Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

I couldn't diasagree more prof, there are just as many slackers in the diabled vets camp as there are in normal cs ranks. Where do you get 85% white disabled vets.

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

I would also like to express the intent of the original law was to afford veteran's preference in hiring for their first Federal position, NOT EVERY POSITION thereafter. You may believe I'm anti-Vet Preference but I am not, as I also am a Veteran and proud of my service to the United States; however in my career I've seen too many people using Vet Preference as a mechanism to perpetually apply and be selected for temporary/term/and permanent positions. Vet Preference should be allowed only until the Veteran receives a temporary position lasting 1 year or more OR a permanent position. After that, selection for other positions should be based upon MERIT! I also believe this should be true for Spousal Preference within DoD.

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

just what is your connection to Federal service? Are you a vet? Are you retired from civil service and now at a small college teaching? Have you ever worked for the government? Are you from a service family and so know the score from having grown up with the experiences that service "brats" garner? Have you lived in a foreign country? Have you ever worked with the knowledge that you are supporting a warfighter? or others needing government services?

Why do you choose to play in this playground, Prof?

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

dear NASA where do you read that in the legislation? The reason for the case was some clerk in personnel decided that he could interpret what the law says, kind of like judges legislating from the bench. The clerk had no basis for their interpretation other than the normal bias exhibited by personnel towards vets.
I do like the term that merit should be the only criteria for promotion... oh realllly.. how about the quota system of underrepresented minorities who continue to get quota preference their entire career. At least this guy did something for his country and not by accident of birth

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

Prof some wanna bee's try post as me so please accept my apology. You are correct 85% of the disabled vets are white. One only has to look at the composite of combat arms to see the demographics.
Of course we have the normal standard bearers who would diminish your right to post, even though you and I defended their right to the 1st amendment while the landcrabs sit on the sidelines

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

Diversity, stop the rhetoric. No one in their right mind would post a comment and claim to be you. You give yourself away with the terms you use. Give up.

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

Div Mgr: I pay no attention what 99% of these people write. I look at the title some of these, for lack of a better word, losers identify themselves with. The title says it all. They howl and attack, but never address the issues presented. Welcome to federal la-la land.

Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories

Prof when did you get fired from your cush government job? Your contempt for cs is all much as bad as mine.

Re: Prof you are wrong

Doesn't the VET have to qualify for the job before he is placed on the list? If so, he's already been rated as qualified by personnel. The only difference is that his name goes to the top of the list because of he is a VET. I don't think VETS would automatically be placed on every job they applied for - right?

Re: Prof you are wrong

All applicants, veteran or not, (5 point, 10 pont, or 30 percent or more disabled) minority or not, must meet the MINIMUM qualifications to be placed on a referral to the selecting supervisor. That's the law. The post about not being qualified is in error.
However, veterans with a 30 percent or greater disability float to the top, even with a low score such as would be given to someone meeting only minimum qualifications. That's the law.
The problem is that other candidates with MUCH BETTER hands on experience, specific training on computer languages, etc. may have a score of a 90 vs what would be a score of only 70, and be blocked by the disabled veteran. That's the law that supervisors try to get around, because they don't want to face months or years of training a candidate who meets only minimum qualifications, when they can get someone who can hit the ground running.
The OPM left loopholes that are used (too) frequently, and the judge said it needs to stop. Good Luck!

Re: Prof you are wrong

HR Specialist, how do you suggest stopping supervisors that try to get around the laws and OPM practices?

Re: Prof you are wrong

1. Provide leadership from the top. If Bush had some disabled vets in wheelchairs rolling around the Capitol or the Whitehouse, then some of the so-called supporters of Veterans might decide that they should give hiring Veterans more than lip service. That did not happen under past administrations, and may never happen because wounded soldiers/marines are an unpleasant truth politicians don't like to face.

2. Change the leadership (starting with the President) if Veterans are not promiently employed in the Agency or Department.

3. Improve rehab funding and scholarships for disabled veterans (double/triple, you are the tax payer) so the Veterans will have the skills needed to be better candidates/be more attractive to selecting supervisors.

4. Discipline or possibly fire the managers who are guilty of violating the law. This is a situation where you will need to have a "smoking gun" proof, which is too often too hard to find.

Re: VEOA

It is not easy (there are several steps involved), but it is possible to pass over a CPS Veteran claiming 30% disability. CPS Veterans are wrong to think that they are untouchable and cannot be passed over for someone else. Like I said, it is a very tedious process, though, to try to select someone else if a 30% Veteran has applied.

Re: VEOA

I am a 30% cps vet with a B.A. and was passed over recently by DOL for a non-veteren who works with me. Explain that? Not only did I qualify, but I was highly qualified. The person who received the job did the same type of work I do.

Re: VEOA

It should be tedious the law was written so that vets are first at the table because they have "contributed" to this country. Program analyst just what have you done for this country except to feed at the taxpayers trough??

Re: VEOA

Diversity Manager: Why are you picking on me? I merely stated a fact...you don't like it, too bad! Though, your other comments on here are just as dumb. If you have such a contempt for public service, then why do you work for DOL?

Re: VEOA

Is there a way to find out if the agency complied with OPM on the pass over of a CPS Veteran claiming 30% disability or more? in my case the issued a new cert without me the vet prior to my 15 day response period. which would allow them to veiw that new cert without me.

Re: Personnel Laws

When i was at DCAA there was a 200% turnover. They not only break OPM laws. they break the laws of nature. Of the 4 agencies i worked at, DCAA was by far the worse. They treat their people like s__t. Everyone I knew who worked for them hated the agency and management was inhuman. this is from a guy that recieved a promotion ahead of schedule and got a superior sustained performance award..

Re: Personnel Laws

No one should be suprised, dcaa has never been in favor of hiring vets. With so many new vets the agency should be doing something to hire them.

Re: How do you know?

Its only your opinion as to whether someone else is more qualified comply with the law or leave

Re: How do you know?

to Diversity Manaer

Of course it's only an opinion...ultimately every hiring official makes a decision based on their opinion and best guess as to who will be the best qualified for the job

Re: How do you know?

OPM Pro: It this type of opinion by you (not substantiated in statute or government wide regulation) that is slowly being rooted out. Read Kirkendall, Dean, Gingery, Augustine, Abrahamsen just to name a few. We win more each year. If an applicant has to be given something extra in order to qualify then the individual is less qualified than a person who does not require the discriminatory extra. Ego, affirmative action babies. You are the standard for OPM. Hire the less qualified for diversity. People such as I, and others, will continue to file MSPB complaints and federal court cases and appeals. Veterans have earned their preference.

Re: How do you know?

No that's not the purview of personnel clerks to prejudge. There job is to comply with the law and then get out of the way. Too often OPM and HR clerks believe that they are important and get in the way of the actual employer and try to determine who is the "best " qualified that ain't their job

Re: Kudos to the Vet!

I AGREE. I've worked as a DoD civilian for almost 30 years and have no problem with vets receiving preference. My job wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for them.

I read an article that stated private industry prefers hiring vets (disabled or not). They consider them dependable, dedicated, loyal and very hard workers. Maybe the feds should look to private industry for guidance.