This is another small step by disabled veterans in the long march to enforcement of veteran's preference laws. Veteran preference laws have been evaded and ignored for decades in order to hire affirmative action babies. Disabled veterans have earned the right to preference. Affirmative action babies have not earned any right. Disabled veterans are 85% white males. They upset the affirmative action apple cart. We keep chipping away (and will continue) at government sanctioned and enforced discrimination.
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
Diversity Manager DOL Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:21 AM
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
Human Resources Specialist NASA Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:25 AM
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
Nameless, Faceless Nobody DOD Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:14 AM
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
Diversity Manager DOL Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:17 PM
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
Diversity Manager DOL Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:21 PM
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
Wkr Navy Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:54 AM
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
Prof Small College Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:56 PM
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
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:57 PM
Prof when did you get fired from your cush government job? Your contempt for cs is all much as bad as mine.
Excepted Service positions
Analyst VA Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:14 AM
I can't believe this is the only time this has come up, disabled Vets have been passed over for as long as I can remember. It happened to me and I was even told I couldn't be hired because I was disabled. This is nothing new.
Prof you are wrong
IT Specialist USDA Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:18 AM
bitter, maybe, but wrong. What is an agency to do now that knowledgeble HR staffs are nowhere to be found & they end up with a register with unqualified or ineliglble vets? It is bad for both the vet and the agency. If you require someone who can get a high level security clearance, but they get a vet with a criminal record (and that is happening a lot lately), what are you supposed to do? What if the job is 75% travel and the vet indicates on an application that they will not travel, then what? How about if you need 24 hours of accounting (to be a auditor) but the applicant never graduated from High School? They never should have been on the register in the first place. The process is supposed to be "all other things being equal, select the vet", but that seems to be lost. Back when we had a staff who correctly placed people on registers I rarely saw problems. Now, it is a big mess.
Re: Prof you are wrong
Budget Analyst Garrison Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:27 PM
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
HR Specialist NASA Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:27 PM
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
IT Disabled VET Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:27 PM
HR Specialist, how do you suggest stopping supervisors that try to get around the laws and OPM practices?
Re: Prof you are wrong
HR Specialist NASA Tue Jan 6, 2009 5:14 PM
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.
VEOA
Asst Director US DOL/VETS Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:50 AM
Under VEOA how can OPM pass over a qualified special disabled veteran for a competitive or excepted service position.
Re: VEOA
Program Analyst OPM Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:35 AM
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
Employee FED Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:16 PM
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
Diversity Manager DOL Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:26 PM
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
Program Analyst OPM Mon Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM
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
Military Vet Self Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:45 PM
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.
Personnel Laws
Supervisory Auditor (Retired) DCAA Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:56 AM
DCAA routinely manuevers around the personnel laws. A woman supervisor (non-Vet) bragged to her team of auditors how she avoided hiring veterans. This was somewhere in Indiana. Usually the scheming is done quitely and secretively. Human resource personnel are pawns for management in DCAA. The DCAA Regional and HQ offices bypass and manuever around the laws all the time for internal promotions. Unless an individual is willing to go through all the turmoil as the one in this article, DCAA gets away with it.
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
auditor dcaa Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:06 AM
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.
How do you know?
professional opm Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:02 AM
Nowhere does it say that the persons hired were "affirmative action babies" or that they were of a minority group. It's presumptious to think it. May be they were just more qualified and had desireable qualities for which the hiring official was looking. I have no problem with veterans getting a preference for getting on a cert but I have a problem with them having to be hired just because of that preference, even when they are not as qualified or well-suited for the job. And before anyone writes ugly replies--yes, I'm a veteran.
Re: How do you know?
Diversity Manager DOL Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:29 PM
Its only your opinion as to whether someone else is more qualified comply with the law or leave
Re: How do you know?
professional opm Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:07 AM
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?
Prof Small College Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:09 PM
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?
Diversity Manager DOL Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:22 PM
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
Kudos to the Vet!
Personnel Officer Commerce Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:05 AM
The President and Congress have made promises to our men and women who defend our country for OUR freedom, that when they return from war they can have preference for a Federal Government job. Rightfully so! We need to change our management culture, please remember they must be qualified to do the job. We have a new generation coming home from war and they need to be gainfully employed. Every job in the government, competitive or excepted should be subject to veterans preference, NO exceptions! Does that mean all jobs must be announced? probably! So be it!
If I had it my way, I'd have two types of jobs in the government..... Permanent and Temporary and everybody competes for it. I know that is over simplistic (for illustration purposes). We now have over a hundred different appointing authorities, each with their own set of rules and exceptions to the rules, crazy eh? I'm surprised we don't have many more violations with as many rules and regulations we have now.
Re: Kudos to the Vet!
Budget Analyst Garrison Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:35 PM
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.
Another Defeat for Merit Principles
Analyst State Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
NASA HR Specialist - you are correct. Many of the problems I've seen have been due to the lack of real HR staff doing the application rating- they just are not there anymore, they have been eliminated or contracted out to the support line that is never answered - something I'm sure I don't need to tell you. We have been subjected to registers for network engineers populated with data entry clerks - sounds like computers to them! And we really have received registers for mandatory 85% travel where the applicant clearly states they will not travel.
Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Disabled Vet Disabled Vet Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Why do you guys bother fighting? A recent, but unnoticed, MSPB decision (Marshall v. Health & Human Services) torpedoed veterans' preference! When an agency gets caught red-handed violating the VEOA, it merely cancels the vacancy announcement.
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Prof Small College Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:34 PM
This case is on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Veterans will probably win.
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Disabled Vet Disabled Vet Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:22 PM
I know that, and you know that Prof. Wink! Wink!
The point is that if you are going to fight over federal case, no pun intended, this would be the most important one out thre right now, thought the current one, and others, are important too.
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
IT CDC Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:21 PM
Yes, federal employees can be very manipulating federal positions if they don't like the outcome. They should welcome vets, they seem to be the people that can work in a team or individual environment and they can get the job done. My experience with non-vet federal staff has been that of manipulation and crooked actions. Enough said.
VET Pref and DVAAP
Emergency Management Professional FEMA Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:45 PM
Also, most managers are not aware of and violate the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) which requires a separate affirmative action program that includes HIRING and PROMOTION of 30% or more disabled VEts to the maximum extent praticable. I am considering the possibility of a Class Action Suit, in addition to the EEOC case I already have in process.
Re: VET Pref and DVAAP
IT Disabled VET Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:25 PM
How is the EEOC going? I don't feel it would make any difference in my organization.
30 PERCENT DIS.
CHARLES WLAVA Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:51 AM
does the item i just read on the vetran having 30% apply to all gov. dept.
Re: 30 PERCENT DIS.
Disabled Vet Disabled Vet Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:18 PM
It applies to most of the executive branch in excepted service hiring including the FCIP.
Excepted Service Positions
IT CDC Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:17 PM
What are the excepted service positions as described in this article? I was not selected for a position at the VA in Atlanta and I have a 60% compensable service related disability. I was very qualified for the position in which I interviewed. However, I was not given anything other than a sorry letter stating someone else had been hired. Was this legal, should the VA have provided more information? Should I have had the right to the information on who was hired? Also, the Atlanta VA did not use any federal application mechanism like USAJobs or application manager to receive applications so there was no certification or rating. I just received a rating where I scored 107 for a similar position with the VA in Minneapolis. Also, I was under the impression that 30% or more compensable veterans could have the certification reopened even after a position had closed is this true? Even though criticized, vets who protect her should get her jobs. Try living with a disability, life is hard!!!!
vETERAN rIGHT vIOLATED.
SAFETY SPECIALIST Was Dept. Of The Army Wed Jan 7, 2009 11:02 AM
i AM A DISABLED VIETNAM VETERAN. I was injured on the job. I could not preform carpenter work anymore. I took a job in the safety office. M ysupervisor said he was going to hire me as a GS9 safety specialist. Three months later personnel changed the job to just a GS 7 Tech. My supervisor kept hiring and promoting workers all around me but kept saying personnel said he could not promote me. Does this violate the Veteran disability laws. Was perrsonal wrong
Re: vETERAN rIGHT vIOLATED.
Prof Small College Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM
Safety, maybe you just aren't a good employee.
Over-looked as a Disabled Vet
Frustrated Vet Self Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:33 AM
First of all, this is for NASA. I happen to be a disabled vet (>30%) and I am having my own problems landing a government job. From my perspective, there does not seem to be much preference given to the vet. In my case, I have been rated as high as 106 and I have been overlooked. So, what that means is another vet with a 107 or higher. Likely, not very. My education and experience have execeeded the requirements of the job or I would not have applied. I have become frustrated because I have followed the procedures and I have not been contacted. I still believe like in any job, most positions are preselected, but posted for legal reasons. As a vet, I am not looking for a handout, I feel priviledge to have served and I am attempting to secure employment with the federal service. I have applied to numerous positions and if I am not contacted about the current position I applied for, I will contact the department necessary to explain why I was not selected. It is my right.
Disabled Veteran's Victories
Small College
Tue Dec 30, 2008 7:09 AM
This is another small step by disabled veterans in the long march to enforcement of veteran's preference laws. Veteran preference laws have been evaded and ignored for decades in order to hire affirmative action babies. Disabled veterans have earned the right to preference. Affirmative action babies have not earned any right. Disabled veterans are 85% white males. They upset the affirmative action apple cart. We keep chipping away (and will continue) at government sanctioned and enforced discrimination.
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:21 AM
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
NASA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:25 AM
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
DOD
Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:14 AM
Why do you choose to play in this playground, Prof?
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:17 PM
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
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:21 PM
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
Navy
Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:54 AM
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:56 PM
Re: Disabled Veteran's Victories
DOL
Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:57 PM
Excepted Service positions
VA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:14 AM
I can't believe this is the only time this has come up, disabled Vets have been passed over for as long as I can remember. It happened to me and I was even told I couldn't be hired because I was disabled. This is nothing new.
Prof you are wrong
USDA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:18 AM
bitter, maybe, but wrong. What is an agency to do now that knowledgeble HR staffs are nowhere to be found & they end up with a register with unqualified or ineliglble vets? It is bad for both the vet and the agency. If you require someone who can get a high level security clearance, but they get a vet with a criminal record (and that is happening a lot lately), what are you supposed to do? What if the job is 75% travel and the vet indicates on an application that they will not travel, then what? How about if you need 24 hours of accounting (to be a auditor) but the applicant never graduated from High School? They never should have been on the register in the first place. The process is supposed to be "all other things being equal, select the vet", but that seems to be lost. Back when we had a staff who correctly placed people on registers I rarely saw problems. Now, it is a big mess.
Re: Prof you are wrong
Garrison
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:27 PM
Re: Prof you are wrong
NASA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:27 PM
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
Disabled VET
Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:27 PM
Re: Prof you are wrong
NASA
Tue Jan 6, 2009 5:14 PM
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.
VEOA
US DOL/VETS
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:50 AM
Under VEOA how can OPM pass over a qualified special disabled veteran for a competitive or excepted service position.
Re: VEOA
OPM
Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:35 AM
Re: VEOA
FED
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:16 PM
Re: VEOA
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:26 PM
Re: VEOA
OPM
Mon Jan 5, 2009 12:26 PM
Re: VEOA
Self
Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:45 PM
Personnel Laws
DCAA
Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:56 AM
DCAA routinely manuevers around the personnel laws. A woman supervisor (non-Vet) bragged to her team of auditors how she avoided hiring veterans. This was somewhere in Indiana. Usually the scheming is done quitely and secretively. Human resource personnel are pawns for management in DCAA. The DCAA Regional and HQ offices bypass and manuever around the laws all the time for internal promotions. Unless an individual is willing to go through all the turmoil as the one in this article, DCAA gets away with it.
Re: Personnel Laws
DOE, Albuquerque
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:50 PM
Re: Personnel Laws
dcaa
Thu Jan 1, 2009 11:06 AM
How do you know?
opm
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:02 AM
Nowhere does it say that the persons hired were "affirmative action babies" or that they were of a minority group. It's presumptious to think it. May be they were just more qualified and had desireable qualities for which the hiring official was looking. I have no problem with veterans getting a preference for getting on a cert but I have a problem with them having to be hired just because of that preference, even when they are not as qualified or well-suited for the job. And before anyone writes ugly replies--yes, I'm a veteran.
Re: How do you know?
DOL
Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:29 PM
Re: How do you know?
opm
Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:07 AM
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?
Small College
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:09 PM
Re: How do you know?
DOL
Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:22 PM
Kudos to the Vet!
Commerce
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:05 AM
The President and Congress have made promises to our men and women who defend our country for OUR freedom, that when they return from war they can have preference for a Federal Government job. Rightfully so! We need to change our management culture, please remember they must be qualified to do the job. We have a new generation coming home from war and they need to be gainfully employed. Every job in the government, competitive or excepted should be subject to veterans preference, NO exceptions! Does that mean all jobs must be announced? probably! So be it!
If I had it my way, I'd have two types of jobs in the government..... Permanent and Temporary and everybody competes for it. I know that is over simplistic (for illustration purposes). We now have over a hundred different appointing authorities, each with their own set of rules and exceptions to the rules, crazy eh? I'm surprised we don't have many more violations with as many rules and regulations we have now.
Re: Kudos to the Vet!
Garrison
Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:35 PM
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.
Another Defeat for Merit Principles
State
Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 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. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
NASA HR Specialist - you are correct.
USDA
Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:52 PM
NASA HR Specialist - you are correct. Many of the problems I've seen have been due to the lack of real HR staff doing the application rating- they just are not there anymore, they have been eliminated or contracted out to the support line that is never answered - something I'm sure I don't need to tell you. We have been subjected to registers for network engineers populated with data entry clerks - sounds like computers to them! And we really have received registers for mandatory 85% travel where the applicant clearly states they will not travel.
Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Disabled Vet
Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:12 PM
Why do you guys bother fighting? A recent, but unnoticed, MSPB decision (Marshall v. Health & Human Services) torpedoed veterans' preference! When an agency gets caught red-handed violating the VEOA, it merely cancels the vacancy announcement.
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Small College
Thu Jan 1, 2009 3:34 PM
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
Disabled Vet
Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:22 PM
The point is that if you are going to fight over federal case, no pun intended, this would be the most important one out thre right now, thought the current one, and others, are important too.
Re: Veterans' Preference is Dead!
CDC
Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:21 PM
VET Pref and DVAAP
FEMA
Thu Jan 1, 2009 2:45 PM
Also, most managers are not aware of and violate the Disabled Veterans Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP) which requires a separate affirmative action program that includes HIRING and PROMOTION of 30% or more disabled VEts to the maximum extent praticable. I am considering the possibility of a Class Action Suit, in addition to the EEOC case I already have in process.
Re: VET Pref and DVAAP
Disabled VET
Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:25 PM
30 PERCENT DIS.
WLAVA
Fri Jan 2, 2009 8:51 AM
does the item i just read on the vetran having 30% apply to all gov. dept.
Re: 30 PERCENT DIS.
Disabled Vet
Fri Jan 2, 2009 5:18 PM
Excepted Service Positions
CDC
Sat Jan 3, 2009 4:17 PM
What are the excepted service positions as described in this article? I was not selected for a position at the VA in Atlanta and I have a 60% compensable service related disability. I was very qualified for the position in which I interviewed. However, I was not given anything other than a sorry letter stating someone else had been hired. Was this legal, should the VA have provided more information? Should I have had the right to the information on who was hired? Also, the Atlanta VA did not use any federal application mechanism like USAJobs or application manager to receive applications so there was no certification or rating. I just received a rating where I scored 107 for a similar position with the VA in Minneapolis. Also, I was under the impression that 30% or more compensable veterans could have the certification reopened even after a position had closed is this true? Even though criticized, vets who protect her should get her jobs. Try living with a disability, life is hard!!!!
vETERAN rIGHT vIOLATED.
Was Dept. Of The Army
Wed Jan 7, 2009 11:02 AM
i AM A DISABLED VIETNAM VETERAN. I was injured on the job. I could not preform carpenter work anymore. I took a job in the safety office. M ysupervisor said he was going to hire me as a GS9 safety specialist. Three months later personnel changed the job to just a GS 7 Tech. My supervisor kept hiring and promoting workers all around me but kept saying personnel said he could not promote me. Does this violate the Veteran disability laws. Was perrsonal wrong
Re: vETERAN rIGHT vIOLATED.
Small College
Wed Jan 7, 2009 12:21 PM
Over-looked as a Disabled Vet
Self
Sat Jan 24, 2009 9:33 AM
First of all, this is for NASA. I happen to be a disabled vet (>30%) and I am having my own problems landing a government job. From my perspective, there does not seem to be much preference given to the vet. In my case, I have been rated as high as 106 and I have been overlooked. So, what that means is another vet with a 107 or higher. Likely, not very. My education and experience have execeeded the requirements of the job or I would not have applied. I have become frustrated because I have followed the procedures and I have not been contacted. I still believe like in any job, most positions are preselected, but posted for legal reasons. As a vet, I am not looking for a handout, I feel priviledge to have served and I am attempting to secure employment with the federal service. I have applied to numerous positions and if I am not contacted about the current position I applied for, I will contact the department necessary to explain why I was not selected. It is my right.