Return to Article: House panel questions complexity of veterans preference laws
-
84691
Im a Disabled Veteran and I was passed over for promotion with my organization DLA. I was tranined in the position and the promoted a person not qualified for the position then they wanted me to train the individual on how to do the job and they out ranked me. Veterans are treated badly.
-
32993
Dan Ketter obviously does not fully understand the meaning of Veteran's Preference. It is for the hiring of veterans from "outside the government workforce". Once a veteran has been hired, veterans preference only comes into play again when there is a RIF. It cannot be used as a criteria for promotions within the agency or to move from one agency to another. The veteran, however, when wishing to change agencies (and even a new job within the same agency), can file two applications: one for transfer and/or merit promotion, and one from the "outside".
-
32826
If, you must be a women, its OK for you to get promotions for being a women or minority but not for a Vet. At least the VEt has the law on their side all you have is the EEOC who tries and make new entitlements
-
32822
OPM is operating under a misconception if they think federal hiring managers understand veteran's preference. In parts of newer agencies like DHS, many managers are relatively new to federal service. They lack a basic understanding of federal entitlements including veterans preference entitlements and regulations. Many are used to private sector hiring where they identify a candidate and HR makes it happen. Frequently they fail to take the time to understand the federal system and its unique hiring practices and appointment authorities. Even folks working closely with HR functions must frequently check the Vet Guide to ensure they are following these very complex rules.
-
32761
"I earned everyone of my promotions". I'd love to hear what your co workers think, I suppose that the next comment would be I worked twice as hard as the men to get where I am, JoAnn you live in a fantasy world.
-
32747
I have to take exception to some of the above comments. Yes, most veterans are very capable employees and I certainly agree that any veteran who has served years and expecially been in combat should have preference over a non-veteran. However, I do not think that a person that joins the miltary for 2 or 3 years and never been in any combat situation should not have preference over a career employee that has been working 10, 15 or even 20 years on a job, but is not eligeble for the promotion just because a veteran is on the list. This is not fair in any sense. The career employees that support the war effort and all of the military in the service should be awarded a little more consideration when jobs or promotions become available. Why should someone who has 2 or 3 years service time and no combat time bump someone that has been waiting several years for the promotion. I think the government bends over backwards to give the veterans a good shake, at least at the installation where i have worked for 35 years. In my office alone we have 10 employees, of which 7 are veterans and only 1 of these has served more than 4 years and has had combat experience. NO I DO NOT THINK THIS IS FAIR!!!!!!!!!!
-
32706
Dan and Paul,
I am not, or even have been, against the hiring of qualified veterans. And, yes, I qualify for veteran's preference, but have never used it. I do not have to make an apology to anyone. I started as a GS-2 at IRS over thirty years ago as a data transcriber (no males in this type of job). My gender, over the years, has had nothing to do with getting promotions. I earned every one of them through gaining a thorough knowledge of the job, plus going back to college, and then applying for positions for which I knew I was qualified. Most of the agencies for which I have worked - including the Army - have had mainly females in the majority of the positions. By your snide comments, you are definitely "not my better".
-
32661
I love JoAnn's comments, here we have a female operating under a system that rewards her status as a "female". Her career is watched consistantly to make sure she is rewarded BETTER than her male counterparts under Affirmative Action. Yet she has the gall and poor judgement to attack her "betters" because they actually did something to earn their status. JoAnn I await your apology
-
32644
I served for 33 years in the service and was hired as a GS-07 in 2001. I have come across alot of the anti-Vet bias, like Joann's, but have perservered and overcome anyway. I am a supervisor now and spend about the same amount of time with non-Vets who can't do their jobs as I do with the Vets. I personally believe Vets have earned the preference to be considered ahead of folks who have not put their lives and limbs on the line to protect our way of life. If a Vet can't do the job, the same performance improvement and remediation tools apply to them as to the non-Vets and they can be demoted and removed just like non-Vets. Sounds to me like Joann and her colleagues need to have a heart-to-heart with their supervisors and managers if the Vets can't hack it. Throwing stones at them doesn't do anything except cheapen the stature of the thrower.
-
32625
The agency for which I work has a number of veterans. Many are in positions for which they were minimally - and I do mean minimally - qualified, while in-house employees who were far more qualified were "passed over" for the veteran. The "passed over" employees then had to train the veteran to do a job which the employee(s) had been doing for a number of years with excellent yearly ratings and, in some cases, performance awards. I am pretty disgusted with the requirement to hire a vet. The way I look at it, all hirings should be done in-house first (that includes pulling from GS and contract employees); if there is truly no fully qualified candidate, then the veterans should be considered. My husband was a vet (retired Navy). And, yes, he worked for the federal government after retiring. He worked his way up the chain to become the chief of his division. He did not start as a GS 13 like so many of the vets today are being hired for. My husband started at a GS-7. Vets, today, think that because they are veterans, they should have the higher grades even though they know nothing about the position and what is required to do the job.
-
32624
Veterans Preference doesn't seem to help or mean anything anymore. It is somewhat disheartening. I feel for anyone leaving military, disabled or not, trying to obtain suitable employment in federal civil service. Even posted Delegated Examining Unit(DEU) jobs are difficult to get selected for, regardless of successful years of service, education/qualifications. I question the integrity of the system and OPM's (and Congress) ability to effectively manage, enforce and correct flagrant errors committed by agencies. Too many just don't seem to care about stuff like this anymore (not that they ever really did, but it looks good on paper). And don't ever expect the EEOC to help because they probably won't!
I'll give you a good example; Ever seen or heard of a RIF lately? No. Because under reduction in force (RIF), vets are supposed to be protected. That is why all these laws and rules are circumvented by instead referring to "down-sizing" or job abolishments as "Management Directed Reassignment" or something else; geared to fail, yet protect agencies from wrong-doing, even though it is wrong anyway. Rules are effectively circumvented and ignored too often. This is my oinion (based on experience).
-
32622
If OPM were to admit that Federal hiring officials do not understand the veterans preference system, then Anita Hanson would have to do a LOT of work educating them. So of course she is going to say it is not a problem. Will Congress make her PROVE her statement?
Long before Anita got there, her office was notorious for being ineffective.
-
32610
Human Capital offices get around the Veteran's Preference laws by using a second set of qualifications after the initial application period. They ask an additional set of questions and advise you that you didn't make the second cut so you are no longer being considered. This is a way to avoid "passover" of a 30% or more disabled vet and not have to notify the veteran and OPM that a "passover" occurred. This is a way of skirting the law and claiming total compliance at the same time. This happened to me when I applied for a position within the Air Force system. I asked OPM HQs and the local OPM in the area of the position and received no response. This was back in March 07 so they had plenty of time to read my letter, view the evidence, and send me some kind of reply.
-
32602
Veterans with 30% and above disability rating should be maintained in hiring practices by federal agencies.
furthermore, veterans rated with 100% servuice-connected permanent disability, who can still perform in a federal work setting, such as managing people, can use a computer, analyze/review programs. etc. should be able to return to the federal workforce without penalty or offset from their retirement or disability pay.
-
32594
I retired from the Military in 1990 I have been applying for a GS position every since I retired and I just got this one last year and the way I got it was I took my military reference off my application and I got an interview and hired now I dont know why it is so har for the veterans to get a job but the system is not working like it should I live in Oklahoma and I am trying to get back there and it is hard to get a GS job back that way
-
32589
My experience is that managers do not understand all the rules involving veterance preference and that since OPM downsized much is not carried out.
-
32588
My experience is that managers do not understand all the rules involving veterance preference and that since OPM downsized much is not carried out.
-
32573
Part of the problem is that today's supervisor, usually a non-veteran, is unaware of laws covering veteran employment. This problem will likely continue until Congress takes action (as they did regarding Walter Reed) and supervisors are better educated on the rules.
-
32572
I do not know where OPM gets its information but it has been my experence that managers do not understand the veterans preference in the hiring process. In my opinion, they should not only should they simplify the hiring laws, they should make the hiring process transparent by requiring the posting of when a position is filled and basic info about the successful applicant. They should also simplify the protest process for veterans who are unfairly passed over.
-
32548
From 1993 through 1997, OPM's Inspector General allowed his senior audit managers to deliberately circumvent veterans preference hiring law in order to deny employment to veterans. Illegal use of Outstanding Scholar Program (OSP) provisions was the modus operandi. OPM's internal Office of Personnel knowingly assisted the IG in this effort and once the scam was exposed, conspired with senior OIG managers to coverup their illegal hiring activities through phoney retroactive vacancy announcements and subornation of fraud. Congress doesn't need to simplify veterans preference law and the OPM needs fewer, not more, human resources. Instead, more scrupulous efforts need to be made to ensure that senior managers in the federal service have a minimum level of integrity. This has not been the case in the OPM and most particularly in its Office of Inspector General for at least the past seventeen years.
-
32481
Regulations for Vet Preferance need to be change and it can be done very simply, any body who has a National Defense Service Medal should have five points Vet Pref.
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.