# MBTA Police



## smd6169

Do you pretty much have to have Veteran Status to get on?


----------



## Sgt Jack

Generally speaking yes...on one of the past exams I had a score of 95 and I was ranked at 1942 on the list as a non vet...needless to say I've never selected the MBTA again as one of my choices..


----------



## ProudAmerican

smd6169 said:


> Do you pretty much have to have Veteran Status to get on?


Yes! If you're not a veteran or do not speak a foreign language you should probably not put the T as one of your choices. I'm a vet and I speak 2 foreign languages I ranked 110 on their list with a score 99. Disabled vets make up the first 100 people on their list.


----------



## Goose

Sgt Jack said:


> Generally speaking yes...on one of the past exams I had a score of 95 and I was ranked at 1942 on the list as a non vet...needless to say I've never selected the MBTA again as one of my choices..


Ouch. I got a 95 as a non-vet and got 500-something...or maybe it was 700-something...but that was the last test, in '03.


----------



## motivated

I am vet 200 something on the list. The Disabled Vets look like the only ones who have a shot, has anybody received a post card from them recently?


----------



## smd6169

I thought you didn't have to select MBTA, that everyone was in the running automatically. But anyhow, as a non-vet I knew I had no shot anyhow. This total preferential treatment [for any group] has to go. I can see adding a couple of point's to a score, like the State Police does, but to take a whole group and put them above another, isn't that descrimination?


----------



## ProudAmerican

smd6169 said:


> I thought you didn't have to select MBTA, that everyone was in the running automatically. But anyhow, as a non-vet I knew I had no shot anyhow. This total preferential treatment [for any group] has to go. I can see adding a couple of point's to a score, like the State Police does, but to take a whole group and put them above another, isn't that descrimination?


That's a negative! If someone serves his/her country honorably in the armed forces, they SHOULD get preferential treatment in civil service jobs. I for one I'm proud to take advantage of my veteran status. God bless our men and women serving in uniform. It is a thankless job, but that's not why we serve.


----------



## smd6169

ProudAmerican said:


> That's a negative! If someone serves his/her country honorably in the armed forces, they SHOULD get preferential treatment in civil service jobs. I for one I'm proud to take advantage of my veteran status. God bless our men and women serving in uniform. It is a thankless job, but that's not why we serve.


I just want to make clear that my intention is not to offend any veterans. I too served but in the reserves, for 8 years. However, I do think it's unfair for a 3 year full-time soldier(who for example did not get deployed) to get preferential treatment while someone who served for 8 years in the gurds or reserves does not, especially when both served honorably and [these days] faced the same deployment risks.


----------



## atrain104

smd6169 said:


> I just want to make clear that my intention is not to offend any veterans. I too served but in the reserves, for 8 years. However, I do think it's unfair for a 3 year full-time soldier(who for example did not get deployed) to get preferential treatment while someone who served for 8 years in the gurds or reserves does not, especially when both served honorably and [these days] faced the same deployment risks.


faced the same deployment risks??? risks?? and what does risk entail, you must share the same everything not just the actual risk of being deployed, if that were the case then men that are registered with the selective service also share a risk?!?!? i also am proud of my veteran status and think that congress should enact a clause stating that in order to be an actual veteran you must either have a campaign, or combat action ribbon, however would never shoot down somebody who served, reserve or otherwise you are correct in that , that is honerable, but it is two totally different types of service.


----------



## Macop

smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.


----------



## DVET1979

Hey SMD, why didnt you just go active duty if you wanted to be a policeman that bad, and MAcop, why didnt you just enlist? I do agree with you however, that what constitutes an actual "veteran" needs to be reformed. I would suggest 2 years minimum of consecutive active service instead of the 180 days (with an exception for those injured of cousre). I for one served 4 plus years on active duty inluding an overseas deployment and I dont like seeing people that just do the 180 days getting the same benefits that I do.


----------



## smd6169

After graduating college I considered going active but then got on the Dept. of Corrections. The definition of a Veteran does need to be re-written to include reservists but in either case, TOTAL preferential treatment to any group [in my opinion] is discrimination. The state police doesn't give total preferential treatment to any group, they give 2 extra points. Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.


----------



## Skidaddy

Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.

WHAT HAS THAT NON-VET DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY? YOUR DAM RIGHT WE SHOULD GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. DID THEY SCARFICE WHAT WE HAVE? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT....

I BET IF YOU SERVED ACTIVE DUTY OR ON THE FRONTLINES, YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.


----------



## smd6169

Skidaddy said:


> Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.
> 
> WHAT HAS THAT NON-VET DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY? YOUR DAM RIGHT WE SHOULD GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. DID THEY SCARFICE WHAT WE HAVE? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT....
> 
> I BET IF YOU SERVED ACTIVE DUTY OR ON THE FRONTLINES, YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.


Touchy. Look, I can't blame those who recieve vetrens prefrance for opposing any changes in Veteran status treatment. I am also not trying to take away from any service you have given to this great coutry of ours. I am not reffering to people who did not serve in the military, I am reffering to people who did but do not get recognized for it. I was 11-B for many years, have gone through various advanced schools, and was ready to go serve on the front lines. I put my time in just like the active folks did and was ready to sacrifice if called upon.

What about vet's who served in country (before this war) who sat behind a desk? They did their 3 years behind a desk and are now vets? Bullshit!


----------



## smd6169

Skidaddy said:


> Also, you telling me that a none-vet scoring 100%, thus proving that he/she posses the skills they were just tested for should be ranked below a vet who scores a 70% - who obviously does not have the the skills tested...makes no sense to me.
> 
> WHAT HAS THAT NON-VET DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY? YOUR DAM RIGHT WE SHOULD GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. DID THEY SCARFICE WHAT WE HAVE? I HIGHLY DOUBT THAT....
> 
> I BET IF YOU SERVED ACTIVE DUTY OR ON THE FRONTLINES, YOU WOULDN'T BE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.


Touchy. Look, I can't blame those who receive veterans preference for opposing any changes in Veteran status treatment. I am also not trying to take away from any service you have given to this great country of ours. I am not referring to people who did not serve in the military, I am referring to people who did but do not get recognized for it. I was 11-B for many years, have gone through various advanced schools, and was ready to go serve on the front lines. I put my time in just like the active folks did and was ready to sacrifice if called upon.

What about vet's who served in country (before this war) who sat behind a desk? They did their 3 years behind a desk and are now vets? Bullshit!


----------



## billj

ad nauseam with this topic......do a search, its all been discused time and time again....cmon people


----------



## DODK911

I agree with you guys about the vet status. I am a vet my self, but what is bullshit is MA's new Vet law, all you have to do is serve one (1) I say again one day during war time and MA gives you vet status, what the F&*k! is that? As far as being a vet only if you hold a campaign ribbon thats what the US Government uses to consiter there vets, without it you dont get vets preferance.

Stay Safe and Semper FI


----------



## Skidaddy

As far as being a vet only if you hold a campaign ribbon thats what the US Government uses to consiter there vets, without it you dont get vets preferance.

www.USAJOBS.com. (That's from the Governments jobs posting webpage)
A person eligible for veterans' preference or person separated from the armed forces under honorable conditions after 3 years or more of continuous military service

Now I agree with that and DVET1979. Mass should drop a year on that (2 years total active duty)for Vet Preference. It would also give Reservist that end up getting called to active duty a chance to get active duty benefits from the government as well.Which i believe they do.I.E Vet Preference, Active Duty MG BILL.


----------



## mpd61

Or...............

You could go to Atlanta Aaron!!!


----------



## smd6169

Let's put aside who is and who is not considered a vet. That's not my issue. My issue is the TOTAL PREFERANTIAL treatment a veteran receives. Now assuming that the Civil Service does truly and accurately test for those skills that a police officer should poses, to put a vet scoring a 70 above a none vet scoring a 100 is asinine. This person with a 70 obviously does not poses the skills that the state has deemed crucial for a police officer while the person scoring 100 does, yet he may not be called...


----------



## ProudAmerican

smd6169 said:


> Let's put aside who is and who is not considered a vet. That's not my issue. My issue is the TOTAL PREFERANTIAL treatment a veteran receives. Now assuming that the Civil Service does truly and accurately test for those skills that a police officer should poses, to put a vet scoring a 70 above a none vet scoring a 100 is asinine. This person with a 70 obviously does not poses the skills that the state has deemed crucial for a police officer while the person scoring 100 does, yet he may not be called...


Are you shitting me? Do you truly believe that the rediculous test known as the civil service exam, is a true indication of ones intelligence, or ability to be an effective police officer?

I don't care if a vet scored a 50 and a nonvet scored a 1000. The vet should still get preference. There wouldn't be any civil service jobs if it were not for the sacrifices of vets. It is because of the vet that you're not required to utter the words 'God save the queen, or have German as your primary language!".

You can't choose your race, or your gender, but you CAN certainly CHOOSE to become a vet. Recruiting is at an all-time low. Do something for yourself and your country, become a vet!...(disclaimer) This post was paid for by the United States Army.


----------



## smd6169

ProudAmerican said:


> Are you shitting me? Do you truly believe that the rediculous test known as the civil service exam, is a true indication of ones intelligence, or ability to be an effective police officer?
> 
> I don't care if a vet scored a 50 and a nonvet scored a 1000. The vet should still get preference. There wouldn't be any civil service jobs if it were not for the sacrifices of vets. It is because of the vet that you're not required to utter the words 'God save the queen, or have German as your primary language!".
> 
> You can't choose your race, or your gender, but you CAN certainly CHOOSE to become a vet. Recruiting is at an all-time low. Do something for yourself and your country, become a vet!...(disclaimer) This post was paid for by the United States Army.


As an FYI, I was in the Army for 8 years and no I do not believe that the test is a valid measurement of ones intelligence or ability to be an effective police officer. But since this test is such a joke, if you can't score above a 70 (passing) you are too dumb ro be a civilian let alone a cop. I do believe that no one group of people should get TOTAL preferential treatment over another - it's discrimination. MA Civil Service is an absolute joke. No other state selects it's officers like MA does and no other state puts one group of people above another. At most they give vets 2 -5 extra points which is huge in a competitive exam like this. That's more then fair compensation.


----------



## mpd61

Macop said:


> smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.


Aaron,

Stop spreading your civilian slime around here fool!


----------



## Macop

DVET1979 wrote:
and MAcop, why didnt you just enlist? 
Why, I am already a f/t P.O


----------



## DVET1979

SMD, dont be jealous, you had your oppurtunity and you blew it. Like Proud American said, you cant choose race or gender, but you can choose to become a vet. If you want to get on a department that much, either go active, get your paramedic lisence, or start learning a second language. Thats how the game is played here in Massachusetts, if you dont like it write your local congressman.


----------



## Skidaddy

Well put....

Sucks that you have to do one of those three things, but it's well worth it if you want to get on a department in Mass that bad... (I'm glad I went active, and not just for that reason) 

What a great line, I miss hearing it: 
Thats how the game is played here in Massachusetts, if you dont like it write your local congressman. =D


----------



## smd6169

You know what it comes down to is that the Civil Service system is a bust. It handcuffs hiring departments and sets us all, no matter what preferential status you may or may not have, for disappointment. Scores are coming out soon, do they make a real difference? Good luck all. May the best candidate get the job(s).


----------



## smd6169

Hold on, I have a second language (fluent) that I listed on the exam. Is there another way to pursue getting on with the 2nd language? What kind of preferential treatment do paramedics get?


----------



## ProudAmerican

smd6169 said:


> Hold on, I have a second language (fluent) that I listed on the exam. Is there another way to pursue getting on with the 2nd language? What kind of preferential treatment do paramedics get?


Is the second language Spanish, Haitian/Cape Verdean Creole, Portuguese, Arabic, or Farsi? If not, you may still face an uphill battle. However being a paramedic can go a long way. Good luck and stay safe.


----------



## smd6169

ProudAmerican said:


> Is the second language Spanish, Haitian/Cape Verdean Creole, Portuguese, Arabic, or Farsi? If not, you may still face an uphill battle. However being a paramedic can go a long way. Good luck and stay safe.


My 2nd language is Hebrew...Does EMT, as opposed to PERAMEDIC help?


----------



## Dogma20001

MBTA is all about who you know. In my town, there are a brother and sister that both got on the MBTA 1 Academy apart. The brother was a Marine who got Dvet status for get this- allergies. He lasted a whole 7 months in the corp. The sister worked as a host at a local restaurant. Nice huh.


----------



## ProudAmerican

Dogma20001 said:


> MBTA is all about who you know. In my town, there are a brother and sister that both got on the MBTA 1 Academy apart. The brother was a Marine who got Dvet status for get this- allergies. He lasted a whole 7 months in the corp. The sister worked as a host at a local restaurant. Nice huh.


I don't buy that bullshit story for a second. Dvet status from allergies? Yeah riiiiiight. First off, in order to get Dvet status your injury had to occur as a result of military activities. At least this is how I understand it. I'm just a vet, maybe one of the many Dvets on this board will elucidate. What was he allergic to? Drill, PT, perhaps CLP during weapons maintenance?


----------



## ProudAmerican

By the way Dogma, have you received a conditional letter of employment from DOC? I received one but it warned me not to give my 2 weeks notice to my current employer. The academy starts on 09/06/05. That's cutting it kinda close.


----------



## Dogma20001

Yeah, got it. Human Resources actually called to tell me. Kind of weird. Starts on the 6th. As for the MBTA, I'm serious. This kid hated being in the Corp and did everything he could to get out and allergies gave him his ticket. Imagine that though, 2 from the same family. The girl is 22, he's 24. All who you know.


----------



## JoninNH

ProudAmerican said:


> I don't buy that bullshit story for a second. Dvet status from allergies? Yeah riiiiiight. First off, in order to get Dvet status your injury had to occur as a result of military activities. At least this is how I understand it. I'm just a vet, maybe one of the many Dvets on this board will elucidate. What was he allergic to? Drill, PT, perhaps CLP during weapons maintenance?


Probably allergic to stress. Whats he going to do call-out during spring? Pllllheeeeaaasseee.


----------



## ProudAmerican

Dogma20001 said:


> Yeah, got it. Human Resources actually called to tell me. Kind of weird. Starts on the 6th. As for the MBTA, I'm serious. This kid hated being in the Corp and did everything he could to get out and allergies gave him his ticket. Imagine that though, 2 from the same family. The girl is 22, he's 24. All who you know.


They called you? That is bizzare.As for the guy getting out due to allergies I'll believe it, but I can guarantee that he has neither vet or Dvet status. If he's telling you he does, then feel free to call bullshit.


----------



## Macop

smd6169, very good point.

Oh Scotty you been talking to Yimmy havent you. Its not a definate yet, but I tell ya, the pay with the cost of living is a very nice comparison. I don't think there are a lot of places in this country you can buy a brand new house or one built in the last 5 yrs 3/4 beds 3/4 baths with a 2 car garage on a half to a full acre for under $150,000 and have a starting pay in the low 40's.

So when are the three of us gonna meet in shoe city for that cold one..... or two


----------



## Sgt Jack

smd6169 said:


> My 2nd language is Hebrew...Does EMT, as opposed to PERAMEDIC help?


 I'm an EMT and it hasn't helped me yet...although there are a couple of pd's that look for EMT's or Medics...Mancherster by the Sea is one not sure about any others... Couple of exams back they were given us 1 point but they stopped doing it.... Going out of state keeps looking better and better..


----------



## JoninNH

Try applying for the Manchester Police Department here in New Hampshire. Work in a city of roughly 110,000 residents; we have a minor league baseball team, pro-hockey team, pro-soccer team... Friday and Saturday nights are usually busy, hard to keep from getting bored. Although, last I was told, you'll have to relocate to NH. $39-55k a year. (Disclaimer: I don't work for Manchester PD, just live here.)

http://www.masscops.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5526


----------



## motivated

One of the many reasons I joined the Army is to get Vet status. All the people complaining have the oppurtunity to join and get the points. It is not unfair at all.


----------



## JoninNH

:up_yours:

They're complaining because they don't want to take the time or effort to sacrafice a bit of themselves for the Nation. I think it's the fairest "bonus points" on the test. People with Veteran status have sacraficed a lot for this country; Disabled Vets even more. So, if in return the powers that be decide to give additional few points on the test to those who gave for this county, then so be it. They EARNED it. They all volunteered to join the Armed Forces, and they all served honorably; they earned it.

_I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post._


----------



## smd6169

motivated said:


> One of the many reasons I joined the Army is to get Vet status. All the people complaining have the oppurtunity to join and get the points. It is not unfair at all.


Get the point's (2 like state police) is one thing, TOTAL preferential treatment is another.


----------



## Macop

Civilian slime, not for long i'm gonna enlist my ass, why, I have no dam idea, hahahahahah


----------



## Guest

There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service? 

They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?


----------



## ProudAmerican

lookingaround said:


> There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?
> 
> They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?


Regarding being gay, there's the don't ask don't tell policy. As for being disabled...well...you'll just have to suck it up buttercup and cowboy up!


----------



## JoninNH

lookingaround said:


> There's a bunch of people saying you have a choice to sign up. What if you actually don't have a choice in signing up for being a VET? Such as being gay? Or what if you have a disability that would disqualify you from military service but not police service?
> 
> They DO NOT have a choice. So how do you defend it now?


:-({|=

Maybe, if your "disability" disquallifies you from military service, it should disquallify you from police service as well.:moon:

Being gay doens't disquallify you from being a Vet. They never, ever, EVER ask your sexual orientation in the enlistment process or there after. I personally know two people, one male, and one female, who served with honor in the US Army and US Marine Corps respectfully who were and are homosexuals, but whose strong desire to serve thier country enabled them to keep thier personal lives to themselves during thier period of service. :wow:


----------



## smd6169

USMCMP5811 said:


> How do you figgure TOTAL? The preferance only helps a resident...... Case in point, I lived in a non-CS town for the last test(02) and even with my VET status, I'm still below some mental midget with residency. If it were TOTAL preference as your post implies, then Non resident Vet's would be on top of their 4 choices...... :sb:


I am reffering to the total preferantial treatment between all RESIDENTS of a city/town. Take 2 people with Boston residancy. A VET who scores an 85 and non-vet who scores 99. The vet with an 85 is above the none-vet with a 99. That's bull. Give the vet 2 -5 points and tell him/her to score better next time!


----------



## DVET1979

SMD- A paramedic's training is much higher than an emt's, but the course is a lot longer and much more expensive, EMT's do receive a preference with civil circus as well if you want to get your foot in the door. As for your second language being Hebrew, I am sure any department would like to have a bilinguial qualified candidate reguardless of what the language is. However, Departments usually only hire those with a foreign language based on the needs of the non-English speaking foreigners in the community.


----------



## JoninNH

smd6169 said:


> I am referring to the total preferential treatment between all RESIDENTS of a city/town. Take 2 people with Boston residency. A VET who scores an 85 and non-vet who scores 99. The vet with an 85 is above the none-vet with a 99. That's bull. Give the vet 2 -5 points and tell him/her to score better next time!


Having most recently been employed as a senior manager in a private company, I personally take and make several piles of applications on my desks. First pile is "Doesn't meet the minimums for the job" I send them a postcard saying we've hired someone else. I take the remaining applications and sort them in to two more piles, Vets and Non-Vets. Guess from which pile I hire from first? The Veterans. To have endured the hardships of combat, and to be physically separated from their family, and friends. To wake up each morning knowing that they might not make it back to their bunk that night and still give it 110%, that's dedication, that's service, that's commitment, and that's the kind of person I want working for me. I don't care if you have two master's degrees in the field, I'll hire a Vet with three years in the military and an AA degree any-day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

As it applys to policing...

Veterans have already attended Basic Training and an advanced training school. They've gone through a training program as rigorous and disciplined if not more so then the Police Academy. A civilian... hasn't. Advantage: Vet. If I were the Chief, I'd hire someone who has a better chance of passing the academy then someone unproven.

Veterans have endured hardships while living at the point of the spear, serving, protecting and defending under the constant threat of death or serious injury. A civilian, well, he may have had to skip out on his latte last week because the buses were late. Advantage: Veteran. I'd rather hire somoene who has lived the phrase "protect and serve" and who has faced danger and fear, then a civilian who might decide it's not worth it.

A 21-year old veteran is, often times, 100 times more mature then his fresh out of college civilian counterpart. He's grown up, he's been handed responsiblity and he's shown that he's able to function under extream stress. His civilian counterpart has a lot of growing up to do, had the responsibility of working a part time job for beer money, and has earned a piece of paper.

:sb:


----------



## kwflatbed

Well Put Jon !!!!!


----------



## Skidaddy

DOESN'T GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT...:L: 

FINALLY SOMEONE BROKE IT DOWN BARNEY STYLE FOR YOU SMD.....

DO YOU FINALLY AGREE THAT WE DESERVE ALITTLE BIT MORE THAN 2-5 POINTS.
DOESN'T MATTER IF WE GET A 85 AND A NON-VET GETS A 95. YOU CAN'T REPLACE EXPERIENCE.


----------



## KozmoKramer

*Well done Jon.*
*Excellent Post.* :thumbup:


----------



## TheKid

Macop said:


> smd6169, I agree with ya, the system is bullshit, but we have to deal with it.


:-({|=...Woah wait just a minute...I wasn't about to respond but this is crazy...When I was in the reserves and took the test as a non vet I too had the same "this system is bullshit" attitude...But after serving for two years in Iraq, on patrols, in combat..not some desk jockey, eating MRE's 3 times a day and getting mail once a month in 140 degree weather, I THINK that in this era and day in age, giving us preference is the least they can do. I'm not trying to get up on a soapbox here, but like I tell my friends that give me crap about the same subject....Sign up and go over there, because the first thing you'll do when you get back is tell me your sorry...I'm sorry but the only good thing that I got out of that war was vet status...
Pete


----------



## smd6169

If you served in War/Combat, yes, you should be considered a for VET status (whether VETS should get TOTAL PREFERENTIAL treatment is another issue]. If you served on Active Duty but never got deployed, you are no more a VET the a reserviit who was in for 8 years with out being deployed. That's where I think it's bullshit!


----------

