|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 21, 2009 12:22:17 GMT -5
As might be expected with the new 90 rule instead of the two year rule, there are more names on most sites.
If you have questions about the number of requests to or from a site, let me know. This will be the list used by the agency in the small "mini-hire" that supposedly will take place late this calendar year.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantherfan1 on Oct 21, 2009 15:52:08 GMT -5
How are transfer offers made? By e-mail or phone?
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Oct 21, 2009 16:56:12 GMT -5
Mine came via government e-mail with susbequent US mail confirmation.
|
|
wyatt
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by wyatt on Oct 21, 2009 19:22:08 GMT -5
Does anyone have any information regarding the small hire that may or may not take place in the next few months?
Also, if you just completed the SI and WD this month with 10 point vets and those who won appeals of their application denials, do you think you would have an NOR any sooner than the usual 3 or so months?
Any ideas on these questions would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Oct 22, 2009 6:08:37 GMT -5
As might be expected with the new 90 rule instead of the two year rule, there are more names on most sites. If you have questions about the number of requests to or from a site, let me know. This will be the list used by the agency in the small "mini-hire" that supposedly will take place late this calendar year. Personally I have some doubts about any "mini-hire." First of all, we have heard rumors of mini-hires before, and nothing ever came of them. Secondly, in about two weeks all of the old timers are going to start burning their "use or lose" leave at a huge rate, so one would wonder if they could actually find enough people to process even a mini-hire. Finally, none of the ALJ training people I know have been sounded out as to their availability for a training this winter or early spring. |
|
|
|
Post by nightowl on Oct 22, 2009 17:33:26 GMT -5
I am not aware of any mini-hire that will take place before the end of the year. SSA plans on hiring approximately 180 more ALJs in FY 2010. Mgt. is counting the October hires as part of the 226 hires for FY 2010. The problem now is that there are only between 10 - 20 slots left nationwide, and they need to find office space for the new hires. Obviously, the new offices will cure some of that. SSA still wants OPM to re-open the register, but OPM has not determined if they will comply with the request from SSA. Apparently, they are planning on hiring people around July with training in August and September.
|
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Oct 23, 2009 9:31:31 GMT -5
Please enlighten me Wyatt. I was totally unaware that OPM had afforded any relief to rating appellants with respect to re-testing. I have just heard about a few points added to or subtracted from the AR submissions on file. If you have some contrary information please share it if you can.
|
|
wyatt
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by wyatt on Oct 25, 2009 10:27:13 GMT -5
I may be mistaken but I got the impression that during the recent testing for 10 points vets there were some people testing who had not been given a rating on their AR and had won their appeal. Again though, I may be mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by wallace on Oct 25, 2009 14:32:47 GMT -5
I may be mistaken but I got the impression that during the recent testing for 10 points vets there were some people testing who had not been given a rating on their AR and had won their appeal. Again though, I may be mistaken.[/quote] This is correct. I know for certain of one individual whose appeal was granted and that this person just took the WD and SI. |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Oct 26, 2009 8:32:20 GMT -5
I also know of an applicant who OPM ridiculously found not qualified who won her appeal and is now taking the WD and SI.
|
|
rutle
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by rutle on Oct 26, 2009 10:22:36 GMT -5
Do any of the sitting judges on this board know where to find the new transfer list other than the union website? Surely you don't have to be a dues paying union member to access this list.
|
|
|
|
Post by MadDog on Oct 26, 2009 15:17:15 GMT -5
I'm just guessing of course but I believe that, for privacy reasons, names of proposed transferees will not be disclosed. However, perhaps it would be helpful to have the total number of people on the transfer list by location.
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Oct 26, 2009 17:45:02 GMT -5
Do any of the sitting judges on this board know where to find the new transfer list other than the union website? Surely you don't have to be a dues paying union member to access this list. The only place it is posted is on the AALJ website which requires a user name and password to access. The List is a personnel matter between the Union and management and isn't for the public. If you are a sitting ALJ but not a union member, your local union rep would be happy to provide a copy to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Oct 27, 2009 7:51:52 GMT -5
or pm me and I will send it.
|
|
|
|
Post by darious on Oct 29, 2009 21:43:06 GMT -5
Join the union - then you have access to this and a lot of other information. The union benefits all of us...so join and support the cause!
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Oct 30, 2009 9:09:30 GMT -5
And be able to influence any future decisions made by the union ostensibly on our behalf!
|
|
|
|
Post by lamplighter on Oct 30, 2009 10:24:29 GMT -5
Any take on the e-mail received today regarding the timing of the transfer request? I don't have the article in front of me, so I'm not sure if there is anything in the contract or not on this point.
My guess is that there will be those whose status is adversely affected by application of the posr-mark rule
|
|
|
|
Post by pantherfan1 on Oct 30, 2009 11:45:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure that the AALJ contract is relevant to this issue. The 5-31-09 e-mail from the Chief ALJ waiving the 2-year eligibility rule in said contract left only OPM's duration requirement for transfer eligibility (see 20 CFR 330.501). It does appear that those people who misunderstood said OPM regulation and made their requests on their 90th day on the job rather than their 91st day will be adversely affected.
|
|
|
|
Post by lamplighter on Oct 30, 2009 15:39:29 GMT -5
Looking at the regulation:
ยง 330.501 General restriction on movement after competitive appointment.
An agency may promote an employee or reassign him to a different line of work, or to a different geographical area, and it may transfer a present employee or reinstate a former employee of the same or another agency to a higher grade or different line of work, or to a different geographical area, only after 3 months have elapsed since the employee's latest nontemporary competitive appointment. OPM may waive the restriction against movement to a different geographical area when it is satisfied that the waiver is consistent with the principles of open competition.
You can't accomplish the transfer prior to three months. Doesn't necessarily mean you can't request it
|
|
