What we're looking at is that there is no benefit for hiring veterans. We're talking about getting veterans into the civil service, where our pensions can be topped up, for those of us who have them. For those of us who don't, we're a little closer. We're talking about getting us into the civil service. There are benefits for hitting quotas as far as being bilingual: What's the percentage of your staff that are bilingual? How many are visible minorities and how many are females, and all the rest? There is absolutely no incentive, and there's no accountability, for hiring managers in any job competition to bring any of us on board.
From a top-down perspective, there has to be a very clear delineation that says that they are supposed to grab these people and give them a shot, or if we have to go and implement a quota, it tells them they're not hitting 2% of staff for their recruiting requirement. Two per cent is probably a bit high considering how many veterans there are compared to the rest of the civilian population, but we have a right to see ourselves reflected in the civil service and we're not. Injured veterans have a slightly better chance and those who double-dip, go from being a colonel or a general into an executive, they do fantastically well. But most are like me. I don't have a pension. I have nothing.
When you ask for something specific, I say it has to be blanket. There has to be an accountability mechanism. If they're not hiring a veteran, if they're not hitting their targets, whoever that manager is, whatever department that is of the civil service, they have to be at least able to explain why.