Download PDF of this full issue: v9n3.pdf (8.6 MB)

Veterans' Preference: Privilege or Right

By VVAW

On June 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold a Massachusetts veterans' preference law which applies to State civil service jobs. Although the case applied to a specific state law, veterans around the country watched the case closely. If the court had struck down vets' preference in this case, there would have been a series of cases which could well have ended vets' preference altogether.

The Massachusetts law was challenged by Helen Feeney, supported by the National Organization of Women (NOW) on the basis that, because the majority of veterans are male, vets' preference therefore discriminates against women. Ms Feeney sued after she was consistently passed over for supervisory jobs even though she had high examination scores. The state law she finally challenged gave veterans an absolute preference so that vets with scores even much lower than Ms Feeney's were receiving promotions ahead of her. She won her case in a lower federal court. It was this lower court decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court which said that the law did not unconstitutionally discriminate against women.

Only three states—Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania—have systems of absolute veterans' preference where a vet with a lower test score will still go ahead of a non-vet with a higher score. Other states and the federal government give vets a hiring preference—added points on hiring examinations (for the federal government it is 5 points for veterans and 10 points for disabled vets).

At a time of Bakke decisions where minorities took a beating from the Supreme Court, and the recent Weber decision where affirmative action was upheld, the question of veterans' preference is not simple. There's more to it than simply saying that vets need jobs (which is true) and that we're veterans so therefore vets' preference is a great thing!

Despite the Massachusetts court case, veterans' preference has proved to be a tremendous aid to minorities, especially after the Vietnam war. Simply, some 22% of the GIs in Vietnam were Black; another 10% were members of other minorities. To provide a hiring preference gives them that much of an advantage, especially in many federal and state hiring programs where, as in the U.S. Postoffice, hiring is done based entirely on test scores where the preference makes a difference. A personnel director who might not otherwise hire minorities has no choice. In fact, in federal service over the past 5 years, 47% of the jobs have gone to women—and that in a situation where vets' preference is a factor.

For vets in general, the system of vet's preference is crucial. Employment; despite the recruiting pitch about job training in the military, has been one of the great problems vets have faced and are still facing today. Vets' preference doesn't solve the problem, but sure makes getting some kinds of jobs a little easier. And vets' preference has a legacy of struggle behind it—a struggle to get it in the first place (as a way to equalize the situation of veterans who spent years in the military while non-vets of the same age were getting skills and seniority), and a consistent struggle to keep it. And we've got no intention of seeing it taken away: we fought for it, we earned it, we plan to keep it.

Many women and womens' organizations have lived a similar history, and not just the 178,000 women Vietnam vets either. Equal pay for equal work, though a struggle which is not yet won, has certainly come closer to reality because women have fought for it. Equal opportunity still lies ahead. And the E.R.A. or the right for the right to control their own bodies have abortion on demand are battles which continue.

But neither these vital fights nor the battles equally crucial to veterans are going to move ahead if we allow them to be separated and then pitted against each other. Veterans must have equal opportunity—and so must women. And the way we're going to achieve both goals is to right together—not against each other. That bunch of thieves who runs this country loves to see us fighting among ourselves because that takes the heat off them. When Black fights white, when Latino fights both of them, or when women fight vets, the only winner is the bosses who are perfectly happy to toss an occasional crumb out to one group or another to keep the pot boiling.

The Massachusetts law that Ms Feeney and NOW were challenging is not the solution. According to that law, supervisors choose from the top three applicants for any job and, under the absolute preference dictated by the law, all three top applicants are automatically veterans. It means that non-vets, no matter how qualified, cannot hope to get jobs ahead of veterans.

Neither is the solution to get rid of a useful preference—one which in fact accomplishes at least some of the things that womens' groups favor—because one version of the law is wrong.

Vets' preference is not an attack on women; it shouldn't be used that way. Women are not enemies of vets—and vets are not womens' enemies. There are abuses of the preference system, especially the military men who retire after 20 years, get their ex-officers pension and collect gravy jobs with their preference.

But there is a solution: for all of us to get together and fight the system that tries to squeeze the last nickel—and last drop of blood—out of all of us. That means veterans joining with womens' groups to fight for equal opportunity for women as well as equal pay for equal work. But it also means that womens' groups join with vets to fight for treatment for Agent Orange (which affects wives and children as well as the vets themselves) or decent VA healthcare (which involves hundreds of thousands of VA workers as well as veterans).

Vets have been used by the system for its aims; once used, we've been tossed aside. We've got much in common with others whom the system is trying to screw every way it can. One of the biggest things we've got in common is the need—and the drive—to fight against the way that the system uses us all.