|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 13:11:25 GMT -5
Could also workin reverse.
"hey, I can't get Ike Insider we love into Hartford cause Vinnie Vet is ahead with priority. We are only hiring one in hartford and Ike is only certed for Hartford."
"How many vacant offices in Hartford?"
"2"
" well, let's just hire 2 for hartford, vinnie and ike. Then we can make it up by hiring 3 in GR instead of 4. Don't really like the options for that 4th slot anyway."
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 13:20:19 GMT -5
A couple of things. Funky the city I mentioned was Mt. Pleasant, not Grand Rapids. Two, SSA has to hire from the top three scorers for each location unless one, two or three are already used up then they go to 4, 5 or 6, etc. down the line. They had to let OPM know up front how many positions in each location, so OPM could create a cert for each position with the top three listed. So, you say why are there 20 or 30 names or more on each location. Simple, SSA chose a number that it told OPM it wanted to use for each location, whether 20 or 30 names depending upon the positions open for hiring. It needed extra in case those in front were already used or hired, 3-struck, etc. The only issue for SSA is either they will have to chose ALJs with much less ability to manipulate hiring and chosen individuals or it will have to leave positions open because it doesn't like enough (90) individuals to hire them for the position. A lot of those at the bottom of each location are just filler, in case SSA doesn't like those in front of them. However, it could be SSA dislikes the filler this time, too and just doesn't hire certain locations or positions. Sorry for the misquote, but not buying the theory. If they had just told opm they wanted to hire 1 2 or 3 slots and opm gave them the top 3, 6 or 9 we wouldn't have cities with 50 names on the certs. Not even with extras for the multiecerters. These are smart folks that put a lot of thought into how they could continue to work their will. Nothing about this theory of mine is against the regs. The math matches pretty close. They aren't required to fill every slot they tell opm about or to hire in each and every city they get a cert for. If this isn't how they are doing it, it should certainly be considered. Of course I cant prove it. Until the offers start going out and we see 90 hires, but to less than 45 locales. I would bet that's exactly how this shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:33:12 GMT -5
There would need to be a minimum of 47 individuals for each cert location (leaving aside Puerto Rico) assuming one hire and three names for each location, so no matter where SSA started location-wise, it would have three unique names left for each location when it was reached. Some locations would have two or more openings, so those locations would need an extra three or six names for those locations. However, some limited GAL individuals may only have one or two of the locations for which they qualify in the top 47, 50 or 53 names depending upon amount of ALJs to be hired. Others, with wide GALs, due to a lower NOR score may only have 38 locations where there are in the top 47, 50 or 53 scoring individuals for the 44 locations.
As an example, let's say F has a wide open GAL, but a score of 75. He/she is only in the top 47, 50 or 53 scores (depending upon ALJs to be hired) for 38 of the 44 locations. Other individuals (some with wide open GALs and some with limited GALs to those last 6 locations F didn't make cert on) had scores higher than him for those 6 locations F is not listed on the cert (to fill out the top 47, 50 or 53 names). I hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 13:42:06 GMT -5
I can follow it. And maybe the 50 to 60 names per city our polling indicates is entirely a function of trying to ensure, with muticerters, an appropriate number.
But that doesn't impact whether ssa could, upon determining they don't like their choices for one city, choose not to hire for that city. Then, in order to keep the total at the 90 they want and are budgeted for, choose instead to hire for an additional slot in another city where the cert has people they do want and can be reached if they hire 3 there instead of 2.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:47:47 GMT -5
In my scenario, it would allow SSA to manipulate who it hires depending upon where it starts and ends the locations and ALJ hires. If F was a lower NOR score, he/she could be manipulated to be hired, by SSA using up other locations and names first and three striking others in front of F to get to him at the second to last or last location it hires in.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:52:39 GMT -5
I can follow it. And maybe the 50 to 60 names per city our polling indicates is entirely a function of trying to ensure, with muticerters, an appropriate number. But that doesn't impact whether ssa could, upon determining they don't like their choices for one city, choose not to hire for that city. Then, in order to keep the total at the 90 they want and are budgeted for, choose instead to hire for an additional slot in another city where the cert has people they do want and can be reached if they hire 3 there instead of 2. I think it does funky because when SSA requested certificates from OPM, it had to let OPM know the total number of hires from each location. Remember ALJD's correspondence in changes from OPM regarding individual certs (3 highest scoring names) for each position to be hired. SSA cannot change where it is going to hire without going back to OPM in my opinion due to OPM's changes in how certs are to be pulled. In the past, I think SSA could do exactly what you are stating, now I don't think SSA can do this switching where it will hire, other than to leave a position or two or more open that it originally pulled from OPM. If SSA can't find 90 individuals it likes, SSA will just leave some positions open until the next cert.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:54:52 GMT -5
Remember funky your guess is as good as mine, but I think my guess sticks a little closer to the letter of the changes OPM instituted with this register.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 13:54:56 GMT -5
I think you are completely right. I think they will do their interviews and come to a conclusion on the 90 they want to hire.
Then they will do just as you suggest and they have done in the past and work the individual cities and 3 striking in a way to get to those 90.
But I think after they do that, there is another step. If, after all three striking and the intial hiring decisions are made, some of their chosen 90 are still just out of reach on some certs, they could then decide not to fill a slot in one city where they would still be forced to choose one of the non 90, and instead shift that hire to a city where they could pick up another of the chosen.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on May 6, 2014 13:57:53 GMT -5
OMG, are you two really lawyers, or are you statisticians in disguise? My head hurts reading these posts.
I think my response to a Motion to compel that I have to write seems more exciting than trying to follow who is on first, what is on second and which person gets hired in GR/Mt. Pleasant. I am not flaming either of you, just impressed with the way you can talk about numbers that makes most attorney's stomachs turn.
Good luck Funky in ranking your cities - at least that's what I thought this thread was about... :-)
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 13:58:59 GMT -5
So long as SSA has at least three candidates for a locale and the minimum amount if offices, they can fill as many spots for that office as they want regardless of what they told OPM when they requested the cert.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 13:59:11 GMT -5
I like the last scenario funky much better than the earlier one postulated. It seems to me (between us) that we are probably pretty, pretty, pretty close (a shout out to Larry David from "Curb Your Enthusiam") to the process SSA actually uses in creating certs and choosing candidates for positions. I also think I misspoke earlier when I reread the ALJD post it states: "As previously announced, the new register terminates and replaces the register established under the previous ALJ examinations (ALJ Vacancy Announcement 2007ALJ-134575, 2008ALJ-134575, and 2009ALJ-134575). Please be aware that going forward, we will issue an individual certificate from the ALJ register for each geographic location requested. Accordingly, if an agency is filling vacancies in multiple geographic locations at one time, a separate SF-39, Request for Referral of Eligibles, must be submitted for each individual location.We appreciate all of the assistance that you and your agency provided us during the examination development and administration process. Your input was invaluable and we are grateful for your continued support of the ALJ Program." Therefore, SSA could indeed shuffle hires to a location it likes people in more than a location it dislikes people in. Hence, SSA could, upon determining they don't like their choices for one city, choose not to hire for that city. Then, in order to keep the total at the 90 they want and are budgeted for, choose instead to hire for an additional slot in another city where the cert has people they do want more and can be reached if they hire 3 ALJs there instead of the 2 ALJs originally planned.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 14:04:50 GMT -5
Remember funky your guess is as good as mine, but I think my guess sticks a little closer to the letter of the changes OPM instituted with this register. You are right bro. But there is nothing that would have stopped ssa from telling opm they were considering hiring more per city than they really intend to. They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5. But they could easily hire 4, 3, 2,1 or none. Seems to me it would have been quite simple for ssa to have told opm "we are wanting 10 slots in each of these 45 locales and would like 5 names per" (or maybe 5 slots per city then 10 names per). Then opm could just pull the top 50 scorers for each location and not worry to much about duplicates. Ssa is then free to choose their 90 best fits irregardless of which of the 45 locales or percentage of the 45 they end up. Subject of course to no more than the 10 per office they told opm about and, more realistically, available office space.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 6, 2014 14:08:19 GMT -5
I really want the job, but in truth I mainly do this because I love strategy games and trying to figure out puzzles.
I told you guys, my hobby is being an alj candidate. Will suck to lose that if I get hired. But I could live with it.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 14:10:24 GMT -5
Yes sir, we are close bro to the inner workings of the who, what, where, when, why and how for the Puzzle Palace, now if we could just pull the strings enough to get you hired. I like you, love trying to figure out puzzles.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 6, 2014 14:10:47 GMT -5
Remember funky your guess is as good as mine, but I think my guess sticks a little closer to the letter of the changes OPM instituted with this register. You are right bro. But there is nothing that would have stopped ssa from telling opm they were considering hiring more per city than they really intend to. They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5. But they could easily hire 4, 3, 2,1 or none. Seems to me it would have been quite simple for ssa to have told opm "we are wanting 10 slots in each of these 45 locales and would like 5 names per" (or maybe 5 slots per city then 10 names per). Then opm could just pull the top 50 scorers for each location and not worry to much about duplicates. Ssa is then free to choose their 90 best fits irregardless of which of the 45 locales or percentage of the 45 they end up. Subject of course to no more than the 10 per office they told opm about and, more realistically, available office space. As I've been reading your respective posts, I came to the conclusion that you were both pretty much saying the same thing - just a different starting proposition (whether SSA gave an accurate or inflated number of spots per location to OPM). All that to say, at least as I'm following this (and I am NOT a statistician), you are both correct, or I suppose I should say "could be" correct since I'm not sure any of us are certain about any of this. Which is why we SCOBs are hoping you first certers will keep us posted on how this all progresses!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 14:13:54 GMT -5
You are right bro. But there is nothing that would have stopped ssa from telling opm they were considering hiring more per city than they really intend to. They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5. But they could easily hire 4, 3, 2,1 or none. Seems to me it would have been quite simple for ssa to have told opm "we are wanting 10 slots in each of these 45 locales and would like 5 names per" (or maybe 5 slots per city then 10 names per). Then opm could just pull the top 50 scorers for each location and not worry to much about duplicates. Ssa is then free to choose their 90 best fits irregardless of which of the 45 locales or percentage of the 45 they end up. Subject of course to no more than the 10 per office they told opm about and, more realistically, available office space. As I've been reading your respective posts, I came to the conclusion that you were both pretty much saying the same thing - just a different starting proposition (whether SSA gave an accurate or inflated number of spots per location to OPM). All that to say, at least as I'm following this (and I am NOT a statistician), you are both correct, or I suppose I should say "could be" correct since I'm not sure any of us are certain about any of this. Which is why we SCOBs are hoping you first certers will keep us posted on how this all progresses! Of course, ok1956, however I am not a first certer, but a lowly SCOB after all.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 6, 2014 14:15:14 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5."
Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like.
What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on May 6, 2014 14:16:29 GMT -5
I really want the job, but in truth I mainly do this because I love strategy games and trying to figure out puzzles. I told you guys, my hobby is being an alj candidate. Will suck to lose that if I get hired. But I could live with it. You are a sick man, Funky. Take up knitting. Moopigsdad, ditto for you.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 6, 2014 14:17:59 GMT -5
Of course, ok1956, however I am not a first certer, but a lowly SCOB after all. As am I, my friend. And you always have fabulous info and ideas, so I figure if Funky will keep us posted and you continue to give us your thoughts, we SCOBs will ALL benefit!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 6, 2014 14:38:30 GMT -5
"They can't hire 6 if they told opm they wanted to hire 5." Why not? Is there a reg that stops them from doing so? So long as they have the three highest candidates for a spot, I would think they could do what they like. What's confusing to me is why the previous method of cert filling was necessary if the current method will provide enough candidates. It doesn't really matter anymore, but it makes me scratch my head. Title 5 of the CFRs, Section 332.402 states: ยง332.402 Referring candidates for appointment. OPM or a Delegated Examining Unit (DEU) will refer candidates for consideration by simultaneously listing a candidate on all certificates for which the candidate is interested, eligible, and within reach, except that, when it is deemed in the interest of good administration and candidates have been so notified, OPM or a DEU may choose to refer candidates for only one vacancy at a time. Selecting officials will receive sufficient names, when available, to allow them to consider at least 3 candidates for each vacancy. The key words in this section are "for each vacancy", so OPM would need to know from SSA how many vacancies it anticipated (say 90 vacancies here), so it could refer a sufficient number of names. Could they hire more than originally scheduled for one location over another location? Of course, as long as there were three names available for SSA to hire from for that vacancy when it made it's decision. Earlier, we saw ALJD's post about OPM requiring a separate cert for each location an agency wants to hire at, so there is a correlation between locations and vacancies somewhat, but not as specific as I originally thought, but there has to be three eligible names to choose from for SSA available at that location for which it requested a cert from OPM.
|
|