|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 9:28:08 GMT -5
In some other threads, the topic of new hires assigned to National Hearing Centers has arisen. As I understand it, there is no longer any official preclusion of assigning a new judge to an nhc. That was reported by one or more of our valued, robed members. That said, I mentioned I don't believe the agency would do so anyway. The reason I believe that is twofold. First, nhc judges are supervisory judges and I can't imagine the agency giving a newbie that responsibility.
The second reason is the nhc gigs are generally considered plum assignments and I can't imagine there would be many, if any, openings anyway. Then it occurred to me that some of our outsider brethren may not know why those gigs are different or why they are largely considered "plum." So, here is what I understand:
1. Location. All of the nhcs are in relatively popular locales.
2. Relo. Though they may have ceased it now, they once paid relo to judges willing to go to the nhcs.
3. Transfer priority. Judges in a supervisory position were once given transfer list priority over other judges. IE you got moved to the top of the list. I understand this has been ended (though, as noted by bart, it appears the limit of 5 transfer requests doesn't apply to nhc judges).
4. Scheduling. In theory an alj has free range for how they schedule their hearings as long as they schedule enough. In reality, in the hearing offices a judge is constrained by the number of hearing rooms and when those rooms are available. As the least senior judge, guess who is gonna get friday afternoon and monday morning hearing room slots?Contrarily, at an nhc, all your hearings are by video and can be done at your desk. So, no waiting around for hearing room space and, thus your schedule is easier to manipulate.
5. Supervisory status. Im not sure nhc judges got the "hocalj pay bump" but I assume they did. Irregardless, the biggest benefit of this status is control. In a hearing office, your cases are written by a pool of writers. Some are great and will require little or no editing on your part. Some are atrocious and you will essentially have to rewrite the opinion yourself. And these writers don't answer to you. They are supervised by management and you pretty much have to take what you get. At an nhc, you actually are assigned 2 attorneys and you are their direct supervisor. You decided how they work, ie which writes what types of cases, if they do any prehearing review for you etc. Also, they just write for you. So you can get them finely attuned to your likes and dislikes. You can count on some consistency in their work. Thats a huge advantage.
These factors, to me, certainly make the nhc gig the peach of the alj fruit bowl. It also means there probably won't be many openings for newbies in nhcs, even if the agency were willing to place them there.
Am I missing anything?
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 9:30:55 GMT -5
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 1, 2014 9:30:55 GMT -5
Funky, I think you pretty well covered it for NHCs.
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 9:38:54 GMT -5
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 1, 2014 9:38:54 GMT -5
And this is excellent analysis, Funky - I for one questioned it in another thread. From a real world standpoint, they probably won't come open.
My question remains, though - what if nobody wants the spot? It's not a situation like Hawaii where the transfer list is decades deep.
Do they leave it vacant until someone wants it? Or, do they roll the dice with a new hire?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 9:45:12 GMT -5
Ace,
If they have really stopped paying relo to judges going to an nhc, stopped giving transfer priority and officially done away with the preclusion of newbies, I guess they could take a chance if they have an nhc slot they can't fill with a transfer.
I certainly don't know this, but given the supervisory status of nhc judges I'd think any insider with supervisory experience (ie hods and group sups) might be at the top of the list IF they are forced to put a newbie in an nhc.
JMHO
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 9:47:23 GMT -5
via mobile
sealaw90 likes this
Post by redsox1 on Apr 1, 2014 9:47:23 GMT -5
My understanding about NHC's is a little different. I heard that some judges miss the human element. Admittedly not all. Also, I have never been to one but someone who had told me that it had the feel of a factory not a hearing office. I guess that's all of ODAR to some extent but it struck this person as more so than usual. Not trying to be a contrarian but I am not sure that everyone would be happy at an NHC.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 9:53:33 GMT -5
My understanding about NHC's is a little different. I heard that some judges miss the human element. Admittedly not all. Also, I have never been to one but someone who had told me that it had the feel of a factory not a hearing office. I guess that's all of ODAR to some extent but it struck this person as more so than usual. Not trying to be a contrarian but I am not sure that everyone would be happy at an NHC. Oh I agree. I'd be miserable, no doubt. But for many its the best gig going. All determined by your personality and what you want out of the job. If its a relatively popular locale, the most control possible and to make the maximum salary you can, its the job for you. But if you like the idea of some in person hearings, socializing with staff and living in a less urban environ is more important than salary maximization (and you actually like the idea that you have no supervisory responsibility) an nhc gig probably isn't for you.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 1, 2014 9:58:43 GMT -5
Ace, If they have really stopped paying relo to judges going to an nhc, stopped giving transfer priority and officially done away with the preclusion of newbies, I guess they could take a chance if they have an nhc slot they can't fill with a transfer. I certainly don't know this, but given the supervisory status of nhc judges I'd think any insider with supervisory experience (ie hods and group sups) might be at the top of the list IF they are forced to put a newbie in an nhc. JMHO Makes insanely good sense, but how would they even go about "considering" that with the hiring rules? If they start "unofficially" considering those factors, wouldn't that open up additional grounds for appeals? But, at a certain point, it makes sense to just wait for transfers - I guess, in a pinch, they could detail those jobs out - maybe judges out there wouldn't mind doing 90 to 180 days, but don't want to relocate to a NHC, permanently...?
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 9:59:35 GMT -5
Post by Gaidin on Apr 1, 2014 9:59:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 10:01:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 10:01:47 GMT -5
Excellent points. Maybe an nhc judge board member has some perspective?
|
|
|
Post by whyohwhy on Apr 1, 2014 10:02:58 GMT -5
new hires have been sent to the St Louis NHC on virtually every hire since it opened. NHC ALJs do not get a HOCALJ pay bump. NHC ALJs do not get to work flexiplace. NHC judges no longer get transfer preference. NHC judges are not allowed union protection. The NHC's have never been popular with existing judges unless they really wanted to get to the city the NHC was in. Hence why the St Louis NHC was solicited 4 times to the existing corps before it opened with virtually no takers. new hires sent to the NHC get an additional 2 weeks of management training in Falls Church after the regular 4 week course ends.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 1, 2014 10:05:51 GMT -5
Funky, big hurdle, they don't get to work at home at all..
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 10:12:42 GMT -5
Thanks whyohwhy. I knew we could count on someone on here knowing the real deal.
Good thing I'm accustomed to being wrong.
One thing though, I've personally seen a few judges jump at the nhc gigs and know 2 more that want it but have balked over the relo deal. I can imagine the st louis nhc is the least desirable though. You may be dead on right that a majority don't want an nhc gig, just hasn't been my personal experience. But then again, may be that each of those I know had purely geographic reasons for wanting the transfers and were willing to put up with the perceived shortcomings.
Thanks for the info. Ace, there's hope, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 1, 2014 10:13:32 GMT -5
Funky, big hurdle, they don't get to work at home at all.. That sucks. Although, if you are newly hired into an NHC, you're not working from home the first year anyway. Given the increased staff control and dedicated attorney writers, it doesn't sound too terrible. It just seems like an odd way to be introduced to ODAR if you're an outsider.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 1, 2014 10:18:13 GMT -5
Funky, big hurdle, they don't get to work at home at all.. That sucks. Although, if you are newly hired into an NHC, you're not working from home the first year anyway. Given the increased staff control and dedicated attorney writers, it doesn't sound too terrible. It just seems like an odd way to be introduced to ODAR if you're an outsider. Agreed. That's huge. And so is the non-union thing. Is that due to the supervisory capacity? As miniscule as the union protections have appeared in regard to recent happenings (the PD change, etc) I still don't think I'd want to forego them.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 1, 2014 10:29:18 GMT -5
A lot of my friends transferred into NHC's so they would have preference on the transfer process. It used to be a swinging door. I have seen Judges in and out in 90 days or so and they went to the head of the line for their home transfer. I think that was what the big attraction was, at least for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 1, 2014 10:45:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. Ace, there's hope, buddy. Well - I'm just thinking in terms of the process at large - I'm not crazy about St. Louis, but I don't dislike it enough to say "No". I thought the transfer preference would have been a nice sell for a new hire, but that's gone, no union, no HOCALJ pay bump - no work at home, it just looks like a worse and worse deal all the time. However, the additional management training is intriguing to me - I'm still relatively young (mid-40s) and I am a field grade officer in the Army Reserve. It could be a leg up for someone who might be interested in being a HOCALJ or RCALJ down the line. Everything has pros and cons, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by cubbietax on Apr 1, 2014 10:55:17 GMT -5
Having learned a great deal more about GALs from reading this site after applying and realizing I have probably all but crushed my chances for an ALJ spot because of the narrow GAL, depsite my apparent competitive score. I would love the Chicago NHC even without being able to flex. NHC may be my only hope.
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 11:03:50 GMT -5
Post by sealaw90 on Apr 1, 2014 11:03:50 GMT -5
Here's another idea. The Falls Church NHC doesn't seem to come open for newbies, but wouldn't that be a great way to transfer into the DC metro area after to get sent to crapland? Since DC seems to be so popular with folks on this board of applicants, I bet there are ALJs who would transfer to Falls Church NHC, even if no relo costs paid, because it is home for them. It all depends on how badly you want to work in your 'hometown'.
|
|
|
NHCs
Apr 1, 2014 11:34:00 GMT -5
Post by owl on Apr 1, 2014 11:34:00 GMT -5
STL has its good parts, but the location of the NHC isn't one of them, IMHO. If you have military experience and are used to/don't mind spending your day basically restricted to being "on base" then no problem. Indeed the office complex that houses the NHC was built as a DoD ordnance factory in WWII.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Apr 1, 2014 11:48:03 GMT -5
Owl - I did decision writer training there - I'm familiar with the facility. I'm completely cool with being "on base" - I'm not crazy about the neighborhood and would consider buying an armored SUV with run flat tires.
|
|