Hiring preferential of vets legal?

[Sirkarl101]

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.

 

[editec]

Speaking as VET, myself, I have to say that I always thought Veterans preferencing ought to be illegal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[Prevail]

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.

 

[Sirkarl101]

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.

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.

 

[Sirkarl101]

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.

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.

 

[Prevail]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Warrior102]

Nice thing about hiring a vet is they're hard working, dependable, and can pass a urinalysis.

 

[Staidhup]

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.

 

[usmcstinger]

Great explanation in regard to Veterans preference. Let me ad a few other points.

Those veterans who go to college after 4 years in the military are at least 4 years behind their peers who went to college right out of High School. When Veterans graduate from college, their peers have already spent 4 years in the work force. There are some variables that can put Veterans 6 or more years behind their peers.

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) (regarding Veterans)
U.S. Department of Labor - OFCCP - Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended

Why Veterans make good employees?
Leaving the military? Job prospects are better than you think - Fortune Management

 

[editec]

Hiring preferential of vets legal?

I supported hiring preferences for VETS when there was a DRAFT.

THEN, hiring preferences was a small compensation to people who'd been DRAFTED.

Now?

Now I think that it isn't right to give preferential treatment to people who CHOSE to serve.

 

[usmcstinger]

You got that completely back wards. The fact that all men and women who served in military are volunteers is even a greater reason for Veterans Preference. Those who never served in the military don't have clue. I wonder what your reasons are for not serving in our Armed Forces?
Obviously, you have no understanding of Honor, Duty, Country. Thank God, we have men and women who do!

 

[Skull Pilot]

You got that completely back wards. The fact that all men and women who served in military are volunteers is even a greater reason for Veterans Preference. Those who never served in the military don't have clue. I wonder what your reasons are for not serving in our Armed Forces?
Obviously, you have no understanding of Honor, Duty, Country. Thank God, we have men and women who do!

so people who don't serve in the military have no clue about honor, duty and service?

OK

 

[Douger]

If a meathead follows the orders of some lying corporate whore for years and years. YES !.
Brainwashed idiots is what makes murka GREAT !

 

[usmcstinger]

It is honor, duty, country. If you understood what it means, then you would have enlisted in the Armed Forces.

Written on a piece of a C- Rations box at Khe Sanh, Vietnam 1968: "Freedom has a certain flavor the protected will never know"

 

[FuelRod]

In most cases Vets have their own practices.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

discrimination of any kind is illegal.

you are incorrect, sir

Discrimination is only made illegal when done aganist certain classes and in certain contexts.

For instance - you may NOT deny rental unit to someone because they are white.

However, you MAY deny a rental unit to someone because they are NASCAR fans. NASCAR fans are not a protected class

The class of people who are NOT veterans has no special protection

 

[The Gadfly]

It is honor, duty, country. If you understood what it means, then you would have enlisted in the Armed Forces.

Written on a piece of a C- Rations box at Khe Sanh, Vietnam 1968: "Freedom has a certain flavor the protected will never know"

He was a draftee in Vietnam, Stinger. Maybe he had some bad experiences with "lifers"; that wasn't uncommon in the army at the time, unfortunately. At any rate, I don't think he feels any affection for those of us who volunteered.

 

[whitehall]

Vets used to have points added in Civil Service job promotion tests on a one time only basis. I took advantage of it myself. If they are going to set standards for all sorts of preferential treatment of people based on the DNA they were born with the least they can do is give people who volunteered to protect that DNA a little consideration.