Walmart to hire vets

[Bunnykid68]

Your point doesn't hold water. There is NO discrimination in hiring one person over another, having found all things equal. By this logic, to be fair, one should just cast these two "equally qualified individuals" out of contention for the position. So as not to discriminate, one should, by this logic, find someone less qualified, so as NOT to discriminate?

I appreciate your fathers service to this country. Maybe you should re-consider his contribution to your liberties, and how they've improved your life. Careful reflection on these facts may change your mind.

I shall pass the thanks on to my dad. I think you do understand my point though. Simply because one has served should not be a reason they should be considered for a job or denied a job. I think we just crossed wires somewhere.

 

[remauto1187]

Who wants to bet Walmart is getting something out of this? Tax credits? Surely they arent doing it just for the positive PR.

 

[geronimojoe85]

Now, being a veteran myself I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.
(I haven't read any of the above posts either so forgive me)

In my opinion if Walmart wants to hire vets, good for them. It's their company, it's their choice. I don't feel at all entitled to a job there. Home Depot is the same way I support the decision as it is their decision nobody is requiring it. However, I do recall talk of The state of IL requiring employers to give preference to vets (I may be wrong on the state, again forgive me). This I whole hartedly oppose. There is the difference between showing preference and making a protected class.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Now, being a veteran myself I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.
(I haven't read any of the above posts either so forgive me)

In my opinion if Walmart wants to hire vets, good for them. It's their company, it's their choice. I don't feel at all entitled to a job there. Home Depot is the same way I support the decision as it is their decision nobody is requiring it. However, I do recall talk of The state of IL requiring employers to give preference to vets (I may be wrong on the state, again forgive me). This I whole hartedly oppose. There is the difference between showing preference and making a protected class.

The federal government has been doing this for years with the Postal Service. If you were a veteran you got an extra 5% on your score, if you were the widow of a veteran you got 10% on your score

 

[geronimojoe85]

The federal government has been doing this for years with the Postal Service. If you were a veteran you got an extra 5% on your score, if you were the widow of a veteran you got 10% on your score

And it's their government agency, so I view it as their choice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

O.K. I understand your sentiment, but let me ask you this,

When was the last time you felt an obligation to tell a "Non-Mil" as you put it, "Thank you for all you've done to protect my freedoms."?

I never have, they haven't earned the honor.

For that matter, when was the last time you told a vet, "Thank you for your service"??

Well, it's funny that you mentioned that. I assure you the last time I spoke to someone and was made aware of their service status, I thanked them.
My pop is a 28 year retired Army, and needless to say, I grew up an "Army Brat." Military have always had my upmost respect.

Congress adopted the G.I. Bill because they felt that military did indeed deserve preferential treatment. Was that wrong too?

No, that GI Bill was primarily built for soldiers of a certain era; those that were drafted. These guys were uprooted to serve the nation whether they wanted to or not. IMO there's a clear difference, and the govt owed those that it conscripted a chance to get back the lives they left.

Just as the time for affirmative action has passed, I believe the time of the GI Bill has passed too. They were conceived with good intentions, but it's time to do away with both.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And it's their government agency, so I view it as their choice.

It is still discrimination anyway you slice it. Technically I am ok with discrimination, but the government should not be participating in it.

 

[remauto1187]

The federal government has been doing this for years with the Postal Service. If you were a veteran you got an extra 5% on your score, if you were the widow of a veteran you got 10% on your score

That goes for ALL Federal Jobs. I got 5 points NOT % added for VETERANS PREFERENCE when I landed my Federal job in 2006.

 

[IndyDave1776]

That is discrimination any way you want to phrase it. You give someone an advantage that is no more qualified is discrimination.

All things being equal, if I hire you and you are white and there is an equally qualified black person that does not get hired because they are not white is discrimination. 2 white people and one gets hired because they were in the military is the same thing.

Absolutely correct. To discriminate is to recognize differences and/or act on them. It gets tiresome that some forms of discrimination are treated as unacceptable if not illegal, yet others are encouraged and rewarded. A favorite example of mine is Affirmative Action. Why is discrimination commendably one way and illegal the other.

I have noticed that most people who scream the loudest for equality in truth do not want equality, but rather preference. Once again, why is it that discrimination that fits the politically correct narrative is acceptable, but otherwise it isn't?

In fairness to Walmart, I can understand their decision. After all, military people are much more likely to follow orders precisely with minimal b*tching about it. On the other hand, the feds have taken legal action to the point of even putting businesses out of business over EEOC violations stemming from such egregious acts of discrimination as not having certain ethnicities represented in their workforce because they took such radical discriminatory actions as hiring the people who walked in the door and filled out an application. They should have aggressively recruited others according to the feds. As Bunnykid rightly pointed out, it is no fun finding yourself on the other end of that stick when you are not part of a preferred group--and amazingly enough, noticing this disparity automatically makes a person a racist!

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is still discrimination anyway you slice it. Technically I am ok with discrimination, but the government should not be participating in it.

Agreed

 

[IndyDave1776]

And it's their government agency, so I view it as their choice.

How so? Does the government belong to the people or the people to the government? Last time I checked, at least legally, the government serves the people, not vice-versa.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, try reading what I typed after I corrected my typo. Take all the offense you want, I told you I had a typo in my statement, I corrected said statement. Where is the problem?

FWIW I discriminate all the time

I don't know what to say. Your example was equally truthful with or without the typo as either way it would be tantamount to discrimination. One wonders why 'someone' has a burr under his saddle about this. Although a frank conversation on discrimination has somehow become socially off limits, the truth is as it is, and if someone doesn't like that, he needs to take his offense and use it for an enema.

 

[geronimojoe85]

We're also talking about two different things.
Post office Vs private company.

If a private company wants to hire vets, why tell them they can't?

If hooters wants to hire good looking women? If Avon prefers women salespeople? If the polish deli around the corner gives preference to people with "ski" at the end of their name?

It's their company it's their choice.


As to the Post Office, we see how well their hiring practices are panning out.

 

[Mgderf]

I don't know what to say. Your example was equally truthful with or without the typo as either way it would be tantamount to discrimination. One wonders why 'someone' has a burr under his saddle about this. Although a frank conversation on discrimination has somehow become socially off limits, the truth is as it is, and if someone doesn't like that, he needs to take his offense and use it for an enema.

And you have a fine day too Dave.

 

[Liberty1911]

I strongly disagree with their choice, but it is, "their choice."

For some reason, this post offends me as much as any post I've seen on INGO.

 

[Steelman]

Screw that. Unless I had a starving family and no other choice - I would not take Walmart's "charity".

Why is it always the Grenada combat vets and fobbit file clerks that are asking us to line up so we can kiss their Star Spangled Asses? They always come back with the best war stories and not a scratch on them.

 

[drillsgt]

Who wants to bet Walmart is getting something out of this? Tax credits? Surely they arent doing it just for the positive PR.

They actually do get tax credits.

 

[drillsgt]

I never have, they haven't earned the honor.



Well, it's funny that you mentioned that. I assure you the last time I spoke to someone and was made aware of their service status, I thanked them.
My pop is a 28 year retired Army, and needless to say, I grew up an "Army Brat." Military have always had my upmost respect.



No, that GI Bill was primarily built for soldiers of a certain era; those that were drafted. These guys were uprooted to serve the nation whether they wanted to or not. IMO there's a clear difference, and the govt owed those that it conscripted a chance to get back the lives they left.

Just as the time for affirmative action has passed, I believe the time of the GI Bill has passed too. They were conceived with good intentions, but it's time to do away with both.

I can go along with that and at the same time we can get rid of public sector pensions, take home police cars, LEOSA, etc.

 

[drillsgt]

We're also talking about two different things.
Post office Vs private company.

If a private company wants to hire vets, why tell them they can't?

If hooters wants to hire good looking women? If Avon prefers women salespeople? If the polish deli around the corner gives preference to people with "ski" at the end of their name?

It's their company it's their choice.


As to the Post Office, we see how well their hiring practices are panning out.

I don't see a problem with it, it's just Walmart for crying out loud. Actually there is a lot to be said for hiring veterans. You get men and women who are used to having to show up on time and be presentable, work long hours if need be, work well with authority while at the same time used to using initiative. By the time they get out they have experienced a gradual increase in responsibilities and expectations and have most likely supervised others. It may be a good opportunity for a young E4 just getting out and going to school or the person with a young family that doesn't need much yet to live. I doubt the 10 year veteran getting out is going to go to walmart and be a stocker or something.

 

[bcskypilot]

I think this is a good thing in what we know is a difficult job environment. I recently helped a Walmart store manager buy a new home. Management pays well there. He started his job stocking shelves.

Hard work and discipline allows you to do whatever you want if you work smart at it as well. Most Vets know what that is all about so this is just one additional opportunity they have in front of them.