tater
Full Member
Posts: 73 
|
Post by tater on Mar 2, 2010 18:41:36 GMT -5
Just seems that the process for the alj position is slanted at the opm level. I wonder if an odar attorney has had a run in with managment in the past (Such as me), is cursed from even getting an interview from odar.  |
|
|
|
Post by McLovin' on Mar 3, 2010 0:56:21 GMT -5
Just seems that the process for the alj position is slanted at the opm level. I wonder if an odar attorney has had a run in with managment in the past (Such as me), is cursed from even getting an interview from odar. I wonder about that, too but I'll just say that where I am, many people inside and outside of ODAR have had run-ins with the very same ODAR management people. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 7:41:03 GMT -5
Don't forget that OPM and SSA/ODAR hate each other. All of the ODAR attorneys seem to have been given lower OPM scores than similarly experienced attorneys from outside the agency.
Now of course just because OPM doesn't like ODAR people it doesn't mean that someone who matters, that you have pissed off at ODAR, won't be trying to get you blackballed during ODAR's selection process. Whether or not it is justified doesn't matter, since this is the real world people.
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 3, 2010 10:17:27 GMT -5
Val- please enlighten us as to the rationale for animosity between SSA and OPM. If you were right, OPM would never have changed the litigation experience qualification which opened the door to ODAR folks and allowed ODAR to select all the young computer dinks and electronic wizzards they are so in love with. unfortunate that a hearing is still required, no matter how poorly developed the record or the "body count" (the Commish is beating his chest again) could be eliminated with just some strokes on the keys.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 3, 2010 11:29:54 GMT -5
Don't forget that OPM and SSA/ODAR hate each other. All of the ODAR attorneys seem to have been given lower OPM scores than similarly experienced attorneys from outside the agency. Now of course just because OPM doesn't like ODAR people it doesn't mean that someone who matters, that you have pissed off at ODAR, won't be trying to get you blackballed during ODAR's selection process. Whether or not it is justified doesn't matter, since this is the real world people. This is the same "rationale" used to equate age discrimination with underwear ads. |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Mar 3, 2010 13:10:44 GMT -5
Val- please enlighten us as to the rationale for animosity between SSA and OPM. If you were right, OPM would never have changed the litigation experience qualification which opened the door to ODAR folks and allowed ODAR to select all the young computer dinks and electronic wizzards they are so in love with. unfortunate that a hearing is still required, no matter how poorly developed the record or the "body count" (the Commish is beating his chest again) could be eliminated with just some strokes on the keys. I'm surprised that you don't seem to know this info if you were an ALJ at SSA. OPM got sued by a group of ODAR attorneys in the past which is one factor in the current atmosphere. There are still plenty of ALJs who seem to think that simply because someone has worked for ODAR as an attorney that they could not possibly have any "litigation" experience that would have qualified them under the old definition and that is part of the same outdated attitude that pitted OPM against SSA in the past and has contributed to continued animosity between the agencies. Additionally, SSA threw OPM under the bus in hearings before Congress when called onto the carpet about the backlog in early 2007. Less than 8 weeks later OPM finally got off their behinds and reopened the ALJ position for new applications after years of forcing all agencies to use an old register where only certain special categories of people could apply. I don't believe the frenzied hiring process that year was a random coincidence including the ridiculous closing of the announcement in less than one week. Being thrown to Congress like a piece of red meat tends to upset most people and agencies have long institutional memories and their employees can hold grudges like any other humans. To address your other comment, you can make snide remarks about "computer dinks" if you like, but an ALJ who cannnot be bothered to learn how to perform essential job functions on a computer is not qualified to be an ALJ in a paperless hearing environment where the official record is in the electronic file. The days when such ALJs could get away with making clerks print out the electronic exhibits are thankfully almost over. If that means that more ALJs decide to retire instead of learning some new skills so be it. It is not a "clerical function" for an ALJ to be able to navigate the official hearing file on the computer and for those holding the old elitist attitude that anything to do with typing or a computer must be clerical, it is time to wake up and join the 21st century or get out of the way for people of all ages who can keep pace with current reality. It is not an "age discrimination" issue to expect intelligent people to continue to learn new things once they become ALJs whether it is new case law or new software that allows them to perform an essential task such as reviewing the evdience on a computer. One of our trainers for eBusiness was a very sharp ALJ who is obviously of an age where he could take full retirement and he is extremely well-versed in all of the computer programs that our ALJs need. Instead of sitting around complaining about the loss of the good old days before HPI, etc our ALJ eBusiness trainer obviously stayed current with the techonology as it changed. All of us could learn from his example as even those of us who feel pretty efficient can tweak our process occasionally and possibly find a better way of doing a task. I willingness to adapt to changing circumstances is not dependent on one's chronological age. |
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Mar 3, 2010 13:19:59 GMT -5
To address the original question of this thread, there would be no need for any black list from ODAR to OPM on a candidate since ODAR does the actual hiring and no such list exists that I've ever heard in the internal rumor mill. If a candidate has made someone really dislike them at ODAR in the past and that person gets a chance to give a thumbs down, then it is a reasonable expectation that the person may try to ruin a candidate's chances. No official or unofficial list would be required. If you work at ODAR and your HOCALJ hates you, they will get to put in their 2 cents even if not listed as a reference and you are toast. It is not a nice thing or "fair" but then again life isn't "fair" and as attorneys we should all know that by now. A lot of this process is luck of the draw just like the lottery and good people will get burned and some crummy people will slip through to the ultimate goal. I encourage everyone to not put all of their eggs/hopes in this particular basket and to keep this process from becoming too much of a focus in your life. It can become far too consuming and make otherwise intelligent and reasonable people lose perspective. Keep doing activities to manage stress, enjoy family and friends and if you get the golden ticket it will a lovely thing that hopefully didn't cause you an ulcer in the meantime.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2010 13:25:04 GMT -5
Val- please enlighten us as to the rationale for animosity between SSA and OPM. If you were right, OPM would never have changed the litigation experience qualification which opened the door to ODAR folks and allowed ODAR to select all the young computer dinks and electronic wizzards they are so in love with. unfortunate that a hearing is still required, no matter how poorly developed the record or the "body count" (the Commish is beating his chest again) could be eliminated with just some strokes on the keys. "HEY YOU KIDS!!! GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" |
|
|
|
Post by Well on Mar 3, 2010 14:15:34 GMT -5
If there is a luck of the draw element on the ODAR side it comes when OPM spits out the list of three. End up on a list with the highest score with someone who is being taken care of and your score doesn't matter. Next time end up with a group where there is no favorite and your score isn't highest and you can be at strike two. If every list you get picked for has someone that is being taken care of you get to stay at your current job.
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 3, 2010 14:49:19 GMT -5
It may surprise some to learn that I am computer literate and meet the monthly body count (I mean customer satisfaction goals). My mania is directed toward the rote construction of e-files without looking at what you are doing by staff and reps alike. Checking to insure a barcode belongs to the claimant you are working isn't rocket science. I am certainly not advocating a return to carbon paper and erasers but for an agency so concerned about PII, you would think there would be some alarm over the number of discs with multiple claimants sensitive medical rercords, SSNs, etc. being mailed or provided to unrepresnted people and reps not appointed by the claimant. In the current "get it out of here" environment, quantity has trumped quality; the X-generation just is not sensitive to the problems being created. Heaven knows what the Courts are thinking. There is a mentality that has developed to just put it on someone's to do list and its done. When you couple that with the almost slavish environment that was spawned by HPI, mistakes are multiplied. Back to my cave.
|
|
|
|
Post by kilgore on Mar 3, 2010 16:12:01 GMT -5
If there was there would be several current ALJs pumping out decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquisitive on Mar 3, 2010 16:37:39 GMT -5
So that nobody gets confused, contrary to WELL's assertion, OPM does not spit out groups of 3 to the SSA. Rather, OPM provides the "certificate of ALJ eligibles" to the SSA. Some of the "certificates" have included the names of more than 300 ALJ candidates. One certificate included more than 7x as many names as the number of new ALJs that the SSA intended to hire off of that particular certificate.
With a "certificate of ALJ eligibles" in hand, the SSA then effectively manufactures the groups of 3 pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404. The SSA does everything it possibly can to assure that certain ALJ candidates end up in a particular group of 3 for a particular ALJ spot for a particular hearing office. Certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 by the SSA to assure those candidates don't get selected. In contrast, certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 to assure those candidates do get hired.
Think of the SSA as Santa Clause. The SSA has its "naughty" and "nice" lists. These "naughty" and "nice" lists are used when the SSA applies 5 CFR Sec. 332.404 to create its groups of 3. And the "naughty" list is used by the SSA to determine -- in its unbridled, sole discretion -- the ALJ candidates that it "three strikes" pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405.
Once you've been placed on the SSA's "three striked" list in the exercise of the SSA's unbridled discretion pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405, you're toast. Think of it as similar to being on the TSA's "no fly list." But in contrast, it's easier to get your name off of the TSA's "no fly list" than it is to get your name off of the SSA's "three striked" list. And you'll have better luck finding out why the TSA placed your name on its "no fly list" than you will discovering why the SSA placed your name on its "naughty" list.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 18:15:11 GMT -5
Don't forget that OPM and SSA/ODAR hate each other. All of the ODAR attorneys seem to have been given lower OPM scores than similarly experienced attorneys from outside the agency. Now of course just because OPM doesn't like ODAR people it doesn't mean that someone who matters, that you have pissed off at ODAR, won't be trying to get you blackballed during ODAR's selection process. Whether or not it is justified doesn't matter, since this is the real world people. This is the same "rationale" used to equate age discrimination with underwear ads. "Age" discrimination is laughable. Dying young is the only true "age" discrimination. Leave it to the baby boomers to find another reason to whine. Apparently they are the only people who have ever gotten old. |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 18:25:33 GMT -5
PF said:
"I tend to agree that the ODAR/OPM thing might be a bit exaggerated given the number of ODAR folks on the register, and the number that have already been selected as ALJs, not to mention that OPM changed the regulations at ODAR's request to permit the ODAR attorneys to include admin experience as litigation experience. That is not something your enemy generally does unless ordered by a court. No such order was ever issued by any court that I am aware of. "
The adminstrative law experience was not added as some kind of weak substitute for litigation experience, but as an equal alternative. However, OPM did not seem to score it that way based upon the scoring I have seen.
Also, to second Nonamouse's earlier post, the head of OPM was given a legendary butt-chewing by a congressional committee after ODAR pointed the finger at them. Really, OPM ended up taking the fall for all of the bad press that SSA was getting over the disability case backlog. I'm guessing that Astrue did not get a Christmas card from OPM last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 3, 2010 18:27:34 GMT -5
So that nobody gets confused, contrary to WELL's assertion, OPM does not spit out groups of 3 to the SSA. Rather, OPM provides the "certificate of ALJ eligibles" to the SSA. Some of the "certificates" have included the names of more than 300 ALJ candidates. One certificate included more than 7x as many names as the number of new ALJs that the SSA intended to hire off of that particular certificate. With a "certificate of ALJ eligibles" in hand, the SSA then effectively manufactures the groups of 3 pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404. The SSA does everything it possibly can to assure that certain ALJ candidates end up in a particular group of 3 for a particular ALJ spot for a particular hearing office. Certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 by the SSA to assure those candidates don't get selected. In contrast, certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 to assure those candidates do get hired. Think of the SSA as Santa Clause. The SSA has its "naughty" and "nice" lists. These "naughty" and "nice" lists are used when the SSA applies 5 CFR Sec. 332.404 to create its groups of 3. And the "naughty" list is used by the SSA to determine -- in its unbridled, sole discretion -- the ALJ candidates that it "three strikes" pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405. Once you've been placed on the SSA's "three striked" list in the exercise of the SSA's unbridled discretion pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405, you're toast. Think of it as similar to being on the TSA's "no fly list." But in contrast, it's easier to get your name off of the TSA's "no fly list" than it is to get your name off of the SSA's "three striked" list. And you'll have better luck finding out why the TSA placed your name on its "no fly list" than you will discovering why the SSA placed your name on its "naughty" list. An excellent, informative and IMO, accurate post. You think it would pass Congressional Hearing muster? |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 18:34:36 GMT -5
So that nobody gets confused, contrary to WELL's assertion, OPM does not spit out groups of 3 to the SSA. Rather, OPM provides the "certificate of ALJ eligibles" to the SSA. Some of the "certificates" have included the names of more than 300 ALJ candidates. One certificate included more than 7x as many names as the number of new ALJs that the SSA intended to hire off of that particular certificate. With a "certificate of ALJ eligibles" in hand, the SSA then effectively manufactures the groups of 3 pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.404. The SSA does everything it possibly can to assure that certain ALJ candidates end up in a particular group of 3 for a particular ALJ spot for a particular hearing office. Certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 by the SSA to assure those candidates don't get selected. In contrast, certain ALJ candidates get placed in certain groups of 3 to assure those candidates do get hired. Think of the SSA as Santa Clause. The SSA has its "naughty" and "nice" lists. These "naughty" and "nice" lists are used when the SSA applies 5 CFR Sec. 332.404 to create its groups of 3. And the "naughty" list is used by the SSA to determine -- in its unbridled, sole discretion -- the ALJ candidates that it "three strikes" pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405. Once you've been placed on the SSA's "three striked" list in the exercise of the SSA's unbridled discretion pursuant to 5 CFR Sec. 332.405, you're toast. Think of it as similar to being on the TSA's "no fly list." But in contrast, it's easier to get your name off of the TSA's "no fly list" than it is to get your name off of the SSA's "three striked" list. And you'll have better luck finding out why the TSA placed your name on its "no fly list" than you will discovering why the SSA placed your name on its "naughty" list. An excellent, informative and IMO, accurate post. You think it would pass Congressional Hearing muster? Actually, Congress has been a very enthusiastic and supportive partner. Ahh, Congressional intent... |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 3, 2010 18:41:59 GMT -5
An excellent, informative and IMO, accurate post. You think it would pass Congressional Hearing muster? Actually, Congress has been a very enthusiastic and supportive partner. Ahh, Congressional intent... Please. Badmouthing us boomers is one thing, denigrating the entire body of age discrimination law is yet another, but telling mis-truths is quite a different kettle of fish. Congress supports tackling the backlog, not the tactics of hiring so well described above. And let's stop the baiting, OK? |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 22:49:34 GMT -5
Actually, Congress has been a very enthusiastic and supportive partner. Ahh, Congressional intent... Please. Badmouthing us boomers is one thing, denigrating the entire body of age discrimination law is yet another, but telling mis-truths is quite a different kettle of fish. Congress supports tackling the backlog, not the tactics of hiring so well described above. And let's stop the baiting, OK? First of all, I apologize for maybe sort of crossing into baiting territory. Sometimes it is just too much fun. On the other hand, don't be too sure about where Congress's sympathies lie. Current SSA management has seen significant success in bringing down the backlog, which has more than pleased the congressional oversight. Do you honestly think that Congress is going to be that interested in the details of the hiring process? If anything one would expect Congress to be pretty unhappy if anything were to trip up SSA's roll. Honestly, as I have argued ad nauseum, I really don't think that ODAR has significantly manipulated the hiring process. Sure there may be some questionable calls here and there, but certainly not the wholesale craziness that PF rants about. But for fun, lets assume that there has been a total disregard for the hiring process rules. What would be the purpose beyond the outright cronyism that PF has suggested? The people running ODAR have shown themselves to be anything but stupid. ODAR has gone from ignored SSA stepchild with a huge potential blackeye of the backlog, to where they are now the beneficary of SSA budgetary largesse and OPM has taken the fall for the backlog. At the same time they got OPM to open up the ALJ hiring to a previosuly difficult to reach class of attorneys, (scrivenors), that they have long coveted. They managed this through careful planning and clever partnerships within SSA management and their congressional overseers. In other words they are far from the bureaucratic nitwits that PF makes them out to be. So, my theory is that if they did blatantly toss the hiring rules aside, they did it for an intelligent purpose other than hiring the hubby of the secretary down the hall. Something more like forcing the issue of OPM hiring all of the ALJs from one register. PF and friends "catch" ODAR in the act and declare victory. ODAR tells congress that the taming of the backlog is over because the ALJ hiring process has been gummed up with a lawsuit again and even when the lawsuit is over they're going to have to hire crappy ALJs again. Gosh, now the backlog is just going to get bigger again... |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 23:20:11 GMT -5
Actually, Congress has been a very enthusiastic and supportive partner. Ahh, Congressional intent... Please. Badmouthing us boomers is one thing, denigrating the entire body of age discrimination law is yet another, but telling mis-truths is quite a different kettle of fish. Congress supports tackling the backlog, not the tactics of hiring so well described above. And let's stop the baiting, OK? Also, all baiting aside, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for thinking "age" discrimination is ridiculous. 1. Hardly a minority by any stretch of the imagination. 2. Everyone is an old person or an old person waiting to happen. 3. All of the legal benefits that old people get, including tax breaks, govt programs, etc. 4. The various marketplace advantages that old people get, from the deals at McDonalds to Senior-Only communities. 5. Old people get Medicare because of course nobody would insure them for less than a fortune, but where is the equivalent government program for teenage drivers? 6. Care to guess the average age of CEOs of major corporations, senior partners in major law firms, generals, admirals, congressmen, senators, presidents, etc? 7. Which age group has the lowest poverty level? 8. Which age group is universally acknowledged as the most valuable voting block in the US? 9. The sports and business worlds prove that you don't even have to be a successful old person to continue being hired as a coach or CEO. (OK this is a bad reason particularly because of Lane Kiffin). 10. Average salary by age? 11. Surely nobody has ever lost out on a job for being too young... 12. Many of the programs/benefits for old people are partly funded on the assumption that many chumps won't live long enough to ever claim the rewards of age. So basically you have a non-minority demographic with the lion's share of the power, money, and influence, (particularly in hiring decisions), which has been setting up a situation in which younger demographics will have to pay massive govt deficits, and has determined itself to be a "protected class." |
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 3, 2010 23:20:41 GMT -5
And yes, it has been a boring night.
|
|
