When Johnny Comes Marching Home

I got a phone call last week with the best news I have heard all year.  It was from a young Marine Corps veteran who told me he found a job!  I wish I could take credit for it but I can’t.  He found it on his own after more than a year of unemployment.

My New Year’s resolution this year was to help at least one veteran find a job.   The blog post titled "Occupy This!" outlined the challenge facing veterans in this difficult economy.  I thought this would be easy.  After all, military veterans are disciplined and goal-oriented.  In addition, there is a tax break for employers who hire veterans.  Who wouldn’t want to hire a vet, thought I?

Almost everyone, as it turns out.  I was blown away by how difficult it is.  Some of the objections fell into the usual categories.  “This is not a good time.”  “He’s not a good fit.” Others were blunter.  “Not very polished,” said one hiring manager. 

It’s no wonder that in May, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the unemployment rate for combat veterans under 25 was 29.1%. 

Our nation has always endeavored to care for veterans but it hasn’t always turned out well.  It was an excerpt of Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address that has become the motto of the Department of Veteran Affairs:  “…to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.”

Lafayette Park 1932

But, budget cuts always follow wars and veterans often find they are left out in the cold.  Veterans camped out in Lafayette Park across from the White House in 1932 to protest government’s failure to follow through on the promises of the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924.  General Douglas MacArthur ordered the third cavalry (commanded by Major George S. Patton) to attack them.  Fifty-five were injured and 135 were arrested. 

About 4 years ago, I joined the board of the Florida Chapter of Operation Homefront.  It’s a national non-profit whose mission is to support veterans and their families.  It’s a great organization.  Operation Homefront has received the highest rating from Charity Navigator for six years running.  Ninety-four percent of funds received by Operation Homefront go to service delivery.  A scant 3% goes to overhead.

Our mission has morphed as the needs of combat veterans have evolved.  At first, it was helping young families cope with the absence of a breadwinner and parent.  Then, the focus became helping the severely wounded transition back to civilian life.  Along the way, I heard some heartbreaking stories.

Now, the focus is on helping veterans find jobs.  But, we are not alone.  There are hundreds of charities with a similar objective.  United Way of Broward County has brought many of these groups together under the banner of “Mission United”.  The goal is for all of the South Florida charities dedicated to helping veterans to become aware of each others’ capabilities.  No need to duplicate efforts if we can refer our veteran clients to another group whose operations are better suited to the needs of that individual, right?

It’s important for community leaders to raise awareness and support this cause.  But, ultimately what matters is what’s happening at the street level.  I haven’t made an academic study of the problem but I will tell you what my experience has taught me.  The problem is not the vet; it’s the employers – the business owners, the corporate hiring managers. 

By way of explanation, I’ll tell you a personal story.  When I was with Citicorp Diners Club, the diversity police (from New York) showed up at our little outpost in Denver.  “Not enough women and minorities at the VP level,” they decreed.  In response, the president of Diners Club commanded that every other new hire at the VP level must be a woman or a minority starting with the very next one. 

It was an eye opening experience.  We found many qualified applicants we might never have interviewed were it not for the tops down directive.  During this period, an executive recruiter actually admitted to me that he would never have sent me an applicant who wasn’t a white male had I not directed him otherwise. 

So, imagine what might happen if a substantial number of hiring managers decided that every other new hire would be a veteran?  I should say that there are some challenges to overcome.  From my personal observation, I would summarize them as follows:

1. When I was discharged from the Navy, nearly every hiring manager was a veteran.  They understood the value.  Now, it’s exactly the opposite.  Few hiring managers are veterans and they don’t understand the value.
2. There is a language barrier.  Military folks speak in acronyms.  Even if they spell it out for you, you still can’t understand what they did in the military.
3. What employers are looking for today is specialized experience.  What veterans bring are general skill sets – leadership, goal-orientation, discipline.

But, those obstacles can be overcome if we, as a business community decide they should be.  There is no reason that the strengths of a military candidate can’t be a great offset to their perceived weaknesses.  Tommy’s new job has little or nothing to do with his background in the military.  He was a logistics specialist.  Now, he is a grade school coach for kids.

What’s needed is for each of us to decide that WE will lead.  So, here is my call to action.  If you are in a position to hire, decide to hire a veteran.  Make it your goal.  Decide to overcome the challenges.  In other words, if you say you support the cause of veterans, put your money where your mouth is.

So, this week’s answer to the question WHO WILL LEAD? is… YOU.

YOU WILL LEAD!

Does Any of This Sound Familiar?

Remember the old adage about history repeating itself?  See if any of this sounds familiar? 

Following the American Revolution, it was by no means certain that the United States would survive as a single country.  It was only by virtue of a series of compromises that the United States became a viable nation.  The glue that brought it all together was Alexander Hamilton’s offer to assume the war debts of the states in exchange for the establishment of a single currency.  The states that had already paid their debts thought it unfair.  Why should those who had been profligate get a bailout? 

Sound familiar?

·         The election of 1800 is regarded by historians as the first “contested” election.  The incumbent, John Adams, represented the federalist view that embraced a strong central government.  Adams’ opponent was Thomas Jefferson who favored states rights and thought a strong central government was anathema to our founding principles.  The once great friends hurled epithets at one another.  Pamphleteers aroused the voting public with slogans and insults.  In the end, Jefferson prevailed following a tie in the Electoral College with the House of Representatives deciding the final outcome. 

Sound familiar?

By 1819, the US suffered its first financial crisis.  To make matters worse, corruption was abundant.  Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, the great orator, received fees for services rendered to the Second Bank of the United States.  The country’s richest man, John Jacob Astor, paid a retainer to Thomas Hart Benton, Senator from Missouri, to push through laws that benefited him financially; and, President Monroe himself received loans from wealthy patrons that were never repaid.  Andrew Jackson, who had no experience of Washington, DC, campaigned to “turn the rascals out”. 

Sound familiar?

Jackson himself was very controversial in his day.  He was accused of behaving like “a Bonaparte” for having attacked the Spanish territory of Florida without Congressional approval, a clear violation of the Constitution.  His fiercest critic was Henry Clay who said of him, “I cannot believe that killing 2500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies for the various, difficult and complicated duties” of President.  Jackson was thought a rube – too inarticulate and poorly educated to be President. 

Sound familiar? 

Following the Civil War, it was the railroads that made the western US a viable part of a national economy.  But, not before a stock scam contributed to the Panic of 1873.  Securities fraud by the Northern Pacific Railroad brought down Wall St. firm, Jay Cooke & Co., the preeminent investment bank of its day. 

Sound familiar? 

Before the 1930’s, the Panic of 1873 was called the Great Depression because it lasted so long and brought down not only the economy of the United States but also that of Europe.  It was left to President Rutherford B. Hayes to put in place reforms that turned things around.  He tied US currency to gold and silver thereby tightening the money supply, increasing interest rates and attracting investors anew. 

Hayes’ election was controversial.  A Republican, he lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College.  But, 20 electoral votes were in dispute and Congress appointed a commission to decide the outcome.  Congress was controlled by Republicans and they decided in his favor. 

Sound familiar?

Many have pointed out that this election is the most divisive in our history.  Do they remember what happened after the election of 1860? 

But, divisive might be the word of the year.  “Cruz Wins Divisive GOP Runoff” was the headline in July 31’s USA Today.  British newspaper, The Guardian, ran a headline Sunday, “In Paul Ryan, Romney Makes a Risky and Divisive Choice”.  In May, the New York Times ran an article titled "How Did Wisconsin Become the Most Political Divisive Place in America"  The Huffington Post featured a blog by author Warren Adler titled "The Most Divisive Political Campaign in History".  Mr. Adler has written 32 novels including “War of the Roses”.  If you’ve read it or seen the movie starring Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, you know that Mr. Adler knows what divisive means. 

If this year’s election is the most divisive in our history, it will be because we want it that way.  We, as consumers, choose to watch the Sunday morning talk shows and cable news nightly opinion shows and embrace the divisive phrase of the moment.  We pass on derogatory emails about the candidates, some meant to be jocular others not so much.  We post our one sided views on our Facebook pages, read political blogs and editorials argue vehemently while hiding behind pseudonyms.

Why?  Perhaps, it’s because the candidates haven’t given us anything new to consider.  All they have to talk about is what’s wrong with the other guy.

So, what do we do?  Rutherford B. Hayes isn’t around anymore.  So, you have to ask:

WHO WILL LEAD?