[smd6169]

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

 

[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..

 

[ProudAmerican]

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

Yes! If you're not a veteran or do not speak a foreign language you should probably not put the T as one of your choices. I'm a vet and I speak 2 foreign languages I ranked 110 on their list with a score 99. Disabled vets make up the first 100 people on their list.

 

[Goose]

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..

Ouch. I got a 95 as a non-vet and got 500-something...or maybe it was 700-something...but that was the last test, in '03.

 

[motivated]

I am vet 200 something on the list. The Disabled Vets look like the only ones who have a shot, has anybody received a post card from them recently?

 

[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?

 

[ProudAmerican]

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?

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.

 

[smd6169]

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.

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.

 

[atrain104]

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.

faced the same deployment risks??? risks?? and what does risk entail, you must share the same everything not just the actual risk of being deployed, if that were the case then men that are registered with the selective service also share a risk?!?!? i also am proud of my veteran status and think that congress should enact a clause stating that in order to be an actual veteran you must either have a campaign, or combat action ribbon, however would never shoot down somebody who served, reserve or otherwise you are correct in that , that is honerable, but it is two totally different types of service.

 

[Macop]

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

 

[DVET1979]

Hey SMD, why didnt you just go active duty if you wanted to be a policeman that bad, and MAcop, why didnt you just enlist? I do agree with you however, that what constitutes an actual "veteran" needs to be reformed. I would suggest 2 years minimum of consecutive active service instead of the 180 days (with an exception for those injured of cousre). I for one served 4 plus years on active duty inluding an overseas deployment and I dont like seeing people that just do the 180 days getting the same benefits that I do.

 

[smd6169]

After graduating college I considered going active but then got on the Dept. of Corrections. The definition of a Veteran does need to be re-written to include reservists but in either case, TOTAL preferential treatment to any group [in my opinion] is discrimination. The state police doesn't give total preferential treatment to any group, they give 2 extra points. 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.

 

[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.

 

[smd6169]

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.

Touchy. Look, I can't blame those who recieve vetrens prefrance for opposing any changes in Veteran status treatment. I am also not trying to take away from any service you have given to this great coutry of ours. I am not reffering to people who did not serve in the military, I am reffering to people who did but do not get recognized for it. I was 11-B for many years, have gone through various advanced schools, and was ready to go serve on the front lines. I put my time in just like the active folks did and was ready to sacrifice if called upon.

What about vet's who served in country (before this war) who sat behind a desk? They did their 3 years behind a desk and are now vets? Bullshit!

 

[smd6169]

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.

Touchy. Look, I can't blame those who receive veterans preference for opposing any changes in Veteran status treatment. I am also not trying to take away from any service you have given to this great country of ours. I am not referring to people who did not serve in the military, I am referring to people who did but do not get recognized for it. I was 11-B for many years, have gone through various advanced schools, and was ready to go serve on the front lines. I put my time in just like the active folks did and was ready to sacrifice if called upon.

What about vet's who served in country (before this war) who sat behind a desk? They did their 3 years behind a desk and are now vets? Bullshit!

 

[billj]

ad nauseam with this topic......do a search, its all been discused time and time again....cmon people

 

[DODK911]

I agree with you guys about the vet status. I am a vet my self, but what is bullshit is MA's new Vet law, all you have to do is serve one (1) I say again one day during war time and MA gives you vet status, what the F&*k! is that? As far as being a vet only if you hold a campaign ribbon thats what the US Government uses to consiter there vets, without it you dont get vets preferance.

Stay Safe and Semper FI

 

[Skidaddy]

As far as being a vet only if you hold a campaign ribbon thats what the US Government uses to consiter there vets, without it you dont get vets preferance.

www.USAJOBS.com. (That's from the Governments jobs posting webpage)
A person eligible for veterans' preference or person separated from the armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of continuous military service

Now I agree with that and DVET1979. Mass should drop a year on that (2 years total active duty)for Vet Preference. It would also give Reservist that end up getting called to active duty a chance to get active duty benefits from the government as well.Which i believe they do.I.E Vet Preference, Active Duty MG BILL.

 

[mpd61]

Or...............

You could go to Atlanta Aaron!!!

 

[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...