|
Post by rhd on Jul 12, 2018 11:57:36 GMT -5
Yeah, we fu**ed. (read in the voice of JB Smoove from Curb Your Enthusiasm) In all seriousness, anything that moves us away from the prior system of landmines and traps to something more reasonable for everyone will be a good thing. I disagree that a return to 19th century patronage is a good thing. This administration is determined to destroy what it sees as the deep state, and replace it with its own ....... deep state. Kiss your ten points goodbye.
Do vets on here have an opinion as to how this jibes with any kind of pro-veteran pronouncements from the White house?
|
|
|
Post by chicagoirish on Jul 12, 2018 12:14:32 GMT -5
I'm a current fed (non-SSA). Over the years, I have applied to dozens of federal attorney jobs at 6 or 7 different agencies. The 10-pt vet preference for the ALJ register was pretty much the only time being a vet had a real and tangible effect. Even without the 10 points, my score was pretty high (I am told by ALJ friends), but losing this opportunity is nonetheless a huge gut punch.
The "to the extent feasible" language is just that - "to the extent feasible." It will come down to the folks on the particular hiring committee and the culture of the organization. The more vets in that organization and/or the more positive experience the organization has had with vet employees, the better for vet applicants. That probably means vet status doesn't get you much at a place like the SEC (no offense to them, but they don't have a deep pool of vet employees), but of course could mean more at DoD, DHS, etc.
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Jul 12, 2018 12:19:38 GMT -5
Yeah, we fu**ed. (read in the voice of JB Smoove from Curb Your Enthusiasm) In all seriousness, anything that moves us away from the prior system of landmines and traps to something more reasonable for everyone will be a good thing. I disagree that a return to 19th century patronage is a good thing. This administration is determined to destroy what it sees as the deep state, and replace it with its own ....... deep state. Kiss your ten points goodbye.
Do vets on here have an opinion as to how this jibes with any kind of pro-veteran pronouncements from the White house?
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal.
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Jul 12, 2018 14:22:04 GMT -5
I disagree that a return to 19th century patronage is a good thing. This administration is determined to destroy what it sees as the deep state, and replace it with its own ....... deep state. Kiss your ten points goodbye.
Do vets on here have an opinion as to how this jibes with any kind of pro-veteran pronouncements from the White house?
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal. What unlisted said. I've been excepted service for the last 17 years. I really don't understand why some on the board view that as the sky is falling, but I respect the difference of opinion.
Earlier in my career, I was a political appointee. Don't get too excited. I was a City Attorney technically appointed by the Mayor, which made me an at will employee. I never met the Mayor and I don't think he ever knew I existed.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 12, 2018 14:31:02 GMT -5
How much do mail carriers make? They have good pensions, no? They used to for sure. Now they are FERS like the rest of us I think
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 12, 2018 16:48:55 GMT -5
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal. What unlisted said. I've been excepted service for the last 17 years. I really don't understand why some on the board view that as the sky is falling, but I respect the difference of opinion.
Earlier in my career, I was a political appointee. Don't get too excited. I was a City Attorney technically appointed by the Mayor, which made me an at will employee. I never met the Mayor and I don't think he ever knew I existed.
Agreed. Excepted service employees, with a few exceptions, have MSPB protection. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by usmccol on Jul 12, 2018 19:06:12 GMT -5
@spn Lifer--thanks for the nod. I agree with desert2beach--I don't see this as the end of the world. I am a little frustrated I went through the WD abuse twice. I still don't know how I did the second time; probably never know--that's frustrating. Trying to get hired in the ES can't be more abusive than this now-defunct OPM travesty. rhd--I don't see this EO as anti-vet. In my experience the vet preference is illusory as is clearly pointed out in the other "Termination" thread. I also agree with chicagoirish: other than ALJ, the vet preference doesn't mean much. Improvise, overcome, and adapt. Colonel
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 12, 2018 19:15:02 GMT -5
I disagree that a return to 19th century patronage is a good thing. This administration is determined to destroy what it sees as the deep state, and replace it with its own ....... deep state. Kiss your ten points goodbye.
Do vets on here have an opinion as to how this jibes with any kind of pro-veteran pronouncements from the White house?
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal. Here is the point. With the "silly" graded exam, which all recent ALJ applicants took, every exam taker was on an equal footing with attorney insiders. While veterans got 5 or 10 extra points, depending on if they were disabled or not, an attorney off the street and an attorney who worked for Social Security for 20-years were scored equally on the exam. Now, there is no exam. The winners are attorneys who want to become ALJs who also currently work at the agency seeking ALJs. The losers are those of us who do not currently work for the US government. The biggest losers are the 10-point disabled veterans who also don't currently work for the federal government. Instead of an actual preference, they get a meaningless lip service preference. So let's not pretend that Trump's EO didn't create winners and losers. And let's not dismiss the losers' complaints by mischaracterising them as being about some mythical nepotistic cabal.
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 13, 2018 2:32:49 GMT -5
Here is the point. With the "silly" graded exam, which all recent ALJ applicants took, every exam taker was on an equal footing with attorney insiders. While veterans got 5 or 10 extra points, depending on if they were disabled or not, an attorney off the street and an attorney who worked for Social Security for 20-years were scored equally on the exam. Now, there is no exam. The winners are attorneys who want to become ALJs who also currently work at the agency seeking ALJs. The losers are those of us who do not currently work for the US government. The biggest losers are the 10-point disabled veterans who also don't currently work for the federal government. Instead of an actual preference, they get a meaningless lip service preference. So let's not pretend that Trump's EO didn't create winners and losers. And let's not dismiss the losers' complaints by mischaracterising them as being about some mythical nepotistic cabal. I don't think anyone is saying that the EO didn't create winners and losers. As an outsider who was on the register, I know I feel like a loser in this particular game. But can we step back for a second? If you were starting from scratch, why would you implement a system that makes it _more_ difficult to hire people who are steeped in the law of the agency where they want to be an ALJ and are known to the people who would be hiring them? The point of the process isn't the fair distribution of plum jobs; it's finding the best people to perform the job. Are there outsiders who would be great at the job? Sure [raises hand immodestly]. But did it ever really make sense to hamstring the agency from hiring talented people who would need less training? Since we are moving on from the cabal canard nonsense and now discussing how best to pick aljs, I'll give my opinion. We claim to be a nation of laws. Thus, starting from scratch means having our elected representatives in both the Senate and the House pass legislation and the president signing that legislation. It doesn't mean the president orders it so. Concerning the promotion of agency employees to ALJS because they supposedly need less training, ALJs are supposed to be independent fact finders. I suspect those who spend years representing an agency as attorneys are not as fair minded as ALJs who are hired off the street. But that's really the main point of Trump's order, to hire agency approved and tested fact finders. Seems unjust to me, but at least efficency won't suffer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 5:22:09 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is saying that the EO didn't create winners and losers. As an outsider who was on the register, I know I feel like a loser in this particular game. But can we step back for a second? If you were starting from scratch, why would you implement a system that makes it _more_ difficult to hire people who are steeped in the law of the agency where they want to be an ALJ and are known to the people who would be hiring them? The point of the process isn't the fair distribution of plum jobs; it's finding the best people to perform the job. Are there outsiders who would be great at the job? Sure [raises hand immodestly]. But did it ever really make sense to hamstring the agency from hiring talented people who would need less training? Since we are moving on from the cabal canard nonsense and now discussing how best to pick aljs, I'll give my opinion. We claim to be a nation of laws. Thus, starting from scratch means having our elected representatives in both the Senate and the House pass legislation and the president signing that legislation. It doesn't mean the president orders it so. Concerning the promotion of agency employees to ALJS because they supposedly need less training, ALJs are supposed to be independent fact finders. I suspect those who spend years representing an agency as attorneys are not as fair minded as ALJs who are hired off the street. But that's really the main point of Trump's order, to hire agency approved and tested fact finders. Seems unjust to me, but at least efficency won't suffer. Rockey, the reality is that insiders have an advantage. Working for an Agency or not does not necessarily negate your ability to be independent fact finders. Experience counts. This is why the US Art III judge ranks have so many former AUSAs and DoJ officials. The military has judges who are military officers and they are independent fact finders and often do take positions against their own service. I recall reading a case a few months ago where a colonel military judge held a JAG general officer in contempt and jailed him. Congress is deadlocked and can barely agree to pass a budget. It does not matter the party, if the WH and Congress are same party only wht the WH wants passed gets passed. The EO and any law does not take fairness into account. There are always winners and losers who feel things are unfair
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Jul 13, 2018 7:53:55 GMT -5
I disagree that a return to 19th century patronage is a good thing. This administration is determined to destroy what it sees as the deep state, and replace it with its own ....... deep state. Kiss your ten points goodbye.
Do vets on here have an opinion as to how this jibes with any kind of pro-veteran pronouncements from the White house?
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal. After a middling night's sleep, I realize that my comment may have been misinterpreted based upon the lack of clarity in my language. As some know, I've been a litigating attorney for 25 years. It took me 4 or 5 instances (over a year) of submissions of my 25 years experience to OPM to "prove" to them that I had 7 years experience. This board is loaded with experiences like mine.
On my last try, I made it to the DC exams, where I'm fairly confident I blew the LBMT. While I have no doubt that logic plays a large part of our abilities as attorneys, the LBMT is an arcane test that you can only navigate if you have a current understanding of the rules of logic. I venture to say that no one actively practicing actually uses those rules in any form to do their job.
So, I was not trying to suggest that moving to a patronage system would be better. I was saying that moving away from the stupid shit described above to something fairer to all applicants would be an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Jul 13, 2018 7:58:30 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is saying that the EO didn't create winners and losers. As an outsider who was on the register, I know I feel like a loser in this particular game. But can we step back for a second? If you were starting from scratch, why would you implement a system that makes it _more_ difficult to hire people who are steeped in the law of the agency where they want to be an ALJ and are known to the people who would be hiring them? The point of the process isn't the fair distribution of plum jobs; it's finding the best people to perform the job. Are there outsiders who would be great at the job? Sure [raises hand immodestly]. But did it ever really make sense to hamstring the agency from hiring talented people who would need less training? Since we are moving on from the cabal canard nonsense and now discussing how best to pick aljs, I'll give my opinion. We claim to be a nation of laws. Thus, starting from scratch means having our elected representatives in both the Senate and the House pass legislation and the president signing that legislation. It doesn't mean the president orders it so. Concerning the promotion of agency employees to ALJS because they supposedly need less training, ALJs are supposed to be independent fact finders. I suspect those who spend years representing an agency as attorneys are not as fair minded as ALJs who are hired off the street. But that's really the main point of Trump's order, to hire agency approved and tested fact finders. Seems unjust to me, but at least efficency won't suffer. One could then make the argument that claimant reps could not be independent fact finders because they have spent years representing claimants and are thus not fair minded. I don’t think that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 13, 2018 8:48:10 GMT -5
Who said anything about 19th century patronage? Almost everyone with a grad degree in the federal civilian service is hired under Schedule E, excepted service - attorneys, doctors, scientists. The hiring works pretty much like any private employer: they get resumes, they look at your qualifications and specialization, they interview people. They're not bound by some silly points system - civil service exams went out of fashion 50 years ago in most places. Even for positions that need political sign-off (like most SES) it's pretty much a formality after the career people make their selection. The civil service is not a nepotistic cabal. After a middling night's sleep, I realize that my comment may have been misinterpreted based upon the lack of clarity in my language. As some know, I've been a litigating attorney for 25 years. It took me 4 or 5 instances (over a year) of submissions of my 25 years experience to OPM to "prove" to them that I had 7 years experience. This board is loaded with experiences like mine.
On my last try, I made it to the DC exams, where I'm fairly confident I blew the LBMT. While I have no doubt that logic plays a large part of our abilities as attorneys, the LBMT is an arcane test that you can only navigate if you have a current understanding of the rules of logic. I venture to say that no one actively practicing actually uses those rules in any form to do their job.
So, I was not trying to suggest that moving to a patronage system would be better. I was saying that moving away from the stupid shit described above to something fairer to all applicants would be an improvement.
What are the "current understanding of the rules of logic"? Of the entire OPM process, I thought the test was far and away the most reasonable step (although it would be nice if they had given it in a couple of other cities). The application was ridiculous, and don't get me started on the interviews (because I'm not allowed to talk about them).
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 13, 2018 9:20:56 GMT -5
Since we are moving on from the cabal canard nonsense and now discussing how best to pick aljs, I'll give my opinion. We claim to be a nation of laws. Thus, starting from scratch means having our elected representatives in both the Senate and the House pass legislation and the president signing that legislation. It doesn't mean the president orders it so. Concerning the promotion of agency employees to ALJS because they supposedly need less training, ALJs are supposed to be independent fact finders. I suspect those who spend years representing an agency as attorneys are not as fair minded as ALJs who are hired off the street. But that's really the main point of Trump's order, to hire agency approved and tested fact finders. Seems unjust to me, but at least efficency won't suffer. One could then make the argument that claimant reps could not be independent fact finders because they have spent years representing claimants and are thus not fair minded. I don’t think that is the case. Perhaps in a vacuum. However, claimant reps simply won't be hired as ALJs because they are not "get along to go along" agency attorneys. Moreover, while some argue ALJ testing could be improved, that's not what Trump's EO does. Not one bit. Trump's EO is designed so that political appointee agency heads can pick who they want as ALJs. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see that as a major improvement over the recently disposed of system. It may not matter much at SSA, but at other agencies where ALJs decide cases brought against poitically powerful interests, it's going to matter a great deal. And that's the entire point of the EO.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jul 13, 2018 9:31:53 GMT -5
“Moreover, while some argue ALJ testing could be improved, that's not what Trump's EO does. Not one bit. Trump's EO is designed so that political appointee agency heads can pick who they want as ALJs. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see that as a major improvement over the recently disposed of system.“ I agree with rockey, except I don’t see it as an improvement at all.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jul 13, 2018 9:39:54 GMT -5
I don't have a personal dog in this fight as I'm already an ALJ, but do we really want ALJs whose base qualifications are simply that they made it through law school in one piece, managed to pass a bar exam (except in WI where they get diploma privilege!), and have ingratiated themselves with management? If I start seeing ALJ selections with relatively no legal experience or significant life experience that informs sound independent judgement, I'm not going to teach them the secret ALJ handshake!
I saw an IJ get appointed because their daddy was a large campaign bundler, and another get appointed when he lost his previous gig due to an adverse election outcome. I suspect the majority of excepted positions will go to qualified folk, but don't kid yourself into believing there will not be political shenanigans and favoritism as well - and this applies to both parties.
I know young insiders are giddy at their new apparent possibilities, but the American public and anyone else deserves better.
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 13, 2018 9:43:19 GMT -5
Since we are moving on from the cabal canard nonsense and now discussing how best to pick aljs, I'll give my opinion. We claim to be a nation of laws. Thus, starting from scratch means having our elected representatives in both the Senate and the House pass legislation and the president signing that legislation. It doesn't mean the president orders it so. Concerning the promotion of agency employees to ALJS because they supposedly need less training, ALJs are supposed to be independent fact finders. I suspect those who spend years representing an agency as attorneys are not as fair minded as ALJs who are hired off the street. But that's really the main point of Trump's order, to hire agency approved and tested fact finders. Seems unjust to me, but at least efficency won't suffer. Rockey, the reality is that insiders have an advantage. Working for an Agency or not does not necessarily negate your ability to be independent fact finders. Experience counts. This is why the US Art III judge ranks have so many former AUSAs and DoJ officials. The military has judges who are military officers and they are independent fact finders and often do take positions against their own service. I recall reading a case a few months ago where a colonel military judge held a JAG general officer in contempt and jailed him. Congress is deadlocked and can barely agree to pass a budget. It does not matter the party, if the WH and Congress are same party only wht the WH wants passed gets passed. The EO and any law does not take fairness into account. There are always winners and losers who feel things are unfair Former prosecutors are appointed as judges because it is assumed they will rule for the prosecution, not because they are independent free thinkers who deeply care that justice be done. Military justice, where prosecutors, defense counsel and the jury are all in the same chain of command, is contradiction in terms. I have $10 that says the general who was jailed for contempt didn't have command authority over the judge who found him in contempt. I understand how the world works. I understand there will be winners and losers. But, I don't have to like how and why the decisions that create winners and losers are made. And that includes Trump's EO.
|
|
|
Post by rockey on Jul 13, 2018 9:50:38 GMT -5
“Moreover, while some argue ALJ testing could be improved, that's not what Trump's EO does. Not one bit. Trump's EO is designed so that political appointee agency heads can pick who they want as ALJs. I may be in the minority here, but I don't see that as a major improvement over the recently disposed of system.“ I agree with rockey, except I don’t see it as an improvement at all. I don’t see it as an improvement either. It's the opposite. The phrase "Throwing out the baby with the bath water" comes to mind.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Jul 13, 2018 10:33:41 GMT -5
I've followed this board for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever read a post from someone who thought the OPM selection process was the best method for selecting ALJs. That process is gone, and now I'm getting the sense that many on this board expect the new system will put lots of unqualified people on the bench. I'm also seeing lots of comments about how insiders will have an advantage because they'll have connections to the hiring authorities. I'm not here to argue any of that because I don't have any facts to say those concerns won't be proven to be true.
If the old system was bad, and the new (as yet undefined) system is bad, how should ALJs be selected? If you could design a selection process and the criteria that should be relied upon for an ALJ (and let's limit it to SSA ALJs), what would it look like?
I went through a typical hiring process to be a state ALJ. I didn't have any political connections and I didn't make any campaign contributions to get the job. I had many years of experience in litigation, and I had appeared before the administrative tribunals scores of times, representing both sides in the contested hearings. I've been impartial in the thousands of cases I've heard. I'd like to think the feds will use a process that brings in ALJs who have proven experience and can remain impartial, but who knows how it will play out? I'm sure there's no perfect plan.
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Jul 13, 2018 12:09:17 GMT -5
I've followed this board for a couple of years and I don't think I've ever read a post from someone who thought the OPM selection process was the best method for selecting ALJs. Well, I think the OPM method was the best mankind ever devised to uncover the absolutely most outstanding candidates to serve as ALJs - and this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I somehow Forrest Gumped my way into an ALJ gig because of it!!
|
|