|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 18, 2013 14:47:50 GMT -5
There is also the issue that when multiple openings in one office occur they get the top 6, 9, etc.... not just the top 3. So if they can skim the top 3 off to other locations where they are top 3 then ODAR can look at 4, 5, & 6. agreed Gaidin. And going back to hopefalj's excellent summary its actually pretty easy to eliminate vets with wide-open or even multiple GALs. It seems like a Gordian's Knot for vets and high scorers - if you want to get the job, have a wide-open gal. But if it is more than 3 and you get passed over on 3 certs, you're out. This is where the smoke-filled room can help. The situation screams out for equity and I hope the suits in the room would choose not to wield the 3-strike club in many instances. But if you 3-strike some and not others - on the same register, is that also not appeal fodder? I'm certainly not trying to encourage litigation here and the heavyweights at OPM don't need my help in making personnel decisions, but you just know that some on this board (and off) have felt very wronged by this process and are just looking for perceived anomalies that they can point to.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 18, 2013 14:51:39 GMT -5
There is also the issue that when multiple openings in one office occur they get the top 6, 9, etc.... not just the top 3. So if they can skim the top 3 off to other locations where they are top 3 then ODAR can look at 4, 5, & 6. agreed Gaidin. And going back to hopefalj's excellent summary its actually pretty easy to eliminate vets with wide-open or even multiple GALs. It seems like a Gordian's Knot for vets and high scorers - if you want to get the job, have a wide-open gal. But if it is more than 3 and you get passed over on 3 certs, you're out. This is where the smoke-filled room can help. The situation screams out for equity and I hope the suits in the room would choose not to wield the 3-strike club in many instances. The three strike club, at least, is made of foam rubber, in that it's entirely discretionary. Even after having three struck an applicant, an agency is always free to take another look. Reports on the last cert from the current register, on this board, were adamant that at least one three struck person was put back on the cert and was selected.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 18, 2013 14:56:28 GMT -5
I heard that as well, observer. And that will have to be another one that falls in the category of "mysteries" that may never be solved.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Oct 19, 2013 7:15:42 GMT -5
There is also the issue that when multiple openings in one office occur they get the top 6, 9, etc.... not just the top 3. So if they can skim the top 3 off to other locations where they are top 3 then ODAR can look at 4, 5, & 6. That's me, the cream underneath the milk scum.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 19, 2013 12:49:39 GMT -5
Just so I understand. If you only have one city on your GAL and it is pretty popular, you would have to be in the top 3 for that city to get on the cert? Also, do they look consider the transfer list and make those decisions before the cert? Please read the ALJ job announcement, it answers the majority of questions that you may have. Here is what it says: Receiving Employment Consideration: If you receive a NOR with a final numerical rating, your name will be placed on the new ALJ register. The ALJ register is a list of candidates eligible for selection used to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration when they have entry level ALJ vacancies to fill. Names are referred in descending rank order, based on the duty location of the position(s) to be filled and the geographical preference of candidates. It is the responsibility of the hiring agency to make selections from the list of candidates referred for employment consideration from among the highest three available names, taking into consideration veterans' preference and other civil service rules.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 19, 2013 13:12:53 GMT -5
To answer your other question, they usually work the transfer list before hiring, but not before a cert. There have been many times when a city appeared on a cert, reflecting an opening, but any position there was then filled with a transfer, not a new hire.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Oct 19, 2013 14:55:14 GMT -5
Sorry,but that does not make it crystal clear. For example, there is one spot in location X and I have only put location X on my GAL. The hiring agency is authorized to look at the three top scoring candidates who have put X on their GAL? If you have only one city on your GAL, if that city comes up on a cert, you do need to be in the top three to be considered. You may end up on the cert if you have the fourth, or possibly even the fifth, highest score, as they often have more on the cert than just exactly three times the number of cities on the cert. to be sure they actually end up with three to consider for each city. But, with that narrow a GAL, safe to say a high score is a must to get on a cert. The people they end up considering for city X may not be the three highest scoring people who put that city on their GAL. It depends on the order in which they fill positions, etc. The three highest scorers with that city on their GAL may get selected for other cities before city X.
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 19, 2013 15:25:37 GMT -5
I have defended non selection cases before EEOC where the claimant alleges discrimination for non selection, particularly when #3 was selected over those in the first two positions. Here is how the process has worked at the agency that I did personnel law and we selected contract specialists.
The Human Resources personnel would grade and rank the applicants and we would get a certificate listing all of the folks whose scores made the cut. In many cases 90 was used as the cut off. So if your application scored a 90 you were on the cert. Sometimes we had up to 40 people on the cert. If we only had one position to fill then we could only from the three top candidates with vets preference in play. So if Number one was a vet and number two or three were not, number one got the job.
If you choose a popular location like NYC, San Antonio, Orlando or San Diego, you have to hope for 1) A vacancy to be filled from the cert (not a transfer) and 2) that you are one of the top three candidates for the location and that the agency wants to hire you.
There are plenty of threads on the transfer list (see mcb's posts) and if you do have a popular location there is a good likelihood that there is a waiting list composed of ALJs waiting to go transfer to that popular location. Chances of them filling that position with a new hire are possible but small.
So you need the stars to line up for you if your GAL is limited to one location and that location happens to be a popular location with ALJs who want to transfer to it--you need a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by gottabeme on Oct 19, 2013 19:19:42 GMT -5
I believe in miracles!
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 20, 2013 9:04:59 GMT -5
Good luck Harry, the ALJ job is a decent paying job but it is not the only job and I believe you earn your money having to adjudicate a large number of cases. For some the job satisfaction with the ALJ job is difficult to achieve.
I recently spoke to a fellow attorney who is a GS-15 and told him I was hoping to get on the register he told me that he used to be a claimant's rep and found the work to be emotionally tough and that he would rather be a GS-11 government attorney instead of becoming an SSA ALJ. So to each their own.
If you are doing something you love, then you are really not working.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 20, 2013 18:15:55 GMT -5
I recently spoke to a fellow attorney who is a GS-15 and told him I was hoping to get on the register he told me that he used to be a claimant's rep and found the work to be emotionally tough and that he would rather be a GS-11 government attorney instead of becoming an SSA ALJ. So to each their own. Pfft. Easy for the GS-15 to say. It's only about a $70,000 difference in salary. The better question is would the GS-15 rather be a GS-11, if he feels it is such a good position?
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 23, 2013 6:25:47 GMT -5
I'm sticking with my mid-January guess, although I have been pretty impressed with how OPM has been handling the process so far. They have it down to a science, to the extent that is possible. Now if they would only tell us more about the horse-trading part . . . In the long days after the NORs are announced, I'm afraid Crapland will begin to look more and more enticing. I like the attitude of the miracle-seekers!
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 23, 2013 10:21:45 GMT -5
Come on Epic - keep holding out for your dream location.
I will take care of your light work in flyover country.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 23, 2013 16:13:24 GMT -5
Come on Epic - keep holding out for your dream location. I will take care of your light work in flyover country. Ace, you have the superior strategy. I just have to do what my wife tells me to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2013 12:46:08 GMT -5
1
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Oct 28, 2013 13:09:06 GMT -5
I believe at least two people were hired for one of the locations for which I was interviewed. My question is how do you find out who was hired and whether they were a veteran. I know about the formal process to file a complaint, but the guidance on that website is that you contact the hiring agency first to see if they can resolve your concerns. I doubt calling Bob and asking him about who got hired and their veteran status would be very productive. What does one do in this situation? Bear in mind that the 60 days to file a formal complaint with DOL is rapidly approaching. Also, I am aware that there are plenty of veterans on the last register, I just doubt that SSA really filled all the slots in the two cities I was interviewed for with veterans. I was under the impression that you do NOT get interviewed for a "location" but instead you are interviewed to see if you are a fit for SSA in general. Now, maybe you only had 2 cities on your GAL, and this is what you mean. Just clarifying.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 28, 2013 13:28:06 GMT -5
I believe at least two people were hired for one of the locations for which I was interviewed. My question is how do you find out who was hired and whether they were a veteran. I know about the formal process to file a complaint, but the guidance on that website is that you contact the hiring agency first to see if they can resolve your concerns. I doubt calling Bob and asking him about who got hired and their veteran status would be very productive. What does one do in this situation? Bear in mind that the 60 days to file a formal complaint with DOL is rapidly approaching. Also, I am aware that there are plenty of veterans on the last register, I just doubt that SSA really filled all the slots in the two cities I was interviewed for with veterans. I was under the impression that you do NOT get interviewed for a "location" but instead you are interviewed to see if you are a fit for SSA in general. Now, maybe you only had 2 cities on your GAL, and this is what you mean. Just clarifying. The second question besides sratty's is what was your score in relation to the scores of those actually hired for those two locations? If it was higher than you may have an issue, but if it was lower than you may have no issue at all. Someone with a higher score may have indeed been hired in your two locations. You would need to know the scores of the individuals hired in order to file a claim. I am not sure you will be able to acquire those absent litigation and even then such scores may be privileged information. It will be up to you to decide whether it is in your interest to file a claim or eventually a suit claiming discrimination. Will such a claim cause you more heartache and headache than worthwhile, if you are on the new Register? It is up to you!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 28, 2013 13:42:10 GMT -5
1) It doesn't matter if the person hired had a lower score. The Agency only need select from the top three scorers for a particular location. 2) You would have to file a FOIA to find out the scores/vet pts of those selected over you. I'm told this is done regularly... As to your number (1) above, only if all three had a vet's preference. If only one or two had a vet's preference than one or the other vet would need to be hired absent some precluding reason. Of course, I am a non-vet, so I am getting any points, but it is my understanding of the rules that a vet with a higher score cannot be passed over to hire a non-vet with a lower score absent some unusual circumstances. This is why the agencies try to match vets against vets to get three-strikes against them and be able to get to non-vets.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 28, 2013 14:02:44 GMT -5
This is why the agencies try to match vets against vets to get three-strikes against them and be able to get to non-vets. Okay here is my problem with the conspiracy theory (and, full disclosure, I'm a vet and I've espoused the rumour, without any particular evidence to support it as well) - just exactly "how" do they go about doing it? Vets are either top 3 for a location or they're not? Now, they can tweak the number and locations to generate a predictable pool, but, without delving deeper, just exactly what would be the mechanism to get 3 vets together? And in those locations, I understand, I can certificate 2 spots at a single location, draw 6 vets, hire 2, strike 4, and repeat that as often as necessary to 3-strike the vets I don't want. That's the process, but how to control which vets I want/will tolerate/do not want, with their various and overlapping GALs just seems like a complete functioning of random chance. Now, other than vets tending to cluster at the top, I don't see how the draw would be predictable enough to do this on a regular, planned basis (although obviously, it could happen once they get 1 vet they want and 2 they don't want on a certificate for a location.)
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 28, 2013 14:20:36 GMT -5
This is why the agencies try to match vets against vets to get three-strikes against them and be able to get to non-vets. Okay here is my problem with the conspiracy theory (and, full disclosure, I'm a vet and I've espoused the rumour, without any particular evidence to support it as well) - just exactly "how" do they go about doing it? Vets are either top 3 for a location or they're not? Now, they can tweak the number and locations to generate a predictable pool, but, without delving deeper, just exactly what would be the mechanism to get 3 vets together? And in those locations, I understand, I can certificate 2 spots at a single location, draw 6 vets, hire 2, strike 4, and repeat that as often as necessary to 3-strike the vets I don't want. That's the process, but how to control which vets I want/will tolerate/do not want, with their various and overlapping GALs just seems like a complete functioning of random chance. Now, other than vets tending to cluster at the top, I don't see how the draw would be predictable enough to do this on a regular, planned basis (although obviously, it could happen once they get 1 vet they want and 2 they don't want on a certificate for a location.) One example would be they find nine vets who all want the same three locations and are all top scorers. They could pick the top three to hire and three strike the other six vets against the three locations. Hence, you could go through nine vets with three locations that they all match on, but only have to hire three of them. Hence, you could possibly only have to hire one third of the vets with NORs while three striking the others, if they were all higher scorers in the process. I am not saying this actually happens, but it is an example that could happen and allow an agency to get to non-vets with lower scores that the agency wants to hire. Not being an "insider" or vet, but a long time practitioner of SSA law across the U.S., I have to hope to dazzle at the SSA interview for a chance to be hired, in addition to scoring a relatively high NOR. If I was a vet I wouldn't be so worried about it as some seem to be. IMHO if you are a vet and have a narrow GAL it is more likely to happen, than if you have a larger GAL.
|
|