Download PDF of this full issue: v8n1.pdf (8.5 MB)

Vets' "Preference": Gov't, Don't Hire The Vet

By VVAW

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. government and most state and local governments have given veterans preference in hiring. Various civil service tests for jobs automatically award a certain number of extra points for military service, with additional bonus points for disabled vets and, in some cases, points for veterans who were awarded a Purple Heart as a result of being wounded in action.

However, if the U.S. government is faced with an economic squeeze (situation where the large corporate powers want to free up money for their own uses, not to see it spent on government jobs or programs) and feels the need to pacify large groups of people while presenting the face of "equality" and "equal opportunity," then veterans' preference is expendable. Besides, most of these vets are Vietnam vets who, the government believes, can be stomped on once again without any particular public outcry. So, their solution is ready-made: talk about the need to hire women and, to a lesser degree, minorities, set up a couple of phoney vets jobs programs to demon--"deep concern" with the plight of Vietnam vets, and get rid of veterans' preference.

That's exactly what Carter has proposed. To support his proposals, he primed the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to do one of their patented studies. "We are not suggesting, " their report says, "that total elimination of veterans' preference is necessary or desirable; however, the conflict between veterans' preference and EEO (equal employment opportunity) could be minimized." And he has mustered the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, Alan K. Campbell, to point out how veterans' preference "unintentionally works to the disadvantage of both women and minorities."

Briefly, their arguments say that the group of younger vets--20-24- where unemployment is sky-high are not helped by vets' preference (they don't explain why this is true, if it is). Already 50% of the federal workforce is made up of vets (the federal government is the leading employer of veterans). And this preference works against non-vets, especially women and minorities.

Of course they do not mention the real solution to the problem--jobs. Not just for vets but for all who want to work. Productive jobs which provide a decent wage so that veterans- and non-veterans alike can support their families.

The government has demonstrated its great concern and compassion for the unemployed Vietnam vet. Along with cuts in jobless benefits which blasted out all the unemployed, the government has aided vets with a $140 million federal program which began last June. Designed to encourage private industry to hire vets, the program, called HIRE (Help through Industrial Retraining and Employment) guaranteed 50% of the training cost for employers who would guarantee to hire 100 workers; when employers complained about the number it was cut to 15 workers.

Carter presented this program in January 1977; Congress passed it and it went into law in June. It set up hiring priorities--first, disabled Vietnam vets; then other Vietnam vets, unemployed youth, and finally the long-term unemployed. With the $140,000 to work with, the program, in its first six months, had gotten jobs for 57 vets, 52 long-term jobless, and 27 young people, a grand total of 136. William Miller, recently appointed head of the Federal Reserve Board, was in charge of the program; if his performance there was any indication, we'd better start sticking what money we have under our mattresses. To get the 57 jobs for vets, the program only spent $8.8 million; if they'd just given the money to the vets it would come to $154,385.96 each. A Labor Department expert, admitting that the record of HIRE was "dismal," said: "It's not as dismal as it seems and we hope the record will get much better in 1978."

As usual, the "hopes" of the Labor Department won't put food into anyone's mouth, nor pay any landlords. Now will they provide any jobs, whether for the vets the program is aimed at or for women and minorities who they say are harmed by vets' preference.

In fact the whole idea of veterans' preference comes from the real world--it's not just some pie-in-the-sky thing invented by veterans in order to insure themselves a comfortable way to slide by. Because vets have to give up anywhere from two to four years to the military they cannot use that time to train for a job (despite military promises about job training) or to gain seniority in a job. Vets preference was established in 1944 to equalize the handicap that vets face. And that situation has not been changed since 1944.

It's an old trick: women demand jobs so the government says, "Yes, we have jobs but they're all going to vets because of vets' preference." Vets say that we need jobs, so the government responds, "well, yes, you should have jobs, but these women are demanding that we end preference for vets." It's called "divide and conquer," or divert the struggle--try to get people fighting among themselves and hope like hell they forget who the real enemy is. So long as it's more profitable for the capitalist rulers of this country to lay people off, force people to work overtime, and to keep a large army of the unemployed, it's going to be tough for women to find jobs, for Blacks to find jobs, and for vets to find jobs. Phoney government programs aren't the answer, and fighting among ourselves for the crumbs sure isn't the answer. Decent jobs--union jobs at union wages: that's an answer that make sense.

As always there's a certain amount of jive in the government's statements on the subject--they'll always try to sneak in as much as they think they can get away with. If vet's preference gives such an unfair advantage to vets, why are there still such a high number of unemployed younger vets--disproportionately minorities at that? With the huge numbers of unemployed minority vets, why end vets' preference? Without the preference what would vets' unemployment rates be like?

Certainly there are abuses of the vets preference: some over-stuffed ex-admiral or general who retires from the military on a fat pension after 30 years with a stipend or two from his board of directors, sure doesn't need "veterans' preference" to get himself another chunk of the taxpayers' money.

The vet who lost a couple of years in the military serving the interests of the rich does not now need to face "serving" the rich again by being part of the army of the unemployed.

JOBS OR INCOME FOR ALL WORKERS!