Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkr42 | Hacker News Reader

Do you think that some of the hiring practices are out of whack as well? I've heard it claimed that sometimes the government treats hiring as welfare employment programs - which adds a whole new spin on this.

View on HN

I've never heard it phrased like this specifically but there is absolutely a mindset during interviews that the applicant gets the job unless you can find a specific reason not to give it to them. To @dragonwriter's point the rules surrounding Civil Service are even more extreme. Here is a real world example of CS hiring procedures:

0. CS Commission sets a minimum written score for oral interviews. Score is arbitrary and largely designed to limit number of interviews to an acceptable number (20-30 total per vacancy).

1. Commission asks applicants the same questions, in the same order, asked by the same commissioner. Scores are subjective but on a 1-7 scale.

2. Does the mean score surpass the 60% pass rate? If yes, applicant moves to next step.

3. Does the applicant, in their background investigation or oral interview, admit to any explicitly listed disqualifying acts as listed in the Commission's rules & regulations? If no, applicant moves to next step.

4. The written and oral scores are averaged based on a prescribed weighted formula. This weighted score is 0-100.

5. Is the applicant a veteran? Add a certain number of points.

6. Give the top three names to the hiring body (varies by position).

7. Is a veteran in the top three? Guess what, they get the job no matter what.

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that someone who fought for their country in the military should not be preferred as a civil servant. It seems like a very strong qualification for these jobs.

Maybe we're better off loading the dice so that they pursue other lines of work. They may be good at being government workers. They may want to be government workers. It may be better for society over all if we do not give them preferential treatment in some roles but do in others.

This question obviously only applies to a subset of veterans. There's a civilian analog to many military jobs and the military's training and experience in those fields can stand on its own without preferential treatment for the most part.

A combat veteran may make a good post office manager or a good cop but it's probably better off for everyone if he's only given preferential treatment in the latter role.

Maybe? None of what you're saying is obvious to me in either direction. But it does seem to me that "served country in the past" is a reasonable thing to consider when hiring for largely thankless civil service jobs.

How'd you like Starship Troopers?

I didn't mean to imply they shouldn't, only used it as one of a list of examples in which civil service hiring is formulaic and not really open to personal opinion. That there are equations and rules for everything, and at the end of the process the "hiring body" is basically told who they have to hire for a given post, unless they can find a reason to disqualify that person.

Fair enough. I definitely agree with your broad point. My wife manages grants (many of which are federal) for a research institute and even though they aren't governmental themselves, just being federally funded creates many of the same circumstances you're talking about here. Being able to fire people more easily would not solve any problems: they need to be able to incentivize good work much more flexibly.

Close. #7 is actually not true (although a lot of hiring managers seem to think that it is). You are not required to hire the veteran per OPM regulations. They only get the point based boost.

In practice, the veterans benefit becomes meaningless once you advance in specialist grades (GS-09+). But it will get you the glorious position of elevator operator in Carlesbad.

I'm not talking about OPM, I'm talking about my state's Civil Service rules. If there is only 1 veteran in the top three candidates, the veteran gets the job unless the hiring body explicitly disqualifies them.

Worked as a contractor for a federal agency, can confirm true, with a few variations: written score was weighted, and a cutscore eliminates candidates before oral portion. The written cutscore is adjusted downward until enough women and marginalized groups pass, and then candidates are weeded out in the oral phase, special consideration given to veterans and a few other categories.

> I've heard it claimed that sometimes the government treats hiring as welfare employment programs

There's two ways this is true in state and/or federal government:

(1) hiring into specific programs which are essentially designed as welfare hiring programs (these aren't big today, but there are a few of them still.)

(2) special, broadly-applicable civil service hiring preferences (mainly for certain disabilities and military veterans.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com