TOPICS
TOPICS
Agencies begin implementing veterans hiring directive
Senior Obama administration officials on Thursday offered details on how agencies will follow up on the president's new directive to boost employment of veterans.
Implementation of the Nov. 9 executive order will begin at Cabinet-level and large independent agencies, said Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, during a press conference in Washington. But eventually every agency likely will designate a veterans employment liaison, he said.
These officials and OPM will educate former service members on job opportunities, help them determine which openings are the best match for their skills and career goals, and mentor them to help them adjust to the differences between military and civilian culture, said Scott Gould, deputy secretary at the Veterans Affairs Department.
Targeting veterans makes sense, since service members already have demonstrated the talents that make good civil service employees, he noted.
"These are men and women who have fought, who have sacrificed on our part, but have also worked in complex, diverse environments," Gould said. "Their hard-won experience is an asset we can bring to government. We at VA want to compete for our fair share of that veteran talent pool."
Veterans will continue to receive their five and 10 point preference during the hiring process, Berry said, noting the goal of the initiative is "to take almost a headhunting role," rather than to say "here's your five points, here's your 10 points, good luck." Agencies will continue to guide veterans after they are hired, providing them with mentors so they would have a better chance of succeeding in their new jobs.
The Veterans Employment Council established under the executive order will be required to report to the president annually on agencies' progress in hiring veterans. The council has "set no quota," but the objective is to improve annually, Berry said.
Some agencies have set their own targets. Jeffrey Neal, the chief human capital officer at the Homeland Security Department, said Secretary Janet Napolitano is aiming to employ 50,000 veterans by 2012, because there is a natural continuity between service in the military and at DHS.
"When you look at what it takes to secure the homeland, it takes people who are dedicated, who are willing to work very long hours, who are willing to work in uncomfortable, unsafe conditions," Neal said. "How do you define the characteristics we're looking for? Soldier. Sailor. Marine. Coast Guardsman. They have all the characteristics we're looking for in DHS."
COMMENTS
- Did we forget Airmen in that last sentence? Soldier. Sailor. Marine. Coast Guardsman. USAF Retired Doug Posted November 20, 2009 2:23 PM
- I feel slighted with the veterans preference, I applied for a job at another agency, got a great rating but the vet got his 10 points and the job. so say I got 99 , the vet got 90 without his points, who is the most qualified? who can perform the job? this just isnt right ! va employee Posted November 19, 2009 2:59 PM
- I think GBA hit the real reason on the head as to why many “hiring managers” do not want to hire vets, and he or she states so in the second paragraph (See "GBA Posted November 13, 2009 10:06 AM" above). GBA writes, “In these tough economic times, are we better served by hiring the non-veteran who is unemployed with NO income instead of the vet who may already be drawing retirement or disability pay?.” Plus, GBA wants to qualify disabled veterans by his or her own standards with this ditty of a statement, “It would be different if the vet had lost a limb or his service had a direct impact over major body function, I strongly believe we need to reach out to those guys and gals.” Wow! Perhaps if “hiring managers” would follow prescribed rules and stopped using personal viewpoints and opinions to manage “hiring,” the system would work as designed. As a disabled vet, we tend to feel more sympathy to those American heroes that must endure the hardship of mobility and mental issues, such as the loss of a limb or someone with a Traumatic Brain Injury, a little more than someone with greater functionality; it’s only human nature and emotion to do so, but don’t subject those with disabilities that you cannot see or immediately recognize as not worthy of a hiring preference. Again, I think it is the green-eyed monster of jealously as many are just bitter that someone gets preference that already receives a check each month in the mail. How about this scenario then, if I win the lottery or $500,000 playing three card in Las Vegas, should I not get a job because I have a bigger bank account than the unemployed person? What if I invested with greater success? Should I be punished because the other applicant didn't do as well. In my opinion, such remarks as to who should or should not receive a federal position based on existing personal finances or resources sounds more like wealth and opportunity distribution, and that is not the function nor purpose of a “hiring manager.” DEU Posted November 19, 2009 9:49 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
