Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 36
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Changing the Federal Hiring Process

Pay Military First

Engineer
DoD
Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:01 AM

Post Reply

Programs like this are often criticized in local politics where friends of friends are employed depending on the political affliation. The executive order is based on merit, but people will abuse the intent. Spouses who don't need the income will show up, punch their time card, play a round of golf, punch out and collect a pay check. The EO can be good but is often abused.

Re: Pay Military First

Program Analyst
OPM
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:35 AM
I agree that there is room for abuse (what else is new?), but aren't you being a bit presumputuous? It is good that this new order has passed...more people (hopefully good) will come into the Federal workforce, especially at a time when we really need it!

What About the Actual Vets??

Fed Peasant
DOD
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:15 AM

Post Reply

There are plenty of unemployed vets & way too many homeless vets!! Will they be further disadvantaged, in applying for jobs? Remember, the spouse of a military member is in a household with a steady pay check (military pay). What about the spouses of the reserve & national guard? I truly believe that it will be abused to no end!! The spouses of officers & certain senior NCOs will be given "favors". Expect a great many complaints, EEO, grievances, lawsuits, & congressional complaints. This will create more harm than good. I wish the spouses well. Let them apply for jobs in a traditional manner.

Pay Military First

Aircraft Maintenance Technician
Governemnt Contractor
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:18 AM

Post Reply

I'm a retired AF member and have tried to get hired on Base and have had no luck. I also work with several other members that have retired or had a medical discharge that have tried to get hired. I have done work with the base and have talked to a supervisor and have been told that many people that are hired are sons, daughters, nephews, nieces or friends of people that have the power to get that person hired. Many of these people do not have the experience of the military member. Policies are not followed

Re: Pay Military First

QA
DCMA
Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:08 AM
Rather than blame factors which you cannot control, suggest you correct your focus. Many times I have seen retired military act like DoD owes them a job. You VA history gives you a hiring advantage, not an "auto hire".
Many times I've been told I would not get hired for a job because it's "who you know". The three times that I applied for and obtained jobs in different DoD organizations, I got the job because of my resume and my interview. In all 3 cases I had no prior association with the hiring official.
My point is that you can focus on the negative, or make yourself positive and hirable. If you haven't done so yet, have a professional look at your resume and correct it. Make sure all your experience gets credited too. Good luck!

Sousal preference

Emergency Management Specialist
DOE
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:22 AM

Post Reply

I would support this only if the spouses met the qualifications. Our military is underpaid and a deployment can cause a hardship on the families. I don't support putting unqualified personnel (sppouse or not) into a Federal position while passing up qualified employees.

Re: Sousal preference

Diversity Manager
DOL
Tue Sep 30, 2008 7:24 PM
Gosh if you oppose this than I assume that you oppose all Diversity hiring. At least these folks have made a sacrifice for the country the same can't be said for Gov't quotas

Re: Sousal preference

Thorn in the Side
DOD
Tue Sep 30, 2008 9:52 PM
Well, Max, what's wrong with asking people to be qualified before they're hired?

Re: Sousal preference

Specialist
Federal Agency
Wed Oct 1, 2008 10:15 AM
Okay folks...we won't be placing non-qualified spouses into positions they don't qualify. Veterans preference candidates must meet all the qualifications for specific positions just like everyone else does. They are not just put into jobs without qualifying.

Re: Sousal preference

Diversity Manager
DOL
Wed Oct 1, 2008 2:19 PM
We don't now we have lots of Diversity appointments and qualifications are irrelevant so why would you want a higher hurdle for vets spouses?? Besides look at how many GS 11-15 only have GED's

Re: Sousal preference

Emergency Management Specialist
DOE
Wed Oct 8, 2008 8:48 AM
No I don't oppose diversity hiring. I never said I was opposed to diversity hiring. I am opposed to putting unqualified people into jobs because they are military spouses. The best applicant for the job should be selected.

Re: Sousal preference

Federal HR Specialist/Consultant
Interior
Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:43 PM
Hi there,
I was an HR Diversity Manager for over 26 years with six different agencies. I worked Diversity Managers, Special Emphasis Program Managers, FEORP and Selective Placement Program Coordinators throughout the federal government. You do not sound like a Diversity Manager when you infer "diversity quotas" have not made a sacrifice for this country. Are you aware that the casualty rate for minorities is much higher for minorities? Your statement that diversity appointments & qualifications are irrelevant also reflects upon what YOU should know but don't understand about federal employment authorities, qualifications, etc. Your belittlement of employees with a GED is troubling for a person in your position. Don't you know that only 25% of all federal jobs require a 4-yr college degree - 75% of federal jobs DO NOT require a 4-yr college degree. I have recruited PhDs, 4.0 college graduates - yes, even GED-holders. You are a Diversity Mgr in name only, working for the DOL - OMG

program not new

previous military spouse
opm
Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:19 AM

Post Reply

as the article states, DOD already has a "spousal preference" program in place. While I agree that, as with any program, there is possibility for abuse, it's a good program. I followed my husband around from base to base for 20 years and had it not been for the spousal preference program, I would not have been able to work. And yes, we had a "steady" income, but on which a family is barely able to get by on. Compound it by the fact that when you are stationed over seas the employment opportunities greatly reduce due to language barrier and laws of the specific country for obtaining work permits for foreigners (as American military members are). By the way, even with spousal preference it took me almost a year to get a job because of fierce competition and of course it goes without saying that I had to be qualified for the position in the first place. Having a spousal hiring program is absolutely a morale booster and a good retention tool

Where will it end?

Clerk
DOI
Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:33 AM

Post Reply

Like other preferences (or proposals), this one leads to a number of questions. Why not extend preferences to parents or children (age applicable) of military personnel? Will there be a variable point system as with Vet. preference - newer spouses get lower (or higher) preference points than those married longer? Does the spouse lose his/her employment in the event of divorce?

Why not extend Vets.' preference to spouses, children, parents of Vets?

I could go on, which I suppose is my point. Hiring preferences could go on & on, depending upon how vehemently any demographic choses to lobby.

Only Vets Get the Preference

Salior
DON
Tue Sep 30, 2008 5:21 PM

Post Reply

Let's leave hiring preferences only to our Vets. They earned it, put their very lives on the line and have kept America safe for generations and for all. No other category of person deserves this fundamental advantage in the federal hiring system.

Re: Only Vets Get the Preference

Friendly Fed
Army
Wed Oct 1, 2008 12:12 PM
Wrong! Rather than debate who deserves more preference than whomever, do away with all "preferences" & hire on merit! Contrary to mythology, every veteran did not put his life on the line (some did, but not all). As the DOI Clerk stated, once you establish hiring preferences, you go on & on with it. It's a contradiction to say you want to hire a well-qualified workforce but also want to establish hiring preferences for certain groups, no matter how well-deserving they may be.
Total Comments: 36
Page 1 of 2

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.