Talk:Veterans' Preference Act

Consequences
Where to start, very POV, basically written entirely by one author who after almost a year has come up with 3 very poor sources, 1 blog and 2 out of context. I can provide factual information that according to OPMs 2010 numbers 74% of the federal workforce is not a veteran. Most of the stuff stated is hearsay and opinion and thus why not reliable third party references were produced. I am fine with "consequences" if proof, not opinion of such can be provided. Might want to read up on preference. Does not guarantee a job and being a preference candidate does not mean a non-preference candidate can work for the feed. Again 74% of the Federal workforce is not preference candidate. So based on POV and weight and most of all lack of reliable 3rd party references section has been removed. Lets discuss or better yet find references, I have my doubts about that though. 0pen$0urce (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reference Improve
Basically an ongoing problem on wikipedia, people making large contributions and either not citing or improperly citing.0pen$0urce (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I can give you the phone number of about 100 hiring officials that will tell you, that if you're not a status candidate and/or don't have veterans preference don't even bother applying.

I can give you the names of several coworkers, friends, acquaintances ect that have been pushed out by veterans preference from the federal work force.

I went through a federally funded program to place overly qualified candidates into positions with the federal government. 50% of the people in my program never got hired because they weren't vets and couldn't compete on cert lists. They had 3 years from graduation date to get hired or they would lose their qualifications.

It's a topic that people are afraid to discuss, but it is real and it is serious. I invite you to become a non-veteran and apply to an entry level job in any land management agency or any other agency for that matter. They may currently have a 74% rate of non-vets, but they aren't hiring non-vet's right now.

Delete my work if you so choose. Be bitter if you so choose, I am. But I encourage you rather than deleting, to edit, or better yet research. Call hiring officials ask if they can considering hiring a non-veteran. I just posted what too many people are afraid to say because, "ooooooo we can't say anything bad about vet's!" Vet's are stealing jobs from hard working overly qualified people, specifically seasonals. Your season ends, 200 vets come home that want your job, guess who's getting your job? Yup a vet. And hiring officials hate it because we rarely get good vet's.

Work next to a military base. What questions do you hear all day long, hey I'm getting out soon how do I get a job like yours? Easy, apply use your vet's preference, push me out, my job's all yours, guess I'm going on unemployment.

I encourage you to rewrite instead of criticize, no one said I was perfect.

Cthegoat (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is another reference http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/17/14469487-stray-anti-military-vibes-reverberate-as-thousands-of-veterans-head-to-college?lite Cthegoat (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

paragraph by paragraph breakdown
paragraph 1 is actual well written, true in it's entirety and unbiased. Finding a source for it shouldn't be difficult. paragraph 2 may not be citeable by any article, but ask around, it's true as well. paragraph 3 complain all you want that the sources are bad, but they back up the information and they are honest accounts of what is happening. paragraph 4 this could be removed because the addition of VEOA/Status candidate only hiring eliminates veterans preference points from the hiring equation entirely. However, it still prevents seasonal non vets from getting permanent jobs because they aren't eligible to apply. Citation? Call any seasonal working for a land management agency and ask about this, you'll have all the source you need. Paragraph 5 is an actual example, the guy's name was george. Paragraph 6 is evidenced by many vacancies on USAjobs. Look closely at seasonal and permanent land management agency jobs, notice that most of them are posted twice. Posted once as open only to veoa/status eligibles and once as open to all us citizens. That's so if they get "bogged down" with vet's they can use the other cert list. Paragraph 7 STEP and SCEP went byebye. Guess why? Too many people were using it bypass veterans preference. Pathways aimed to make it easier to higher vets and minorities. Which is what SCEP and STEP were originally for, someone got smart on that one. Paragraph 8 Personal experience. But I encourage you to walk into any national forest, grassland, park, wildlife refuge, even a border patrol checkpoint and ask about how veterans preference influenced them getting their jobs. Especially if they are young. You'd be surprised. So is it citable, probably not, but it's true and accurate (not the fox news type of true and accurate either). Cthegoat (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, just as an aside, I appreciate your reasoning for removal and acknowledge that you are correct it should be written better and have more citations, I think this is just one of those topics people don't want to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cthegoat (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)