GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bush seeks hiring preferences for spouses of veterans

• 73251
  

  I am a military spouse x's 15/yrs. I met my spouse in high school, went to UC Berkeley, graduated, and moved back home. I worked getting my B.A., Master's, and doctoral degree. I have had a job from the age of 15 yrs. old.

  I moved overseas and was unemployed x's 3/yrs. I PCS'd with my husband to a foreign Country and I remained, while he was sent to war. I was pulling duty on foreign soil, while he was fighting for our Country. I was unable to get a job, because the hiring system (GS, MCCS...) was corrupt and included so much of "who you know..." that I could never break into the system.

  I am a trained/educated individual, who has come across many road blocks due to poor hiring practices of many government contractors, GS, and MCCS entities. I hear, "you are too qualified, we have hired someone within, you need veteran's preference for that position, or we were required to advertise the position, but someone has already been selected from within...." The list of fragmented excuses just goes on and on.

  There is a significant financial impact that each move has on us. Should we live in two separate homes/places in an effort for me to continue to be employed would also be financially difficult as well as place an extreme amount of stress on any relationship.

  Our government should look upon military spouses as a benefit. We help to retain and maintain the military force by encouraging our spouse(s) to stay in the military!

  The military culture can be difficult and is made more challenging by moves that require the spouse to leave his/her job. We are part of the military framework and must not be excluded or overlooked re: spousal preference and employment. I am in the one percent of the U.S. population to have a Ph.D., which makes it ludicrous that I cannot get a job within the GS or MCCS system! I am qualified for the position(s) I apply for. As a matter of fact, I apply for positions that are below the General Schedule (GS) for which I should be applying and still no job-- go figure! My questions are, "who oversees the hiring practices of these government employment offices?" And, "why shouldn't spouses have government-wide hiring preference?" Military spouses endure all kinds of hardships, esp. those dealing with transition/employment.

  Summer Watson, Ph.D. Posted March 27, 2009 7:55 PM
• 67987
  

  The term "Unrealistic Expectations" comes to mind. The preference policies always require that:

  1. The individual first qualify by education, experience, and status. a. Depending on the job, experience may substitute for some education. b. In most cases, experience requires the individual to have worked in the grade preceding the one offered. This will ensure the individual hired possesses the required expertise. c. All successful organizations make every effort to promote from WITHIN first. The miss-guided call this intelligent business practice "The Good Ole Boy Network." Keep this in mind, most "Good Ole Boys" started out as "Good LITTLE Boys" in the organization.

  The employees feel a sense of LOYALTY from the company and therefore want to stay. The company feels as though they can depend on and trust the employee, therefore; rewards the employee with the promotion. Loyalty is a characteristic both the employer and employee cherish. Prospective employees need to keep this in mind when applying for available positions. The more responsibility, longevity, and dedication, the position requires, the more difficult it will be for a transient employee will have securing this position.

  If the prospective employee is not transient, then they must be humble enough to take a lower position and prove themselves before having the ability to get "THE JOB I DESERVE." News Flash: One may have to take a position in the organization which is below their expectations. Getting your foot in the door and establishing a presence within the organization will allow you to fulfill one of the qualifications of the highly sought after positions.

  It's much easier to become a supervisor as a result of a promotion from within than to be hired from the ranks of the unemployed....

  Will Posted February 3, 2009 12:14 PM
• 63763
  

  I am sorry to say, but the spouse and prior military preferences are pretty much nonexistant without many of the reasons for hiring espoused here:

  I am not only a spouse, but retired Air Force. On top of that, I am working towards a master's degree, I was originally a military linguist (Russian and Spanish), I was a student on this base twice, and I have a major computer background in the same systems they use.

  I appear to be qualified, because my name has appeared on two lists; however, from conversations I have had with prior-enlisted co-workers and acquaintances within this system, there are three reasons I probably have not been hired:

  1. I do not "know anyone"--what they mean by this is I did not retire from here, so I am "not known." In fact, I have heard comments from military members that they would prefer to hire prior military from this base over "outsiders". My wife is currently stationed here, but that appears irrelevant, as well.

  2. There is little work to be had on this base, so they hire a) people they know and b) people moving from out of area, regardless of experience and knowledge [I've seen this one myself].

  3. I never applied for disability, which knocks my chances even lower, although I am both spouse and retired military.

  USAJOBS only complicates this, by not providing access to actual people.

  Preferences are in place--they need to be appropriately exercised and the "good old boy network" that brings in people who don't know the job at all is what needs to be wiped out.

  haidozo Posted November 26, 2008 3:48 PM
• 60309
  

  I think this is a good thing. I am a military spouse and I have plenty of skills but because we have to move every 4 years my resume does not look good to anyone that wants to hire me. It is hard when you move alot because all the employers see is that you can not keep a job or you hop around and that is not the case.

  15 yr military spouse Posted October 4, 2008 1:39 AM
• 43554
  

  What are these women thinking when they marry someone in the military? I have seen first hand the "qualifications" of some of these spouses. Can't file, have no grammar skills, won't use reference material to even try to get it right. They would rather do it wrong then have someone else make the corrections. Whine about the low pay and want to be the GS-12 in charge, just because their husband is an officer. Some stay for a year and move on, some are here from 3 years then move on, but it seems that there is always another to take her place. If socialization is what we need in the work place then by all means hire the spouses. That they can do very well.

  Who will give me a break Posted February 14, 2008 9:55 AM
• 42732
  

  I miss the point Dr. Gala is attempting to make. First, he proffers that there was and is oI miss the point Dr. Gala is attempting to make. First, he proffers that there was and is ongoing misuse of the federal hiring and promotion process in DoD "without any checks or oversight." And then he adds that too many federal/DoD hiring managers, the majority of who are incompetent, hire only "friends or lovers," and by inference argues that meritocracy has little or nothing to do with those that get DoD jobs or promotions. For goodness sake, Dr. Gala, take off those horse blinders! Cannot you see that that is precisely the point that many have taken who oppose the furtherance of non merit-based set asides and entitlements merely for the spouses who chose to marry military volunteers, volunteers who literally include doughnut bakers and barbers and bean counters and supply clerks, or in other words those who represent the majority of the US military who DID NOT ASK FOR AND DO NOT PERFORM in combatant roles? Again, nearly all citizens and patriots firmly support our military, including those of us who are veterans and sons of WWII Combat Marine Infantryman! Please do not even attempt to defend misguised set aside and proposed polices on the utter falsehood and fabrication that all of our Nation's military volunteers face real danger or eve fire weapons when the FACT is that only very, very few ever do. Stop attempting to dilute the service and sacrifice of those that do!

  Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted January 31, 2008 5:10 PM
• 42632
  

  O'Please, be for real. We have female employees being promoted from a GS-7 secretary slot to a GS-12 in less than 2-years and she merely had 2 courses in Secretarial Sciences; another female promoted from a secretary GS-7 to a GS-9, to a GS-11 within 2 years, and then promoted to a GS-12 management position, with a degree in Legal Assisting. Both of these woman beat-out personnel with Masters and Doctorate degrees and more than 20-years of admin. and management experience.

  I could go on, but these atrocities are ongoing without any checks or oversight. We see either friends or lovers getting the upper edge all the time and you are going to fuss about those who serve our Nation getting an edge. Shame on you. The number of bad managers in our Executive Branch provides an indication of the problem, not the less than 1% of our Veterans having an edge when they return from serving in the military.

  I left the government after nearly 29-years of federal service (CSRS), of which nearly 21-years was in law enforcement, and 5-years in the military. I had 100% rating without my 10-points when I entered civilian federal service in 1980. I got sick of watching the same old nonsense in the promotion process. By the way, they are lucky not to have put me in a high level administrative position, since I would have promoted the best qualified, not some friend or lover.

  Next time, tell the truth and let the genuine and truthful information pass from your fingers through the keyboard, if you dare.

  Don Drennon Gala, Ph.D. Posted January 31, 2008 1:09 AM
• 42613
  

  Wonder if this could be tied to a reductionin the "inequitable" split enforced on retired veterans "retainer" pay? i.e. Spouse Protection Act??

  Clint Heintzelman Posted January 30, 2008 3:23 PM
• 42537
  

  Nice. Lets not hire the right person for the job based on experience, education, or background, but because they happened to marry a hard-working, underappreciated military veteran. GUess that means they're at least hard working right? And people wonder why government agencies are so inefficient and ineffective. It starts with the people and the USG is no hiring the right people.

  Jay Posted January 30, 2008 6:56 AM
• 42502
  

  Touche' Michael J. Smith and Allen. There is already Vet Preference and Spousal Preference within DOD agencies. I watch retired military turn-around and come back as a civilian on a monthly basis. A retirement I might add that is paid solely by the taxpayers(their first retirement). They pay into Social Security and haven't been real active payers in the TSP. They taxpayers should not be expected to conpensate the spouses of our military forces. It was a "choice" people. No one was drafted. They volunteered to enter the military just as I volunteered to enter into the Navy as a civilian. I didn't get anything from DOD when I (like numerous others) was exposed to a highly cancer causing agent. The civilian workforce puts their lives in jeopardy on a daily basis too. Also, who give Bush the right to take taxpaying dollars and place them solely for the military family? There are also other families just a deservant. In short, get your own job. The chief here currently is bucking for mine. Does she have 25+ years of specialized alone, with a total of 34+ years? I don't think setting behind a desk do administrative duties counts as "specialized".

  Catz Posted January 29, 2008 1:37 PM
• 42498
  

  Wow what a change from the Viet Nam era. When we came home the citizens of the US spit on us, refused to hire us and the U S Governemnt even discriminated against us when we tried to get work from our government. My how the times have changed.

  Scott K Posted January 29, 2008 12:38 PM
• 42495
  

  I served 38 years ago when it was not popular. Vets yes. Vets widows yes. Vets husbsnds and wives no.

  Most good jobs are reserved for high ranking retirees, O-6's and above. Keep their stupid spouses out.

  Do we fire them if they divorce? Remarry?

  Wise Old Owl Posted January 29, 2008 12:21 PM
• 42493
  

  I think the money (montgomery gi bill money)should help the children to go to college. It may make a better child. And if something happen to spouse that's doing active duty then if they don't have children the spouse can use the money to better themself. And I think the families should get more help then they are getting, they are fighting a war to.

  Sherl Boon Posted January 29, 2008 12:17 PM
• 42481
  

  Fact #1: The vast majority of active duty military ARE NOT COMBATANTS. Fact #2: Given Fact #1, the vast majority are NOT in harms way, and few even fire weapons or face any real danger AT ANY TIME during their enlistments or their 20-year careers. Therefore, STOP diluting the real sacrifices of the few, very few (in terms of percentages) who are and do. Fact #3: Most are either stateside or stationed in locations overseas that many Americans would love to get a chance to live (at full cost to the US taxpayer by the way), including Hawaii, Florida, California, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Japan, Okinawa, Guam, and other very safe, sunny and warm climates. Fact #4: Most active duty members work at best 40 hour work weeks, and those that are married enjoy sleeping in their beds in their homes each night. And these homes are funded with extremely generous housing allowances, up to $3,000 and more per month, tax free, that married military members receive each month from the US taxpayer. And Fact # 5: But yes, we as a Nation certainly need to and we do appreciate the volunteers who opt to join the all volunteer armed services. But let's not get ridiculous about it. This President's attempt to create (or better put augment) yet another US taxpayer funded entitlement onto the already extremely generous US taxpayer provided portfolio of benefits and subsidies that exist at great cost to the taxpayer for the all vounteeer military and their family members is completely un-called for. If such a measure passed, it would serve to only add further to the already palpable sense of self-entitlement that exists throughtout DOD, where active duty members, and yes many of their family members percieve that the taxpayer 'owes' them a civil service job post retirement. These positions shouold NOT be handed out like candy! They ought instead be treated with respect and filled only after a genuine competitive selection process occurs so as to truly search for the best and the brightest. Wanna argue with that?

  Michael J. Smith, M.P.A. Posted January 29, 2008 11:11 AM
• 42480
  

  Veteran's preferences, in their current form, skew the possibility of new, non-military personnel making it through the selection process. When all things are otherwise equal, yes, I think a vet should get preference for the sacrifices he/she has already given. However, I've seen how vet preferences give unqualified, or lesser qualified, individuals higher scores on KSAs than those who are more qualified but have not been in the military. That is not the intent of the program. Taking a flawed approach and extending it to spouses is crazy.

  Allen Posted January 29, 2008 11:10 AM
• 42469
  

  Extending military spouse preference is a good program on the surface. However, spouse preference should be exercised only when two equal's are being considered. Today, a DoD civilian spouse is excluded from consideration, even if better qualified than a military member's spouse. The program makes no sense by saying the federal government will hire a military spouse just because they are married to someone in the military. Many DoD civilians are expected to tow the line just as much as military.

  Civilian Spouse Preference Posted January 29, 2008 10:05 AM
• 42454
  

  What is so new about this? Anyone who has worked for the DoD knows this goes on, now let's just make it into a law. This will make it even harder for a deserving person to get hired/promoted.

  BRAC'd Posted January 29, 2008 8:17 AM
• 42447
  

  A little too late George. This should have been the Speech in 2001 not 2008. Hundreds of billions dollars later and deeper in debt. These Senators know only one thing spend, spend, spend. McCain is right about the spending issue. Romney is best for the economy. Obama can make us feel good. But Clinton...what will she be good at?

  dean o Posted January 29, 2008 7:47 AM
• 42445
  

  What a joke! Us vets who worked for the federal government found that most agencies ignored the veteran's preference mandates written into the regs years ago. Now, lame duck President Shrub wants to give these same benefits and more to people who have done nothing to serve their country, except marry a person in the military. Good luck!

  US Customs Senior Inspector (Retired) Posted January 29, 2008 6:51 AM