Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2013 12:56:22 GMT -5
Vacant ALJ offices are just part of the hiring consideration. If there are low receipts per ALJ for the area served, there is less incentive to put a body into that office. Another consideration is the staff to ALJ ratio. Having been here through hiring highs and lows, no office wants another ALJ if there is an insufficient number of support staff. Some things can be farmed out for assistance like working up cases and writing decisions, but others can only be done in-house. And finally there is that matter of a budget. No money means no hires. When it comes to when and how many ALJs will be hired by any agency at this time, it is anybody's guess. My guess is that there won't be any action taken until the budget is resolved. For several years, that has not been resolved until April or May. I am with DoD and we have a hard hiring freeze accross the board in my department. They can only hire by exception and that has to get approved at the highest levels and it is done piece meal. There is much talk about a possible Government Shutdown come Oct 1. Congress only has nine working days in September and both sides are digging in. We need a debt limit increase and we get a continuing resolution. Even the continuing resolution seems to be a problem at this time.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 13:11:52 GMT -5
In yet more proof of the counterintuitive nature of this little game....My office was just informed that we did in fact get a new judge. Further, managment just told us the name and a lil background. i wont disclose the name or too much background on the board. Suffice it to say the new judge is an odar insider and is being moved to us from qute a distance away. The best part....the office in which the new judge currently works is one that also got at least one new judge. Sure in managment's mind there is some logical reason this person wasnt granted the job in the place where they currently live but, instead, gets relo across the country.
No doubt this will be a fine addition to our office. perhaps even one that wont try and trnsfer out ASAP. Even if the new judge does, gret for them. Just seems like the whole system is silly sometimes. How hard would it be to put in a new rule that says "if we are hiring 20 judges all across the country, we find the 20 then assign them to the closest office to where they currently are and they agree to go"?
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 26, 2013 13:16:27 GMT -5
In yet more proof of the counterintuitive nature of this little game....My office was just informed that we did in fact get a new judge. Further, managment just told us the name and a lil background. i wont disclose the name or too much background on the board. Suffice it to say the new judge is an odar insider and is being moved to us from qute a distance away. The best part....the office in which the new judge currently works is one that also got at least one new judge. Sure in managment's mind there is some logical reason this person wasnt granted the job in the place where they currently live but, instead, gets relo across the country. No doubt this will be a fine addition to our office. perhaps even one that wont try and trnsfer out ASAP. Even if the new judge does, gret for them. Just seems like the whole system is silly sometimes. How hard would it be to put in a new rule that says "if we are hiring 20 judges all across the country, we find the 20 then assign them to the closest office to where they currently are and they agree to go"? Are you sure they wanted one where they were? Its always possible they wanted to be elsewhere.... Although your idea (in bold) is way to sensible.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 26, 2013 13:20:07 GMT -5
In yet more proof of the counterintuitive nature of this little game....My office was just informed that we did in fact get a new judge. Further, managment just told us the name and a lil background. i wont disclose the name or too much background on the board. Suffice it to say the new judge is an odar insider and is being moved to us from qute a distance away. The best part....the office in which the new judge currently works is one that also got at least one new judge. Sure in managment's mind there is some logical reason this person wasnt granted the job in the place where they currently live but, instead, gets relo across the country. No doubt this will be a fine addition to our office. perhaps even one that wont try and trnsfer out ASAP. Even if the new judge does, gret for them. Just seems like the whole system is silly sometimes. How hard would it be to put in a new rule that says "if we are hiring 20 judges all across the country, we find the 20 then assign them to the closest office to where they currently are and they agree to go"? Now now Funky, you are talking logic! You know better! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 26, 2013 13:25:00 GMT -5
Very easy explanation for why your ODAR insider was sent to another office when there was a vacancy in the office where he/she was. The rule of 3. The selections are not worked only by location but by candidate scores and locations. As a result it is more difficult to match the candidate's score and home office unless that candidate have a very high score. I know this from personal experience. I had a very high score and was on the list for 15 different offices, including the one I am in now. I stayed put. Spouse had a lower score and was sent off to another office even though there were vacancies here. Folks with higher scores than his blocked him out and one of them was offered the job. So even if it appears illogical, there is a reason.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 13:27:21 GMT -5
Maybe i will luck up and get a alj gig in the office this judge left...then we can do a switch...lol
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 26, 2013 14:02:17 GMT -5
Funky, with what you said about curtailment of the SSA program, I just learned that SSA's will not be able to pay a case unless it is a GRID or meets a listing as there were too many "less than sedentary" ones paid. This is a real problem. Further, no one has discussed the senior attorneys passing marginal cases to Judges to be paid on the record. Typical follow through thinking on the part of management... Duhhhhh.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 14:34:51 GMT -5
Funky, with what you said about curtailment of the SSA program, I just learned that SSA's will not be able to pay a case unless it is a GRID or meets a listing as there were too many "less than sedentary" ones paid. This is a real problem. Further, no one has discussed the senior attorneys passing marginal cases to Judges to be paid on the record. Typical follow through thinking on the part of management... Duhhhhh. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 14:53:56 GMT -5
How hard would it be to put in a new rule that says "if we are hiring 20 judges all across the country, we find the 20 then assign them to the closest office to where they currently are and they agree to go"? That might be good for some, but not all. Imagine people who perfer to work either within 1-hour of City X, but if not possible, then in City Z on the other side of the U.S. where they have family, rather than in City Y that is 3-hours from their current City X. The idea def has some kinks...but there has to be a way they could get people into offices where they may actually stay. People have learned to put that they will go anywhere just to have a better shot at the job then try and transfer to where they really want to be. The result ends up costing the agency. If an insider or other gov employee lives in city A, but instead gets a job in City Z, the agency pays relo. Then 90 days later that judge is trying to transfer back to A. while such a transfer doesnt cost the agency $, it basically makes offices in "crapland" just extended training grounds for new judges. there has to be a better way. For instance, if the agency has a cert with 30 cities and they want to fill 50 slots in those 30 cities, why not just do the testing and do the interviews (agency) and hire 50. Hire them without regard for where you are going to put them. You already know that each judge hired has at least one of the cert cities on their GAL or they wouldnt have made the cert. Then send the hires a list of the cities and have them choose one favorite and one alternate. You wouldnt be able to give everyone their fav or their alternate but you would get the majority in a place they want to be and are likley to stay. If more than 1 wants a single slot in a city give it to the higher ranked. If scores and selections keep a hiree from getting either their favorite or alternate, then give the hiree a choice of being randomly assigned or turning down the job.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 26, 2013 15:06:14 GMT -5
That might be good for some, but not all. Imagine people who perfer to work either within 1-hour of City X, but if not possible, then in City Z on the other side of the U.S. where they have family, rather than in City Y that is 3-hours from their current City X. The idea def has some kinks...but there has to be a way they could get people into offices where they may actually stay. People have learned to put that they will go anywhere just to have a better shot at the job then try and transfer to where they really want to be. The result ends up costing the agency. If an insider or other gov employee lives in city A, but instead gets a job in City Z, the agency pays relo. Then 90 days later that judge is trying to transfer back to A. while such a transfer doesnt cost the agency $, it basically makes offices in "crapland" just extended training grounds for new judges. there has to be a better way. For instance, if the agency has a cert with 30 cities and they want to fill 50 slots in those 30 cities, why not just do the testing and do the interviews (agency) and hire 50. Hire them without regard for where you are going to put them. You already know that each judge hired has at least one of the cert cities on their GAL or they wouldnt have made the cert. Then send the hires a list of the cities and have them choose one favorite and one alternate. You wouldnt be able to give everyone their fav or their alternate but you would get the majority in a place they want to be and are likley to stay. If more than 1 wants a single slot in a city give it to the higher ranked. If scores and selections keep a hiree from getting either their favorite or alternate, then give the hiree a choice of being randomly assigned or turning down the job. Not to mention that the poor folks who are NOT eligible for relocation assistance end up paying for both the first move and the transfer. Either way, it is a waste for the taxpayers to shuffle folks around and a hardship on those who pay for both moves. Yep, seems like there would be a better way. Of course, no one is forcing anyone to take a job in a certain city in the first place....
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 26, 2013 15:16:35 GMT -5
The idea def has some kinks...but there has to be a way they could get people into offices where they may actually stay. People have learned to put that they will go anywhere just to have a better shot at the job then try and transfer to where they really want to be. The result ends up costing the agency. If an insider or other gov employee lives in city A, but instead gets a job in City Z, the agency pays relo. Then 90 days later that judge is trying to transfer back to A. while such a transfer doesnt cost the agency $, it basically makes offices in "crapland" just extended training grounds for new judges. there has to be a better way. For instance, if the agency has a cert with 30 cities and they want to fill 50 slots in those 30 cities, why not just do the testing and do the interviews (agency) and hire 50. Hire them without regard for where you are going to put them. You already know that each judge hired has at least one of the cert cities on their GAL or they wouldnt have made the cert. Then send the hires a list of the cities and have them choose one favorite and one alternate. You wouldnt be able to give everyone their fav or their alternate but you would get the majority in a place they want to be and are likley to stay. If more than 1 wants a single slot in a city give it to the higher ranked. If scores and selections keep a hiree from getting either their favorite or alternate, then give the hiree a choice of being randomly assigned or turning down the job. Not to mention that the poor folks who are NOT eligible for relocation assistance end up paying for both the first move and the transfer. Either way, it is a waste for the taxpayers to shuffle folks around and a hardship on those who pay for both moves. Yep, seems like there would be a better way. Of course, no one is forcing anyone to take a job in a certain city in the first place.... In words, sratty, you are correct that nobody is forcing you to take the position in a place you don't want, however, in all likelihood and reality if you turn down a position, there is a better than 50% likelihood you may not be offered another position elsewhere. So, do you take "a bird in the hand" with the possibility of making it a golden bird by transferring at some point in the future to an office of your choice or do you try for "two in the bush" with the possibility you may never acquire another opportunity at a position in the future? I think the odds are as we just saw with this last hire from the present register, people were willing to take anything because otherwise they would have nothing. Hence, funky your idea may work, but it has to have some ability to allow for other possibilities occurring in the process.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 15:22:56 GMT -5
Not to mention that the poor folks who are NOT eligible for relocation assistance end up paying for both the first move and the transfer. Either way, it is a waste for the taxpayers to shuffle folks around and a hardship on those who pay for both moves. Yep, seems like there would be a better way. Of course, no one is forcing anyone to take a job in a certain city in the first place.... In words, sratty, you are correct that nobody is forcing you to take the position in a place you don't want, however, in all likelihood and reality if you turn down a position, there is a better than 50% likelihood you may not be offered another position elsewhere. So, do you take "a bird in the hand" with the possibility of making it a golden bird by transferring at some point in the future to an office of your choice or do you try for "two in the bush" with the possibility you may never acquire another opportunity at a position in the future? I think the odds are as we just saw with this last hire from the present register, people were willing to take anything because otherwise they would have nothing. Hence, funky your idea may work, but it has to have some ability to allow for other possibilities occurring in the process. Alas, the powers that be have yet to fully appreciate the value in allowing His Funkiness to solve all their problems. Till that glorious day when I am appointed benevolent dictator, tis but a dream and all must continue to grovel for the gavel and play by the harsh rules of bureaucratic reality.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 15:43:56 GMT -5
The idea def has some kinks...but there has to be a way they could get people into offices where they may actually stay. . . . why not just . . . Hire them without regard for where you are going to put them.. . . and have them choose one favorite and one alternate. I think the problem with that last suggestion is that the agency would end up having to "hire" a lot more people than will ever accept a position at the locations that ultimately become available to them, as 100 hires may all put Honolulu down as their 1st choice. That is why you have to force a location choice before you make hiring decisions. How about requiring all applicants to rank a limited number of locations and then selecting the three interviewees for a position by dividing their register score by some weighted version of the rank they gave the location. For example, if SSA wants to interview 3 people for a position located in Crapland, USA, and if 5 applicants on the register had ranked Crapland on their list, and if the location ranking were weighted by adding a value of 10 to the location ranking, the data would come out like this to determine the order in which SSA would want to select its three interviewees: Name; Register Score; Location Rank; Location Score; Interview Rank Amy; 75; 5; 5.0; 3 Bob; 80; 10; 4.0; 4 Chuck; 78; 3; 6.0; 1 Dan; 70; 9; 3.7; 5 Emily; 60; 1; 5.5; 2 The formula for location score is: (Register Score) / ((Location Rank) + 10) Sounds great. Anything has got to be better than the current arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 26, 2013 15:44:24 GMT -5
The agency could have made this easy for people by considering where they live YEARS ago, but they haven't. Since they don't pay for the relocation expenses, there's no motivation to add one more thing to their considerations and position juggling. It makes perfect sense to consider it, but we don't call it the Puzzle Palace for nothing. Not going to happen, except in the rare case by dumb luck.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Aug 26, 2013 15:53:12 GMT -5
All of your ideas sound great, but you are forgetting one teeny, tiny little detail. SSA does not make the rules about hiring. Those come from OPM/civil service. SSA did not dream up the rule of three, the best qualified lists, GAL or veterans' preferences. The management, be it in Falls Church or a field office, are just applying the rules. So if you have a gripe, direct it at the folks who made the rules, not the ones who are bound by them.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 16:05:20 GMT -5
All of your ideas sound great, but you are forgetting one teeny, tiny little detail. SSA does not make the rules about hiring. Those come from OPM/civil service. SSA did not dream up the rule of three, the best qualified lists, GAL or veterans' preferences. The management, be it in Falls Church or a field office, are just applying the rules. So if you have a gripe, direct it at the folks who made the rules, not the ones who are bound by them. OPM makes the rules, but SSA decides who they hire from those lists and where they put them. OPM has no say whether SSA puts someone from Texas in a michigan office when there is an office in Texas with an opening. And the agency does pay for that first relo if the person is already a govt employee. Thats one of the main points. Why give a new hire that lives in Raccoon City the job in Gotham when there is an opening in Raccon City that wouldnt require relo expenses or future transfers? Those arent OPM's decisions, those are SSA's calls.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 26, 2013 16:19:29 GMT -5
You are right about the insider relocation expense. Even so, they have shown NO inclination to pay any attention to someone's current location before, so the relos for those that are eligible aren't phasing them. I don't see that changing, no matter how sensible it seems that it should.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 26, 2013 16:37:54 GMT -5
Quick question. If a position in an office within my GAL went to someone with a lower score (not much lower but lower nonetheless), is my SSA interview the sole (or even likely) culprit? Are both similarly situated? Both insiders or both outsiders? Was anyone three-struck? Based upon previous posts on this Board. It could be the agency interview or it could be references. There are several possible reasons. No real way to know for sure.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2013 16:49:26 GMT -5
Quick question. If a position in an office within my GAL went to someone with a lower score (not much lower but lower nonetheless), is my SSA interview the sole (or even likely) culprit? Are both similarly situated? Both insiders or both outsiders? Was anyone three-struck? It could be the agency interview or it could be references. There are several possible reasons. No real way to tell for sure. I agree with MPD, patiently. But, I would guess the interview may be the culprit. If you were higher scored, you were objectively the best candidate. so you losing out meansit had to be for a subjective reason. Could be theinterview. Maybe the other candidate had a higher GOBN (good ole boy network) quotient ie insider or friend of a friend of the powers that be. Maybe one of your references tanked you or just wasn't as impressive as one for the competition. Sadly, no matter how objective opm and ssa try to make this process appear, once you are on a cert it's all subjective. What you know gets you an interview, who you know gets you a job. in many cases anyway. The only objective factor I can think of to justify not hiring the higher scored candidate would be the vet priority. even then, with your higher score, they could have sought a dispensation to not use the vet mandate if they had wanted to based on the subjective criteria.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 26, 2013 17:09:03 GMT -5
All of your ideas sound great, but you are forgetting one teeny, tiny little detail. SSA does not make the rules about hiring. Those come from OPM/civil service. SSA did not dream up the rule of three, the best qualified lists, GAL or veterans' preferences. The management, be it in Falls Church or a field office, are just applying the rules. So if you have a gripe, direct it at the folks who made the rules, not the ones who are bound by them. OPM makes the rules, but SSA decides who they hire from those lists and where they put them. OPM has no say whether SSA puts someone from Texas in a michigan office when there is an office in Texas with an opening. And the agency does pay for that first relo if the person is already a govt employee. Thats one of the main points. Why give a new hire that lives in Raccoon City the job in Gotham when there is an opening in Raccon City that wouldnt require relo expenses or future transfers? Those arent OPM's decisions, those are SSA's calls. Because SSA is still subject to the Rule of 3. If a new hire from Texas is shipped to Michigan, it's likely because they weren't in the top 3 in that location but were in the top 3 in Michigan. Another possibility is that moving the Texan to Michigan is advantageous to SSA by allowing them to take another insider in Texas. For instance, let's say you and I are the liked, productive ODAR attorneys we like to think we are. You live in Raccoon City, and I live in Gotham. Assume that I end up with a NOR of 55, and you end up with a NOR of 80. We both have Gotham and RC on our GAL. Your high score has placed you in the top 3 candidates for both cities. My score has me in the top 3 of RC, but I'm not even close for Gotham. Certainly SSA can offer you the RC gig (ignoring vet preference for simplicity's sake) or Gotham. However, if they offer you RC, then they can't find a spot for me at that time. However, if they offer you Gotham, they can then offer me RC and bring us both into the fold. They very well may choose the latter despite doubling up on relo costs. I'm going to assume the Rule of 3 and the union contract also prevent them from offering us those jobs and then immediately asking us if we'd like to transfer. And if I've butchered the Rule of 3, then anyone can feel free to Internet slap me.
|
|