GovernmentExecutive.com

In his final State of the Union address a couple of weeks ago, President Bush floated the idea of giving military spouses special hiring preference when applying for jobs at civilian federal agencies.

Pentagon officials have been quick to move on the concept and reportedly already have met with the Office of Personnel Management to discuss the feasibility of the program. But based on reader comments about the proposal on GovernmentExecutive.com, some federal employees have not yet embraced the idea.

The proposal would extend preferences already in place at the Defense Department to the rest of the federal government. It likely would operate similar to an existing program at the Pentagon, in which veterans take precedence over military spouses in vying for jobs and spouses are not guaranteed a job based solely on their marital status.

As the soon-to-be wife of an active-duty Air Force pilot, I am attracted to Bush's proposal. I'm sure many spouses would be comforted to know they might get some help in lining up work, regardless of the circumstances the military deals them.

At the same time, I have many of the same concerns our readers have. Not only does the plan have the potential to undermine the principles of fair and open competition, it could add to the complexity of the federal government's cumbersome hiring system.

For starters, spousal preference similar to that offered to veterans could prove difficult to implement. In September 2007, a House subcommittee held a hearing to examine whether the complexity of existing veterans preference laws was hindering compliance. Witnesses testified that new preference programs also were creating loopholes, allowing agencies to choose a separate preference-eligible candidate other than a veteran.

Still, the administration's concerns about military families are not unwarranted. A report released by the Pentagon in January 2008 found that most military spouses are in the labor market, meaning they have a job or are looking for employment. More specifically, the report found, military wives on average earn $3 less per hour than their civilian counterparts and their unemployment rate is three times higher.

"Contributing to this is the drastic difference in residence mobility between military and civilian wives," the report noted. "Only about 10 percent of military wives stay in the same home for five years, and most move to a different state with different career licensing requirements."

John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service in Washington, said Tuesday that the spousal preference program likely would not be difficult to implement as long as agency heads took it seriously. "We've managed to make veterans preference work; I don't see why we couldn't make spousal preference work," he said. "The devil will be in the details."

On the other hand, agencies would have to consider that military spouses do not stay in one place for long, which could be a deterrent. "Agencies would need to work that into their workforce planning," Palguta said. "I don't think the fact that the military spouse will be there for a limited amount of time needs to be a negative."

Federal labor unions have yet to weigh in on the plan. Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said Tuesday that not enough details have been made public. "While NTEU strongly supports our troops and their families," she said, the organization "has not yet taken a position on the proposal."

Randy Erwin, legislative director of the National Federation of Federal Employees, agreed. "We'd like to support the proposal, but we'd need to know the details first," he said.

Modifying Loan Benefits

President Bush has proposed modifying the eligibility of federal employees for a new student loan forgiveness program signed into law in late 2007, according to budget documents released last week. The law forgives outstanding debt for borrowers who have made 10 years of monthly payments on their loans while serving in full-time government or nonprofit jobs.

Bush's proposal would limit the benefit to new borrowers who take out loans after October 2009.

Meanwhile, the House last week passed legislation that would require the Education Department to study the impact of student debt on college graduates' decisions on whether to enter public service. The study would assess recruitment and retention challenges, evaluate federal recruitment, and whether additional programs could increase hiring rates, and make recommendations for pilots.

"The public sector needs young leaders to carry our country into an era of new challenges," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn. "I'm grateful the Education and Labor Committee included our amendment in this legislation so we can determine whether students' debts discourage them from entering a public service career."

COMMENTS

• I worked for the government in a entry level position, took classes, and training on my own. I moved up in those four years. I was not married to any member of military when I got that job. It was at a HRO. Now I have one Bachelors in Finance, one in Communications and married a military member. We also have moved over six times in seven years, do you honestly think anyone outside of the military community is going to understand why I am so transient? That being said while working in the HRO office I saw things go on that were shameful in regards to hiring. Vets were overlooked because of someone's cousin or niece wanting a job. I also saw jobs go to someone because of who they knew or dated. I also saw jobs that should have gone to certain men, but were given to others not based on their abilities but on other PC factors. I have to say though this all came to light people were moved to other areas. I also witnessed jobs being contracted out to people who had no clue on what they were doing and the work was very substandard. Jobs that use to be handled by the military active duty members. I have talked to someone who took over a job in Pensacola as a statistician , as a contractor. What a joke, she had no clue on the job, her benefits are almost nothing, and the pay she recieves is about 1/3 of the previous employee. Now I ask you why is it fair that these companies that get the contracts for jobs in military bases blatantly pocket well over 1/2 the pay that is alloted for such jobs? I know this because while in Pensacola I worked for such a contractor, and saw the actual pay that was given for this job, and I happened to have known the girl who previously held that job. Its such a scam, and a shame. AS for spousal preference I see the need, but I think that people need to compete for such jobs, the best person should be the one who lands the job. I worked with a few who felt the government OWED them jobs and their work performance was based on a sense of entitlement. Lazy does not even come close to describing what I witnessed. Then again I worked with some who truly earned every dollar they recieved. Angela Posted March 22, 2008 6:54 AM
• I worked with the Corporation for National Service between 1993 and 2002.Management was doing a lot of illegal things, so I formed a chapter of blacks in government and took my group to my congressman.The congressman filed a federal investigation into the agency resulting in the dismissal of several managers. I had also filed an EEO complain which did not go anywhere and the agency did not renew my term employment.I retired because I could not get a job.I went to a lawyer who only made things worse.She forced me to close my case. When I made a complain to the bar association I found out that she was not licensed to work in Washington,DC. I am broke and cannot get a job.I have an associate accounting degree which I have never used. Dennis G Young Posted February 28, 2008 9:46 PM
• Why don't we just hire the best person for the job???? Queen of Flunkies Posted February 21, 2008 5:38 PM