By Via a reader tip comes news about the hiring of US military spouses that looks like it will impact how civilians are hired in USFK:
A rule that could help military spouses get jobs in the federal government quicker will take effect Sept. 11.
The final regulations published in today’s Federal Register implement a Sept. 25, 2008, executive order allowing federal managers to hire qualified military spouses without putting them through the normal competitive hiring process.
Those eligible include spouses who relocated with their service members because of permanent change-of-station orders, unremarried widows or widowers of service members killed on active duty, and spouses of service members who are 100 percent disabled as a result of active duty.
Federal agencies are not required to use the hiring authority, but Defense Department officials will definitely use the new authority, said defense spokesman Army Lt. Col. Les’ Melnyk.
Spouses are eligible for a noncompetitive appointment for a maximum of two years from the date of their service member’s PCS orders. They must provide documentation verifying the service member is 100 percent disabled or was killed on active duty.
Spouses may receive only one noncompetitive appointment per PCS move. [Marine Corps Times]
9:39 am on August 13th, 2009 1
Yes, much better to put a spouse in the job. Let's see: If a regular person needed a job and had a family, they could get that job thereby feeding 4 people. But instead, we'll give it to the spouse to put more money into a family that already has a primary income and leave the family of 4 unemployed. Excellent idea!
10:16 am on August 13th, 2009 2
Well, the unemployed "regular" person could always enlist in the miltary. Then his spouse could get a job too!
The only person with a potential beef here would be a veteran who gets bypassed in favor of a spouse. Speaking as non-vet, non-spouse, I take no issue with giving preference to those who have volunteered to defend our country and the spouses who have sacrificed to make that possible.
12:27 pm on August 13th, 2009 3
Priority 'should' go to those who have given their all. Either through permanent disability or death of a spouse while on duty. The numbers are not that great and they have earned the right. If a spouse of a deceased or disabled veteran, needs to work to make ends meet, then they can't be very well off.
12:58 pm on August 14th, 2009 4
I have no problem with priority going to a veteran or spouse of a veteran with disabilities, etc. However, the spouse should have to compete for the job. The way this is going now spouses get priority of regular folks, and that just doesn't seem fair. If they have the skills, then they can compete with others instead of a special status.
This line in the article is the one that blows: "allowing federal managers to hire qualified military spouses without putting them through the normal competitive hiring process."
Even as a veteran there is a competitive hiring process.
1:23 pm on August 14th, 2009 5
I have a huge problem with it. First, a veteran has done more than lie on her back and deserves priority. Second, a veteran is much more likely to posses the required expertise to do a job in a particular field. Third, a veteran is a known quantity and has been "vetted" so to speak.
Seriously, I understand military spouses are important to the service member and the unit. My wife helped me a great deal while active duty. However, just as an example, I think I would be a better and more qualified ammo inspector than her. (I use this example because for many years there was a job advertised only open to Korean family members – pet peeve)
Spouses are integral in a soldiers life (duh). However the support mechanism should never out rate the actual soldier, current or former.
2:11 pm on August 14th, 2009 6
Yet another well-intentioned and not well thought out idea. Of course, anyone who said it was a BAD idea would be pilloried… We're doomed.
But it is a nice gesture, and that is what fed employment and our tax dollars is all about- nice gestures.
Davy. Crockett.
2:17 pm on August 14th, 2009 7
If the spouse is 'qualified', and has lost their spouse due to being 'killed' on active duty, or being 100% disabled. I believe they have already competed enough. How many are we talking about in Korea? 20? 40? people. Out of how many jobs? 10,000.
2:30 pm on August 14th, 2009 8
Love the name 'Davy Crockett'. The Msgt who took my place when I retired in 1986, had the same name.
Yeah, it is a nice gesture. But it has more to do with recognizing those who have 'suffered' a loss because of their service to their government/country, than it is about 'your tax dollars'.
The 'millions of dollars' could otherwise be spent looking for 'Snail Darters" in the Tennessee valley instead.
4:23 pm on August 14th, 2009 9
My experience with dependents is they won't work. I have to have off because my daughter has show and tell in school tomorrow. My husband is getting an award. I have to attend the volunteers monthly meeting. I complained about this several times and the answer I got was. "It's important to further the needs of the community and we all benefit". When are they going to give medal of honors to dependents for making the communtiy better?
4:41 pm on August 14th, 2009 10
You are really missing it here Gerry. I have no problem with a spouse in the status you describe. But that's not what it's limited to. The rule covers any spouse. "Those eligible include spouses who relocated with their service members because of permanent change-of-station orders"
Why are they on the top of the list? The fact is that the bill writers used the "unremarried widows or widowers of service members killed on active duty, and spouses of service members who are 100 percent disabled as a result of active duty" in order to also qualify ANY spouse. And that's the part I object to in the bill.
10:53 pm on August 14th, 2009 11
Gentleman
This is the Davy Crockett I am referring to:
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=663
I also tend to bend with the opinion when it comes to widows. That said, it opens up a hell of a lot of doors.
Ducking for cover. Damn sure I would want my spouse to have preferential hiring should I buy the farm. Maybe as long as she is as least as qualified as the next applicant.
Villain makes some painful points. Again- it's a nice idea, with good intentions but a potential headless monster.
12:55 pm on August 15th, 2009 12
Don't you think this outlaw thing has gotten a little out of hand.
Well, how about this spouse thing. It started with giving 50% of a retiree's retirement to a former spouse. Now the spouse can get part of the member's GI bill. Spouse preference in hiring has blocked a kept a lot of vets from getting hired. Now they are going with this new hiring authority so a spouse will not have to compete for a job (kinda sounds like VRA/VEOA). I think they threw the widows and 100% disable in there to make it look ligit knowing that would be such a small number. (I wonder how far back they will look on the 100% thing. Maybe a lot of grandmothers married to old, disabled vets will be looking for a job). Current active duty may think this is a good thing for their spouse but should realize they are being "shot in the foot" when they retire/separate. Looks like 20 -30 years honorable service with various levels of ability and skill is going to take a back seat to unskilled newlywed spouses. Who's driving this train?
2:05 pm on August 15th, 2009 13
I didn't read it that way, but in looking at it again, you may be right. It includes a group that get preference due to being relocated with their spouse because of PCS.
I suspect the majority in that category would be Korean wives who have followed their husband in a return assignment to korea. (Its their home of record) While command sponsored would probobly be more for the higher ups. I wonder who will get preference?
Or is the regulation just poorly written?
2:47 pm on August 15th, 2009 14
I read the entire article on Davy Crockett. It was very good. I think in later years, someone said congress will lose its way once it finds it can buy votes with other peoples money.(or something to that effect). I think that has been learned by congress many years ago, and the spending of other peoples money wastefully has now become tradition. In respect to granting favors to certain groups, I have no doubt it follows the same path.
We still have our say though. We get to reelect those who bring home the most bacon. Knowing thats what counts, wether we deserve it or not. Such are todays politics.