Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 65
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Federal Circuit Sides With Disabled Vets on Excepted Service Positions
Total Comments: 65
Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
Federal Circuit Sides With Disabled Vets on Excepted Service Positions
Another Defeat for Merit Principles
State
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 AM
Post Reply
The original principle of establishing a highly competent workforce based on merit and open competition has taken yet another step back by this ill-conceived court ruling. Congress continues to pass laws that chip away at a once merit-based civil service system in favor of politically popular veterans preference. At the same time, Congress and the public expect their government to do more with fewer people. Veterans indeed should be recognized for their service to the country, and this should be accomplished by providing them a "preference" in hiring when they are EQUALLY qualified in comparison with non-veterans. In addition, military service should continue to count toward their retirement.
Re: Another Defeat for Merit Principles
HUD
Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:18 AM
"The original principle of establishing a highly competent workforce based on merit and open competition has taken yet another step back by this ill-conceived court ruling."
Take another look at the article. In this case, the disabled veteran was in the top category! The selecting official had to go down to the 4th category to select 2 people over the veteran! In this case, no damage was done to Merit Promotions, the veteran was hired and the case for keeping the Federal Career Intern Program was made stronger because it can be shown that veterans are being hired via this mechanism.
Me? A greater than 30 percent disabled veteran with a graduate degree who had to use the FCIP to get a developmental job with HUD.
Re: Another Defeat for Merit Principles
Small Agency
Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:39 AM
Reality
DECA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:41 AM
Post Reply
This happens all the time. Veterans are passed over as a matter of standard procedure in the agencies I have worked for. The reason: veterans don't take crap and are not afraid to stand up and call it like they see it. End result is too much hassle for the supervisors.
Re: Reality
DoD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:25 PM
Re: Reality
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:34 PM
Re: Reality
DECA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:02 AM
DoD
Does losing part of a foot to an IED count? You may want to think twice before posting arrogant self-serving posts. I think you are injecting your self-pity into the facts.
Spit on
DoD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:53 AM
Post Reply
Everytime we are discriminated against it's like being spit on. There are many Feds that are just outright hateful of Disabled Vets. Many disabled vets are more than qualified for most government jobs. Maybe too qualified and compete for promotions that others felt entitled to.
Affirmative Action & Vets Preference
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:53 AM
Post Reply
As a non-veteran white male, I am one of those squeezed between Affirmative Action and Veterans Preference and you might think that I would be against both. However, I truly believe that Disabled Vets deserve every break they can get because of their disabilities received in the service of our country. I also favor Affirmative Action to correct past injustices. As far as Preference for Veterans, who are not disabled, some of whom spent their entire service in relatively safe posting, those might be debatable. However, those could always be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Disabled vets 85% white males?
DCMA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:10 AM
Post Reply
Prof,
where did you get your data? From what I've read at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and military recruiting articles, ~24% of military is female, and ~64% of males are white, I'm having trouble seeing how 85% of disabled vets are male white.
Just wondering...
Re: Disabled vets 85% white males?
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:36 PM
Re: Disabled vets 85% white males?
DCMA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:07 AM
Combat Arms would not be the only way that a military member is injured, thus getting a disability rating. I just listened to a radio broadcast about a FEMALE soldier who was injured by a car bomb while deployed.
Or do you mean to imply that only males in the military can receive disability rating?
Re: Disabled vets 85% white males?
NASA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:31 PM
Additionally, even the "clerks" have to go through rigorous PT and could wreck a back, knee, etc to the point where they are also deserving of our country's thanks.
You sound like the lunks from armored cav who wear the T-shirts that say "If you ain't Cav you aint S__t!" and you should be above that in your job.
Is this just a fake name you made up???
Re: Disabled vets 85% white males?
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:14 PM
VEOA
DOD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:39 AM
Post Reply
If you do search for Gingery on the MSPB site, you notice that this guy has filed a complaint with 3 different agencies, all claim Veterans Pref. violations. Seem like he is trying to force the agency to hire him.
Re: VEOA
Garrison
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 PM
Re: VEOA
FED
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:30 PM
Re: VEOA
DOD
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:54 AM
Did you go MSPB site and read this guys complaint?
Employee FED,
If you are a permenent federal employee, Veterans Pref.
does not apply
Re: VEOA
FED
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:15 PM
Some Want to Carry Vets' Preference Too Far
Federal Agency
Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:50 PM
Post Reply
At least some want Veterans' Preference to go to extremes. See the case of Adam T. Ramsey v. MSPB, where Mr. Ramsey wanted the preference to override even basic qualifications. http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=248423&version=248695&application=ACROBAT
Re: Some Want to Carry Vets' Preference Too Far
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:17 PM