Originally Posted by smd6169

Do you pretty much have to have Veteran Status to get on?

Originally Posted by Sgt Jack

Generally speaking yes...on one of the past exams I had a score of 95 and I was ranked at 1942 on the list as a non vet...needless to say I've never selected the MBTA again as one of my choices..

Originally Posted by smd6169

I thought you didn't have to select MBTA, that everyone was in the running automatically. But anyhow, as a non-vet I knew I had no shot anyhow. This total preferential treatment [for any group] has to go. I can see adding a couple of point's to a score, like the State Police does, but to take a whole group and put them above another, isn't that descrimination?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

That's a negative! If someone serves his/her country honorably in the armed forces, they SHOULD get preferential treatment in civil service jobs. I for one I'm proud to take advantage of my veteran status. God bless our men and women serving in uniform. It is a thankless job, but that's not why we serve.

Originally Posted by smd6169

I just want to make clear that my intention is not to offend any veterans. I too served but in the reserves, for 8 years. However, I do think it's unfair for a 3 year full-time soldier(who for example did not get deployed) to get preferential treatment while someone who served for 8 years in the gurds or reserves does not, especially when both served honorably and [these days] faced the same deployment risks.

Originally Posted by Skidaddy

Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.

WHAT HAS THAT NON-VET DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY? YOUR DAM RIGHT WE SHOULD GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. DID THEY SCARFICE WHAT WE HAVE? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT....

I BET IF YOU SERVED ACTIVE DUTY OR ON THE FRONTLINES, YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

Originally Posted by Skidaddy

Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.

WHAT HAS THAT NON-VET DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY? YOUR DAM RIGHT WE SHOULD GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. DID THEY SCARFICE WHAT WE HAVE? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT....

I BET IF YOU SERVED ACTIVE DUTY OR ON THE FRONTLINES, YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

Originally Posted by smd6169

Let's put aside who is and who is not considered a vet. That's not my issue. My issue is the TOTAL PREFERANTIAL treatment a veteran receives. Now assuming that the Civil Service does truly and accurately test for those skills that a police officer should poses, to put a vet scoring a 70 above a none vet scoring a 100 is asinine. This person with a 70 obviously does not poses the skills that the state has deemed crucial for a police officer while the person scoring 100 does, yet he may not be called...

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

Are you shitting me? Do you truly believe that the rediculous test known as the civil service exam, is a true indication of ones intelligence, or ability to be an effective police officer?

I don't care if a vet scored a 50 and a nonvet scored a 1000. The vet should still get preference. There wouldn't be any civil service jobs if it were not for the sacrifices of vets. It is because of the vet that you're not required to utter the words 'God save the queen, or have German as your primary language!".

You can't choose your race, or your gender, but you CAN certainly CHOOSE to become a vet. Recruiting is at an all-time low. Do something for yourself and your country, become a vet!...(disclaimer) This post was paid for by the United States Army.

Originally Posted by Macop

smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.

Originally Posted by smd6169

Hold on, I have a second language (fluent) that I listed on the exam. Is there another way to pursue getting on with the 2nd language? What kind of preferential treatment do paramedics get?

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

Is the second language Spanish, Haitian/Cape Verdean Creole, Portuguese, Arabic, or Farsi? If not, you may still face an uphill battle. However being a paramedic can go a long way. Good luck and stay safe.

Originally Posted by Dogma20001

MBTA is all about who you know. In my town, there are a brother and sister that both got on the MBTA 1 Academy apart. The brother was a Marine who got Dvet status for get this- allergies. He lasted a whole 7 months in the corp. The sister worked as a host at a local restaurant. Nice huh.

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican

I don't buy that bullshit story for a second. Dvet status from allergies? Yeah riiiiiight. First off, in order to get Dvet status your injury had to occur as a result of military activities. At least this is how I understand it. I'm just a vet, maybe one of the many Dvets on this board will elucidate. What was he allergic to? Drill, PT, perhaps CLP during weapons maintenance?

Originally Posted by Dogma20001

Yeah, got it. Human Resources actually called to tell me. Kind of weird. Starts on the 6th. As for the MBTA, I'm serious. This kid hated being in the Corp and did everything he could to get out and allergies gave him his ticket. Imagine that though, 2 from the same family. The girl is 22, he's 24. All who you know.

Originally Posted by smd6169

My 2nd language is Hebrew...Does EMT, as opposed to PERAMEDIC help?

Originally Posted by motivated

One of the many reasons I joined the Army is to get Vet status. All the people complaining have the oppurtunity to join and get the points. It is not unfair at all.

Originally Posted by smd6169

Get the point's (2 like state police) is one thing, TOTAL preferential treatment is another.

Originally Posted by lookingaround

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?

Originally Posted by lookingaround

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?

Originally Posted by USMCMP5811

How do you figgure TOTAL? The preferance only helps a resident...... Case in point, I lived in a non-CS town for the last test(02) and even with my VET status, I'm still below some mental midget with residency. If it were TOTAL preference as your post implies, then Non resident Vet's would be on top of their 4 choices......

Originally Posted by smd6169

I am referring to the total preferential treatment between all RESIDENTS of a city/town. Take 2 people with Boston residency. A VET who scores an 85 and non-vet who scores 99. The vet with an 85 is above the none-vet with a 99. That's bull. Give the vet 2 -5 points and tell him/her to score better next time!

Originally Posted by JoninNH

Having most recently been employed as a senior manager in a private company, I personally take and make several piles of applications on my desks. First pile is "Doesn't meet the minimums for the job" I send them a postcard saying we've hired someone else. I take the remaining applications and sort them in to two more piles, Vets and Non-Vets. Guess from which pile I hire from first? The Veterans. To have endured the hardships of combat, and to be physically separated from their family, and friends. To wake up each morning knowing that they might not make it back to their bunk that night and still give it 110%, that's dedication, that's service, that's commitment, and that's the kind of person I want working for me. I don't care if you have two master's degrees in the field, I'll hire a Vet with three years in the military and an AA degree any-day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

As it applys to policing...

Veterans have already attended Basic Training and an advanced training school. They've gone through a training program as rigorous and disciplined if not more so then the Police Academy. A civilian... hasn't. Advantage: Vet. If I were the Chief, I'd hire someone who has a better chance of passing the academy then someone unproven.

Veterans have endured hardships while living at the point of the spear, serving, protecting and defending under the constant threat of death or serious injury. A civilian, well, he may have had to skip out on his latte last week because the buses were late. Advantage: Veteran. I'd rather hire somoene who has lived the phrase "protect and serve" and who has faced danger and fear, then a civilian who might decide it's not worth it.

A 21-year old veteran is, often times, 100 times more mature then his fresh out of college civilian counterpart. He's grown up, he's been handed responsiblity and he's shown that he's able to function under extream stress. His civilian counterpart has a lot of growing up to do, had the responsibility of working a part time job for beer money, and has earned a piece of paper.

Originally Posted by Macop

smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.