GovernmentExecutive.com

What about the spouses that obtain the spousal preference following their spouses around and then when he retires and desides to reside at his home of residence? There is no spousal preference for the retired military spouse, yet they need to continue to work?

Souse of retired Marine  | Wednesday, July 23, 2008 |  05:11 PM

---

I am a military spouse who is currently working in a position on the base that my husband is stationed at. Our contractor jobs are going to end and GS positions will replace them. I have been at my job for almost two years. But, because my husband and I were not married when he got stationed here I do not qualify for spousal preference. We were not able to get married before he was assigned here. This is a second marriage for us both and I had a house to sell before I could make the move and we decided it was best to wait. I respect any wife who supports her/his spouse. In the almost six years that my husband and I have been married I have probably served and volunteered more of my time to his unit and soldiers than a lot of wives who have been married longer. I have served as POC, Treasurer and an FRG Leader dedicating numerous hours to their needs and conerns. Everday at my current job I assists soldiers, family members, retiree and widows. And I love what I do. I am very qualified for my current position and not only work hard, but put a lot of heart into it. But, because of one stipulation I might not get to remain there. There are several other women in my same state of non-preference at the moment. A military spouse is a military spouse and these opportunities should be fair across the board. Afterall, we left jobs behind to support our spouses just the same.

What is a Spouse?  | Sunday, March 16, 2008 |  03:06 AM

---

"Spouse Preference" is just another term for BS. It's often said that spouse "HAVE" to change their careers every few years. PLEASE SHOW ME the regulation, guidance, etc., that FORCES a spouse to be with a military family member. It's true that it's may be more convenient, and possibly even make sense, but there is NO requirement for this. A former military member, whether retired, separated, or especially those with disabilities, HAD NO CHOICE on their moves, and often with a far greater quote disruption unquote in their lives than a spouse will ever envision. Mr. (or Mrs Ms?) President, Congressperson, Senator, it looks more like a case of "Don't forget...screw the Vet". Just another reason for the all volunteer force to stay for another hitch, eh?

Al Cooper  | Sunday, March 02, 2008 |  07:27 AM

---

I've been on both sides of spousal preference over the years. I once was not selected for a position because a spousal placement was made to entice an applicant for another job to accept the offer. Some years later, I received a spousal placement myself when my wife became ill and we needed to move to an area with better medical facilities. I have to say that spousal placement is a "nice-to-do" personnel policy, but I do not believe it should exist as a formalized policy thrown into the already hopelessly cluttered federal personnel system. I say this because, under existing rules, spousal placements can be made when necessary so there is no need to create a formal change. And because, when it is formalized (and it is to greater or lesser extents in some civilian agencies already) it can and does weaken and effectively circumvent and violate time-honored personnel practices such as veterans preference and affirmative action, and merit promotion itself. In short, this is one of those ideas that SOUNDS good but which, upon further careful analysis, would do far more harm than good.

Desert Dweller  | Tuesday, February 19, 2008 |  05:34 PM

---

The reader responses on this issue are eye opening, and add a great deal to the article. Guess we all should know by now that trying to help out our military families is never as cut and dried as we'd like for it to be, or as good a solution as they deserve.

RP  | Tuesday, February 19, 2008 |  10:56 AM

---

Love it! Next we'll divide the spouses retirement check with the serviceman/servicewoman, after all, this was the rationale for dumping on the retired military member. (For those with short term memories, the whiners complained they gave up promising careers to marry the service member and since they'd been out of the workforce for years they couldn't support themselves.)Gotta love it, after all once again a politician has a solution in the hunt of a problem.

rick  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  02:25 PM

---

Sadly enough, not all veterans receive preference. Only if you have served in certain campaigns or have become disabled during active duty do you receive a preference. Will the same criteria hold true for spouses? There are many veteran service men and women that are unemployed with no preferential treatment for government jobs. Shall we extend a preference to them before we extend preferences to spouses? I would be more inclined to make available the training and education to make these spouses viable candidates for the positions that exist, not give them preferential treatment in the selection process.

DB  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  12:08 PM

---

I noticed a lot of civilian folks were against this just as they are against veterans preference. this are the smae folk that undermine vets at every turn in the hiring process. They go to local colleges and do most of the hiring and use age as an excuse. The vet's are a better hire because of experience and training. Youth don't mean longivity or dedication.

ABE  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  11:48 AM

---

How about a program that give INCENTIVES to agencies who hire military spouses? For instance, provide the agency with an extra FTE for one or two years, OR better yet, provide 1/2 the funding for military spouse hires for the first year. That type of program would have agencies clamoring to hire military spouses!

Don't forget law enforcement employees who also have to relocate often and regularly. Their spouses should receive similar preferences.

DT  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  10:59 AM

---

When I got married in 1970 my wife was a Registered Nurse and I was on active duty. We made the Navy a career and she followed me overseas and around the country for over 20 years before I retired. She essentially had to give up her profession because every state had different licensing requirement. This was just one of the prices we as a couple paid for my career in the Navy. All other career military spouses do the same to some degree. Whether to extending the current preference to non DOD agencies is worth the trouble or not I am not sure. My wife found it difficult to utilize the exiting DOD spousal preference. But just remember this disruption of a spouses career is another thing that the career military family sacrifices in their willingness to serve our country. I was promised many things in my early career as incentives to stay, reenlist and make the Navy a career. The “free” health care for life I was promised has gone away and DOD now wants to quadruple the fee I now pay for this “free” health care. The VA disability payment I receive I have to fully subsidize by a deduction from my retirement pay. They wouldn’t reduce may civilian pay. The President and Congress ask a lot of our military. The ones that willingly put their lives on the line at the whim of the President. We should at lest keep our promises to them and not make more promises that will be forgotten or are of marginal value to them while costing a great deal to implement.

RR  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  10:34 AM

---

those knuckle heads that are against this should get a life. It's the least that this country can do.
As for the State dept get a life what do you or your spouses do to generate a special consideration. Your well paid suffer no hardships, private schools etc.

dan ketter  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  10:23 AM

---

as a naval reserve retiree and active foreign service officer i have some concerns with this proposal.

what about spouses of reservists now that the reserves are being called up in greater numbers and longer periods than ever contemplated? the disruption to the reservist's career and income is well documented, which certainly becomes a hardship for the reservist's spouse.

what about the spouses of other federal employees? spouses of overseas usg civilian employees face a particular problem trying to find any employment overseas. fsos are required by law to be available for worldwide assignments and cannot stay in one place, even dc, long enough to establish a career. what a terrible blow to morale to see a military spouse get hiring preference for the few jobs at an embassy overseas while a foreign service or other civilian spouse may be excluded from the many more job opportunities at military bases. i imagine that spouses of fbi and other law enforcement personnel with a nationwide domestic presence and regularly required moves face a similar hardship.

finally, i find it hard to believe that the spouses of higher ranking ncos and officers wont be first among equals and benefit from subtle command pressuure to be given a plum job.

i dont wish to end on a cynical note, but marrying a servicemember carries many financial benefits that in my experience sometimes has outweighed the true purpose of marriage. the g.i. gets to move out of the barracks, gets a housing allowance and if overseas, a bigger cola. the spouse benefits from these financial rewards, as well as access to medical care, shopping and now employment. ive seen cases prosecuted for such benefits fraud in japan and korea. so, will there be oversight? what if there is a divorce?

uniformed and nonuniformed personnel, and their family members, certainly deserve thanks and proper benefits for their service. i wont say that hiring preference for active military spouses is a cheap fix and catchy soundbite. however, asking congress and the american taxpayers to step up to fully staff agencies and provide funds for proper training and support, decent pay and benefits, including washdc locality pay, comparable tax and cola benefits for civilians overseas, doesnt grab headlines but its really what we and our family members need.

jst  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  09:55 AM

---

I don't have a problem extending this to an oversees location simply due to the limited number of available jobs, however, this should not be enacted within the 48 contiguous states, at least not within DoD or any of its services. It's tough enough doing your job, let alone trying to take disciplinary action against some Colonel's Wife for her not doing her job. I know this already exists within DoD and it should be eliminated. If this preference is to exist, it should exist outside of DoD so you don't have to worry about the situation I described above.

JM  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  09:31 AM

---

This from my wife (former military spouse) now gainfully employed in D.C.:

Nice idea, but outside of DC, there are not a whole lot of non-DoD civil service jobs anywhere near military bases (think Fayetteville). Spouses already have DoD preference but DoD has these silly requirements like "college degree". Most sgt's wives are not in that category. DoD has outsourced all their low-level civilian workforce. And the problem is large posts in the boondocks with little or no civilian economy (Ft Bragg, Ft Hood, Ft Carson, Ft Riley), not Norfolk or San Diego. So this sounds good but realistically helps few.

Better to ask contractors to give preference in hiring and require them to report annually (as we are required to do with veterans). There are always contractor ticks regardless of the isolation of the post...and they WILL hire high-school grads. And if they have to report, and DoD grades them no it, they will increase their spousal hiring.

KJ  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  09:08 AM

---

Last I knew, it is a volunteer force with pay and compensation to the service member. If the spouse wants a preference, let them join.

Paul  | Thursday, February 14, 2008 |  08:47 AM

---

At least they aren't openly pushing the racial preferences. The blatant use of the race card in the SSA is slowly contributing to its downfall from within.

Broham  | Wednesday, February 13, 2008 |  06:25 PM

---

JT doesn't have his head in the sand, JP. I said that off the military bases here in the States it is not an issue. Overseas and on military bases it is a bigger program. Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension skills.

JT  | Wednesday, February 13, 2008 |  07:31 AM

---

I am retired Disabled Veteran (60% combat related)and it is sad that the spouse of an active duty service member will get preference in future hiring actions. The DOD prepares sepetrate certificates for each hiring authority thereby never having to "pass over" a qualified veteran when making a selection from a certificate. All VRA, VEOA and 30% disabled veterans, reinstatements, transfer eligibles, merit promotions, spousal preference, etc.go on seperate certificates already so they don't have to worry about passing over a more qualified preference eligible when making a selection from a spousal preference certificate. JT must have his head in the sand as the Marine Corps in Okinawa all 13+ bases, only hires spouses and local commuting area current civil service candidates; and this includes the scientific and technical positions up to GS-14. Korea is another good old boy area where spouses have rec'd special treatment.

JP  | Monday, February 11, 2008 |  07:34 PM

---

I worked for the Army for years and they always had a "spousal preference".

Of course, those jobs were for secretarial positions (most of which have been eliminated) and the women in them rotated through at the same rate as their husbands' tours (2-3 years and out).

Maybe if we weren't so determined to have every individual do their own paperwork (creating hundreds, if not thousands of GS-13 secretaries) there would be a place for these women (and men).

Michelle  | Monday, February 11, 2008 |  11:41 AM

---

We already have locally operated preference programs for spouses of active service members. They are good. A universal federal program will be better. Eligible applicants are often young females with limited skills and experience that need a place to start, like their young husbands. This program will offer opportunity for spouses to follow their military sponsor to new assignments every few years, and still build their own job skills and resumes.

Prerequisite skills or education and other eligibility requirements are always published in federal hiring announcements. No need to fear unqualified spouses stealing jobs away. I’ve always seen mid- or upper-level vacancies filled by promoting and cross-leveling within the GS ranks; and I’ve seen many spouses have an opportunity to break into federal service initially because of spouse preference opportunities.

Ray  | Monday, February 11, 2008 |  10:02 AM

---

I work for a DoD agency so I am somewhat familiar with the spouse program as an observer. Usually you are talking about jobs on the military bases here in the States going to the spouses, because that is where the spouses generally are (99.9% are women with kids). I think this is also more of an issue overseas, where job opportumities for US citizens are more limited than here in the States, so the Foreign Service Officer's comments are quite valid - deployed civilians should also get official consideration on this issue. But here in the States, off the bases, I don't see this as a big deal. In the 30 years I have worked for this agency I think I have run into only two or three spouses that preferentially got their job. They haven't affected my career or anyone else's that I can see.

JT  | Monday, February 11, 2008 |  07:53 AM

---

Tommy (5th stanza)

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Rudyard Kipling  | Monday, February 11, 2008 |  07:32 AM

---

I hope they plan to give the spouses of State Department personnel preference too. Otherwise the few opportunities the spouses have will be given to Military spouses.

Foreign Service Officer  | Sunday, February 10, 2008 |  05:04 PM

---

So I can go and pay some veteran to set up a sham marriage and get preference. Cause you know that's exactly how this this is gonna end up being abused. It's gonna be like the people who marry American citizens to stay here legally. What happens if someone gets divorced after using spousal preference to get hired? Do they lose their job? Is the government gonna go investigate marriages?

KH  | Friday, February 08, 2008 |  07:01 PM

---

Whatever happened to hiring the 'best' person for the job? The Federal Government is the only agency in the United States that actively discriminates in its hiring practices by establishing manadatory and priority placement programs. Rather than allowing supervisors and managers to interview and select the most highly qualified individuals to fill their vacancies 'whatever their walks of life' it establishes hiring priorities for Priority Placement Program eligible’s, Veterans, Students, Spouse Preferences etc. This practice severely inhibits career progression and promotion opportunities for career employees and is detrimental to agencies ability to retain the best and brightest. Recent legislation that allows for by name, non-competitive hiring of Veterans and Students is a prime example. While there are circumstances where this is beneficial to organizations i.e. to fill critical need GWOT or hard to fill positions quickly it is detrimental to filling permanent requirements. Primarily, as it discriminates against the in-house workforce by stifling career progression and promotion and is generally demoralizing to the workforce as a whole. Unfortunately it has become the normal practice with many organizations, to use this hiring strategy if for no other reason than it generally takes less than 30 days to complete versus the 90-120 day processing time required for a competitive hiring action. To supervisors who do afford their in-house workforce the opportunity to compete the hiring process is made so painful that it is understandable why they eventually choose to take the easy way out. Unfortunately it is this same mind set that prevents any great emphasis on leadership development, as it becomes more and more unlikely that leaders will be able to hire and promote from within.

tj  | Friday, February 08, 2008 |  12:58 PM

---

Here, here! About time our spouses get some recognition and compensation for all they have to put with for marrying a service member.

USAF Retiree  | Friday, February 08, 2008 |  12:35 PM

---

This is spot on,Ott has presented a great resolution to a real problem. We have too many folks that contribute nothing to society but are always looking for a handout

dan ketter  | Friday, February 08, 2008 |  12:10 PM

---

What Next? A preference for hiring kids of the military, relatives, friends etc.
A Virginia Senator is also pushing for the same things for veteran's spouses. Come on now a 5 to 10 point hiring preference should be enough. Many personnel departments do not even consider in-house civilians if there is a military or veteran applicant that is at best minimally qualified.

BW  | Friday, February 08, 2008 |  11:41 AM

---