Vets with PTSD hiring bias is new age Affirmative Action Push

As written by Ms. Borgna Brunner and Beth Rowen for infoplease.com in their article titled Affirmative Action History -A History and Timeline of Affirmative Action it clearly describe the origination and thought behind the construction of Affirmative Action.  They describe it this way, “the term "affirmative action" was first introduced by President Kennedy in 1961 as a method of redressing discrimination that had persisted in spite of civil rights laws and constitutional guarantees.”

 

“It was developed and enforced for the first time by President Johnson. Focusing in particular on education and jobs, affirmative action policies required that active measures be taken to ensure that blacks and other minorities enjoyed the same opportunities for promotions, salary increases, career advancement, school admissions, scholarships, and financial aid that had been the nearly exclusive province of whites.”

 

Still quoting from the above article “from the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all Americans.  By the late '70s, however, flaws in the policy began to show up amid its good intentions. The Supreme Court outlawed inflexible quota systems in affirmative action programs, which in this case had unfairly discriminated against a white applicant. In the same ruling, however, the Court upheld the legality of affirmative action per se.”

 

“Fueled by "angry white men," a backlash against affirmative action began to mount. To conservatives, the system was a zero-sum game that opened the door for jobs, promotions, or education to minorities while it shut the door on whites. "Preferential treatment" and "quotas" became expressions of contempt.”

 

“Even more contentious was the accusation that some minorities enjoyed playing the role of professional victim. Liberals countered that "the land of opportunity" was a very different place for the European immigrants who landed on its shores than it was for those who arrived in the chains of slavery.” 

 

Now comes a new age of Affirmative Action.  Actions that are nothing more than good policy on the top but still holds the chance of misuse and abuse by those who might oppose its implementation or see it as an easy way to receive gifts that they did not earn. 

 

Take for example the Associated Press article titled Labor rules to boost employment for vets, disabled, written Oct. 15, 2013 by an Unknown Author in which they report that “Veterans and disabled workers who often struggle to find work could have an easier time landing a job under new federal regulations. The rules will require most government contractors to set a goal of having disabled workers make up at least 7 percent of their employees. The new requirements could have a major impact on hiring since Federal contractors and subcontractors account for about 16 million workers — more than 20 percent of the nation’s workforce.”

 

“But some business groups have threatened legal action, complaining that the rules conflict with federal laws that discourage employers from asking about a job applicant’s disability status,” sounds eerily similar to those stark conservatives who opposed Affirmative Action.

 

For more similarities I call your attention to an article written by Gregg Zoroya for USA Today on April 6, 2013 titled Recent war vets face hiring obstacle: PTSD bias.  In this Expansive article a few points can be gleamed. 

 

Facts like “Military leaders and veterans' advocates worry about hidden hiring discrimination against Iraq and Afghanistan war vets by employers who see the veterans perhaps as emotionally damaged.”  

 

“Leading corporate hiring managers have told researchers they fear these veterans might fly into a rage or "go postal." As a consequence, veterans say they've seen blatant discrimination.  Researchers from the Center for New American Security, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, interviewed executives of 69 leading corporations, including Bank of America, Target, Wal-Mart, Procter and Gamble, and Raytheon. All said hiring veterans can be good for business, but more than half acknowledged harboring a negative image of veterans because of how popular media — from news coverage to films — portray PTSD.”

 

“The Society for Human Resource Management, the nation's largest association of personnel managers, which published survey results early last year showing that about one in three employers see PTSD as an impediment to hiring any veteran.  "Middle manager ... is where the problem lies," says Robert Turner, who recently co-founded veteran recruitment firm KCK "You have to convince the middle of the company how to accept these folks and how to work with them and how to make them successful."  

 

“Shannon Williams last year became program director of a recruitment effort at health care giant UPMC, one of Pennsylvania's largest employers says a key challenge was educating middle managers that veterans with PTSD can be easily accommodated and productive hires.  Williams says directors of nursing units or other medical offices openly expressed concern about the safety of patients if veterans with PTSD were hired.”

 

With Affirmative Action, those behind the scenes could be heard saying that one of the biggest reasons not to hire blacks and other minorities is their lack of education and intelligence.  It did become a large focus of larger institutions to prevent the inclusion of blacks and minorities by legally finding justifiable reasons to exclude them from consideration like requiring advanced degrees that they knew that many qualified blacks and minorities did not nor could never possess. 

 

The same can now be said about big business when it comes to the hiring of veterans except their largest lie is the unsubstantiated fear that they will “go-postal”.  Try as they might, recruiters and hiring managers will still not be able to erase this factor from consideration because it is now part of any businesses’ calculus when considering a veteran for employment.  Like Affirmative Action, this hiring of veterans phase is designed to be limited in its scope and time but just as there is still a huge gap between races on that “playing field” so there will be in this exercise as well. 

 

The PTSD gap could be fixed in one stroke if all would be willing to address the root cause and stop just looking for bandages to place over this ever-gaping wound.  Remembering simply that PTSD is not limited or exclusive to veterans.  People all over this world can suffer from PTSD.  Any major trauma from anything and for any reason could leave the individual with PTSD.  It could be something as simple as a major auto accident, molestation, rape, being witness to a murder or an aggressive hold-up.  Any incident that causes our brains to take a step back and search to find a way to deal with what we just witnessed or been a part of is PTSD.  If you know this then how is it effective and smart to now paint veterans with “going postal” without applying it to all other candidates for that position?  In most instances, would we not also call this discrimination?

 

In the articles above much is said about how to deal with veterans with PTSD but none of them speak truthfully.  PTSD for veterans can be dealt with just like PTSD with other employees.  Honesty is the one and only key.  If you open your mouth and make a promise, follow through with it.  If you are not sure you will be able to complete a request from a veteran or any employee, do not act as if you can.  When you address them, address them with the same type of respect that you wish from them and never think that your title affords you the right to disrespect them for any reason.  This is how you deal with those with PTSD veteran or otherwise. 

 

History has shown us, not all veterans react to circumstances in a violent manner siting PTSD as the reason.  Media claims that because they are looking for a reason.  They seem to ignore the most consistent and common reason of all and that is because someone felt disrespected or “disked”. 

But the real reason for the excuse of fearing to hire veterans is even more selfish and sinister than expected.  The true reason behind the denial is nothing more than “job security” for those middle managers doing the hiring.  Imagine looking at a resume of someone more qualified for your job than you are.  Imagine having to watch someone you hired move into that corner office with a view, that you have had your eyes on for years.  Went it comes to giving a veteran a chance to re-acclimate themselves and self-preservation, many middle managers will choose to deny them rather than answer to them.