Return to Article: Federal jobs not automatically competitive, administration argues
-
88173
I am fighting a case right now because HR sent me name out on a referral list being highly qualified. Then doctor at a VA Hospital hires a work study student who has only worked there for 5 months, is incomptent, can't type, was fired from his previous job with the Federal Government, lied on his application, OF306 that he was qualified and kissed up the doctor to get hired for the job. The GS-11 Admin Assistant who works for him, knew about his being not qualified, as they had him checked out, but the doctor wanted him hired anyway. So to discredit me, they said my name was not on the eligible list, but it was as I had a signed letter from the HR department that it was. He wanted to lie to protect himself and the one he hired for the job. I am now going to hire an employment lawyer, as I have a friend who will be my witness who works in that same department that the doctor works in who will verify what I have said here is true 100% and that everything about this individual is true. I will also do a congressional action with my state senators, contact the IG Inspector hotline, etc to fight justice for myself. Any other suggestions as to what I can do also? Thanks, please email me. - Pinkie
-
75919
My husband (vet 30% disability) applied for a DoD civ position. He was among the top 3 but was a non select. He worked at the same job for 5 years when in active duty, receiving the highest aknowledgments, yet without any reason/explanation he was not selected. My question is, when you compete under MPP VEOA referred, your additional points (5 or 10)are not added and also the protection if you are 30% disabled is not applied, isn't this double unfair to the dis vets? MPP covers reassinment, promotions but not first time hiring. Applying for a job using VEOA under MPP just identifies you as a disabled and therefore not to be hired, MPP requires no explanation be given, am I correct? I'm perplexed by this intricated and counter-intuitive system!
-
61312
I have worked for the Marine Corps over 13 years, the Navy 2 & 1/2 years, and the Coast Guard 7 years; all these agencies have made positions for retiring military personnel or hired them in the highest grade positions available. It's called a Return for the Investment. Every position I have ever applied for states a qualified Veteran will have the first shot at the position; with their military status they usually rank ahead of any civilian with points. I'm sure there are some agencies that do not go by the Book on hiring. I called a draw on one Human Resource office on their hiring practice and they backed down; they knew I caught them red-handed in nepotism.
-
61240
"Unfortunately the more non-veteran employees that are put in charge of hiring decisions the fewer veterans we seem to get." Amazing...
There is nothing inherently wrong with that statement by GS-7, it's just that from so many others we hear of the unending assault on career progress from management hiring ex-military chums.
The only data I have to compare such hiring is from the "Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics, The Fact Book" the latest of which is the 2006 Edition. I must say that OPM has made it QUITE difficult to get a copy of the new 2007 in its entirety. The latest figures seem to indicate 24.5% of us are veterans. Except in specific instances of "capping", that seems like a reasonable percentile.
Perhaps someone out there has some data on the initial entry grades for veterans?
-
61212
Unfortunately the more non-veteran employees that are put in charge of hiring decisions the fewer veterans we seem to get. My Chief has cancelled positions and left them unfilled rather than hiring one of the two veterans who were qualified. One of them appeared to be very well qualified for the (GS-5/6) position as a library technician. She didn't even interview them. It appears to me she just didn't want a veteran. I work for the VA hospital, we should be hiring as many QUALIFIED vets as possible.
-
61145
The internship program can be very useful when applied properly. Unfortunately, I have seen it used (frequently) to employ generations of family members and friends within the civilian workforce while avoiding the competition for employment.
-
61061
I have just started working for LOGSA and have seen first hand the diffrence between hiring a Intern Civilian and a Vet. Once you have served you have a sense of dedication to the soldiers you pledge to support you have been there and know the need of the war fighter, these interns just don't get it and really don't care if they do.
-
61054
I've been extremely frustrated by this system at the VA. I'm a GS-7, disabled vet, and a college student. Being disabled gives me no preference on internal positions. I completed 42 college credits in the last 12 months with a 3.9 GPA. I have good reviews, my attendance is very good, and I take on many additional projects/duties. I've become an expert at writing KSAO's and almost always qualify for the positions I apply for. The number of TCF Interns being hired has ballooned in the last few years. Six months ago a TCF intern was hired in my department at a GS-9 she is very obviously being groomed to take over as chief in a few years. Our Human Resources Chief started as an intern as well. I have tried to figure out the system but it's very complicated. The hiring officials always seem to be able to get whomever they want somehow. I keep trying but it is frustrating to say the least! I'm glad to see someone is trying to do something about it!
-
60982
Recently, the government came out with a statement that servicemen's spouses and disabled vets/widows have a preference for hiring.
-
60973
This is the standard statement on all job applications at our VAMC.
Management retains the right to select from any appropriate recruitment methods, such as reassignment, promotion, appointment, transfer, reemployment, reinstatement, or demotion to fill this vacancy. The decision as to which source or sources to use (singularly, in any sequence, or concurrently in any combination) will be made by management.
-
60965
This discussion is quite interesting but it seems like there is a lot of entitlement running around here. It seems like people want to blames someone else for their inability to get hired or promoted. If you are really such a fantastic employee then someone would hire you or promote you. Could it be that the system is not the problem? Another thing that I find with people who complain about not being able to get promoted is that they will only apply for a fraction (if any) of the possible opportunities out there because they don't want a longer commute or to have to move to another town. When there are numerous openings in your field and YOU DECIDE to apply for only those at your current agency or in your local area YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION. When you decide not apply for each and every open position in your chosen field or any of those you could do then YOU are making a decision and you need to live with that decision and not blame everyone else. If your current manager does not appreciate what you are bring to table then it is time look for a new manager, not sit around and complain about your lousy lot in life. Expect there a lot of people in this country that would love to have a job that is basically guaranteed for life.
-
60962
No, no, no - do NOT penalize those who have served our country and come home with visible and invisible war wounds.
Veteran's *preference* is the LEAST we can do for these brave people - the thanks of a grateful nation (since we won't pay them what they're worth while they're serving).
As for those college grads whining about veterans *getting all the jobs* -- suggestion: join the military for 2 years.
You'll do some amazing things and meet some amazing people and will come back with your G.I. Bill (for grad school) and have some real-world experience.
-
60922
The author really didn't do the case justice. Everyone is excited, good and bad, about what may happen to the FCIP. But it's just one hiring authority. The issue that the author glossed over is that Congress intended, and specifically spoke to the fact, that OPM was not to delegate the authority of to passover preference-eligibles with a 30% or greater disability rating. Currently there is no such provision in the excepted service. At oral arguments, available at the district court's website, the justices acted like it was a foregone conclusion that there would be a win on this issue. Does anybody realize what this would mean? It would mean that until the OPM could fix its regulations, no excepted service hiring authority could be utilized that is subject to veterans' preference. That means for the FCIP, if it survives, that it and many other excepted service hiring authorities are out-of-action for about 1 year until the OPM can fix its regs. What a hardship it will be on federal managers!
-
60919
The DOD uses a system of multiple hiring authorities in vacanvy announcements Career conditional, VRA, DVA, spousal preference, FCIP, Outstanding scholar, merit promotion, etc. The DOD then prepares a seperate certificate for each hiring authority. Once announced, they have their most favored prospective employee apply for the position using as many hiring authorities as possible, thereby being placed on as many certificates as possible. The selecting official then screens all certificates hoping that his favorite is one of the top three on at least one of the certificates. If management wants to hire a spousal preference candidate there is a slim chance that a disabled veteran will appear on the spousal preference list (as he will be on the DAV list) so he can hire his most favored candidate/friend. There are two basic types of positions in the executive system, competitive service and excepted service and there should be two certificates (one competitive service one excepted service) with veterans preference properly applied. I have never read in Title 5 where multiple certificates were allowed within each category; this is a direct violation of the stated intent of Title 5 and used by the DOD to effectively hire whoever they want by not having to consider veterans preference and without any regard to the statutes.
-
60911
This should come as no surprise. The Administration's argument dovetails with NSPS. Selection is non-competitive; the position does not even need to be advertised. When a position becomes open Manager A can simply walk up to Employee B and offer him/her the job. It happens all the time under NSPS.
-
60908
When the Intern Program first came about, it use to be viewed as another program (other than Upward Mobility), for individuals to learn, perform and advance throughout the Government. However, it along with other programs have since been abused by the system. The MSPB doesn't appear to have a say in anything anymore. I came up the ranks through the old system where I continued to apply, apply and reapply for a merit promotion position. Back then, you had a training plan and had to comply to that plan. Otherwise, you "did not" advance. You never automatically got a within grade increase. You had to also earn it with good performance ratings. However, all of this is a thing of the past. I now see military retiree's not officially retired, however, they are sitting in a Civil Service Position. Not only are they in the position, there was no way in -ell they qualified for the position. Example: Installations XO coming right back as the Public Affairs Officer. Think about it people. Some of the guys/gals are already getting a retirement. They're also going to get another one called Social Security at age 62 or 65. They don't even pay into their first one. However, they do pay into Social Security. So think about it, belong long....they're won't be any civilians as we once knew. It will be all retired military. This is why most of the expertise is getting out. The government no longer wants expertise.
-
60907
There are a lot of ways it appears managers get around "the rules". Ignoring age or "experience", hiring interns, hiring "high GPA scholars", language "needs", and other options that get around the assumed "rules". The problem isn't necessarily the getting around the rules, the problem is the number of exceptions to the rules.
-
60899
I am a little unclear as to why people are complaining about this "competitive" issue. Bottom Line, it keeps certain people from getting certain jobs...Right. How is this any different that when VA, DOI, DoD or DOC (and many more) opens an announcement to only those that work for the agency. That's a form of discrimination. Or when an agency does not agree to pay for moving expense...that's geographic discrimination. Or when an agency states in the announcement that the individual should have experience in that specific program function...that's programmatic discrimination. In some form or fashion this happens all the time. If the fix is in then the fix is IN...believe me I have experience on both sides of this issue.
-
60892
On this 1 I have to agree Bush is wrong. If OPM can make a case to defend not hiring a disabled Vet then something is amiss. Some times doing the right thing isn't always expedient or easy but its ALWAYS the right thing
-
60884
Let's look at this from another perspective. Today through competitive procedures, those with veterans preference get all the good positions. It is very difficult for non-military applicants to compete against ex-military for positions. Those with veterans preference block any non ex-military applicants from getting the job. VRA appointments are non-competitive. We're at the point where civilian service will be mostly ex-military. Is this fair? This is a type of a spoils system. The regular Joe has a hard time getting into civil service.
-
60882
The mentality for years has been, "we will accept the 'quality' risk; we will not accept the 'loyalty' risk". It is, indeed, a return to the spoils system.
-
60881
In my 14 years with the Federal government (only the last 2 with the Navy) I have seen all sorts of non-competitive selection, which really is preferential, discriminatory selection and promotions. It seems that the fed gov makes the rules and then figures out ways to get around them. There are many legal preferences such as veterans and military spouse, but the selction of favorites is out of hand. It is no surprise that new fed employees take the training and experience they can get, and then leave for the private sector. The fed gov is losing good, experienced employees and spending millions preparing workers for other employers.
-
60880
Where I used to work in DoD, anything over a GS-7 was already spoken for by someone already working there and in the "club." Anything over a GS-7 advertised was a cruel game for those that qualified but the agency didn't want. The HR department worked diligently to ensure that the available "rules" served to promote who they wanted and keep out the rest. Therefore, the only new employees being recruited are inexperienced college graduates - the only types that can afford to work for such wages that a GS-5 or 7 affords. Otherwise, the entry level grades that HR wants to offer everybody new to the government is insulting to those with experience and education. The objective is to keep out anybody that is seasoned and therefore might have too many opinions - hint: they don't really want equal employment opportunity or diversity.
-
60879
ALL Federal jobs are competitive, even the POTUS!
-
60877
When hiring, the DoD Inspector General routinely tried to avoid being forced by personnel rules to hire disabled veterans (DAVs). The common thinking seemed to be that DAVs simply were not as qualified as other candidates. Our human resources department scanned the daily OPM listings of candidates for new positions, looking for those occasions when no DAVs or other preferential-hiring candidates were listed, as sometimes happened. Sometimes this approach worked; sometimes it didn't. Kind of odd behavior for a Defense agency, wouldn't you say?
-
60874
I'm not exactly sure what is under FCIP. I know that my agency had an intern program that is now called a professional development program. It sounds like something under FCIP. If so, acceptance into it was competitively based even if graduates are non-competitively placed later. We also have supervisory development programs where current employees compete for acceptance and graduates are non-competitively placed in supervisory positions. So, I don't understand how NTEU or others can sue on this. I am a union member, as are many of the 'interns'. Why is this a concern?
-
60873
Gingery's case is not unique, I have also gone through a similar experience. Veteran's are often overlooked because the HR recruiters are looking for young college students. I have heard high ranking civil servants say "how refreshing it is to have young college kids in the work place". They overlook the service and sacrifices the veterans have made to ensure they have a place to call home and work. It's always the same old song for veteran's and other groups. First the denial, we don't discriminate against any group, but just take a look at the make up of the workforce. Then ask "where are the recruiters going to seek new employees". Bottom line, the people in the present personnel system make it difficult for veteran's to qualify for or secure intern positions.
-
60872
GSA (region 6)has routinely only used the intern program and then non-competitively advanced them to higher paid positions. Career government employees have been routinely passed over for the few competed positions in favor of the interns. It appears that management no longer values the inherent knowledge base that comes with a long term federal employee. It is my observation that management routinely promotes employees based on other than experience and knowledge.
-
60867
Another example of this administration's total disregard for established federal law and existing practices.
-
60866
MSPB has issued two studies, one on the FCIP itself in September 2005 (pointing out that most GS-5/7 entry-level positions were now being filled through it), and another on Federal appointing authorities more generally in June 2008. Both identified problems with the FCIP excepted service authority's allowing agencies to avoid giving public notice and to restrict competition thereby to very narrow recruiting sources, e.g., an individual school, etc. The FCIP is one of those established as a Schedule B excepted service hiring authority; the definition of a Schedule B authority states that it covers positions for which it is impracticable to examine competitively; however, the GS-5/9 positions being filled through the FCIP process can be and are being filled simultaneously by competitive examining procedures as well, calling into question the rationale for the FCIP's Schedule B provenance. In any event, the outcome of the Gingery v Dod and NTEU v Springer cases are of the highest importance for the future of the Federal competitive civil service.
-
60862
Sounds to me like the DOJ's Gonzales leftovers want to keep hiring more Regent University grads. They should all be fired and prosecuted by some real attorneys.
-
60859
At long last, a return to the "Spoils System"? Quite simply, America used to be BETTER than this.
-
60857
King George should read Title 5 some day. Might clarify a few things for the poor confused idiot.
-
60829
King George strikes again. How can discrimination anywhere be illegal if even the federal government purposefully discrimnates against job applicants?
-
60823
Violations of Veterans Preference law and of merit system hiring rules and regulations are SOP, particularly in OPM, it's own IG, and in IG's throughout govt. From 1993 to 1998 for instance, OPM turned a blind eye as it's IG distorted Outstanding Scholar Program direct hire provisions to illegally hire auditors. Such fraudulent hiring precluded veterans from even being considered for civil service employment in the IG. Once the scheme was exposed, the IG colluded with OPM to whitewash evidence. The coverup included OPM issuance of phoney, after the fact, vacancy announcements; employee intimidation and retalliation; and. subornation of fraud by senior IG managers who ordered illegally hired auditors to lie on official govt. employment applications. This microcosmic example from systemic corruption in govt. hiring mechanisms predictably culminated in a very quiet slap on the IG wrist by the complicit OPM Director.
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.