|
Post by Ace Midnight on Nov 15, 2013 8:41:11 GMT -5
Except for 2007, when NORs issued on 10/30, the ODAR cert was pulled on 11/30, interviews were scheduled 12/7 and held through January, and offers were made 2/28. I know, I know . . . my practice typically takes a rest from November through the first of the year, too. But "ODAR does as ODAR wants" (or so I've read). If we must choose between optimism and pessimism, why not the former? Why not be cautiously optimistic? Positive thoughts, people!! Honestly, I was originally thinking in terms of something like this - NORs issued around November 27 to December 6, ODAR Cert on/about January 17, interviews February and March, offers in April, report in May, training in June - that would make perfect sense. This would even fit in with a resolved budget situation on or about January 15, assuming OPM/ODAR were leaning forward into the fight that week. However, I cannot just dismiss, out of hand, the comments of the Chief Judge. Backward planning from a September "hire" (based on the Chief Judge's comments, and I'll assume for the sake of argument "hiring" = "report date") - "report date" in September (perhaps October training?) - offers in July/August, from late April through early June interviews, would mean an ODAR cert of late February/early March, if past timelines and ODAR practices are remotely consistent with the current process. Anyone have a different take on my purely hypothetical, highly speculative and almost certainly wrong schedule? To keep this relevant to the thread - this would mean we would need to see significant transfer activity in December, January and/or February, correct?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Nov 15, 2013 9:07:47 GMT -5
Anyone have a different take on my purely hypothetical, highly speculative and almost certainly wrong schedule? That made me chuckle!
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Nov 15, 2013 16:37:47 GMT -5
Please forgive my soon-to-be-evident ignorance of all things "federal budget-wise":
If there is a mass-exodus of retiring ALJs at the end of 2013, would not their (former) salaries still be available to use for the hiring of replacement ALJs early in 2014? Or would such new hiring require new budgeting?
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 15, 2013 20:07:03 GMT -5
Please forgive my soon-to-be-evident ignorance of all things "federal budget-wise": If there is a mass-exodus of retiring ALJs at the end of 2013, would not their (former) salaries still be available to use for the hiring of replacement ALJs early in 2014? Or would such new hiring require new budgeting? Its not that simple. The agency gets a pot of money for operations based on their request for funding. Folks come and go and the money pot is used as needed if the manpower has reduced they use it to pay for OT. Eventually, they will seek to replenish the ranks of those who have retired and they will allocate money from the pot that they received. Its not like the salary of a retiring judge will be frozen and not used. As I mentioned, they will use it to fund OT, buy supplies or whatever the need is. The one thing an agency does not want to do is not use the money they were given because that signals that they can get by with less than what they ask for. Also, when judges retire some may stay on the books for some time because of leave carried over. I also do not believe there will be a mass exodus at one specific time as folks speculate. This whole you can credit your sick leave to your pension is really a small drop in the bucket--read up on it, you will see that is really not that big of a cash windfall as many believe. The agency will hire when they are ready to do so. Right now the budget situation is in a state of uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Nov 16, 2013 0:10:46 GMT -5
Yes, yes, it all makes complete logical sense that there is not going to be an actual, honest, hire either from the old or the new/forthcoming register. I think some of us were having some fun, trying to put a smile on our face while we wait... Tom Petty song playing in my head now... and wait. Well Funky I will thank you for your insight, but I do NOT thank you for putting me in a 'debbie downer' mood! Just kidding . Sealaw, you are correct. Of course no one actually believes that a hire will happen in January (at least no one should honestly believe that based on the info we have right now). I was just making a futile attempt at being positive for a change! As of right now we are all equally ignorant of what will happen and when it will happen. That's sorta the fun--being in the same boat with all of you!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 16, 2013 7:50:40 GMT -5
Yes, yes, it all makes complete logical sense that there is not going to be an actual, honest, hire either from the old or the new/forthcoming register. I think some of us were having some fun, trying to put a smile on our face while we wait... Tom Petty song playing in my head now... and wait. Well Funky I will thank you for your insight, but I do NOT thank you for putting me in a 'debbie downer' mood! Just kidding . Sealaw, you are correct. Of course no one actually believes that a hire will happen in January (at least no one should honestly believe that based on the info we have right now). I was just making a futile attempt at being positive for a change! As of right now we are all equally ignorant of what will happen and when it will happen. That's sorta the fun--being in the same boat with all of you! I don't know if I could be in the same boat as you are lurker because you may have already called "dibs" on the boat and I would be out of luck!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 16, 2013 8:49:58 GMT -5
Please forgive my soon-to-be-evident ignorance of all things "federal budget-wise": If there is a mass-exodus of retiring ALJs at the end of 2013, would not their (former) salaries still be available to use for the hiring of replacement ALJs early in 2014? Or would such new hiring require new budgeting? Ssaogc is correct sandi. Also, remember the publicly stated hiring priorities of Colvin. For every retired aljs 165k salary put backin the pot, they could hire 4 or 5 field office FTE staff.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 16, 2013 14:19:57 GMT -5
I beg to disagree with the comment related salary to FTEs. One has nothing to do with the other. Not hiring 1 judge does not mean that you get to hire 3 techs. In fact while there is some relation between FTE and the actual number of bodies, FTE can be manipulated to build up staff in anticipation of departures. FTE is the amount of work 1 person does in 12 months. So an FTE in October equals 1 person. But a vacant FTE six months later does not equal 1/2 person. It equals 2 people. But the end of the fiscal year, one vacant FTE equals almost 6 people. As a result there are times when SSA is actually be above its FTE quota. But this is offset by departures over the course of the year. Managers report any pending retirements and other staff losses to the regional offices on a regular basis to help forecast future hiring needs. Keeping all of that in balance is part of the job of the regional offices.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 16, 2013 14:30:34 GMT -5
I'm way to buzzed to follow your math red, but I believe you. Using the term FTE was a mistake.
Still, if an alj retires and the agency doesn't replace them, the funds budgeted to pay that salary staysin the pot right? And if the agency decides to hire cheaper field office staff than a more expensive alj they can do so right?
Rereading that I sound facetious, but not by intent. I'm really asking. with Colvin's comments that the hiring priority has to be field office personnel and the unlikely event that the budget is signficantly increased to allow for those hires, I worry the agency may rob odar to pay FO (ie take any windfall from abnormally high alj retirements and re-allocate those salary funds to field office.) is that possible?
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 16, 2013 15:39:36 GMT -5
There are folks who are more familiar with SSA budget than I am, but the monies we get from the federal budget do not include all of SSA expenses. Some of the agency expenses come out of the SSA trust as administrative expenses, and I believe that includes salaries. When a field office got its budget for the year, there was nothing it for the office's salaries. It is strictly day-to-day operating expenses.
I have never seen any restrictions on hiring based on the salaries involved. For example, when the agency went on a hiring spree several years ago and brought in a bunch of writers, no one said it was cheaper to promote paralegals at 9 or 11 versus bringing in attorneys at 12. Likewise when bringing in techs, we were never told we could bring in more techs if we brought them in at lower grades. We were given a specific number of slots to file and lists of candidates for each grade that qualified for that job. For example, we may have authority to hire 3 attorneys but had lists for candidates at all three grades: 9, 11 and 12.
The only way the FO could rob from ODAR is not based on salary but on the FTEs available. If SSA has 500 FTEs that can be filled in a fiscal year, someone will look at the staffing in FO and ODAR components. They can decide all of the available FTEs go to the FO. Then there may be no hiring in ODAR. And tilting the FTE to favor one or the other component has happened before. It does not matter that ODAR or the FO is losing employees through retirement or other attrition. Once the component uses up its FTEs that is the end of hiring.
But as I said before, an FTE is not a 1 person:1 FTE ratio. 1 FTE = what 1 person does in 12 months. In October, 1 person x 12 months = 12. That is one year. But by April, there are 6 months left in the year. So 2 persons x 6 months = 12 or 1 FTE. A part-time employee is not 1 FTE but a part of an FTE.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 16, 2013 15:50:49 GMT -5
A quick addendum to my last post. If you look at the SSA proposed budget for FY 2014, you will see that it has nothing in it for salaries or benefits for employees specifically. It is a request for a certain number of FTEs and a request for overtime. Someone a lot brighter than I am has figured out what an FTE is worth dollar wise and determined how everyone's salaries will be paid.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Nov 16, 2013 16:02:05 GMT -5
Thanks red. very informative.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Nov 16, 2013 22:08:59 GMT -5
Sealaw, you are correct. Of course no one actually believes that a hire will happen in January (at least no one should honestly believe that based on the info we have right now). I was just making a futile attempt at being positive for a change! As of right now we are all equally ignorant of what will happen and when it will happen. That's sorta the fun--being in the same boat with all of you! I don't know if I could be in the same boat as you are lurker because you may have already called "dibs" on the boat and I would be out of luck! Are you kidding? Of course you'd be there. But, obviously, I'm calling dibs on the boat, too!!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 18, 2013 11:18:41 GMT -5
Is there a list that is publicly available of the number of judges in hearing office locations?
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Nov 18, 2013 12:17:30 GMT -5
Is there a list that is publicly available of the number of judges in hearing office locations? Do a google search "ssa judges". U will get the disability judges or whatever the site is. U can search by location or state
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 18, 2013 12:27:42 GMT -5
I suppose you could look at disabilityjudges.com to get a general idea, but it's not the most accurate snapshot due to transfers, retirements, and such. I had looked at that and also noticed that judges will appear on more than one office's tally. I guessed they were doing details there etc. I am trying to put some extra detail on the spread sheet that was sent out earlier and I will use the disabilityjudges.com numbers and accept the lack of reliability. After all the data for the spreadsheet had flaws. I certainly don't think you can rely on any of the data to create an accurate representation of the current transfer list. However, my hope is you can use the data to create a reasonable set of trends in various offices. If an office has 5 ALJs and 15 requests to transfer out......
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Nov 18, 2013 16:13:26 GMT -5
I suppose you could look at disabilityjudges.com to get a general idea, but it's not the most accurate snapshot due to transfers, retirements, and such. I had looked at that and also noticed that judges will appear on more than one office's tally. I guessed they were doing details there etc. I am trying to put some extra detail on the spread sheet that was sent out earlier and I will use the disabilityjudges.com numbers and accept the lack of reliability. After all the data for the spreadsheet had flaws. I certainly don't think you can rely on any of the data to create an accurate representation of the current transfer list. However, my hope is you can use the data to create a reasonable set of trends in various offices. If an office has 5 ALJs and 15 requests to transfer out...... Exactly Gaidin! I had been thinking of doing that, but I've been quite busy at work. That would be cool to see. The only extra time I did have I ended up spending it on finding out which HO locations had amtrak stations that could get me home on weekends... in case I can expand my GAL, I want to be prepared. Oh the silly things we do to occupy our brains while we wait for our scores.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Nov 18, 2013 16:19:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Gaidin, that would be really helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Nov 18, 2013 22:57:14 GMT -5
Ok. Thanks to FredcDobbs for the original spreadsheet and to Baglady for getting the numbers off disabilityjudges.com. I tweaked the spread sheet and fixed some minor errors. My hope is to add the March 2013 data sometime soon but since no one has volunteered their legal assistant's time it may be a while.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 19, 2013 8:13:00 GMT -5
Ok. Thanks to FredcDobbs for the original spreadsheet and to Baglady for getting the numbers off disabilityjudges.com. I tweaked the spread sheet and fixed some minor errors. My hope is to add the March 2013 data sometime soon but since no one has volunteered their legal assistant's time it may be a while. Thanks gaiden for all the work you did. The only issue is each ALJ can have up to three requests to leave to a new location from their present location. So, as an example, if City A has 9 ALJs and 9 requests to leave, it may be only 3 ALJ each with three different cities where each wants to go equaling 9 requests to leave City A or it could be 9 ALJs each with one request to go to one different city each or any combination thereof. However, I do appreciate all the hard work you did, so it gives us some prospective on cities and requests to leave.
|
|