With the recent observance of Veterans' Day (increasingly a non-observance by all but banks and government agencies), our thoughts should turn to those who have served their country in the military forces.
Perhaps I wouldn't have thought much about it myself except that I was surprised to be recognized as a veteran during a church service. My military career surely didn't qualify me for "veteran" status.
A veteran to me always meant someone who had served during a war. It meant men and women who had worn the uniform in true conflict, whether a declared war or not. My service was in the peacetime United States, part of the obligatory ritual of young males in the military draft, without any commitment except to get back into civilian life as soon as possible. There was no concern for benefits or recognition or barroom bragging rights.
One of the main benefits of being a bona fide veteran, aside from GI Bill college money, was the advantage when it came to getting a government job: the veteran's preference. It was initially a way to ease re-entry of wartime veterans back into the economy. Later it represented a form of civic gratitude for defense duty, finally turning into an automatic benefit for anyone wearing the uniform.
Harford County has had a veterans' preference for employment for many years, as has the state of Maryland. But the two have distinctly different approaches to the benefit, which can result in hard feelings when veterans apply for jobs with both governments.
The difference was underlined about a year ago when one ex-serviceman barely lost out on a county job, which he would have gotten had Harford used the state preference system in its testing and evaluation of applicants.
In Harford, a veteran is given preference for hiring if the vet gets the same score on an employment test as a non-veteran applicant. The important point is that the veteran must score as high as a competitor before receiving the preference.
The state system adds 5 points to the score of a veteran on employment tests, 10 points for a disabled veteran. So the veteran can still score lower than a non-veteran on the test and end up with a higher final score for the job.
There's a move under way to change the Harford veteran's preference and make it consistent with state guidelines. Legislation has been prepared for the County Council at the suggestion of the Harford County Commission on Veterans Affairs.
The Harford commission was created a year ago to serve as a central reference point for former armed services personnel seeking information about local jobs, benefits, job retraining courses and other public assistance. It was the first commission of its kind created by a county government in Maryland.
Both the state and federal government have veterans' agencies, but information on local resources is not always as complete and up to date, noted George W. Mitchell, the Harford commission chairman.
The establishment of veterans' preference in government hiring has not been without controversy in recent decades.
There was strong opposition by women advocacy groups, who argued that men made up the vast majority of veterans because there had traditionally been few women in the armed forces, and few efforts made to recruit them. Veterans' preference systems would unfairly deny qualified women access to these government jobs, they said.
Since the United States ended military conscription (and only males were drafted) in 1973, another objection has been that the volunteers in the new armed services have made a choice of occupation and should not get an automatic advantage over a qualified civilian seeking the same government job in the future.
Military pay and benefits were significantly upgraded with the end of the draft Army; volunteers could no longer claim that they were losing compensation and benefits by entering the service. This feeling against veterans' preference laws was especially strong against those persons who served a single military enlistment term, then sought civilian employment for a career and claimed the veteran status.
Not too many years ago there was also the problem of differentiating among members of the National Guard, Reserves and regular military in distributing benefits. A reservist could end up with more active duty time and in more hazardous theaters than a regular military enlistee, who was given access to more rights and benefits.
President Clinton last month signed into law an act that provides equal re-employment rights for all persons serving in the armed services, protecting their existing jobs and job benefits without regard to type of service or type of unit. This law isn't about veterans' preference in applying for a new job. But it suggests that future distinctions between types of veterans may be greatly minimized.
Would that tend to diminish the value of being a veteran, leading to an eventual end to veterans' preference laws entirely? Some government-reform groups have been calling for its elimination as just another antiquated hobble on public employment efficiency.
But the political reality is something else. Even the resurgent Republican Party, with its crusade against government spending and excessive bureaucracy, strongly supports the veterans' job preference in its latest platform.
Mike Burns is The Baltimore Sun's editorial writer in Harford County.