Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 65
Page 2 of 3

« Previous | Next »

Federal Circuit Sides With Disabled Vets on Excepted Service Positions

Another Defeat for Merit Principles

Analyst
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

Federal Career Intern
HUD
Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:18 AM
State:
"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

HR Specialist
Small Agency
Wed Dec 31, 2008 8:39 AM
FCI HUD, all 30% disabled vets float to the top of the top category (in both rule of 3 and category rating) as long as they meet minimum qualifications. So this person being in the top category does not actually mean he was more qualified than the 2 who were hired.

Reality

Low Man
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

ELR Spec
DoD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:25 PM
Okay, now lets all get real. First off, I am a Vet. Pref Elig. So the whiners can stop. Secondly,and MOST importantly, let develop a pref eligible code that distinguishes between a vet who attains a disability rating from injuries received in the 'actual' performance of military duties/combat versus those who attained a disabililty rating from playing softball, football or some other non-military act. I can't tell you how many of these so-called disabled vets have a bum knee or arm from screwing off while in the service as opposed to sustaining an actual injury while in combat or performing military duties. Please be assured these comments are not meant to take away any benefit for those getting injured while in combat or performing military duties, but don't whine about getting screwed over as a vet because you hurt yourself when falling off a barstool in Singapore.

Re: Reality

Diversity Manager
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:34 PM
How about using the same standard for CS disability payments... those not hurt on the job need not apply

Re: Reality

Low Man
DECA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:02 AM
ELR Spec
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

GOV WORKER
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

HR Specialist
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?

QA
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?

Diversity Manager
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:36 PM
AHHHHH another unqualified CS posting. COMBAT Arms is 100% male you know the guys who fire guns and mortars, not clerks like yourself sitting at a desk

Re: Disabled vets 85% white males?

QA
DCMA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:07 AM
Diversity Manager,

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?

HR Specialist
NASA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:31 PM
So called DIVERSITY MANAGER, you bring shame to your profession with an attitude like yours. There are many female soldiers and marines who have been very seriously injured by IEDs and who are derserving of the purple hearts and disability ratings they received.
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?

Prof
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:14 PM
Div Mgr: Finally you have made a mistake..."It is clerks and jerks". Use your imagination as to "jerk".

VEOA

Federal Employee
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

Budget Analyst
Garrison
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:39 PM
Maybe he got tired of the offices ignoring Veteran's Preference. There must be a problem if he has applied three times and each time the Veteran Preference Rules were ignored.

Re: VEOA

Employee
FED
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:30 PM
Maybe, he was just trying to get them to do right and follow the law. Like I said, previously, I am a 30% disable vet with a B.A, I was passed over for a position with DOL and I was rated highly qualified. The person who received the job was a non-vet. We both performed the same type of work. The funny thing is I constantly cleaned up that persons mess (work) in our office. Some people can just BS there way through interviews and when the time comes the agency will see that they did not select the right person.

Re: VEOA

Federal Employee
DOD
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:54 AM
Budget Analyst,

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

Employee
FED
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:15 PM
Preference applies if you are going to another agency, because if it did not you would not get the extra points.

Some Want to Carry Vets' Preference Too Far

Former HR Specialist
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

Prof
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:17 PM
Mr. Ramsey lost and rightly so.
Total Comments: 65
Page 2 of 3

« 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.