|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 15, 2014 14:36:06 GMT -5
I had about 8 hours from seeing the posting to having to file my information. I read the GAL language and after consultation with my wife picked places I would like to be stuck for a very long time. Then I hit send. I honestly didn't have time to track down internet message boards to see what the conventional wisdom for GAL selection is. I think to assert that those of us that applied in the limited window allowed who didn't have the opportunity to spend weeks getting up to speed here on the message board are somehow lesser lawyers is a crock.
I wish I had put more locations on my GAL than I did. But mostly because there are more places we could tough it out for a couple of years while waiting for a transfer to a more desirable locale. I wouldn't have picked close to all 179 and won't if I am still sitting here when a refresh rolls around. All that being said the reality is that the application rules were relatively clear and I don't think I was duped.
But if somebody wants to vent I am not going to question their ability as lawyers or whether or not they deserve to be here. All of us have run the gauntlet on this thing and its more than a little obnoxious to attack somebody's credentials when by objective measurement they earned the spot. Certainly, the many very qualified people who did not make it this far would attest to the rigors of the process.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 14:42:23 GMT -5
LOL!, BagLady, I have hexed your computer so you can't quote me in your replies. Just kidding. I can understand the animosity toward Val's comments and I don't agree with the use of Val's broad terms in denigrating others. I know this means Val will now likely comment on me, but so be it. Que Sera, Sera. Drafting decisionwriting instructions... but sharpening the knives...
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 15, 2014 14:52:22 GMT -5
LOL!, BagLady, I have hexed your computer so you can't quote me in your replies. Just kidding. I can understand the animosity toward Val's comments and I don't agree with the use of Val's broad terms in denigrating others. I know this means Val will now likely comment on me, but so be it. Que Sera, Sera. Drafting decisionwriting instructions... but sharpening the knives... How hard can it be to draft or ?
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 15, 2014 14:54:20 GMT -5
Agreed: the application announcement made it clear that you should put cities on your GAL where you could accept an appointment (i.e., could live or commute) AND that you would not be able to add to your GAL once the application was submitted. If you didn’t read and understand that, shame on you.
What was NOT stated or even intimated in the application was the all-important piece of knowledge that every person previously associated with the process had: appointments would not necessarily be available in all 179 cities, and that the actual appointments available would likely be in 45 or so of the least-attractive locations. There was NO information about that in the application, and that is what has resulted in almost 40% of those making the Register having 0-3 of the eligible cities in their GAL. Had they known that, they could have made a more informed decision. That is a tragedy, and that is what has been arguably unfair about this process.
I respectfully disagree with the premise that the failure to perform “due diligence” equates with failing to discover this board and research the esoterica of the likely scope of cities in the cert. As steelrain and others have correctly stated, most attorneys faced with the extremely short window of time in which to prepare and submit a complex application would satisfy due diligence in finding out about the position, the agencies using ALJs, the types of cases and areas of law involved, and deciding whether to commence the application process.
The smart thing for OPM to do, in its own best interest, would be to allow the Register to freely adjust their GALs at this point. I would not personally gain from this; it would re-introduce above me on the list dozens of candidates in competition for cities on my GAL. Most importantly, however, nothing would be lost to OPM. Its gain would be the revitalization of 40% of the people it has just declared qualified to be ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 14:56:52 GMT -5
Drafting decisionwriting instructions... but sharpening the knives... How hard can it be to draft or ? Hopefalj the best response or retort I have seen on the Board in a long, long time!!!
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 15:04:00 GMT -5
Drafting decisionwriting instructions... but sharpening the knives... How hard can it be to draft or ? My decisionmaking quarter rolled under the bookshelf, and I'm trying to figure out how many other ALJs it will take to move the bookshelf. Then we'll have to change the lightbulb...
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 15, 2014 15:04:56 GMT -5
Agreed: the application announcement made it clear that you should put cities on your GAL where you could accept an appointment (i.e., could live or commute) AND that you would not be able to add to your GAL once the application was submitted. If you didn’t read and understand that, shame on you. What was NOT stated or even intimated in the application was the all-important piece of knowledge that every person previously associated with the process had: appointments would not necessarily be available in all 179 cities, and that the actual appointments available would likely be in 45 or so of the least-attractive locations. There was NO information about that in the application, and that is what has resulted in almost 40% of those making the Register having 0-3 of the eligible cities in their GAL. Had they known that, they could have made a more informed decision. That is a tragedy, and that is what has been arguably unfair about this process. I respectfully disagree with the premise that the failure to perform “due diligence” equates with failing to discover this board and research the esoterica of the likely scope of cities in the cert. As steelrain and others have correctly stated, most attorneys faced with the extremely short window of time in which to prepare and submit a complex application would satisfy due diligence in finding out about the position, the agencies using ALJs, the types of cases and areas of law involved, and deciding whether to commence the application process. The smart thing for OPM to do, in its own best interest, would be to allow the Register to freely adjust their GALs at this point. I would not personally gain from this; it would re-introduce above me on the list dozens of candidates in competition for cities on my GAL. Most importantly, however, nothing would be lost to OPM. Its gain would be the revitalization of 40% of the people it has just declared qualified to be ALJs. I thnk people tend to think of the ALJ application as unique or special, and lose sight of the fact that at least at the application and GAL level, the ALJ position is NO DIFFERENT than that of a clerk typist or a secretary or an accounting technician or a public health nurse or any one of THOUSANDS of federal jobs that are located in many cities. OPM never said that there were open ALJ positions available in all those cities, nor did they have to. It's a register used from time to time to fill openings (and described by OPM as such), not an advertisement of open jobs. It's not a "tragedy" (I'm sitting here listening to news coverage of the Boston anniversary... now THAT was a tragedy) and it's not unfair, that nore information than was given was not provided. We didn't have people here in 2009-10 whining about a situation they themselves were largely responsible for in terms of GAL selection. It wasn't a tragedy, or unfair, then, either. The only difference is what we are assuming to be a new cert process. I still don't see OPM opening GALs anytime soon, unless they have a hard time putting together what SSA/ODAR wants/needs. We really have no idea whether they will encounter that difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 15:11:33 GMT -5
How hard can it be to draft or ? My decisionmaking quarter rolled under the bookshelf, and I'm trying to figure out how many other ALJs it will take to move the bookshelf. Then we'll have to change the lightbulb... Gee-whiz valkyrie is you hadn't been sharpening those knives for me at the same time you were flipping that quarter around to make hearing decisions, that decision-making quarter wouldn't have rolled under the bookshelf. Now, I feel really bad for you having all those difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 15, 2014 15:18:17 GMT -5
Great post Sandi
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Apr 15, 2014 15:29:39 GMT -5
the ALJ position is NO DIFFERENT than that of a clerk typist or a secretary or an accounting technician or a public health nurse or any one of THOUSANDS of federal jobs that are located in many cities. OPM never said that there were open ALJ positions available in all those cities, nor did they have to. It's a register used from time to time to fill openings (and described by OPM as such), not an advertisement of open jobs. Do "clerk typist or a secretary or an accounting technician or a public health nurse" have the ability to transfer between duty locations? I think people are confusing the issue at hand. It is not poor me I should have chosen a large GAL so I could increase my odds at getting a position SOMEWHERE. It actually is "I wish I knew that only 45 cities are truly in play and if I want to be an ALJ in Semi-Popular City A then I need to do 90 plus days in Toledo." That to me is the real issue. Of course that shouldn't be on the announcement as that analysis only applies to SSA. But no one has given a single justifiable reason to why the GAL must be chosen at the application time and not once you make the Registry. The only response I have heard is "oh well that is the way it has always been done." That is not a justifiable reason. Unlike the hiring process for an "accounting technician," which may take 3-6 months tops, this process will hit about 18 months between application deadline and start dates for the first hires, a lot happens in people's lives in 18 months. Why "tragedy" might be a bit of hyperbole, it is unfortunate to those applicants who scored high to languish due solely to a nonsensical bureaucratic rule.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 15, 2014 15:31:00 GMT -5
The smart thing for OPM to do, in its own best interest, would be to allow the Register to freely adjust their GALs at this point. I would not personally gain from this; it would re-introduce above me on the list dozens of candidates in competition for cities on my GAL. Most importantly, however, nothing would be lost to OPM. Its gain would be the revitalization of 40% of the people it has just declared qualified to be ALJs. Again, why does OPM care at this point? It gave clear instructions to list all cities an applicant would be willing to accept. It has PLENTY of candidates for all locations at this time, including Puerto Rico. Everyone on the register is qualified to be an ALJ regardless of whether your score is 50 or 90. A high score and the right GAL gets you an interview but doesn't mean you'll get hired or be a good ALJ. Besides, they can just as easily allow those 40% to expand their GAL down the road should they run out of fungible ALJ candidates for certain locations. Doing so now is no different than doing it down the road should the need arise.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 15:37:54 GMT -5
the ALJ position is NO DIFFERENT than that of a clerk typist or a secretary or an accounting technician or a public health nurse or any one of THOUSANDS of federal jobs that are located in many cities. OPM never said that there were open ALJ positions available in all those cities, nor did they have to. It's a register used from time to time to fill openings (and described by OPM as such), not an advertisement of open jobs. Do "clerk typist or a secretary or an accounting technician or a public health nurse" have the ability to transfer between duty locations? I think people are confusing the issue at hand. It is not poor me I should have chosen a large GAL so I could increase my odds at getting a position SOMEWHERE. It actually is "I wish I knew that only 45 cities are truly in play and if I want to be an ALJ in Semi-Popular City A then I need to do 90 plus days in Toledo." That to me is the real issue. Of course that shouldn't be on the announcement as that analysis only applies to SSA. But no one has given a single justifiable reason to why the GAL must be chosen at the application time and not once you make the Registry. The only response I have heard is "oh well that is the way it has always been done." That is not a justifiable reason. Unlike the hiring process for an "accounting technician," which may take 3-6 months tops, this process will hit about 18 months between application deadline and start dates for the first hires, a lot happens in people's lives in 18 months. Why "tragedy" might be a bit of hyperbole, it is unfortunate to those applicants who scored high to languish due solely to a nonsensical bureaucratic rule. I knew it would happen! We're back to High Score Entitlement issues.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 15:39:20 GMT -5
Agreed: the application announcement made it clear that you should put cities on your GAL where you could accept an appointment (i.e., could live or commute) AND that you would not be able to add to your GAL once the application was submitted. If you didn’t read and understand that, shame on you. What was NOT stated or even intimated in the application was the all-important piece of knowledge that every person previously associated with the process had: appointments would not necessarily be available in all 179 cities, and that the actual appointments available would likely be in 45 or so of the least-attractive locations. There was NO information about that in the application, and that is what has resulted in almost 40% of those making the Register having 0-3 of the eligible cities in their GAL. Had they known that, they could have made a more informed decision. That is a tragedy, and that is what has been arguably unfair about this process. I respectfully disagree with the premise that the failure to perform “due diligence” equates with failing to discover this board and research the esoterica of the likely scope of cities in the cert. As steelrain and others have correctly stated, most attorneys faced with the extremely short window of time in which to prepare and submit a complex application would satisfy due diligence in finding out about the position, the agencies using ALJs, the types of cases and areas of law involved, and deciding whether to commence the application process. The smart thing for OPM to do, in its own best interest, would be to allow the Register to freely adjust their GALs at this point. I would not personally gain from this; it would re-introduce above me on the list dozens of candidates in competition for cities on my GAL. Most importantly, however, nothing would be lost to OPM. Its gain would be the revitalization of 40% of the people it has just declared qualified to be ALJs. Your first mistake is assuming that OPM would do anything smart.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 15, 2014 15:40:36 GMT -5
Why "tragedy" might be a bit of hyperbole, it is unfortunate to those applicants who scored high to languish due solely to a nonsensical bureaucratic rule. C'mon now, SR. "Nonsensical bureaucratic rules" are what this job is all about. Of course the application process includes such.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 15:42:33 GMT -5
Well . . . now that that is settled and needs no further discussion ever . . . That was funny!
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Apr 15, 2014 15:42:51 GMT -5
Does anyone know if indeed SSA has requested a cert? or is that information secret until OPM issues a cert or invites go out.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 15, 2014 15:47:06 GMT -5
Valkyrie is having some fun here.
Observer53 has pretty much shot down his arguments so I will not pile on, but I will say this. This is nothing like applying for any job you have before if you come from the private sector. Why wouldn't an Agency transfer you to where you want to go?
And there are so many other arguments...
In 2007 there was no Board other than a troll infested pout wall. And not everyone would think of this Board nor appreciate it and still be a good lawyer, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 15, 2014 15:47:08 GMT -5
Your first mistake is assuming that OPM would do anything smart. Just when you were getting a rise out of me, you have to come in with something clever and funny and actually make me LOL. Bravo, sir, bravo.
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Apr 15, 2014 15:50:58 GMT -5
I knew it would happen! We're back to High Score Entitlement issues. Uhm...not quite. Just a little critical reasoning - those with low scores and a limited GAL will not obviously benefit as much if at all, those with high to medium scores would tend to benefit as it would increase their ability to land on a Cert. Some people just like to stir a pot...
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 15, 2014 15:54:04 GMT -5
Don't say "pot." Baglady is around here somewhere.
|
|