Preferential Treatment for Disabled Veterans Essay Example for Free

Preferential Treatment for Disabled Veterans Essay The Disabled Veteran Affirmative Action Plan requires that special steps be taken when recruiting disabled veterans. The DVAAP requires that the federal government award three percent of all federals contracts to disabled veterans. The Disabled Veteran Affirmative Action Plan requires that disabled veterans must be hired if they are able to work and willing. This affirmative action requires that there should be promotion of maximum of employment and job opportunities for disabled veterans within the federal government. This therefore supports the argument that disable veterans should get preferential treatment than other veterans who are not disabled. This act defines a disabled veteran as the veteran who has the right to receive compensation under the laws administered by VA. It also defines a veteran as a person who was released from duty due to a service connection disability. The DVAAP program aims to raise the number of disabled veterans in profession positions through interval jobs advancement opportunities. It also focus on increasing the number of disabled veterans in technical position through recruitments DVAAP seeks to promote efforts that ensures disabled veterans are included in recruitment efforts. (Sowell, 2004).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Disabled veterans are accorded preferential treatment than other veterans who are not disabled because, the DVAAP act dictates that are all state agencies and institutions increase employment opportunities fro disabled veterans. The veteran’s affairs department advocates nard for assistance to be granted to veterans owned small businesses. The federal regulations for disabled veterans provide that employments should not request self identities during recruitment opportunities. Veterans must not identify their disability status before they have been offered a job. On many occasions, disabled veterans, even when willing to work and qualified, are shut of the workforce due to the discrimination. The federal law provides that preferential treatment be given to veterans seeking employment. The law ensures that the disabled veterans on a preferential basis, the full employment services presented by law. Disabled veterans should be provided with intensive employment and training services to prepare them accordingly for the jobs. Affirmative Action for women and minority   Ã‚     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Affirmative action for women and minority is established with an attempt to redistribute economic power equally by ensuring that employers give preference to women and minorities during recruitments. Affirmative action is a plan initiated to remedy any cases of discriminating behavior that have occurred in an institution in the past. Affirmative action gives preferential to women through a range of measures such as lower scores for test for jobs or recruitment procedures. Due to the long history of discrimination cases occurring based on race and sex, affirmative action programs have been initiated and directed towards women and minorities. This has been done to promote recruitment, retention, promotion and educational opportunities accorded to women and minority. (Charles J Muhl.). Strategies used in affirmative action programmes are focused on expanding the pool of job or admission applicants. This can be done through using strategies that reach outside the traditional channels set especially by placing employment notices in areas where the women and minorities will easily see them. Affirmative action programs are increasing on the job training opportunities that encourage occupation mobility within the workplace. Affirmative Action Programs for women and minority have been instituted and granted the force of law. Affirmative actions for women and minority in employment were implemented to prohibit discrimination by employers based on sex. Women should be accorded equal opportunities just like their male counterparts. The affirmative action for women and minorities addresses issues such as prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace, recruitment and hiring methods, discrimination complaints and promotions.      Ã‚  The federal law requires that institutions determine whether women and minorities are being underutilized in their companies. If this is the case, companies must take steps to correct this situation, especially through the use of recruitment and outreach programs and also put more emphasize on eliminating barriers that hinder equal employment opportunities. Institution managers and supervisors must ensure that steps are taken to ensure women and minorities are aware of available job opportunities. Women and minority groups must be given full and fair consideration based on their abilities and qualifications. Due to the discrimination of women and minorities in the learning centers, affirmative action programs have been initiated to ensure that these groups are accorded equal opportunities in the education system. This also ensures that trained women and minority are included in the hiring and promotional activities. Affirmative action for women and minorities ensure that qualified women and minorities are included in the candidates’ pool. (Ball, Haque, 2003). Affirmative Action Arguments   Ã‚   Based on the affirmative action, three arguments have been offered, which include social good also known as the utilitarian consideration, compensatory justice referred to as deontological theory and the ideal of equality. The social good, states that the society will benefit more by initiating programs that enrich and empower women. By advancing women, the society is required to offer employment opportunities to women and minorities based on their qualifications. However, this affirmative action has led to more qualified men being left out of job opportunities in order to promote women who are even less qualified. As a result, institutions are using the quota system instead of the merit system to allocate jobs. Many people have argued that this system has promoted less qualified candidates and left out the more qualified candidates. Affirmative action therefore creates a big wedge between individual worth and economic success. This is evidence enough that the quota system does not benefit the society. Women who succeed in their companies are not accorded the respect they deserve. This is because many people claim that the women succeed due to preferential treatment policies that are directed to the women and minority. The implementation of affirmative action created a bad tradition in the workplace, whereby employers are quick to promote women without qualification or place them in inappropriate job positions so as to meet the affirmative action requirements. By doing this, employers put women and minorities at a higher risk of failing in their jobs and their after lay the blame on their sex, race and preferential treatment policies. (Gilbert, Stead, Ivancevich, 1999).   Ã‚  Ã‚   The compensatory justice argument, also known as deontological theory, claims that if a person causes injury to someone else they should remedy the damage. Affirmative action claims that even the descendants of the injured person should be compensated as well. Objections to this argument state that those individuals being compensated are not victims in any way and those being forced to pay the compensation have not done any wrong. Those objecting to this argument claim that since some minority groups have been subjected to historical prejudice previously, this has been used to classify all low earning groups as victims of injustice. This argument claims that since women have been victims of prejudice and discrimination in the employment and education sectors, they should be given preferential treatment when recruiting, training or hiring.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The ideal of equality is the most common moral argument for affirmative action programs. Under this argument women and minority groups should be accorded equal treatment and rights just like men and other groups. Under law employers must not use discriminatory biases such as gender, race, or national origin to hire or recruit candidates. However, some government agencies and constitutions have implemented policies that oppress both the women and minorities. Some government policies restrict the employment of certain groups especially women and people of color in certain job categories. The main objection of this argument is that equality means that everyone should be granted equal treatment and not being given priviledges. Most women advocating for equal treatment, are actually advocating for priviledges in employment opportunities. (Allen, 2003).   Ã‚   In the compensatory justice argument, both men and women should be given justice because; all human beings should be given what they individually deserve. Men should be given employment opportunities just like women. According to the deontological theory, the rightness of the means justifies the action. According to this, both men and women should be accorded their rights equally. Conclusion   Ã‚  Ã‚   Disabled veteran affirmative action program is a way of promoting the lives of disabled veterans released from active duty due to service disability, by ensuring they get equal employment opportunities like other veterans who are not disabled. Affirmative action for women and minorities on the other hand, seeks to promote women and minority groups at the expense of other qualified candidates. Affirmative action for women has led to the employment of women with less qualification at the expense of more qualified men. Affirmative action for women and minorities, to some extent, does not promote race or gender equality. However, the Disabled Veteran Affirmative Action Program promotes equality among all veterans, whether disabled or not disabled. References Allen, R. (2003). Examining the implementation of affirmative action in law enforcement. Public Personnel Management, 32(3), 411. Ball, C., Haque, A. (2003). Diversity in religious practice: Implications of Islamic values in the public workplace. Public Personnel Management, 32(3), 315. Charles J Muhl. Monthly Labor Review. Washington: Jan 1999. Vol. 122, Iss. 1; p. 48 (2 pages). Gilbert, J.A., Stead, B.A., Ivancevich, J.M. (1999). Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61-76. Sowell, T. (2004). Affirmative Action around the World: An Empirical Study. Yale University Press.