|
|
Post by vinegarj on Sept 13, 2009 18:22:05 GMT -5
Does anyone know the OPM reg section on which the 90 day transfer rule is based and does anyone know for certain what day the folks who became ALJ's in June can file their transfer requests? We were sworn in on June 22nd, so by my calculations we will have been judges for 90 days on September 19, 2009, but I've heard that the requests can go in on the 18th as well as the 22nd. Anyone know for certain? Thanks much.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Sept 13, 2009 18:56:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Sept 13, 2009 18:59:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vinegarj on Sept 13, 2009 20:07:32 GMT -5
That's where I've been looking, but haven't seen anything on point there.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Sept 13, 2009 21:37:05 GMT -5
the only thing i found so far was reg 930.204 which seems to apply to inter agency transfers.
(h) Transfer. An agency may not transfer an individual from one
administrative law judge position to another administrative law judge
position sooner than 1 year after the individual's last appointment,
unless the gaining and losing agencies agree to the transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by belgrade on Sept 14, 2009 6:44:39 GMT -5
I hope this question is purely academic. The poster has become an ALJ less than 3 months ago and s/he already wants to get heck out of the place that s/he had just accepted as the place of service - in fact, it is apparently that bad for him/her that s/he can barely wait the exact 90th (or 91st?) day to show the agency how desperate s/her is about the transfer.
Don't get me wrong - I neither want to start an argument here nor do I desire to make a proposition that one needs to get stuck in the place of service as an ALJ indefinitively. But c'mon, my friends, if we know we don't want to serve somewhere the only ethical thing is to say that at the time of the offer and not to accept it while thinkinig "I'll show them how happy I actually am about that place after 90 days!" Are we really that desperate to be ALJs so we accept anything anywhere just to be able to go around self-promoting as judges?! It's a great job but it's not that great (or important, for that matter).
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Sept 14, 2009 8:36:11 GMT -5
I agree with Belgrade. I only put down places that I would be willing to stay for a while. You have to remember, however, that SSA changed the transfer rule. They could have kept it at 2 years, but they deceided to change it to 90 days. SSA had to know that this would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Sept 14, 2009 8:54:18 GMT -5
Does anyone know the OPM reg section on which the 90 day transfer rule is based and does anyone know for certain what day the folks who became ALJ's in June can file their transfer requests? We were sworn in on June 22nd, so by my calculations we will have been judges for 90 days on September 19, 2009, but I've heard that the requests can go in on the 18th as well as the 22nd. Anyone know for certain? Thanks much. You should know your service comp. date. It usually is the Sunday before you "start" on a Monday. This would be June 21. No system was clearly adopted for counting the days. Some count the service date and others do not. I don't know what OCALJ does. If you count the date of service comp date the 90th day is Sept. 18. The date of your request runs from the post office cancellation not the date of receipt. Mail your request September 18. |
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 14, 2009 18:58:35 GMT -5
I agree with Belgrade. I only put down places that I would be willing to stay for a while. You have to remember, however, that SSA changed the transfer rule. They could have kept it at 2 years, but they deceided to change it to 90 days. SSA had to know that this would happen. I would side with this viewpoint and vehemently, if this was not the year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers disaster. Those who indicated interest in serving in a variety of cities have arrived, finding that the normal protections of relocation benefits fail them completely. When they sell their homes back to relo realtors, it has to be at some really huge loss. The alternative is to keep residence 1 and or rent at a price that doesn't cover mortage and other costs. Maintaining 2 residences while hoping for real estate values to normalize enough to sell is a losing proposition. I suspect that there was at least a little bit of compassion in the change from 2 years to 3 months. Else they'd have decimated more of the potential candidates than they ddi |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Sept 15, 2009 13:03:35 GMT -5
Placing the request right away is not positively evidence of some major switcharoo on availability or unwillingness to remain in a city for even years in some cases.
There are existing transfer lists for most locations that can have numerous ALJs on it waiting for an opening for many years. It is only prudent to get one's name on the list ASAP so that if the miraculous happens and something opens up down the road one is at least in the line waiting to move up from #15 or #8 to #1 eventually. There are ALJs sitting on lists who simply want to be #1 when they finally decide that retirement is getting close. They move to the "retirement" city and get themselves settled in during their last 5 or so years as an active ALJ. There are people who want to get on a list because they are watching their parents get older in another city and they anticipate that they may need to move in the next 5-10 years.
There is another scenario when it is good to allow a quick transfer. We had some hires from different classes in 2008 who were sent from one city to another in the same state while someone in another class the next month essentially did the opposite. It makes financial and morale sense to allow a swap if possible between someone from city A appointed to city B in class #1 with someone from class #2 and city B who was appointed to city A if both want to switch and it will not cost the government the money to move them. I know for a fact that in some cases it will save the government the money for 2 moves of people who were already federal employees. As a purely selfish taxpayer, I would allow a "transfer" under those circumstances to keep thousands in relo costs from being paid out for people who can simply stop packing and stay put.
Lawmaker's point should be heeded as well. There are some real horror stories about the relo deals over the past couple of classes. There are lawsuits pending because of some particularly shady things that happened with the relo company, so the circumstances that people are managing now may be nothing like 6 months or 1-2 years ago even if they did consider the "down" market when planning. No one generally plans on being ripped off by their relo company or watching others being ripped and then having to make the hard decision about whether or not to refuse the relo package and go it alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Sept 15, 2009 17:00:16 GMT -5
Someone signs up to make a post, makes a ridiculous request for information, and before the day is out has signed off from the board. I smell a rat. I thought the idea behind getting rid of the WWW was to avoid these anonymous types of baiting posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolekole on Sept 16, 2009 11:05:51 GMT -5
When I went to my "refresher" ALJ training earlier this year, a number of "insider" and "outsider" judges had already secured transfers back "home" on the basis of hardship, so it seems unlikely that the policy change was made to help insiders specifically. More likely, SSA reasoned that they might as well accept reality, and forestall distracting efforts by new ALJs to get transferred back somewhere, especially where a lot of ALJ hiring is anticipated for the next few years. Now, if there's a space, and no one else on the transfer list is willing to move right now to that location, the new ALJs can pay to move themselves back there. SSA potentially saves on moving costs, if the ALJ doesn't sell their house in the first location or move household goods from there, and a substitute ALJ for the "new" location will be available in the next round. It seems workable, so long as ALJs aren't trying to move back to a popular location where there's a long transfer list. Of course, once there are no new spaces in the desired location, the new ALJ is out of luck until someone retires.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Sept 16, 2009 11:45:32 GMT -5
My understanding is that the two year rule was changed by SSA to accomodate certain "favorites" selected in the post-2007 era who could only be selected, due to their low scores, in locations that were not their desired choice. To accomodate these pre-selected individuals, SSA changed the transfer rule, thereby allowing them to get into their desired location earlier. Rules are -- at least according to SSA -- made to be broken. My understanding is that the ALJ union had long sought a waiver of the 2 year transfer rule. This new 90 day rule does not appear to be something that was imposed by SSA management for nefarious purposes, as some would like to assume, but is instead something that was implemented with union input and is in the interest of, and very popular among, the ALJ corps as a whole. |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Sept 16, 2009 13:14:48 GMT -5
I guess I missed the boat again but the last discussion on the new 90 day rule indicated it would not be implemented unless and until AALJ and SSA had bargained for a procedure to implement it so as to not trash the current transfer list. I suspect this whole process is going to lead to more of what SSA doesn't need- litigation and bitterness between insiders and outsiders.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Sept 16, 2009 14:16:19 GMT -5
When the old register was still in use, I used to hear all of the time about how insiders are never picked. Now it seems that people are claiming that there is some big conspiracy to pick insiders. It seems like everyone has to blame someone else.
I wasn't picked either, but I am not going to whine and complain and blame some conspiracy. Every place I have ever worked, there has been a reason why we made the decisions that we did. It may not always have looked right to people on the outside looking in, but they never had all of the information.
Quit blaming everyone else.
Maybe that will get a response.
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 61
|
Post by jazz on Sept 16, 2009 15:45:40 GMT -5
Funny how I didn't name any names, but you felt the need to respond.
I am not saying they didn't manipulate the board to bypass people. The question is why they didn't want that person to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 16, 2009 19:54:56 GMT -5
I have a theory that has proven accurate more times than I like to admit. Do not assume evil motives when the same set of facts can be equally explained by stupidity or incompetence.
The real problem with SSA hiring is that they do not know how to measure, identify and select individuals most likely to be the best ALJs. Higher scores do not corrolate with ability or suitability. The whole process is flawed but it is a much better gamble than playing the lottery.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawmaker on Sept 16, 2009 21:25:15 GMT -5
My understanding is that the two year rule was changed by SSA to accomodate certain "favorites" selected in the post-2007 era who could only be selected, due to their low scores, in locations that were not their desired choice. To accomodate these pre-selected individuals, SSA changed the transfer rule, thereby allowing them to get into their desired location earlier. Rules are -- at least according to SSA -- made to be broken. Your understanding (really your conspiracy theory), as has been explained by the other posters, is inaccurate. SSA didn't change the transfer rule. It wasn't a rule. It was part of an MOU with the union. To hear many tell, the union had wanted it relaxed even more than management wanted it relaxed. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Sept 16, 2009 21:39:22 GMT -5
I think that OGC tries to get the most of the best people - the only way to do that is to do the city shuffle, which then results in the post graduation rush to get on the transfer list. It also has an unintended impact on the local ODAR offices, because the HOCALJ has had no input or information at all into the selection for ALJs who will be in his (or her) office, the best person on paper may be poison for the office chemistry in that particular office.
The real problem, IMHO, is that OPM has no business in the testing and selection business for ALJs or employees of other departments. Do I have a soluton? Heck no - wish I did and could send it in and reap millions from the "Employee Suggestion" sweepstakes then retire.
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Sept 17, 2009 7:30:38 GMT -5
Nothing better illustrates the reason for insider-outsider hostility than LBs post. OPM tests for ALJ positions for at least 20 federal agencies considering qualifications to conduct an APA hearing. The time has long passed for SSA to justify its decisions by an APA qualifed ALJ. It wants nothing more than hearing officers it can force to swallow their pap.
|
|
