Are veterans getting short changed in today's market?

SFC Chad Sowash — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:58:53 -0400

https://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/editors-notebook/2016/04/veteran-hiring-issues.aspx

Are vets getting short changed in today's market? -- Washington Technology

A veteran struggling to find a new job is told to remove "veteran" from his resume because it is hurting his chances. Can this really be true?

Response by SPC Nathaniel O. made Apr 18 at 2016 3:00 PM

SPC Nathaniel O. — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:00:56 -0400

I would say that unless someone is applying for a federal job or a job that directly translates skills from the military some jobs would discriminate. They do not view our veterans as employers 10 years ago did. The air of respect for the military and respect for its service members has dwindled, probably fostered from a country complacent with its status of war and all the talk of an entitled generation that even our generals are saying would take more time to prepare and train for conflict than a timetable would allow. Im sure this is a multifaceted assessment and id love to hear opinions from people with more experience than i.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 18 at 2016 3:03 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:03:51 -0400

How do you mean?

Nothing should be 'given' to anyone, BUT there should be (if not already) a 'Veterans Preference' similar to affirmative action.

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Apr 18 at 2016 3:17 PM

Capt Brandon Charters — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:17:18 -0400

Anytime we change industries (military or civilian), we need to expect some kind of retraining and learning curve. We can't expect to always jump in laterally and get the job we have never performed before. That said, veterans can do better than many entry level roles we see offered...we deserve a job that allows for training and career progression. We also have to be hungry for it and know we can't always start in middle management.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2016 3:19 PM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:19:58 -0400

I would need to see data that shows it. The article is a opinion piece and the remarks are even more opinion. Just my thoughts.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2016 3:36 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:36:53 -0400

In 1972, I interviewed for a job, and had to talk to three different managers. One of the managers asked me in detail about Vietnam. I remained calm, and answered his questions. I had the impression that this manager did not like veterans. There were 100 people interviewing for two positions, and I did get one of the positions. Active duty personnel and veterans have to compete with civilians. In order to do this, they should obtain as much education and training as they can in order to be competitive.

As far as the article, and others that say you should not list that you are a veteran, on your resume. I disagree with this approach. Your resume should be compete and accurate, including your military service.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Apr 18 at 2016 4:23 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:23:30 -0400

I think it's just an extension of the same issues faced in the civilian sector post-financial crisis. "Veteran" is just a flag they can use to figure out where you fit in their age brackets. Vietnam vets face the same age discrimination everyone else is getting. They're old and no one wants to hire old people when they have a huge population of desperate young people..

GWOT Vets? Yeah, they're behind in just about every measurable way that HR departments seem to care about these days.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2016 8:54 PM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:54:00 -0400

Yes. I'm tired of being told "army? I don't think this will fit in with our culture" in a condescending tone at job interviews. My usual reply after I realize it's futile is, "wow, so you don't like people that show up on time and do what they say they're going to do?" The market is so choked with these pedantic self absorbed piles of flotsam that it asphyxiates itself the moment anyone with any efficiency arrives. The worker of today gets butt hurt when we out work them.

In my less than humble opinion, we work harder, smarter, and more efficiently than the civilian only employee. I saw that in so many industries.

People are more worried about coddling their bull crap egos and inefficiencies that they don't have a sense of team or community and they don't deserve 4 weeks vacation because 2.5 days per week they are playing angry birds or something else.

Do you know how many 11B and SF guys end up as roofers and landscapers because nobody else will hire them? When I went through the NCO academy I was with an awesome E5 ranger. He was a locksmith in Minneapolis. Around the camp fire last weekend my stone mason cousin told me all the stories he picked up from roofing with former SF guys. The details of the stories were legit and something civilians couldn't piece together.

Hell, I am well educated and only get job offers to be a maintenance mechanic, warehouse fork lift operator or a truck driver. I thought that was the point of getting educated; so that we don't have to do that and can make a living.

The catch 22 of serving and then coming back is astounding. "Thank you for your service" followed by the body language "I hope the PTSD isn't contagious" that these wantonly inexperienced HR jesters have is almost as contemptuous as being spit on! They insulate themselves from feeling responsible for their hypocritical dispositions by citing the one token navy or coast guard reserve guy that works there (hired in the Regan era and often the custodian or security guard). It's sick.

On top of all this we also get hit with assumption of what our politics are and that we all have mental issues (as if the ~70% of civilians on Xanax was somehow better).

So the short answer is yes we do get railroaded.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Apr 18 at 2016 11:05 PM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:05:39 -0400

The better question would be when were the veterans NOT short-changed?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 19 at 2016 12:22 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:22:04 -0400

Sample size of 1 in this article.

I'm actually giving a presentation on this tomorrow, and have a few sources anyoen intersted in this topic should look into a bit:

Sources: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/05/theres-a-reason-americas-vets-cant-find-work-but-not-what-ben-bernanke-thinks/; VeteranEconomicOpportunityReport2015, VA Report; Why Is Veteran
Unemployment So High? David S. Loughran; The Effect of Military Enlistment on Earnings and Education David S. Loughran, Paco Martorell, Trey Miller, Jacob Alex Klerman

There’s a reason America’s vets can’t find work but not what Ben Bernanke thinks

Almost half a century after the U.S. military adopted an All Volunteer Force of highly skilled, highly trained, high-IQ warriors, the myth of the stupid…

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Apr 19 at 2016 1:21 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:21:55 -0400

Yes and No, i think it all averages out in a way that is well intended but tends to help most the people who least need it.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 1:17 PM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:17:37 -0400

200% unemployment rates for those that served. They didn't fix the culture, only masked it, and those same maggots that spit on our boys coming home from Nam are the ones running the show now.