
15903
Thank you Elizabeth and Kenneth Huffman. The vets in this country need to form the most massive protest in history against the treatment of vets in the federal job market. Our service organizations need to demand that hearings be held in Washington to investigate and prosecute those persons in responsible positions such as agency directors, human resource specialists and others involved in the obvious conspiracy that goes on in agencies in order to violate and discriminate against the rights of veterans. This is not a "one agency" conspiracy, but all of them and it is manufactured and detailed by the OPM. This is the ringleader of them all and by god something needs to be done to protect those who have served this country and those now serving in Iraq and all over the world. It is time to put an end to this injustice against the veterans of this country. If our politicians cannot do it, let's vote them out and put in some who will. I retired 25 years ago and I have seen this over and over.
-
15884
As an assistant inspector general in the Office of Personnel Management for eight years, I can affirm that the Office of Inspector General knowingly, deliberately, and repeatedly misused provisions of the Outstanding Scholar Program (OSP) between 1994 and 1998 to circumvent veterans' preference hiring laws and regulations. As part of an attempt to cover up these illegal hiring activities, senior OIG managers, in concert with officials of OPM's Human Resources office, suborned fraud by instructing OIG auditors wrongfully hired under the OSP to lie on federal employment applications. Inspector General Patrick McFarland subsequently rewarded the principal audit manager involved in the hiring scam with promotion to the Senior Executive Service. So what's new?
-
15882
First of all -- for all you whiners -- veterans' preference is used as follows:
- Application (for those eligible according to the job announcement)
- Scoring (weed out process of those who don't meet the minimum requirements)
- Adding of veterans points (if applicable and proper paperwork is submitted)
- Cert (only those who score at the cutoff and above)
Now at this point the agency has met its veterans' preference requirements. The agency does not have to hire the vet if they can show another candidate is more qualified. Vets do not get hired just because we are vets. We must qualify just like everyone else who applies for a federal job. As a 10 point 30 percent or more veteran I have been "not hired" and not happy about it. But I also have 2 master's degrees and have not gotten jobs. That just pisses me off. I am more than qualified for many jobs but have been discriminated against and not given a job just because I am a 10 point vet. So -- stop crying all you vet haters and get over it and do your job. Or go join the military -- do at least three years and then come back -- we will see what you write then. Whether drafted or by choice, the military requires individuals and their families to give up a chunk of their lives. Remember this is a free country because of vets!!!! God Bless America!
-
15869
"No one should be hired for a job they are not qualified to do."-- Anonymous poster
Exactly. The whole problem with vets' preference, or any preference/quota system is that it gets misused in such a way that unqualified or at least less qualified people get hired.
Someone posted that half of all fed employees should be vets. Utter nonsense, unless being a vet somehow automatically gives one the specific qualifications for performing half of all federal jobs better than other people available.
We need a system that adequately evaluates applicants according to their qualifications, rates them correctly (i.e., not all 30-odd applicants somehow falling within 10-15 points of each other on a scale of 100) and then and only then applies vets' points to give preference -- in making the cert, not in actual hiring -- to the vet(s).
-
15863
Don't you boys think it kind of strange that your own "civilian personnel God" would stand before Congress and admit federal agencies are circumventing the laws on hiring veterans, and then you are so naive to believe that it isn't being done? I am getting this right from GovExec.com; where are you getting your information? The fact remains that all federal agencies are filled with non-vets who never served a day in the military and that gentlemen is also from OPM. Read your facts before you make a remark like 95 percent of government agencies are vets. If they were, those vets would have jobs deserving of what they gave to this country. I would now ask you one question. What did you give? I give up on "Taxpayer." I said long ago he needs help but maybe there is none for him.
-
15849
Taxpayer,
I say all the more reason to hire vets because they chose to sacrifice instead of being forced to. Who, if not them? You? People like Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove? No one should be hired for a job they aren't qualified to do, but we have people in the highest levels of government that fit that bill. Stop whining about vets. We've paid our dues.
-
15848
It's also worthy of note to see all of the court cases out there filed by veterans who did not get jobs and who thought, mistakenly, that they should have gotten a job solely on veterans' preference.
In these cases the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit consistently and correctly rules against veterans who claim that they should have gotten a job because of veterans' preference, which tends to give credence to the fact that veterans' preference is not necessarily misused or circumvented, but properly applied.
-
15840
"But some agencies may be employing a type of "designer RIF," where managers target certain employees for layoffs outside the civil service's merit rules by forcing them to move locations, or to quit their jobs, the senators said. "
Welcome to the world Senators! This has been going on for decades with DoD and is not likely to stop. The military brass get reductions in civilian employment by moving functions to far flung bases across the world, or by requiring promotion to be based on having worked at the various levels within the service even though such work has no bearing on the job performed! This has nothing to do with veterans' preference -- DoD uses it against civilian employees all the time! That is one of the reasons they want military managers! Along with generating "spots" for over ranking officers, having military managers reduces the resistance to moving the function all over the world. Also, military mentality says that you cannot know how to establish a policy without having worked at all levels of the service -- not that they want to do anything correctly but they want the path of least resistance! Again it has nothing to do with veterans' preference.
And now they want NSPS so they can get rid of the people by not giving them raises rather than moving everything across the county!
Finally, why are there veterans' preferences? They are not as qualified as others and have been paid a fair wage for their military service. Remember this is an all volunteer military that chose to join and were not drafted. They didn't have to give up anything they did not choose to give up by joining. In the olden days the draftees had to give up a lot even though they didn't want to join the military. There is no longer any valid reason for vet preference and it should be dropped! In fact DoD should not be allowed to hire vets because of the conflict of interest involved. Out of military uniform today into civilian suit for the same job tomorrow smacks of real conflict and no effective control of the military by civilians.
-
15835
Give me a break. Nearly every civil service employee in DoD I know is a veteran. (approximately 95 percent) Quit you crying and do your job.
-
15834
I have done enough time in the government to realize that quotas don't work. I have seen a number of people who get federal jobs using veterans' preference who just weren't qualified to do the job and they are nearly impossible to remove. OPM needs to quit filling quotas and set realistic guidelines for hiring "qualified" veterans to fill positions they can do and for removing them from jobs when they perform poorly.
Veterans are hardly the only group that is treated unfairly in the federal government. Women have to put up with harassment and discrimination. Good performers have to absorb the workload of non-performers. The ethical must sacrifice promotions for not passing substandard work or fudging numbers or kissing up to the boss. Even the injured are subjected to abuse when they file comp claims.
Why should OPM protect veterans' rights when they do so little to protect anyone else? It's called a bureaucracy. It's why the government is slowly grinding to a halt. Get used to it.
-
15831
If these Senators are concerned about "designer RIFs" now, perhaps they should actually take a look at NSPS and evaluate the "flexibilities" offered there.
-
15819
I always thought veterans' preference was a good idea until I saw the reality of how it works. Within the Navy there are widespread violations of merit system hiring rules. It's just amazing how many poorly qualified people leave the military and yet end up in GS positions. The military seems to view civil service as some kind of welfare system or paid retirement plan for those leaving the service.
Once these unqualified slackers are in the system there is just no way to get rid of them. When a RIF comes along the preference rules can leave an agency glutted with these slackers. If managers bend the RIF rules it's certainly not because they dislike veterans. Rather it's because, just like in the private sector, they want to keep the most qualified workers.
There are plenty of veterans who play by the rules and that are highly qualified. Even without veterans preference they succeed in government and industry. Yet, these aren't the people who are crying about veteran's preference. More often it's the lazy slackers who need special preference to keep a job. Ironically many of them bent the rules to get into the system in the first place.
-
15817
Just more proof that vets don't always necessarily make the most desirable employees, and that getting a job by means other than being qualified just doesn't work.
-
15815
I am pleased the two senators are finally getting the idea of what really goes on in the hiring practices of vets by government agencies; however, they haven't seen the half of it. The former OPM director stood in front of Congress and told them that agencies are circumventing the vets' preference laws and they have known it for years. The MSPB is a nose-wipe for government agencies and always has been. Any agency that declares that they rule 95 percent of the time for the agency is telling 95 complainants out of 100 they are wrong. That is totally impossible. These agencies will throw away job applications of veterans after they have been submitted to the agency; they will tell vets they are qualified for the job and then hire someone who never had any experience to do the job; they will act as though the errors they made were just that, knowing full well they were intentional. OPM knew when it made the update to the current laws that loopholes existed, so why did they allow it. The answer is simple. They want to provide agencies with a way to get away with anything they want in order to avoid hiring a vet. If these senators want to really curb the abuse of vets in hiring, the answer is very simple. "Fire a few human resource specialists and agency heads" and the word will soon get around.
-
15814
Veterans,
All due respect to all of you out there in the work force. Wake-up. Veterans should make up more than 50 percent of the federal work force. Don't let theses non-veterans tell us how vets should and should not have jobs first pick in the work force. While you are out protecting the country, the other side finds your job when get out of the service. The jobs should be waiting for you and your families, and the flag should be flying and the band playing welcome home, saying thanks for an excellent job.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.