|
Post by bartleby on Aug 5, 2013 16:13:01 GMT -5
For whatever reason, the insiders I know that have applied this time around are not posting on the board. They read it and we discuss it, but they aren't posting.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 5, 2013 16:30:07 GMT -5
For whatever reason, the insiders I know that have applied this time around are not posting on the board. They read it and we discuss it, but they aren't posting. Fear the Reaper. I think many feel if they post on the Board and are discovered who they are, they may pay a price for the post and not have a shot at a position with SSA.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Aug 5, 2013 17:05:19 GMT -5
For whatever reason, the insiders I know that have applied this time around are not posting on the board. They read it and we discuss it, but they aren't posting. Fear the Reaper. I think many feel if they post on the Board and are discovered who they are, they may pay a price for the post and not have a shot at a position with SSA. ...The NSA... ...The NSA...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2013 18:04:46 GMT -5
The prevailing rumor is this new register is expected to last 3 years. Further, the best info and speculation is the size of the register is based on the number of vacancies each agency that hires from it is expected to have over the period the register is expected to last. It has been reported on here that SSA loses about 10% of its aljs each year to retirement and other atrition. Further, there are 90+ vacancies now and up to 30 are being hired next month. This means 510 expected SSA alj vacancies over the 3 year life expectancy of the register. The other agencies have less than 10% of the total aljs of SSA. So lets say they have 40 vacancies over the three years and go with a 550 number for total vacancies. If the new register has 1500 on it, that's around a 35% shot of landing the job for everyone on the register. Should 10% drop out or flub phase 3, those on the register inch closer to 40% shot. These numbers assume 2 factors as true that are obviously false. For them to be accurate, all candidates on the register would have to be equal. Score differentials, gal differences and maybe insider/outsider status will increase the odds for some and decrease the odds for others. The largest falsity is the actuality of hiring, however. If we can take the hiring of 30 when there are 90+ vacancies as an indicator, apparently agencies will be constrained by the budget to fill no more than a third of their vacancies. If thatis the case, no more than 183 slots will be filled and baseline chances hover around 12% on a register of 1500. Then, though, the score, gal and perhaps insider/outsider status become even more a factor. Of course, no one can predict the budgetary future over the expected 3 year life of the register. Noone can even be sure of the life span of the register orits final numbers. So all of thisis an exercise in rank speculation. As someone noted above, all you can do is try to get the highest score possible. Of all the factors that determine whether you get the gig or not, your scoreis all you can control. If you score in the top 3rd, have vet pref, have a relatively wide gal and are an insider, my gut says you have as good a chance to land an alj job as any other job you could apply for. Remove anyone of those facts and you still have a decent shot, remove 2 and its a crapshoot. Take away 3 and you have about as much chance as if you bought lottery tickets. None of the 4? Maybe you could sell some tshirts that say "I made the register". Just my crazy opinion based on pure rumor, speculation and reading this board. Great logic problem practice!!!!
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Aug 5, 2013 21:15:25 GMT -5
8-)Why bother?
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Aug 6, 2013 4:54:53 GMT -5
For whatever reason, the insiders I know that have applied this time around are not posting on the board. They read it and we discuss it, but they aren't posting. It could be that they don't want the added stress of people sniping about some supposed advantage held by insiders when they try to converse. I know that it made me weary before my lengthy vacation from this board. ODAR is not a paradise of a workplace, and the ALJ and other positions have changed quite a bit. The past few years have changed many things and not in a good way. Many people simply have their heads down and their noses to the grindstone. End of the month (insert whip crack), loads of mandatory training, emails and nonsense from incompetent or lazy staff slowing your speed in processing (crack)... no time or energy for chats. I predict higher than expected attrition over the next 10 years if the economy improves and the agency management does not. We are already seeing ALJs and experienced staff running for the door well before the age and years of service at ODAR that were typical of previous decades.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 7, 2013 9:06:53 GMT -5
To add another nuance to the percentage of odds, the Acting Commissioner just sent out a new initiative about what we are doing as an agency to strengthen diversity and inclusion (D&I). Does this mean that a larger percent of the hiring will be diverse versus non-diverse people?? Does this go above and beyond affirmative action?? Don't shoot the messenger, I am just relaying the news to those that were not aware of it..
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 7, 2013 12:51:35 GMT -5
To add another nuance to the percentage of odds, the Acting Commissioner just sent out a new initiative about what we are doing as an agency to strengthen diversity and inclusion (D&I). Does this mean that a larger percent of the hiring will be diverse versus non-diverse people?? Does this go above and beyond affirmative action?? Don't shoot the messenger, I am just relaying the news to those that were not aware of it.. I was wondering the exact same thing when I saw that email this morning. Not sure what to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 7, 2013 13:02:57 GMT -5
To add another nuance to the percentage of odds, the Acting Commissioner just sent out a new initiative about what we are doing as an agency to strengthen diversity and inclusion (D&I). Does this mean that a larger percent of the hiring will be diverse versus non-diverse people?? Does this go above and beyond affirmative action?? Don't shoot the messenger, I am just relaying the news to those that were not aware of it.. I was wondering the exact same thing when I saw that email this morning. Not sure what to think of it. All Federal Hiring has by Executive Order required diversity as mandated since 2011. I would think there could not be too much of a swing from present practice because of Supreme Court decisions in the last ten years. All things being equal an agency may use diversity as a factor in choosing a candidate, but it cannot be the sole overriding factor for the choice in the first place. Not much different than a Veteran's Preference allowing someone's past military service to be a factor in the hiring process.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 7, 2013 13:06:43 GMT -5
I was wondering the exact same thing when I saw that email this morning. Not sure what to think of it. All Federal Hiring has by Executive Order required diversity as mandated since 2011. I would think there could not be too much of a swing from present practice because of Supreme Court decisions in the last ten years. All things being equal an agency may use diversity as a factor in choosing a candidate, but it cannot be the sole overriding factor for the choice in the first place. Not much different than a Veteran's Preference allowing someone's past military service to be a factor in the hiring process. Yeah, but this email touted a "new" initiative, like this is not business as usual since the EO in 2011.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 7, 2013 13:20:05 GMT -5
All Federal Hiring has by Executive Order required diversity as mandated since 2011. I would think there could not be too much of a swing from present practice because of Supreme Court decisions in the last ten years. All things being equal an agency may use diversity as a factor in choosing a candidate, but it cannot be the sole overriding factor for the choice in the first place. Not much different than a Veteran's Preference allowing someone's past military service to be a factor in the hiring process. Yeah, but this email touted a "new" initiative, like this is not business as usual since the EO in 2011. The same U.S. Supreme Court decisions still apply, no matter if a new initiative or not by SSA.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 7, 2013 13:26:39 GMT -5
Wonder if it is too late to update my biographical application section by pointing out that I'm homosexual, formerly a woman, a druid and of mixed decent including asian, african, latin american, polynesian and native american? With a 5 on my EA. LOL
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 7, 2013 13:43:01 GMT -5
Wonder if it is too late to update my biographical application section by pointing out that I'm homosexual, formerly a woman, a druid and of mixed decent including asian, african, latin american, polynesian and native american? With a 5 on my EA. LOL You are probably just a little too late for that change now funky. ROTFLOL!
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 7, 2013 15:14:46 GMT -5
MPD, you noted, "The same U.S. Supreme Court decisions still apply, no matter if a new initiative or not by SSA." Foolish boy, do you not realize by now that OPM and SSA and ODAR do as OPM, SSA, and ODAR want to do?? EEOC cases have shown that the Government's idea of affirmative action has nothing to do with two individuals being equal it is wether one is diverse or not..
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 7, 2013 16:21:16 GMT -5
MPD, you noted, "The same U.S. Supreme Court decisions still apply, no matter if a new initiative or not by SSA." Foolish boy, do you not realize by now that OPM and SSA and ODAR do as OPM, SSA, and ODAR want to do?? EEOC cases have shown that the Government's idea of affirmative action has nothing to do with two individuals being equal it is wether one is diverse or not.. Pattern of behavior bartleby, pattern of behavior. The hirings will speak for themselves as to patterns.
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Aug 7, 2013 17:06:53 GMT -5
With all due respect to everyone posting, I have to voice a dissent of some sort. When I first started representing clients at OHA (aka ODAR), all of the ALJ's were white males and the vast majority were vets. My clients and most of the clients at this hearing office were a lot more diverse than the ALJ's. And there were disconnects that at times forced me to almost be a witness rather than a rep (e.g. how it was possible that my client was a Vietnam vet but yet was claiming he was illiterate -- I knew how because I grew up in a small rural town, with a large military population and segregated schools). I knew how to talk the military way of life because I was a military brat (my father served for 20 years) and my spouse was an active duty military officer (now retired after serving 24 years). But the ALJ's, with some exceptions, could not relate to the clients. Luckily most of the ALJ's were really good and knew the regs. As I have said before, they trained me well. I was there when the office hired its first ALJ of color and its first female ALJ. You would have thought the world ended. ODAR is much more diverse now and I think that is one of the positive changes. Having a diverse ALJ corps does not mean I am going to win more often but at least my clients see a more diverse group of people on the other side of the bench.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 7, 2013 17:20:26 GMT -5
"ODAR is much more diverse now and I think that is one of the positive changes. Having a diverse ALJ corps does not mean I am going to win more often but at least my clients see a more diverse group of people on the other side of the bench." Which is important, because reducing the percentage of white people in a company, organization, government, neighborhood, etc, is always a good thing. It's been proven.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Aug 7, 2013 17:23:00 GMT -5
8-)Affirmative action is the worst example of racial profiling. Whatever, it should be based on the qualifications of those applying for a particular job. But then you come down to two applicants, one in the wrong category, and one in the affirmative one. Both are equally qualified, who is racially profiled? It just goes to show you what happens when government gets involved.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 7, 2013 17:24:49 GMT -5
Delta, reducing the percentage of whites is considered a GOOD form of racial profiling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 17:34:58 GMT -5
reducing the percentage of white people in a company, organization, government, neighborhood, etc, is always a good thing. It's been proven. So true. I don't even know why we let white people procreate anymore. Isn't there an island we can ship them to somewhere on the other side of the world? Or maybe we should just shove them all in a furnace and light a match.
|
|