Introduction
The issue of veterans getting preferential treatment in employment has been a controversial and unresolved subject. This is considering the divergent legal and moral perspectives evident in the society. Most organization prefers to hire individuals who are competent, qualified and fit. This is contrary to the condition of disabled veterans who have a limb missing among other physical shortcomings. Considering that, these veterans had sacrificed their health and position in the society in order to serve as military personnel necessitates the stakeholders to making certain that they are assimilated back into the society despite their disabilities. In order to facilitate this, government has implemented an affirmative act program in order to ensure that there is equality for veterans in the society. The program dictates that there should be an enhancement for the recruitment, employment and progress of veterans who are injured. According to the dictates of the law, all agencies are required to develop programs, which complement the Disabled Veteran Affirmative Action Program (DVAAP). Despite the dictate of the law ensuring that there are programs that facilitate for the employment of disabled veterans, the individuals are not guaranteed employment by the initiative.
In the employment sector, organizations and companies look to recruit the best talent available. This means that the preferred pool of employees has to have high academic qualifications, the relevant experience and in top physical condition. These requirements are a barrier for several disadvantaged groups. In addition, the perceptions in the society about the disabled are detrimental to their opportunities in the employment sector. Considering this, it was crucial for the government to make certain that the job market accepts war veterans despite their physical and qualification shortcomings. The situation has been complicated with the economic difficulties and the resultant job loss whereby opportunities in the market have been diminished significantly. This situation has augmented the need for the initiative in order to ensure the economic position of the disabled in the society. While the initiative protects individuals from discrimination, it is not effective in preventing discriminatory practices in the job market.
In most scenarios, it is arduous to prove whether there is discrimination in during hiring by organizations. This premise is evident in the sentiments of Charles Muhl, who explores the requirements in the aforementioned affirmative action. According to the rulings of a California court, whereby it was stated that the creation of affirmative action suits did not eliminate the discrimination, which is experienced in the job market when disabled veterans are involved. This can be attributed to the actuality that there are no quotas to determine whether the dictates of the affirmative action are being obeyed. Therefore, it is evident from the observations of the court that, in order for the affirmative action for disabled veterans to work, it is crucial for the initiative to have quotas or set asides like is evident in laws against discrimination of gender and race.
The contrast between the two initiatives is that the affirmative action for the disabled veterans is that there are no clear dictates in order to facilitate appraisal. This results in the affirmative action being ambiguous hence subject to disregard by organizations and firms. This makes it difficult for the law enforcers to ensure that organizations offer employment opportunities for war veterans. However, in race and gender laws, there are clear conditions regarding the actions of organizations in facilitating employment chances for individuals in these categories. This is evident in the dictates about set asides, whereby, organizations are expected to fill a certain percentage in the employment docket.
There are several requirements that make an affirmative action valid in law. According to the doctrine of the Supreme Court, there are constitutional considerations that need to be satisfied in order to set quotas on an affirmative action program. These considerations are valid when there is gender or racial discrimination, situations that are acknowledged by the law. The intention of the court concerning the laws was to ensure that there is a remedy for existing discriminations. This is considering that there was underutilization of the existing programs in the area of employment. The mandate of the law was to ensure that there is the utilization of the programs in order to achieve maximized results. Considering the affirmative action for the disabled veterans, it is apparent that it is serving government interests, which is compelling, equalizing opportunities and is tailored narrowly. However, it has a shortcoming considering that it does not prohibit the use of gender or race criteria hence proposition 209 is not an impediment. This meant that the aforementioned program was upheld by the court due to the programs conformity to the law’s requirements.
In order to comprehend the ethical inclination in the affirmative action, it is crucial to explore several perspectives of ethics. In this scenario, the Utilitarianism and Deontology perspectives will be used to explain the inclination of the law. Utilitarianism is based on the ethics that happiness should be maximized in the society. This means that the actions favored by the society should ensure that there is maximum happiness within the society. The actions according to this approach are judged according to the consequent outcomes. However, deontology supports the inclination of decisions to ethics solely. This means that the outcomes and means are not essential if the ethical considerations are compromised. This means that some decisions will remain immoral regardless of the outcome. These two approaches are applicable in the aforementioned affirmative action. This is due to the circumstances involved in the scenario. For instance, the disabled veterans got their injuries during their service in protecting their homeland from foreign aggression. This is a noble cause and; therefore, they society is indebted to them. According to deontology, the disabled veterans should be ensured equal opportunities for employment regardless of their situation. This is because this act is considered the only moral option. However, considering the same program using Utilitarianism, the approach will be to consider the justification for allowing the veterans favoring treatment during employment and recruitment. Therefore, both approaches will mean a different interpretation for the abovementioned initiative hence different outcomes for the disabled veterans. Therefore, the law has to consider both approaches in order to benefit the society the most. This will ensure that the law considers the public interest and ethical concerns during the ruling.
Conclusion
There has been constant controversy concerning the employment of disabled veterans. Despite the law complementing the affirmative action program ensuring equal employment chances for the disabled, it does not guarantee employment. This can be attributed to the lack of quotas or set-asides in the law making it difficult to be implemented. Therefore, the law should balance the ethical and societal concerns in order to ensure that the situation is addressed effectively.
