|
|
Post by valkyrie on May 28, 2009 7:21:06 GMT -5
Do I remember correctly that last time around the fun began on a Thursday?
|
|
|
|
Post by HogsFan on May 28, 2009 7:39:54 GMT -5
Do I remember correctly that last time around the fun began on a Thursday? If offers went out on February 26, 2008, that was a Tuesday. I'm not positive that Feb. 26 was the correct day though. |
|
|
|
Post by chieftain on May 28, 2009 7:47:53 GMT -5
Looking through the old threads it looks like offers started to go out February 28 -- a Thursday. But will it be this Thursday or next? The general consensus on this board seems to favor the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by ldtajesq on May 28, 2009 8:11:49 GMT -5
If it's today, that would match what Pixie said that most classes received about 3 weeks' notice. Next Thurs. would only give the 1st class 2 weeks notice (Yikes!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on May 28, 2009 8:55:14 GMT -5
This is as good a reason as any for me to sit and stare at my phone, right?   |
|
|
|
Post by lawandorder on May 28, 2009 9:07:54 GMT -5
From other posters, I gather that we'll have to wait until after next Monday, June 1 to hear from Falls Church. I wish I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on May 28, 2009 9:18:44 GMT -5
last year all offers came via email - no phone call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on May 28, 2009 9:22:51 GMT -5
I'm leaving in a couple of hours to go to Alabama to chase more of those white, spherical objects along green pastures, beside the still waters - in order to restoreth my soul, so I guess I need to e-mail them and tell them I will be on the road and how to find me. Sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by ed on May 28, 2009 9:22:52 GMT -5
Email notification is where the smart money is, that way they have confirmation.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 28, 2009 10:11:28 GMT -5
Two weeks notice to give notice and "move" to your new duty station?
Even for Uncle Sam that's harsh, rather medieval. Would any member of AALJ stand for that? And if not, then why do they stand by and then try to recruit us at training?
Can we have a show of hands of folks who agree that issues like this are more important than trying to "protect" a phantom class of wannabes with a lawsuit against OPM?
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on May 28, 2009 10:19:16 GMT -5
This explains why we have clients who die pending getting a hearing scheduled - they can't even hire judges in a timely manner. Hope none of us has a heart attack or something else while waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on May 28, 2009 10:21:10 GMT -5
Can we have a show of hands of folks who agree that issues like this are more important than trying to "protect" a phantom class of wannabes with a lawsuit against OPM? Wow, PA - I guess what's "important" sorta depends on who gleans the benefit... |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 28, 2009 10:27:55 GMT -5
Can we have a show of hands of folks who agree that issues like this are more important than trying to "protect" a phantom class of wannabes with a lawsuit against OPM? Wow, PA - I guess what's "important" sorta depends on who gleans the benefit... Is Membership important to AALJ? |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on May 28, 2009 10:44:59 GMT -5
Can we have a show of hands of folks who agree that issues like this are more important than trying to "protect" a phantom class of wannabes with a lawsuit against OPM? Wow, PA - I guess what's "important" sorta depends on who gleans the benefit... I'd say that any definition of "importance" that doesn't include personal bias is idealized and impractical. In comparing any two items, people, policies, etc., the determination of importance is always going to include the internal standards of judgment. These might be societally taught, religious tenets, or merely (!) the relative benefit to the individual making the determination. Even altruistic definitions will include the "selfish" motivation of feeling good about doing what one thinks is "right." For example, which is more "important," hearing or sight? Which is more "important," feeding the hungry or educating the ignorant? Which is more "important," swift passage through security at airports or greater protection of the planes? Your answers to these questions will reflect the relative benefits you get from the choices - either personal, or by being a part of a society that chooses as you do, etc. I don't believe that a computer could compare "apples and oranges" with the same ease with which we humans do so readily. I am often amazed at the extent to which people think their priorities are the "right" priorities, with no insight into the concept that others may feel differently. Before the election a friend and I who are of opposing political views discussed our choices for President. One of us wanted a leader who would give away as much of the country's resources as it took to elevate the whole world to our standards; the other wanted a leader who would make sure our enemies were destroyed. We did not have to argue - we have different priorities, and our choices were clear to ourselves and to each other. Arguing would not change the basic decision of what is most important to an individual (although in many cases, a cogent, civil argument can, in fact, provide additional information to aid an individual in determining for him or herself the importance of different things - just not in this case, since we were both well-enough informed on these issues). So, in summary, it should be no surprise to anyone that "shelfishness" plays an important role in determining priorities, "importance," and policy-making. |
|
|
|
Post by lawandorder on May 28, 2009 10:54:08 GMT -5
Wow, PA - I guess what's "important" sorta depends on who gleans the benefit... I'd say that any definition of "importance" that doesn't include personal bias is idealized and impractical. In comparing any two items, people, policies, etc., the determination of importance is always going to include the internal standards of judgment. These might be societally taught, religious tenets, or merely (!) the relative benefit to the individual making the determination. Even altruistic definitions will include the "selfish" motivation of feeling good about doing what one thinks is "right." For example, which is more "important," hearing or sight? Which is more "important," feeding the hungry or educating the ignorant? Which is more "important," swift passage through security at airports or greater protection of the planes? quote] Sorry but I want to take this quiz: Between hearing or sight? Sight Between feeding the hungry or educating the ignorant? Feeding the hungry. Security at airports or greater protection of planes? Greater protection of planes, if you mean maintenance. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on May 28, 2009 11:25:34 GMT -5
Interestingly, I would also say sight. My rationale is that I derive more pleasure from sight, and my hearing isn't all that great anyway.
However, the source of the question is a talmudic discussion (ancient Jewish books of legal discussions) in which it was determined that hearing is the more important sense because a) it works in 360 degrees and through some objects, so can warn of dangers all around rather than just in line of sight, and b) communication is quicker.
These holdings were made a long time ago, when dangers were more noisy (?) or mundane (?); but they bring up interesting issues in the calculus involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by westcoaster on May 28, 2009 11:47:23 GMT -5
We don't know what the priorities are. If the goal is to fill the first class of new ALJs in July, the first ALJ offers may be to people who live in or near the city where they are to be posted, and who do not have private practices to close, such as SSA employees and Workers' Comp judges. Since there is no opening where I live, I will follow this theory if I do not get the call on the first round.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on May 28, 2009 11:48:05 GMT -5
Two weeks notice to give notice and "move" to your new duty station? Even for Uncle Sam that's harsh, rather medieval. Would any member of AALJ stand for that? And if not, then why do they stand by and then try to recruit us at training? Can we have a show of hands of folks who agree that issues like this are more important than trying to "protect" a phantom class of wannabes with a lawsuit against OPM? I have criticized AALJ leadership on this board in the past for bringing the lawsuit against OPM. However, I don't see a tradeoff between that and issues like the one you discuss. It is tempting to say that if they weren't devoting resources to the lawsuit, or to some other illconsidered action, that would free up the resources that would then enable them to accompish some other more desirable goal. To say that underestimates the intransigence of agency management, which routinely refuses to negotiate over matters that are more clearly within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement than the amount of lead time that candidates are given. I believe you are right that no ALJ class has had as little as 2 weeks notice to report for duty. At any rate, I don't remember any. But lots of them, including mine, have had between 3 and 4 weeks. So while no members of the AALJ (as far as I know) have had to "stand for" two weeks notice (and we don't know for sure that the next class will), hundreds of them have stood for not much more than that. Please understand, I agree with you on a great deal. I believe that the short notice that SSA routinely gives newly hired judges is unreasonable, and if it is even shorter this time that is more unreasonable. I also believe that the AALJ leadership is wasting its members' money on a foolish lawsuit against OPM. The only real point on which I disagree is on drawing a causal link. RU: Hey, I wasn't trying to make a "causal link" or even inferring one. Alls I'm sayin' is that consideration of others is something we would strive for as Judges, particularly towards claimants. We were taught this in kindergarten. I would hope Judge Cristaudo would say to us at training "sorry" to only give you 3 weeks notice. Maybe I'm naive. I was weighing the two issues, and I'm sure they are many many better issues for sitting ALJs, like transfers. Heck, I know nuzink, to quote Sergeant Schultz. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on May 28, 2009 12:18:26 GMT -5
Sorry folks but I'm going to go ahead and take the credit for a thread that started with, "Do offers go out on Thursdays?" and has become a discussion of basic moral values. See my new thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on May 28, 2009 12:20:16 GMT -5
We don't know what the priorities are. If the goal is to fill the first class of new ALJs in July, the first ALJ offers may be to people who live in or near the city where they are to be posted, and who do not have private practices to close, such as SSA employees and Workers' Comp judges. Since there is no opening where I live, I will follow this theory if I do not get the call on the first round. Do we know for sure there will be more than one round of offers made to these 157? I heard that a few places, but it is not consistent with prior practice. Is it? |
|
