Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 53
Page 1 of 5
Page 1 of 5
« Previous | Next »
Readers Oppose Hiring Preferences for Spouses of Military Personnel
Total Comments: 53
Page 1 of 5
Page 1 of 5
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $12.5762 | +0.0013 | +2.41% |
| F | $12.1248 | -0.0104 | +1.63% |
| C | $14.4899 | -0.1349 | -12.50% |
| S | $18.2226 | -0.2020 | -7.92% |
| I | $19.8863 | -0.3240 | -19.68% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.2656 | -0.1570 | -10.82% |
| L 2030 | $15.8058 | -0.1329 | -9.21% |
| L 2020 | $15.4005 | -0.1088 | -7.50% |
| L 2010 | $14.9685 | -0.0547 | -3.18% |
| L Income | $13.3648 | -0.0296 | -0.78% |
August 20, 2008
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Military Spouse Hiring Preference
Department of Transportation
Wed Feb 6, 2008 9:08 AM
Post Reply
There are quite a few comments rejecting the idea based on individuals not being qualified. The spouse would still have to meet the qualifications for the position, but would be given additional points based on being a military spouse. There are companies that currently will not hire someone because they are a military spouse, even though the individual is qualified for the position and may even have a degree in that area. You may have experienced someone that did not work out in a postion, but it may not have been because they weren't qualified. Saying someone is not qualified is such easy statement to make, especially when you don't have all the facts. Being properly trained is part of being able to do the job, So, a question to those individuals rejecting the idea on the basis of qualification: Did you provide adequate training for the individual to do the job or did you discriminate against that person just to get them out of the position, so your buddy could get in?
DOD preference
DOT
Wed Feb 6, 2008 9:23 AM
Post Reply
At a DOD installation the reasons for active duty spouses actually used. I'm divorcing him & need a job before it is final (the most popular one), he's retiring & I need a job stateside prior to his retirement. Use the system as long as you make it to your advantage. Stretch it for all it is worth.
No Thanks!!
DOD
Wed Feb 6, 2008 9:48 AM
Post Reply
Simply let them apply with all other candidates. I see much room for military rank & politics to infiltrate things. The spouses military rank & connections wil have lot's of sway, in countless unfair ways. These people will have higher turn over due to the spouse's military PCS moves. What about other categories such as veterans & people with disabilities?
spouse employment preference program
USDA FS
Wed Feb 6, 2008 9:58 AM
Post Reply
I am in total agreement with giving our vets a preference but I am not so sure that giving spousal preference would be in the best interest of the agency. It is already tough for a truly qualified person to be selected because of all the preferences given to keep our agency diversified. If they, (spouse of a vet) apply and are qualified, then they should not have any problem getting the job without any special preference, right?
Hiring Preferences
SSA
Wed Feb 6, 2008 10:04 AM
Post Reply
SSA has incoporated variations of this preference for years. It's called nepotism and cronyism. The results have been less than positive for the morale of the workforce and the processing of workloads. Not only have these individuals been hired based on their 'contacts', they're given other preferential considerations as well.
Years ago, SSA also embarked on a hiring effort aimed at recruiting the top 10% of graduates at 'targeted' colleges and universities rationalizing that college graduates would be better able to successfully complete training programs. As it turned out, the program was a catastrophic failure. Having a college degree does not always translate into having the skills and abilities necessary to succesfully complete training and perform job tasks. As a matter of fact, many private sector businesses report that they require job applicants to have a college degree just to insure that they can read and write. This is not meant to impugn all college graduates.
Vet preference can always be circumvented
anonymous
Wed Feb 6, 2008 11:28 AM
Post Reply
Call it what you will. Good Ol' boy or girl networks, cronyism, nepotism, FCIP, Outstanding Scholar programs, diversity, etc. A Veteran with disability preferences and experience and education will get trumped by a manager's choice of buddies by a number of means, ethical or not.
Why would the military spouse program be any more effective?
As for the Veterans who are performing so poorly as to generate all the usual vitriol, begin the paper trail to get them improved or removed, and concurrently do the same for ALL non-vets. Otherwise, it smacks of simple bashing or disrespect of those who have done the time in uniform.
Your Article is Poorly Written
Dept of State
Wed Feb 6, 2008 11:39 AM
Post Reply
I clicked on the subject article because, frankly, I was surprised to see in the subject that FEDSMITH readers opposed hiring preferences for spouses of the military. Sure enough, your stats bore out that fact - 31% were in favor of giving a preference to military spouses and 61% were opposed. HOWEVER, you chose to use quotes overwhelmingly which favored providing the spousal preference. I was interested in reading those who opposed this initiative and your quotes from them were limited and weak. Hm...writing 101: when you declare a statement, it makes good sense to spend the majority of your efforts supporting, not contradicting, your statement - unless you are biased and want to find ways to refute the claim that you made. Hm...makes me wonder if we are reading your views and not the views of the readers polled.
Re: Your Article is Poorly Written
FedSmith.com
Wed Feb 6, 2008 1:34 PM
We did not make a count of how many were in favor, against, or partially in favor of or opposing the proposal. The article contains comments from various points of view that generally reflect comments from readers. Perhaps we could have charted it out in a spreadsheet by category to make everyone happy but the statistics and comments presumably speak for themselves; there is no conspiracy intended or implied in the selection of the comments.
Re: Your Article is Poorly Written
Treasury
Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:37 AM