Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
I didn't get a federal job because of my skin color.
By presidential decree someone else has officially taken my seasonal job for the sole fact that they are a minority and I am white. Isn't that called something? Reverse discrimination? Oh excuse me, I mean affirmative action. It doesn't matter what schooling I have, if I have more experience, that I've worked with them before, etc... they have to hire a minority instead of me, just for being a minority. I wonder what happens if no minorities happen to apply. I just hope it isn't some city kid slacker who doesn't know which end of a truck is the tailgate.
For the record, I'm not racist. I just found out today that the job I was supposed to get is being given to someone else because I'm the wrong race, and I'm bitter and currently very unhappy with our POTUS.
I wouldn't be so pissed off if it had been competitive and I lost because the other person had more experience, etc.... but no, I was told not to apply because they simply won't hire me because they aren't allowed to. Isn't that peachy? I've been automatically discounted and my resume automatically dumped because I'm white, along with any other caucasian that mistakenly applies. No, our president isn't promoting racism this way at all. Boy that sounds twisted.
Re: I didn't get a federal job because of my skin color.
1. How do you know this? Quota laws are incredibly rare.
2. You're blaming the wrong President. Affirmative Action policies have been in place since the Johnson administration.
Quite clearly & frankly. My husband works in that office as a permanent employee, and I've been working there a few seasons. It's a very small office so everyone knows everybody else on a friendly basis. The whole office is really pissed too!
There were two measly positions open in the Recreation Department. The Rec person had to fight really hard to be allowed to hire this other girl (also white), but she managed it in the end from what I hear. That girl's been working there for years and years as a seasonal so at least she got it this year. I was really looking forward to working with her though.
I may be hired for the "Information Receptionist" job, which I don't want but I'll have to end up taking it for lack of anything else. It drops me from a GS-5 down to a GS-4, and I'll be stuck in a stupid office all day dealing with the public (yuck). That position isn't considered "competitive" (which is what they're calling the one I got rejected from) because they wouldn't be able to provide housing so they have to hire locally--which means the chances of a minority applying aren't as good, apparently? Something like that. So they would be allowed to hire me for that even if a minority applied for it, I think.
Ok, I've got more of the scoop on this.
You're right, it did start with LBJ. But recently "new hiring rules" have been enacted. The rules were made in November apparently, and the office found out about it last month. I think it makes affirmative action hiring more....intensified? emphasized? I don't know. Officially, the rule is that they have to hire more "diversity" which is a legal way of saying non-white, or if the person happens to be white they'd have to be at least disabled or a veteran. That's fine, it just bothers me that I'm being denied without having my resume looked at by the SO (supervisor's office who does the official hiring). This office (not SO) can urge all they want to push for certain people to get hired, but the SO rarely listens to them on anything. There are no interviews for these seasonal positions.
I've been told that the Rec person who was going to hire me was told by her higher-ups that she has to hire a veteran with spanish origins (last name) that the SO chose out of the pile. Apparently he doesn't even consider himself hispanic because most of his relatives are white and his grandparent was spanish so he just ended up with the name. Alright, whatever. Unfortunately some of the office personnel are a little leery of this guy just because he's a veteran and recently in the next town over the office had to put a guy (veteran) on suspension to go to counseling for PTSD, and sadly that stigma is carrying over. I hope he at least works out well....a veteran is bound to have better work ethic than a young kid who just graduated high school.
The Rec person thought she was going to be able to hire the other girl (Kristen), but was just told probably not because of a technicality. Kristen had 24 months with the Forest Service, but apparently that time was broken up by a bout she did with Americorps to help pay off her loans so they are jumping on that and telling the Rec that she can't hire Kristen now since her hired time with the Forest Service wasn't consecutive. That's the same reason why my "time" with the FS is only a few months rather than almost two years, because 3/4 of that time was through Americorps even though I worked for the FS.
My husband is pissed because the hiring people go to schools and inner-city jobs fairs to hire people and they just don't end up working out very well, based on experience. It's stressing out the whole office because of the extra training time it takes for these uneducated/inexperienced kids, and they're usually lazy. I know that sounds horrible and it's really stereotypical. Depends on luck I guess of who you get.
I know this is so confusing. And I sound so bitchy. I don't think I've been this bitchy in a long time. And there's so much I don't know about it, but the general idea is that everybody here is pissed off and their hands are tied about the seasonals. I could've worked for Rec, Wildlife, or Range and none of them are allowed to hire me because they're bringing in these other people instead without letting it be truly competitive. Also, apparently the "new rules" discourage hiring the same people over again for some reason (regardless of performance), which is another count against Kristen and me. It just doesn't make much sense.
Gosh, sorry this is so long!
I think so too. I understand the whole concept of affirmative action, or rather I understand the goal of it. But it's not supposed to be like this, and it doesn't work like this. Nothing is fair and square anymore I suppose...but when was it ever for everybody? :-P
I don't think so--I think they're way around it is that they need to "diversify" and part of that diversity is hiring different people every year (starting this year), or bringing out people from cities to work here (or pretty much anyone not from here it seems to me). Jobs are so rare in this little town, those of us who somewhat established ourselves with the Forest Service are supposed to have an "in" for the seasonal positions because that's exactly the way that you work your way up the ladder in the system. But times are changing now and they've made it so that hiring doesn't depend on qualifications anymore by changing the attributes they want to fill. I just don't fulfill the attributes, same as if I didn't fulfill the experience or education requirements before they made the new list of requirements. At least, that's what I'm thinking their logic is.
I'm a little less hot headed this evening than I was this morning. :-P
I understand your frustration; however, you seem to be missing the purpose of affirmative action laws. People of color, those with disabilites and veterans are often passed over for employment for no reason other than they fall into those categories. This is still common today. Thus, complaining that these people cannot match your experience sets an unfair standard because many will never be given the opportunity to get that experience without affirmative action/diversification practices.
Why would you want to work in a place that shares so much information about future and present employees? None of this is any of your business nor should they be sharing info about other applicants with you.
Your attitude towards urban dwellers and their ability to work is bizarre as well. We are not talking about a high level job here; you're acting like they are tossing some HS dropout into an upper level position with no experience just because they are a minority.
Perhaps it is your combative, unprofessional attitude that makes people reluctant to hire you.
Unless you received some sort of official information from your Personnel Office in regards to why you were not selected for a job, then I would take office gossip with a grain of salt. Whether this a rec job or not.
Further, veterans receive up to a 10 point preference over other candidates, that's the way it is.
I encourage you to talk to HR and get a formal debriefing on why you were not hired. If then there appears to be some sort of racial issue, you can decide whether to pursue further or not.
Wives Unscripted
If you are working in R5, which I suspect you are, the 'new rules' for hiring were brought on by a lawsuit against the Southern California forests. You see, since the FS is still very much a good-old-boy agency all of the white canidates were getting hired down there and no one else could get their foot in the door. Some people sued because the employee profile of those forests in no way matched the profile of the surrounding cities.
I am in no way an expert on this information, but it's my understanding that the push for hispanic employees came from the law-suit and ruling. This has been going on for a couple of years though, I wonder why you are just hearing about it now. Also, if you work in a different region, perhaps they are trying to mirror the hiring regs of R5 to prevent a law-suit? IDK. They had similar hiring practices for women back in the 80's. Perhaps you have heard of the consent decree? That was the way women were able to get into positions within the FS, before that we couldn't get field positions.
And yet the OP is probably running around spewing all that anti-Obama hate, with no facts to back up her idea that he is somehow at fault for her not getting the job. "Some hiring rule, I think, about white people, I didn't look it up or anything, I have no clue what I'm talking about, but surely it's Obama's fault!" That's how the conservatives operate, right?
Ditto this. Oh, and probably because you didn't apply.
Had you applied and truly felt wronged instead of wanting to blame the POTUS, an EEO complaint certainly would've been filed by now. Get off your high horse, quit your bitching, and find a fed job the old fashioned way-by making friends in the right places.
Sorry, that sucks.
I told I didn't get a position because I wasn't poor & raising kids (Head Start position). Apparently if you're a current/former Head Start parent you get the job over people who aren't (as long as education/experience are similar). So I'm punished for making good life choices by not having children I can't afford. Awesome.
I am a GS employee whose entire day is comprised of dealing with the public. I was hired in an "excepted" position and was later reclassified as "competitive" based on performance, since you think it matters, I am not a minority.
If that is the way you feel about the public, then you don't belong in public service. Have the integrity to recognize that and stop contributing to the stigma that gives federal employees a bad name.
I have not heard of any new hiring authorities aimed a minorities, but there have been several new projects aimed at hiring more veterans, and there damn well should be. You did mention that your husband works in the office. I know that in my Agency, nepotism rules are very strict and several people here have been laterally transferred or forced to take a lower position to avoid them working (even indirectly) with family members.
On Tuesday, the Internet was abuzz with admirers pointing to Billups? abrasion as addition archetype of the ?Clippers Curse.?
One problem. There is no Clippers Curse. What believers accede a anathema the blow of the apple considers a alternation of bad administration decisions.Cheap Nike Shoes Oh sure, there are times if players accept been injured: Blake Griffin absent his aboriginal division because of a knee injury. Danny Manning, the Clippers? top aces in 1988, blew out his knee in his amateur season. The aggregation traded two first-round picks for Tiny Archibald in 1977; one ages into the season, he tore his Achilles? bond and absent the absolute season. Bill Walton had a alternation of bottom injuries during his seasons with the team.
Some alarm that a curse, but added teams alarm it a day in the activity of an NBA team.
Ask Lakers admirers about James Worthy breaking his leg just afore the alpha of the 1983 NBA playoffs, apparently costing the Lakers an NBA title.Jordan shoes Or ask them about Byron Scheap nike air max 2009 black sparkle nike shox cheap kids nike air max buy nike basketball nike air force outlet green nike basketball shorts free nike golf clubs womens cheap nike shoes men nike air max
buy nike sb online black glitter nike shox buy nike shox online buy cheap nike online new nike running watch design your own nike running shoes nike sb dunk low sale kids nike air max 2011 discount nike free shoes
nike shoe websites black and green nike shox buy nike clothes blue and white nike shox buy nike air max ltd cheap nike boots online nike air max hyperize men s basketball shoe kids nike air max 90 discount nike air max shoes
nike sfb men s boot baby nike dunks buy nike blazer vintage black nike tennis shoes buy nike air max 90 infrared cheap nike basketball shoes for kids nike air max rejuvenate men s golf shoes limited edition nike air max brown nike air max
cott and Magic Johnson both adversity broken hamstrings during the 1989 NBA Finals, with Scott affliction his afore Bold 1 and Johnson during Bold 2. The Lakers were swept in that series. Cheap Jordan Shoes Or Magic backward afterwards testing absolute for HIV. Does anyone say the Lakers are cursed? No, because the Lakers admiral accept a history of authoritative astute abstract picks and trades, abrogation the aggregation in position to balance bound from setbacks.
Look at the Clippers? abstract history: In 1981, they drafted Tom Chambers, who went on to accept a solid career ? with Seattle and Phoenix. Afterwards he averaged 17.4 credibility for the Clippers, they traded him to the SuperSonics for James Donaldson, Greg Kelser and Mark Radford. To be fair, the Clippers did abstract a approaching Hall of Famer in 1981: Tony Gwynn, who is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. In 1983, the Clippers called Byron Scott, again traded him to the Lakers. In 1984, they called Lancaster Gordon with the eighth all-embracing aces of the draft. Lancaster Gordon? Nike jordans shoes sales Meanwhile, eight picks later, the Utah Jazz called John Stockton. In 1985, with the third aces in the abstract and with Chris Mullin, Detlef Schrempf, Charles Oakley, Karl Malone and Joe Dumars all available, the Clippers selected, delay for it, Benoit Benjamin. (By the way, that year the Lakers called A.C. Green with the 23rd pick.)
We could play the ?name the bad abstract pick? bold all day. In 1987, the Clippers had three first-round picks. They went with Reggie Williams, Joe Wolf and Ken Norman. Remember Danny Ferry? Bo Kimble? LeRon Ellis? Randy Woods? Terry Dehere? Lamond Murray? Michael Olowokandi?
So, no, there is no Clippers Curse. There was just a alternation of abhorrent amateur cadre decisions fabricated by the team.Which seems to accept afflicted this division beneath new General Manager Neil Olshey. Who is apparently busily aggravating to ample the aperture Billups? abrasion leaves.