Letters

Fighting Mad About Veterans

"Singling Out Veterans" (April 15) really got my goat. Brian Friel and some of the managers he references keep equating veterans preference with unqualified. In order for a veteran to be one of the top three candidates for a position, she or he must have the education and experience for the job. Veterans are in every way equal to the other candidates-that is, except for one not-so-small matter: They have put their lives on the line for us.

The problem with managers who take end runs around veterans preference is that they never served in the military. As a veteran, I am deeply offended by these managers and I believe that they are poor-performing leaders.

As for the "retired on active duty" (ROADkill) situation, any manager or leader who tolerates this situation is weak and should be removed from government service.

"Singling Out Veterans" was extremely offensive to me and anyone else who knows anything about veterans preference hiring. Veterans are not hired for a position unless they are qualified. They also have experience that most entry-level nonveterans do not have, including management, leadership and budget experience. Veterans know about executing the task rather than sitting and waiting for someone to give them specific direction on what to do.

Retired veterans are often the most productive workers. They are hired because they have experience and education that often exceed managers'. To make a statement that they are hired to do five more years and then retire is insulting. Disabled veterans are often forced to leave the military because of injury or illness. It is the law of the land to affirmatively hire, place and promote veterans, especially those with a 30 percent or greater service-related disability.

Regarding "Singling Out Veterans," am I the only one who was struck by the irony of the comment that managers say they dislike veterans preference? If someone said that about racial, gender or diversity preferences, the poor idiot would be hunted down, tortured and slowly killed by the Equality Enforcement Opportunity cops.

I hope you will examine this issue in the broader context of hiring preferences in general, especially after the Lawrence Summers fiasco at Harvard.

Buckling Under

I can't speak for other agencies, but the General Services Administration fails the retention test discussed in "Perks, Pride and Preparation," (May 1). As the trailing spouse in a move to California, I offered to telework and pay my own way back for meetings every three weeks because I loved my job and was excited about the work. But because one employee sued GSA to telework for child-care reasons-something specifically prohibited in our telework policy-other workers and I are not being allowed to telework and GSA and I both lose. I have an MPA from Harvard and years of private sector experience, but that isn't enough for GSA to stand up and defend its telework policy as a tool to keep those they claim are too valuable to lose.