|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 13, 2014 12:10:00 GMT -5
Not advancing this as a theory, merely asking a question. Many of you folks know way more about the rule of 3 and opm regs than I ever could. Would it be possible for them to use the "preference rankings" as a way to sort of force people to narrow their gal? For instance: Say you are a high scorer with a relatively wide gal. They notify you that you are on the cert for 10 cities. But, here's the kicker, they ask you to choose and rank your top 3. Then, any city you didn't choose among the top 3 they treat as if you struck it? Maybe not as harsh as an actual strike where, once done, you never can be considered for that city again. But maybe just on this cert you are essentially out of consideration for all but the three you selected? Then, you either get hired for one of the three, get bona fide consid for the three and not hired so they can three strike you, or, by your preference selection, you chose cities where you were too far down for bon fide consid and just go back to reg? Could they do that under the rules? My initial thought is that they could use it to let people hang themselves by possibly getting bona fide consideration in cities where they have no choice, but I don't think they'll effectively strike a location in your top 3/5/10. But believe you me, if I make a cert and one of the choices is "no preference," I'm choosing that option.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 12:11:21 GMT -5
I can see the preference rankings be hugely beneficial to candidates.
I can also see sratty and Gaidan's point that it benefits ssa in likely leading to fewer transfers and maybe less relo expense.
But those two factors have always been the case and ssa has never done this before.
I have to think they are doing it now because it somehow helps them set or play the hiring board under the new single city cert process. But how?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 12:16:05 GMT -5
I'd also love to see some of you math and polling whiz folks take a run at a WAG on what this 5 per thing means. How far would that maybe bring down the score to make the cert if our polling on scores and gals is accurate. What's up acemidnight? you taking a Sunday off?
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 13, 2014 12:36:56 GMT -5
I can see the preference rankings be hugely beneficial to candidates. I can also see sratty and Gaidan's point that it benefits ssa in likely leading to fewer transfers and maybe less relo expense. But those two factors have always been the case and ssa has never done this before. I have to think they are doing it now because it somehow helps them set or play the hiring board under the new single city cert process. But how? The ranking of GAL cities by the candidates is so completely non-binding on ODAR that I don't see how it would become a factor in a 3-strike chess game. I think they did it simply to more effectively assign candidates to positions to keep them happy and productive and reduce the disruption that must occur when transfers take place. I can't help but think that an ALJ who is in a city where he is happy and wants to stay will do a better job than one who sees his duty station as a temporary placement he'll work on trying to change in 90 days.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 12:41:14 GMT -5
I can see the preference rankings be hugely beneficial to candidates. I can also see sratty and Gaidan's point that it benefits ssa in likely leading to fewer transfers and maybe less relo expense. But those two factors have always been the case and ssa has never done this before. I have to think they are doing it now because it somehow helps them set or play the hiring board under the new single city cert process. But how? The ranking of GAL cities by the candidates is so completely non-binding on ODAR that I don't see how it would become a factor in a 3-strike chess game. I think they did it simply to more effectively assign candidates to positions to keep them happy and productive and reduce the disruption that must occur when transfers take place. I can't help but think that an ALJ who is in a city where he is happy and wants to stay will do a better job than one who sees his duty station as a temporary placement he'll work on trying to change in 90 days. I agree sandi. But that's been the case forever. People were talking about odar not caring about where a candidate is or wants to be since 2007. Despite the obvious benefits to the agency and the new hires. So why now?
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 13, 2014 12:44:47 GMT -5
The ranking of GAL cities by the candidates is so completely non-binding on ODAR that I don't see how it would become a factor in a 3-strike chess game. I think they did it simply to more effectively assign candidates to positions to keep them happy and productive and reduce the disruption that must occur when transfers take place. I can't help but think that an ALJ who is in a city where he is happy and wants to stay will do a better job than one who sees his duty station as a temporary placement he'll work on trying to change in 90 days. I agree sandi. But that's been the case forever. People were talking about odar not caring about where a candidate is or wants to be since 2007. Despite the obvious benefits to the agency and the new hires. So why now?
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 13, 2014 12:55:40 GMT -5
I think it is probably just that they realized there is a cost to so much transferring even if its is not direct cost born by the agency. If the agency can keep an ALJ in their new office permanently then there is less upheaval cost and less lost time in a given ODAR. There has to be some lost productivity every time an ALJ transfers. The losing ODAR has to find some way to take up the slack and the gaining ODAR has to get used to somebody new in their office. And that doesn't factor in that insiders taking relocation money could be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Apr 13, 2014 13:47:57 GMT -5
Aside from how it affects ALJ's, in offices that have hearings scheduled six months in advance and a judge gets transferred, the docket has to be cancelled and many, many hearings, with actual people, have to be rescheduled. Makes for bad publicity and very inefficient docket handling.
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Apr 13, 2014 14:29:25 GMT -5
I think the Agency used to do this decades ago. Don't know why it stopped. This sounds like a win-win for the applicants and the agency. Take this time to consider where you are willing to go, but don't write off smaller cities. You may be pleasantly surprised. Also, remember under the new contract, there are no "hardship transfers" so be prepared to stay where you land for some time. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 15:20:56 GMT -5
Crap. I just went back and reread the pm I got from the source this morn. The info was the certs would be for 40 to 45 cities.
Dunno why I posted 45 to 50. Sorry for that.
I'm gonna edit the original post.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 13, 2014 15:31:30 GMT -5
Crap. I just went back and reread the pm I got from the source this morn. The info was the certs would be for 40 to 45 cities. Dunno why I posted 45 to 50. Sorry for that. I'm gonna edit the original post. Well, dang it, funky. That changes everything! Let's just call it 45 cities and worry about it later. I don't have to worry about it, but youse guys with the good scores and GALs can. Looking forward to seeing how the mechanics of everything work.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 13, 2014 15:32:47 GMT -5
Damn western...between you and me I got motion sickness. You are right, nothing to do but wait and see how it unfolds. Absolutely right. The world will run out of Dramamine if this WAGing keeps up. Thanks for the intel, Funky, we will wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Apr 13, 2014 15:37:10 GMT -5
Crap. I just went back and reread the pm I got from the source this morn. The info was the certs would be for 40 to 45 cities. Dunno why I posted 45 to 50. Sorry for that. I'm gonna edit the original post. Wishful thinking maybe. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 15:47:42 GMT -5
I'm definitely not questioning the veracity of my source...but the math of the situation makes me think the source meant they are requesting 5 names per vacancy and not 5 per city.
Its been pretty well established they intend to hire 90 this fiscal. If its 5 names per city and there are 45 cities, that's just 225 names. Not even 3 names per 90 slots (270). So, I'm gonna guess the source meant 5 per slot (90x5=450)? Maybe the number of candidates that will make certs for multiple cities brings that number down to the 300 to 350 (actual, unique candidates, but still 5 names per slot) that seems more reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 13, 2014 15:57:44 GMT -5
With all of this math, where are you figuring the SSA interview into the formula? I can guarantee that there will be many "not recommended" and a bunch of "recommended" and some "highly recommended" in the mix to contend with. Further, I think they will send out your GAL the way you picked it and ask you to number all of the cities on your GAL, not just 10 or 15. Otherwise, how will they fill that excess of Crapland USA?? I think you will soon see the magic of ODAR and it's crazy way of selection that puts scores in an area of "huh".. Last I heard, classes won't start until September, so reporting middle of August, offers out middle of July maybe??
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 13, 2014 15:59:14 GMT -5
Or, I suppose the idea that they are gonna hire all 90 for this fiscal off of one cert process has merely been an assumption.
Its been reported that they are gonna stagger start dates and training into groups of 45. Maybe they are gonna do that with certs, ie this cert request is just for 45 slots and they will do another cert request for the other 45 next month?
Then the 5 names per city as reported by the source would be in line with the hiring numbers that have been reported.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 13, 2014 16:16:23 GMT -5
I have to agree that any ranking by the candidates is probably not binding on ODAR, and is probably intended as more of an option to cut down on transfers. If I recall, in the past they did ask candidates to rank their top three or maybe five cities. There does tend to be a lot of movement in the NHCs, so I am willing to bet that there are going to be multiple openings filled for those locations. The five candidates per city is odd though. Funkyodar's info might be a little off and the five names per city may actually be a matter of allowing each candidate to rank their top five cities. They would have to change the regs to switch from the usual three candidates per slot.
|
|
|
Post by spousemouse on Apr 13, 2014 16:19:30 GMT -5
My instinct is that the ranking data would be useful towards the end of the process, when they already have a tentative class list in hand. There were a number of people in the class I know best that would have happily traded amongst the group and decreased the need for transfers. For example, our geographically nearest city that would have been the #1 on our list went to a candidate with zero ties to that area and who probably would've ranked our more desirable but geographically farther city higher. These all seem like useful, no cost adjustments for ssa to put into the final mix.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Apr 13, 2014 16:27:37 GMT -5
But can SSA change the locations after the fact? Or does this violate the rule that only the top 3 scores can be considered for each location?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 13, 2014 17:00:38 GMT -5
ODAR can't changes cities afterwards. They need to be able to manipulate the candidates into match ups that will allow them to three strike the candidates they need to eliminate, which further allows them to move down the list to the lower scoring candidates that they want. If they changed cities afterwards, it would make their manipulations illegitimate.
|
|