First Mike Sullivan’s Campaign Manager copies Tisei’s positions. Then Sullivan admits at last night’s debate that he hasn’t even read his positions.
Now Mike Sullivan is proposing having the TSA give preference to hiring veterans in a press release today:
Senate candidate Mike Sullivan today proposed that veterans who’ve served in Iraq or Afghanistan be placed first in line for front-line security positions in the nation’s airports and other transportation systems.
Great idea, right? Of course. Kudos to Sullivan. Also, kudos to the TSA – THEY ALREADY HAVE THIS POLICY IN PLACE. From the “FAQ on Veterans’ Employment“:
1. Does TSA provide a hiring preference to veterans?
Yes! TSA is committed to supporting the employment of veterans and provides a hiring preference to eligible veterans.
D’oh!
I completely understand the motivation to support our veterans this way, making sure that those who defend us are taken care of. However, I’m concerned that it has become too much of a factor. I have tried several times in the past handful of years to apply for positions within the National Park Service (Federal agencies have a similar if not uniform policy on this matter.) for which I’m sure I am qualified, but I am not a veteran. The notices informing me that my application was not even refered often cite as a reason that enough veterans qualified for the position and once when I called to inquire I was told they were required to hire veterans first. Giving veteran status one check among many in the positive column is fine, but when in practice this essentially becomes “Non-veterans Need Not Apply” then I think we have a problem.
Seems like Starship Troopers was ahead of its time.
i meant to uprate this and hit the wrong link…
Was Starship Troopers a take-off from Starcraft?
Buy Starcraft II from my workplace.
Troopers predates personal computers by a couple of decades.
Apparently, WRT to the sociopolitical setup, the book was more of a warning than a prescription.
There are certain areas where veterans’ preference doesn’t make sense. For example, the Boston police force, where there are concerns that having too many veterans means the force doesn’t represent, and thus can’t adequately build rapport with the population. There is also concern that it may leads to a militarization of the police force if too many cops try to use tactics they learned in combat to police civilians. So in that context I do think there’s a reason to do away with veterans’ preference.
But for the most part, tough luck. We had a hard enough time recruiting soldiers at the height of the Iraq war even with all these benefits in place. Making sure we have the best possible national defense is a little more important than making sure we have the smartest possible park rangers, as long as the rangers are smart enough to do the job. So from a policy perspective, we need to maintain veterans’ preference in most situations, or provide veterans something of equal value if we take it away. And at the individual level, you have no basis complaining about any unfairness, because you could join the military (or could have in the past. Dunno how old you are).
First that should never be a requirement to find work for which one is otherwise qualified. Second, I’m mildly disabled (enough that I would probably be exempt from the draft, but not enough that I’m comfortable using that as a basis for my own prefernce. I didn’t say eliminate the preference entirely, but this isn’t Israel where everyone is expected to serve and I don’t want the US to become that.
It’s a preference. Similar to giving people with 5 years of experience in the job preference over people with 2 years. It’s almost always going to happen, even if 2 years of experience is enough to do the job competently. Less experienced people don’t get to complain, because there’s a legitimate business reason for having that preference. The government has a business reason to prefer veterans, due to the difficulty of recruiting troops. So apply for private sector jobs. Or federal government jobs, where it’s a point system instead of an absolute preference.
If you want to have an easier time recruiting troops, then *pay for* that ease through the DOD. Don’t pay for it through the National Parks, Postal Service, FBI, or any other agency by forcing them to “prefer” a less qualified candidate.
I’m not suggesting that government agencies should ignore military service. It is legitimate, important, and always relevant job experience. I am suggesting that we, as a society, should be honest about how we pay for the military, and that means paying for it through military agencies (e.g. DOD) and not (even a little bit!) through non-military agencies (e.g. Parks or USPS).
I don’t know the answer to that, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility to casually. And federal veterans’ preference is pretty minimal (5 points out of 100), so federal policy sounds like it’s about in the range you’re arguing for. State policy has an absolute preference.
But if we’re going to open that can of worms, I think it goes a lot deeper than veterans’ preference. Who says scoring well on an exam has anything to do with job competence? Being an honorably discharged veteran is at least an indicator that someone has the ability to do their job in a way that doesn’t get them in trouble for some period of time, which is more relevant than a test score.
In a “US Government as an agency” sense, it might be. But in an agency-by-agency sense, perhaps not.
If the idea is “give US military vets 5 points because 5 points accurately measures the intangible additional skills that military vets have” then fine. I buy it. If it’s “Hey! We’re having trouble recruiting — maybe if we give more perks to vets, we’ll be able to recruit more” then, IMO, that’s not OK because you’re funding a portion of military benefits through non-military agencies, thereby obscuring the total cost of the DOD-esque agencies. However, my suspicion is that it’s more like “Hey! vets struggle to get jobs when they get back Stateside, let’s give them a hand.” I understand the sentiment, but if our goal is to help vets get jobs after they’re no longer enlisted, why not instead set up programs *budgeted through the military* that provide transition assistance? Why artificially tip the scales to their favor for some jobs and not help them at all with other jobs? To put another way, if it makes good public policy for vets to be in the delivering package industry, why give them 5 points for the USPS exam and ignore FedEx and UPS — why not instead spend a few weeks at the end of the term training the soon-to-be-civilians to be excellent package delivery industry employees, and then let them pursue jobs in both/either the public or private sector based on their qualifications?
…but as with any affirmative action it should be a factor among many. It is being treated in practice like a requirement which is more akin to a quota if you want to extend the AA analogy.
I have no problem giving precedence to a veteran, all other qualifications being equal, but there is evidence that jobs are going to veterans with minimal qualifications over much more qualified non-veterans.
For instance, I know someone with a PhD in accounting who interviewed for a forensic accounting job with the FBI and was later told that a veteran had applied for the job so they had to give it to him.
Veterans’ preference for federal jobs is 5 points (or 10 for disabled veterans) out of a 100 point scale. Not enough that a minimally qualified veteran is going to trump someone who’s highly qualified. But enough that a vet will beat someone with similar qualifications.