Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Veterans Chalk Up Wins at MSPB and Court - Part Two
Total Comments: 8
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2114 | +0.0012 | +0.70% |
| F | $13.6201 | -0.0062 | +2.14% |
| C | $13.8116 | -0.0706 | +4.49% |
| S | $17.9282 | -0.1903 | +8.91% |
| I | $18.5079 | -0.0782 | -0.16% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1968 | -0.0789 | +3.59% |
| L 2030 | $15.9593 | -0.0673 | +3.23% |
| L 2020 | $15.7365 | -0.0532 | +2.72% |
| L 2010 | $15.4595 | -0.0197 | +1.57% |
| L Income | $14.0856 | -0.0155 | +1.48% |
March 21, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Today's article
CSC
Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:47 AM
Post Reply
Since the appellate court decision on 12/24/08, MSPB has referred the Gingery case back to its Regional AJ specifically for a ruling on the legitimacy of the FCIP authority itself. This is a key issue, because the FCIP is a Schedule B excepted service appointing authority, with the Schedule B definition (see 5 CFR 213.3201) stating that that Schedule covers positions for which it is impracticable to examine competitively. However, the very same GS-5/9 jobs in a variety of occupations that are being filled through the FCIP authority are also being examined for - sometimes by the same agency effecting FCIP Schedule B excepted service hires in the same occupations - under competitive examining procedures. This appears to call into valid question the legitimacy of the FCIP authority itself. The separate suit filed by NTEU against the OPM and its use of the FCIP seeks to make that point as well. This case is far from over, but it could entail abolition of the FCIP authority itself.
Veterans Preference
Customs and Border Protection
Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:49 AM
Post Reply
I am glad that the courts will start enforcing veterans preference. I applied for many jobs over the years and listed disability and veterans preference. I was passed over by someone's daughter who had no experince and less education and of course no veterans preference. This happened many times and they won as I quit fighting them.
What about the DVAAP?
DON SE
Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:53 AM
Post Reply
Here in the southeast the DON has ignored, disregarded and simply overlooked the DVAAP plan to help >30% disabled vets in training, mentoring and career development. Management admits it is an overlooked program for decades. Therefore there are those who are disadvantaged and have missed opportunities where they should have had veteran’s preference. Senior executives surely know their responsibilities of office so they simply keep this beneficial affirmative action plan secret. DVAAP should be given emphasis and resources at least equal to those affirmative employment programs for minorities and women. This plan is designed to promote Federal employment and advancement opportunities for qualified disabled veterans.
OPM's Response
DOJ
Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:01 PM
Post Reply
What has OPM's response been to these MSPB cases? I have not seen any guidance from OPM on these issues. Is this not their responsibility to advise agencies in these matters?
Worthless
USPS
Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:48 PM
Post Reply
Most agencies pay absolutely no attention to veterans preference. Race, gender, sexual preference and a degree make much more difference than losing a limb in service to your country when hiring is done. I know of a disabled veteran who actually lost an arm in Viet Nam that had to file suit against the USPS to get hired as a custodian. Taking care of our veterans is an absolute lie.
current employee options for a 100% disabled vet
EPA Chicago office
Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:34 AM
Post Reply
I'm a newbie here -- do any of these veteran's plans or preferences apply to current vet employees? For instance, a disabled vet who wants a promotion or transfer.
New Decisions Have Costs
DoD
Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:55 AM
Post Reply
The MSPB and the Federal Circuit have been active in changing case law regarding various veterans' hiring authorities. Such changes have not been the result of new statutes, but represent changes in precedent by both the Board and the court. I attribute this change to the GWOT, combat casualties, and an increased desire to help veterans. I'm not opposed to laws that discriminate in favor of veterans. However, as caselaw changes, to deter (and in many instances to deny) hiring non-veterans, the quality of the workforce declines. Not that there are not high-quality veterans, but it is short sighted to rob the applicant pool of high-quality non-vets. Outstanding scholar enhanced the civilian workforce; FCIP has enhanced the quality of the intern programs. The point is this: The field was already tilted in favor of hiring veterans; increasingly it closes civil service to the best and brighest college graduates. This is a fact and not personal; I am a vet with disabilities.