|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 16, 2014 8:47:56 GMT -5
There's been a lot of talk in the other threads about expanding GALs based upon the possibility of transfers, along with some of the usual fighting that was beautifully illustrated by Sandiferhands. Some have indicated that they would expand there GAls now that they know there is the possibility of transfers. Lets be very careful here and review how these things work.
1. You are ELIGIBLE to transfer after 90 days on the job, which means you can request a transfer to three different cities. Your name is then placed on the BOTTOM of the list for each of those three cities.
2. You must now wait for ODAR to process the transfer list, which will occur before a cert is issued. In a year without a cert, ODAR will possibly process the transfer list once.
3. You may only be transfered to an office if you are at the top of the list for that particular city, and there is an open ALJ slot in the city. An opening means that the ALJ is actually GONE. If an ALJ has told management that he is going to retire June 1, 2014, fully intends to retire on that date, has stopped scheduling hearings in March 2014, has bought his retirement home in the Carribean, sold his house and is living in a hotel, but the transfer list is processed in May, THERE IS NOT AN OPENING. You would have to wait until the next time the transfer list is processed.
4. Lets say there is an opening in your desired city, you are at the top of the transfer list for your desired city, and management is about to process the transfer list. Unfortunately the HOCALJ of your desired city decides to step down. Now management can choose to hold that opening until they hire a new HOCALJ to fill the spot instead. You can apply for the HOCALJ position too, but you have to interview and be selected. Alternatively, an ALJ in another city may have a legitimate hardship, ( or illegitimate hardship with the right connections), and request a hardship transfer, which trumps your position at the top of the transfer list, and takes the open slot instead of you. Hardship transfers are intended to beenfit the ALJs, but the contract allows management to approve, or deny hardship transfers at its whim.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 16, 2014 8:56:46 GMT -5
There's been a lot of talk in the other threads about expanding GALs based upon the possibility of transfers, along with some of the usual fighting that was beautifully illustrated by Sandiferhands. Some have indicated that they would expand there GAls now that they know there is the possibility of transfers. Lets be very careful here and review how these things work. 1. You are ELIGIBLE to transfer after 90 days on the job, which means you can request a transfer to three different cities. Your name is then placed on the BOTTOM of the list for each of those three cities. 2. You must now wait for ODAR to process the transfer list, which will occur before a cert is issued. In a year without a cert, ODAR will possibly process the transfer list once. 3. You may only be transfered to an office if you are at the top of the list for that particular city, and there is an open ALJ slot in the city. An opening means that the ALJ is actually GONE. If an ALJ has told management that he is going to retire June 1, 2014, fully intends to retire on that date, has stopped scheduling hearings in March 2014, has bought his retirement home in the Carribean, sold his house and is living in a hotel, but the transfer list is processed in May, THERE IS NOT AN OPENING. You would have to wait until the next time the transfer list is processed. 4. Lets say there is an opening in your desired city, you are at the top of the transfer list for your desired city, and management is about to process the transfer list. Unfortunately the HOCALJ of your desired city decides to step down. Now management can choose to hold that opening until they hire a new HOCALJ to fill the spot instead. You can apply for the HOCALJ position too, but you have to interview and be selected. Alternatively, an ALJ in another city may have a legitimate hardship, ( or illegitimate hardship with the right connections), and request a hardship transfer, which trumps your position at the top of the transfer list, and takes the open slot instead of you. Hardship transfers are intended to beenfit the ALJs, but the contract allows management to approve, or deny hardship transfers at its whim. I think it is now five cities....not three, that can be listed.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 16, 2014 9:01:15 GMT -5
And now there are no hardship "transfers" but instead it is treated like a detail to that city and you actually have to get a regular transfer to make it permanent. This is what I understand from the new info. I am not sure what the "actual" difference is on the hardship detail vs transfer. I am sure someone else can elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 9:01:38 GMT -5
Which puts newbies even further down the list. I have also heard that they have essentially done away with hardship transfers in favor of allowing only temporary hardship details.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 9:02:08 GMT -5
Damn sratty. You type fast.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 16, 2014 9:16:04 GMT -5
Funky can we call you echo2 after the new echo aka hopefalj? Yes, I think Val has some very good valid points, but some of the information is dated, including number of cities that can be listed for transfer and the issue of hardship transfer. My understanding is the new temporary hardship transfer is for a very limited time, not open-ended like in the past. It might be 180 days or 90 days, but not open-ended. Hence, the hardship transfer will have limited effect upon those wishing to go closer to home permanently. Where is Bart when you need him to answer questions?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 16, 2014 9:33:54 GMT -5
Sorry, I did not know about those changes. What is the maximum allowed length of the details? Depending on the timing, someone jumping a regular transfer with a hardship detail could still delay someone's transfer for a year, or longer. I'm glad to hear that they have done away with the full hardship transfers though. I think they ended up doing far more harm than good due to abuse by management.
|
|
|
Post by dudeabides on Apr 16, 2014 10:05:59 GMT -5
Other agencies rarely hire directly from the OPM registry and instead will only hire people who are existing ALJs.
Does anyone know how long you need to be an existing ODAR ALJ before another agency can/will consider you?
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 16, 2014 10:11:27 GMT -5
Other agencies rarely hire directly from the OPM registry and instead will only hire people who are existing ALJs.
Does anyone know how long you need to be an existing ODAR ALJ before another agency can/will consider you? One year, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 11:26:30 GMT -5
I really do think the changes discussed above will essentially eliminate the old quick and easy transfer opportunities. If the rumor about ssa now allowing certed candidates to rank their cities by preference is accurate, I think that's a clear indication ssa thinks transfers are gonna be more rare as well.
Unless your desired local is the pit of crapland where no one else wants to go and it has a history of perpetual vacancies, you may end up waiting a very long time to get there.
That makes it all the more important for those with wide open gals to put real consideration both into striking cities and choosing their preference rankings if actually allowed to do so. Someone who takes a gig in a place where they would be miserable under the impression they can easily transsfer out may find themselves exponentially more unhappy than someone who didn't even make the cert due to a small gal.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 16, 2014 11:42:23 GMT -5
I really do think the changes discussed above will essentially eliminate the old quick and easy transfer opportunities. If the rumor about ssa now allowing certed candidates to rank their cities by preference is accurate, I think that's a clear indication ssa thinks transfers are gonna be more rare as well. Unless your desired local is the pit of crapland where no one else wants to go and it has a history of perpetual vacancies, you may end up waiting a very long time to get there. That makes it all the more important for those with wide open gals to put real consideration both into striking cities and choosing their preference rankings if actually allowed to do so. Someone who takes a gig in a place where they would be miserable under the impression they can easily transsfer out may find themselves exponentially more unhappy than someone who didn't even make the cert due to a small gal. Here's the problem brother with your scenario. Say you have the wide open GAL. You list City A as your preference # 1, but a vet gets that job. You now may be down to City B or City C as your # 2 or # 3 preferences before you are hired. Then, you may not really want to be in City B or City C for the long haul, but you had to pick the top five out of "Crapland" to start. Hence, many people will still be looking to transfer elsewhere when retirements occur in other locations. I see no way short of putting everyone in their hometown or closest to hometown ODAR office to start in order to avoid transfers in the future. Otherwise, there are still going to be a lot of transfer requests going on, like in the past.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 12:01:26 GMT -5
Well, you are starting from an illogical point. No one could expect these steps to end all transfers. They know they can't end all transfers. But they can take steps to lessen them.
And yes, you may not get your first preference. But that only means one should put as much thought into their second, third and so on as their first.
Of course there will still be lots of transfer requests. That's not the point. Request all one wants, if the agency isn't offering as many you are still stuck where you are. My point is just that folks need to not put a lot of hope in an easy quick, 90 day wonder transfer. You just might find yourself in east crapland for a long time if you leave it on your gal.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 12:19:45 GMT -5
In reality, if you went into this selecting an "everywhere" gal, you likely did it for one of three reasons.
1. you really do have the mobility and family support/ability to pick up and move anywhere. No concern for the spouse finding a job, being too far from extended family, changing schools, etc. I suspect very few fall into this category.
2. you want the job so bad you feel you can bear any of the hardships of moving anywhere. Maybe living away from your family for extended periods. Selling a home. Whatever comes, its worth being a judge. if that's the case, I worry about your future regrets. A wise old hocalj told me to think of it like a job first. If you got a call from AFLAC offering you a claims examiner job doing essentially the same work as an alj with the same salary and benefits but without the robe and they wanted you to move to crapland would you take it? If not, is it just the robe and title that would make you do it for the alj job? if so, you will probably be sorely disappointed.
3. you chose "all of the above" because you think it betters your chances of getting hired and you can transfer where you want later. I expect many in #2 above have that hope as well.
My point is, all indications are the easy and frequent transfers are likely a thing of the past. One might not be too pleased if they let the opportunity to now whittle down their wide gal and perhaps rank their preferences go by without a lot of real hard thought.
I know I am going to be doing some cutting.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 16, 2014 12:29:16 GMT -5
There is no doubt about that my bro, funky. In that SSA is not likely to be hiring the numbers of ALJs it has hired in the last five or six years. There will be a lot less opportunity to move about after landing a position. So, those people who placed three to five cities on their GAL as where they really want to be, may indeed be much smarter than those of us with a wide open GAL. (Of course, I don't mind moving elsewhere and it is likely that my preferred location in Crapland is likely to be open in the future as it usually has been on most certs in the last five or six years and continues to have people constantly transferring out of it, where another's preferred location in West Wonderland may never open.) Why would those with a very limited GAL want to be hired across the U.S. in Crapland and never be able to leave it for years? This is true, especially when they really want to be in West Wonderland. It would make them miserable and stuck where they despise being located. If I was in their shoes, I would have likely made the exact same decision that they made with a limited GAL. Yes, the years of frequent switching between where you land your ALJ gig and where you really want to be are likely over. So, you better be sure you can "stomach" being in the location you are given for two to three years or even longer. I wish I had tried for an ALJ position years ago and gotten lucky to acquire it then. Well, no use crying over spilt milk.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 16, 2014 12:33:54 GMT -5
In reality, if you went into this selecting an "everywhere" gal, you likely did it for one of three reasons. 1. you really do have the mobility and family support/ability to pick up and move anywhere. No concern for the spouse finding a job, being too far from extended family, changing schools, etc. I suspect very few fall into this category. 2. you want the job so bad you feel you can bear any of the hardships of moving anywhere. Maybe living away from your family for extended periods. Selling a home. Whatever comes, its worth being a judge. if that's the case, I worry about your future regrets. A wise old hocalj told me to think of it like a job first. If you got a call from AFLAC offering you a claims examiner job doing essentially the same work as an alj with the same salary and benefits but without the robe and they wanted you to move to crapland would you take it? If not, is it just the robe and title that would make you do it for the alj job? if so, you will probably be sorely disappointed. 3. you chose "all of the above" because you think it betters your chances of getting hired and you can transfer where you want later. I expect many in #2 above have that hope as well. My point is, all indications are the easy and frequent transfers are likely a thing of the past. One might not be too pleased if they let the opportunity to now whittle down their wide gal and perhaps rank their preferences go by without a lot of real hard thought. I know I am going to be doing some cutting. Add up all those factors: now each ALJ can have 5 cities on the list, there is no preference for NHC transfers and they are on the list, and there are no hardship "transfers" so they are now on the list.... mixed with some getting a preference up front, I think you are right. I can see that future transfers may likely take longer than they have in the past. And some of us in the group 1 described above will be happy to stay put for a period of time, even if it means buying snow booties and coats for itsy bitsy dogs.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 16, 2014 12:42:29 GMT -5
Sratty you might want to purchase those snow booties and coats for itsy bitsy dogs while those items are on clearance now, just in case you end up in snowy Crapland. If you never need them, you can always donate them away to a shelter or other agency that can use them.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 16, 2014 12:53:03 GMT -5
I agree that one should not take the job while banking on getting a quick transfer to their ideal office. However, I don't foresee any greater delay in a transfer for the near future for a couple of reasons.
- as noted in the Washington Post article from last August, the average ALJ age is 59, and by 2016, 2/3 of all ALJs will be eligible for retirement. Not all will retire, but given the increase in management expectations/pressure, I think we'll continue to see a steady stream of retirements over the next several years. Steady vacancies means steady transfers.
- while 5 cities allows more competition for a specific locale, other changes to the contract actually help candidates. One, no more hardship or NHC preferential transfers. Two, they have to offer a transfer to all folks on the list before they can place a new hire in a locale. Three, if a higher ranked ALJ turns down a transfer opportunity, they drop to the bottom of the list. I believe the #1 person on the list occupied that spot until thy accepted the transfer or retired. Judges turn down transfers all the time, which means you can potentially move up the list at a much higher speed than before.
So long as you don't limit your 5 options to Honolulu, San Diego, Fort Lauderdale, Seattle, and Denver, you're going to likely have a good chance of transferring to a more preferable city within 2-3 years in my estimation.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Apr 16, 2014 13:21:04 GMT -5
Good points hopefalj. Also, wasn't there some discussion in one of these threads about the possibility of new hearing offices being opened in the next few years, and possibly an expanded number of ALJs overall?
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 16, 2014 13:44:25 GMT -5
Good points hopefalj. Also, wasn't there some discussion in one of these threads about the possibility of new hearing offices being opened in the next few years, and possibly an expanded number of ALJs overall? The last discussion I saw of the new offices involved the ones that were put on hold in 2010-- the response, as I recall, was that no new offices are planned in the foreseeable future. It doesn't sound to me like there's going to be any increase in overall numbers, given the other discussion of some areas having too many ALJs as it is.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 16, 2014 13:45:48 GMT -5
There were several hearing offices planned a couple years ago that didn't open due to the budget. I suppose they could bring that back up, but therehasn't even been a whisper about it that I or any other insider I know have heard.
Further, many on the inside think the future of the agency isn't in more hearing offices but maybe new and expanded nhc. Same difference I suppose in the overall number of aljs, but much more limited geographically than adding new hearing offices.
|
|