Hiring preferential of vets legal?

Discussion in 'Military' started by Sirkarl101, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Sirkarl101
    Offline

    Sirkarl101 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    Discrimination of any kind is illegal. The brave men and women of our services performed their duty and did so in the finest fashion but does that give them the right to be employed rather than someone who chose not to serve or could not serve by no fault of their own? Do others who may be as qualified if not more qualified for a position deserve to be passed over for a job because they did not serve? If this were the case Obama would not be president as well as many before him and they command the military as everyone is well aware. This in my opinion is a very dangerous stance. In Griggs V Duke Power Co. (1971). Duke failed to demonstrate that the hiring of a certain category of people over another must demonstrate it to be a "business necessity". If the legislation is not changed in regards to the hiring of vets this could then evolve into other areas of preference undoing years of struggle for equality in the workplace. I hope that someday every individual actively searching for employment secure a job but at the cost of others not given equal consideration for a position is unacceptable in my opinion.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Speaking as VET, myself, I have to say that I always thought Veterans preferencing ought to be illegal.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,749
    Thanks Received:
    4,491
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,081
    All hiring preferences should be the sole business of the business doing the hiring.

    If a business owner wants to hire vets over anyone else he should be able to.
    If a business owner wants to only hire 5' 8" blondes with big tits then he should be able to.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Prevail
    Offline

    Prevail Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +6
    The first thing you need to do is clear up your language and focus here.

    If you are referring to Veteran's Preference Act, it pertains only to jobs in the federal government. The intent of this law, passed in 1944, is to prevent veterans seeking federal employment from being penalized for their time in military service. Veterans' preference recognizes the economic loss suffered by citizens who have served their country in uniform, restores veterans to a favorable competitive position for Government employment, and acknowledges the larger obligation owed to disabled veterans. This particular law, once more, refers only to select jobs within the federal government. The law awards Veterans points towards the hiring process based on their service and disability, and for 60 years has served as a way to Veterans to transition from one side of the federal government (the military) to another.

    If you are referring to the recent Vet Jobs Bill, that that is a different story entirely. This most recent bill doesn't, in any way, shape, or form, require private businesses to hire Veterans. It also doesn't require businesses to give Veterans any more consideration than they give to a non-Veteran. The bill, in an effort to combat the disproportionately high unemployment rate among the Veteran community (12-13%), simply provides tax breaks to businesses who hire unemployed or disabled Veterans.

    So, before I proceed any further, I am curious as to which of these you take exception to.
     
  5. Sirkarl101
    Offline

    Sirkarl101 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    The later, The call to hire veterans over any other qualified applicant is not a good policy to me. It just creates another separation in an already divided nation of people. Do we really need to label more people.
     
  6. Sirkarl101
    Offline

    Sirkarl101 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    233
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +30
    Where would this country be on discrimination if that were the case? African Americans, women, and handicapped would be screwed. The government should be left out of private business hiring practices is your point I believe, therefore they should not come out and support any group of persons over another correct, in the private sector I am referring.
     
  7. Prevail
    Offline

    Prevail Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Ratings:
    +6
    In some ways I agree with you. I don't believe that most veterans, myself included, wish to have a company coerced into hiring us. We would prefer to earn the job on our own merits, or not at all.

    That being said, veterans, especially those in the 18-24 age group, are having a harder time finding employment than the rest of the country. Do you disagree with funding and resources to help these young veterans transition to the work force as well? Is it separating them too much if we provide transitional career assistance to them while not providing it to the rest of the unemployed? Should we actively deride or boycott companies who voluntarily engage in drives to hire veterans (such as Citibank's pledge to hire 10,000)?

    I ask this because I think its a fine line we must walk. While I absolutely agree that the government should not infringe on, or artificially skew the hiring process in the private sector, there are concerns that need to be addressed. These young veterans are an exceptional natural resource, and should not be tossed aside at the concern of "separating" them from their fellow citizens. Veterans often have a tough time translating their skills and experience to the civilian world, which leaves them either under or unemployed. A little help in the way of job fairs, or career resources go a long way.
     
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,749
    Thanks Received:
    4,491
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,081
    Nor should government tell a private business who it can and can't hire.

    If you want to hire only handicapped people then go ahead it's your right as a business owner. I don't really care who you hire and neither should anyone else.
     
  9. Warrior102
    Offline

    Warrior102 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    16,554
    Thanks Received:
    4,019
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,029
    Nice thing about hiring a vet is they're hard working, dependable, and can pass a urinalysis.
     
  10. Staidhup
    Offline

    Staidhup Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    2,848
    Thanks Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    PNW
    Ratings:
    +1,175
    Our policy is simple, if a Veteran applies for work and is qualified he or she is given preference. Funny how people twist this thread to fit their agenda.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
can a company only hire veterans
,
can i only hire veterans
,
is hiring just veterans discrimination
,

is it illegal to only hire veterans

,
is it legal to only hire veterans
,
is veterans preference discrimination
,
policy only hire veterans
,
preferencial hiring of vets
,
should veterans preference illegal
,
veteran preference illegal
,
veterans preference discrimination
,

veterans preference is discrimination