QuotePowerPost
Federal Insider
Obama's push to hire veterans is causing confusion and resentment, officials say
By Lisa Rein April 21
One in 3 people hired into the federal government is a veteran, but the Obama administration's aggressive push to reward those who served is causing confusion and resentment among job applicants and hiring staff.
That's what federal officials and advocates for veterans told lawmakers at a House hearing Wednesday on how well the White House's seven-year effort to push former service members to the head of the long federal hiring queue is working.
The veterans preference program is bringing record numbers of former soldiers into federal agencies. But experts acknowledged that the hiring process is generating tension and misunderstanding around who is qualified to jump the line.
"The bulk of the problem is a lack of understanding of the law," Michael H. Michaud, assistant secretary for the Veterans' Employment and Training Service at the Labor Department, told a panel of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
"It's a very complex law," Michaud said. "Some veterans think that because of veterans preference they will automatically be hired in the federal service. But you could have several very well-qualified candidates and they're all vets, and one gets hired and the others don't."
The growing presence in government of men and women with military backgrounds is the biggest federal effort to reward military service since the draft ended in the 1970s. President Obama pushed agencies to increase hiring of veterans starting in 2009, in response to the bleak job prospects many soldiers faced after coming home from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In 2015, 47.4 percent of new hires to full-time jobs were veterans, an increase of 1.3 percentage points over fiscal 2013, federal statistics released last year show.
The initiative has fueled tensions in federal offices, though, as civil servants and former troops clash over workplace culture and each other's competence and qualifications. But the new rules on just getting into the government are, depending on who is talking, favoring unqualified veterans or bypassing qualified ones, officials said Wednesday.
Veterans benefit from preferential hiring for civil service jobs under a law dating to World War II. But the Obama administration increased the extra credit they get to give them an even greater edge in getting hired. The government has set hiring goals for veterans at each agency, and managers are graded on how many they bring on board, officials said.
The Labor Department received about 600 complaints in fiscal 2015 from veterans who were turned down for federal jobs across the government, Michaud said. Just 5.4 percent had merit, meaning the veteran should have been hired.
Under the rules, hiring managers are supposed to choose a veteran over a non-veteran as long as they are equally qualified for the job.
But it is nearly impossible to tell whether veterans who don't get hired are the victim of bias by hiring managers, incompetence or simply were not as qualified as non-veterans competing for the same job, federal officials said Wednesday. An applicant must prove that a hiring manager "knowingly" passed him or her over to win an appeal if they are turned down.
"How do you discover if someone acted out of bounds on the rules knowingly?" asked Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) chairman of the House panel's subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, which held the hearing.
The answer: You really can't.
"You can satisfy every affirmative action in the book and hire vets, but you're not going to get virtually any managers who have been disciplined or fired for violating the rules," said Rick Weidman, head of government affairs for Vietnam Veterans of America. He said managers will not be punished for improper hiring practices "until you take the word 'knowingly' out of the law."
Carin M. Otero, associate deputy assistant secretary for personnel planning at the Department of Veterans Affairs, told lawmakers that the government has intensified training for hiring officials in how to implement the veterans preference law. But lawmakers and advocates said the system is vulnerable to mistakes.
"People apply for a job and they don't get the job, and there's sort of a myth that veterans preference is a guarantee of any job in the federal government," said Aleks Morosky, deputy director for legislation at the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
"People are upset because they didn't get hired, but they don't necessarily understand the system either."
Weidman said the problem is simple: Agencies often try to get around preference rules as part of a long history of discrimination against veterans.
"Racism and sexism are alive and well in our society, and so is vetism," he said. "People don't like us. They [dislike] that we became part of the culture of the federal bureaucracy and that [dislike] is still there."
"Vetism" :lol:
The only time you worry about a soldier is when he stops bitching.
See Siege, Obama cares.
Last year, I saw a department put in a job req in for a radiation tech; OPM sent as Best Qualified a WAIT FOR IT radio tech.
Because 10 point Veteran Preference is still 10 motherfucking points.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 26, 2016, 08:16:47 PM
Last year, I saw a department put in a job req in for a radiation tech; OPM sent as Best Qualified a WAIT FOR IT radio tech.
Because 10 point Veteran Preference is still 10 motherfucking points.
Grooming is just whacky.
I will not comment.
Bizarre. If that is the Obama's alternative to Trump's idea of scrapping several branches of administration, then maybe Trump is not so wrong after all...
My cousin in Charlotte wants to stay there with his Colombian wife. I'll suggest it to him :)
Perhaps this will help me get my dream job of replacing the dude I met who ran one of the most remote National Park Service ranger stations around the Grand Canyon (located here: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2862404,-113.0656691,337m/data=!3m1!1e3 ).
He was a USAF veteran as well. :)
:huh:
I'm not sure it's possible to enjoy both living in Alaska year-round and Arizona year-round. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2016, 01:11:47 AM
:huh:
I'm not sure it's possible to enjoy both living in Alaska year-round and Arizona year-round. :hmm:
:huh:
HUGE temperature differential there.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2016, 12:38:25 AM
Bizarre. If that is the Obama's alternative to Trump's idea of scrapping several branches of administration, then maybe Trump is not so wrong after all...
These branches of administration will be heavily defended now, though. :hmm:
OPM sucks. Veterans suck. And I'm a veteran. :yuk:
I plan on leaving this job in a couple years anyway. Some other vet schmuck can take it when I leave :lol:
From an outsider's point of view the "cult of the vet" seems very odd. I used to get press releases from several "proud vet-run businesses" that sold galoshes or something.
I can see how in some federal services, such as coast guard or forestry, it may be beneficial to hire vets, but preference for stuff like, say, the IRS or the department of education just seems weird and counter-productive.
I should use my vet preference sometime. Maybe if I ever apply to some other position. :hmm:
Well, after some deep thought, nah, don't need it. Never mind.
Hopefully without anymore Iraqs and Afghanistans veteran worship will die off in the coming decades.
Fingers crossed.
Quote from: Tyr on April 27, 2016, 10:34:38 AM
Hopefully without anymore Iraqs and Afghanistans veteran worship will die off in the coming decades.
Fingers crossed.
I don't know about veterans, but I will be worshipped for eternity.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 27, 2016, 08:27:21 AM
OPM sucks. Veterans suck. And I'm a veteran. :yuk:
I plan on leaving this job in a couple years anyway. Some other vet schmuck can take it when I leave :lol:
So much easier moving laterally in the USG; I see all the distro lists for internal announcements, and all the cool stuff never sees the light of day.
Congrats on your guaranteed lifetime of employment, benefits and retirement, though. Not a bad return for a couple years' of volunteer work.:lol:
Why do Euros hate this vets worship?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 27, 2016, 10:51:31 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 27, 2016, 08:27:21 AM
OPM sucks. Veterans suck. And I'm a veteran. :yuk:
I plan on leaving this job in a couple years anyway. Some other vet schmuck can take it when I leave :lol:
So much easier moving laterally in the USG; I see all the distro lists for internal announcements, and all the cool stuff never sees the light of day.
Congrats on your guaranteed lifetime of employment, benefits and retirement, though. Not a bad return for a couple years' of volunteer work.:lol:
Thanks Obama.
Also, I re-enlisted and did 8 years active duty, not 2. :P
Quote from: Brazen on April 27, 2016, 09:15:20 AM
From an outsider's point of view the "cult of the vet" seems very odd. I used to get press releases from several "proud vet-run businesses" that sold galoshes or something.
We decided that our way of handling the Vets after the ACW and WWI, letting them all descend into homelessness and alcoholism, was less than ideal.
The nanny state is alive and well in America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 27, 2016, 10:51:31 AM
So much easier moving laterally in the USG; I see all the distro lists for internal announcements, and all the cool stuff never sees the light of day.
Congrats on your guaranteed lifetime of employment, benefits and retirement, though. Not a bad return for a couple years' of volunteer work.:lol:
This makes me wonder what these veteran preferences are going to do to the career officer and NCO pools. If you can basically do one term and get all this preferential treatment for GS positions, how many otherwise career people are going to bail on the uniformed services?
It's not like veteran's preference is a new thing Moldy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 02:03:45 PM
It's not like veteran's preference is a new thing Moldy.
Yeah for decades the USPS was known as basically a veteran's employment program.
Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2016, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 02:03:45 PM
It's not like veteran's preference is a new thing Moldy.
Yeah for decades the USPS was known as basically a veteran's employment program.
IIRC a head injury during military service gave you enough points to almost automatically get a job.
Now it seems to be police departments and highwaymen patrol. Which is problematic in some ways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2016, 02:03:45 PM
It's not like veteran's preference is a new thing Moldy.
No, but as Seedy's article indicated this push to make it much stronger is.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 27, 2016, 03:44:01 PM
Now it seems to be police departments and highwaymen patrol. Which is problematic in some ways.
That's never changed, there's always been the attraction to rank organizations.
The problem now though is that so many vets with combat experience are not being reminded enough that, with rare exception, a job in your local law enforcement agency isn't the same as major combat operations in urban pacification of hostile territory.
Brain damage from the Air National Guard landed you the Oval Office.
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2016, 09:56:36 AM
I can see how in some federal services, such as coast guard or forestry, it may be beneficial to hire vets, but preference for stuff like, say, the IRS or the department of education just seems weird and counter-productive.
I don't see why it would be. Guy who could dig latrines in the army should be able to handle cleaning the restrooms in a Dept of Education office building.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2016, 02:21:49 AM
HUGE temperature differential there.
You perhaps presume I am in Alaska entirely by choice. :P
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2016, 03:23:48 PM
IIRC a head injury during military service gave you enough points to almost automatically get a job.
Oh, that hasn't really changed.
QuotePreference eligibles who meet minimum qualification requirements and who have a compensable service-connected disability of at least 10 percent must be listed in the highest quality category, except when the position being filled is scientific or professional at the GS-9 grade level or higher.
Barely qualified by the whiskers on your chinny-chin-chin + Eyes are ceramic, caught a bazooka round at Little Big Horn, or was it Okinawa? The one without the Indians = Head of the class
Actually, 10% isn't even that debilitating.
I've hired more under VRA in the last two years than the normal competitive process. It's non- competitive
Veterans' Recruitment Appointment (VRA)
Veterans' Recruitment Appointment (VRA) is an excepted authority that allows agencies, to appoint eligible veterans without competition. If you:
are in receipt of a campaign badge for service during a war or in a campaign or expedition; OR
are a disabled veteran, OR
are in receipt of an Armed forces Service Medal for participation in a military operation, OR
are a recently separated veteran (within the last 3 years), AND
separated under honorable conditions (this means an honorable or general discharge), you are VRA eligible.
You can be appointed under this authority at any grade level up to and including a GS-11 or equivalent. This is an excepted service appointment. After successfully completing 2 years, you will be converted to the competitive service. Veterans' preference applies when using the VRA authority.
Agencies can also use VRA to fill temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or term (more than 1 year but not to exceed 4 years) positions. If you are employed in a temporary or term position under VRA, you will not be converted to the competitive service after 2 years.
There is no limit to the number of times you can apply under VRA.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 27, 2016, 06:40:47 PM
I've hired more under VRA in the last two years than the normal competitive process. It's non- competitive
That's the whole point. Congrats, Leader of Men.
I'm a GLG-20.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 27, 2016, 06:50:47 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 27, 2016, 06:40:47 PM
I've hired more under VRA in the last two years than the normal competitive process. It's non- competitive
That's the whole point. Congrats, Leader of Men.
Thanks :cheers:
Quote from: Martinus on April 27, 2016, 09:56:36 AM
I can see how in some federal services, such as coast guard or forestry, it may be beneficial to hire vets, but preference for stuff like, say, the IRS or the department of education just seems weird and counter-productive.
why? You don't think the army had accountants? Or you think a veteran is only the Rambo-type? :)
Just because TV shows and movies don't make stories about the hero accountant who makes double-shift, at the expanse of his own mental health sometimes, to insure that army has all the necessary resources properly allocated to support the Rambos on the field, does not mean they don't exist.
I am not saying that there cant be good accountants among veterans, it's just the preference is counter productive. In fact, my rule of thumb is that when in doubt, eschew preference based on factors not directly related to job performance in hiring.
Quote from: Martinus on April 28, 2016, 12:54:35 PM
I am not saying that there cant be good accountants among veterans, it's just the preference is counter productive. In fact, my rule of thumb is that when in doubt, eschew preference based on factors not directly related to job performance in hiring.
Most of the time, once you've screened out the obviously unqualified applicants for a job, you end up with a bunch of candidates who are pretty interchangeable. You've got to do something to sort them; for a federal job, giving a preference to a veteran in such a situation doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
How about giving their companies preference for federal contracts?
We've got people literally loaning vets or Alaskan natives money to buy half their company so they can say they are owned by _preferred citizen_.
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 27, 2016, 10:52:29 AM
Why do Euros hate this vets worship?
They're burakumin