Forum Thread

Veterans' Preference rule change coming

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This gets a little confusing, if you're new to the subject. But basically it breaks down like this - if you are a vet and apply for a government job right now, you get an added advantage in the application process when applying for a government job. Equates to "5 to 10 extra points" in your favor, over non vets applying for the same job. This is something actually in law called 'Veterans' Preference'. And I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject, so follow that link for full details.

    Reason for this thread is that 2017 will very likely see a rule change to the preferential treatment to hiring vets. Right now the rule works for all jobs vets apply for. But they are now wanting to change it to just the first government job at vet applies for, and gets, that's also important.

    The logic is that a vet deserves a leg up to get their career started. Which I totally support. But once they land their first government job, the preferential treatment needs to end, and instead for any further job, getting employed over another non-vet should only rely on who is more qualified. Another idea I completely agree with.

    What are your thoughts on this? Should vets be limited in this way, or should they get extra-ordinary hiring consideration from the government for every job for their entire working lives? Also consider that even if it's not law, it's quite clear their military service is on their resume, and hiring managers clearly are usually biased towards vets in the first place. A good amount of the time anyways.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    YellowSubmarine Wrote:

    What are your thoughts on this? Should vets be limited in this way, or should they get extra-ordinary hiring consideration from the government for every job for their entire working lives? Also consider that even if it's not law, it's quite clear their military service is on their resume, and hiring managers clearly are usually biased towards vets in the first place. A good amount of the time anyways.

    I think one job placement leg up is enough. Veterans assistance is surely lacking in a ton of areas, and no disrespect here, as I think vets should get a certain amount of advantages for their service. But not to exclude civilians that went to college and dedicated their career path to government positions as well. They should be on equal footage, after 1. So I think this change makes total sense.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It can go either way. Veterans have it hard enough these days, especially when it comes to re assimilating themselves into the civilian world. I don't think the preference should be limited to the first job. What if the job doesn't work out? When it comes to the population of government workers, civilians make up the majority. I think this preference evens the field.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    JFoster Wrote: What if the job doesn't work out? When it comes to the population of government workers, civilians make up the majority. I think this preference evens the field.

    Keep in mind this is only for federal, government jobs. And if it doesn't work out, the only scenario in which it would then hurt the vet applicant unduly (in my view) is if the management forced that person out of the first job unfairly. If it ends for most any other reason, then that job will then go on that vet's resume.

    Basically what I'm saying is that the applicant should have a good idea of what they are getting themselves into, with the position. If they turn out just not to like the job, then they should move on, hopefully after they have given it a legitimate chance. Like a solid year or so, to get that experience on their resume. And they won't need anymore added points in the next round of employment searching after that.