|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 9, 2014 19:54:09 GMT -5
Hey folks. Been swamped lately and haven't posted much, but been reading as I can.
Just saw two pm's I found very interesting. Both tipsters want anonymity and one of the bits of intel is touchy....so here is what I can say:
A member reported speaking to someone that would undoubtedly know a little about the recent hiring. While this individual stated they did not know the final number or how many in each class, they did have two interesting facts. One, nearly half of the new hires were "insiders" Don't know how broad that term was defined, maybe ssa insiders, maybe inclusive of all current feds. Second, over half of the new hires are women.
Debate away.
The second tipster is a new member but a current alj. They provided an entire, real name roster for the September training class. Apparently it has been emailed around to those needing or wanting to know. For what it's worth, the list has 45 names on it. That may help those trying to determine numbers for this hire.
Now, what to do with the names? I'm not gonna post them to the open board. Though the names of aljs in an office are public and it will get out sooner or later. Here's what I have decided to do, if you are in the class and don't want anyone to know your name till we all introduce ourselves there, pm me and I will redact your name. Once folks have had two or three days to do that, if you are in the class and would like a redacted list to see your clssmates names, pm and I will respond with the redacted list.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Aug 9, 2014 20:18:55 GMT -5
Wow. Funky, i don't know how we're going to fill your shoes when you're otherwise occupied. Your intell is top notch.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 9, 2014 21:19:04 GMT -5
This was just a pass along. All credit to the two anonymous tipsters.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 10, 2014 8:49:16 GMT -5
While awaiting requests for redaction, I think I can safely give info on the cities represented in the August/September class. This should show how good our polling was. Remember though, this doesnt include any cities where hiring was just for the September/October group and the numbers may be off for the cities as some hired for these locales may be in that later start group.
The August reporting group are to the following offices:
Hartford Buffalo (2) Newark San Juan Johnstown Morgantown Philly east (3) Richmond (2) Wilkes Barre Fayetteville Greenville Middlesboro (2) Tupelo (2) Akron Cincy (2) Columbus (2) Cleveland Indy (3) Madison Milwaukee (2) Mt Pleasant (3) Toledo (2) Valparaiso Albuquerque Creve Coeur Fresno (3) Vegas Eugene
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 10, 2014 9:19:04 GMT -5
The pm I received said the class was 45. I only counted 44 on the list but may have miscounted. The format is screwy. Cant double check now, but will later.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 10, 2014 17:09:29 GMT -5
Ok, may have it figured out.
Thru pm, a fourth Fresno hire has been identified. This person was supposed to be in the August group, but requested and received a change to the second group late last week.
My guess....counting that individual the class would be 45 but has now been dropped to 44.
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Aug 10, 2014 18:45:44 GMT -5
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by almostheaven on Aug 10, 2014 22:22:10 GMT -5
Always appreciate the time you spend and details you uncover and share.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 11, 2014 8:58:44 GMT -5
Had a few PMs I wanna address here for clarification.
I have no intention of posting the real name list to the open forum. I just have a problem putting people's real names out there for the world to see on an anonymous message board. My intent is to release the list only to members of the August class. I feel that will be helpful. It will allow people to see the real names of their future coworkers and then make contact to discuss relo, share info, etc. Also, we will all know each other's real names in a few weeks anyway.
If you are in the class and want a copy of the list, PM me a request for it and include your real name so I can verify you are in the class. Further, please acknowledge that you will not release the list on the public boards once you have it.
I am offering anyone in the class that prefers not to have their name disclosed, even just to fellow August class members, the opportunity to request redaction of their name. All you have to do is PM me with your real name and ask to be removed. In place of your name, "REDACTION" will appear on the list. I think allowing today and tomorrow for such requests is sufficient. If you haven't requested a redact by noon Wednesday, I will begin sending out the list to those August classmates that have requested a copy.
If, despite these conditions, you still think releasing the list to anyone would be wrong in some way, please post or PM me with your concerns and I will attempt to address them. Again, I'm not sure I like doing this either, but given the conditions set above I can't see any real harm. The list is being sent around, unredacted, throughout SSA. We will all meet each other soon and it won't be too hard for people to figure out real names of the newbies once we report to our offices anyway. Still, if you think this is a bad idea, let me know why.
Funky
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 11, 2014 9:15:24 GMT -5
Funky I think the "opt out" policy is always worse than a "opt in" policy. So, perhaps unless you receive an email from someone saying they don't mind having their name included on your list, you should not submit it to anyone else. Requiring someone to remove their name shouldn't be a requisite to keep their name off a list (which was received from an anonymous source) you are now planning to share. Not everyone is a SSA employer or would have access to such a list.
I do agree that at some point most people will indeed be introduced and will find out who is in their class, but it shouldn't be sent out to anyone else not a part of the SSA world and privy to it in the first place. If SSA wanted all the new ALJs to have the list, it would have sent it out to the entire class. Quite frankly, you wouldn't have the list either except for receiving a PM from an anonymous source. So, why do you keep the source of the information and list anonymous, but are easily willing to publish a somewhat private list of offerees to anyone in the class? This is just my opinion on the topic. Although, I have no interest one way or the other in the list, I just think private information not for public dissemination (or even contemplated for dissemination with other new ALJs) should never be shared with anyone else, even the new ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Aug 11, 2014 9:55:41 GMT -5
Funky I think the "opt out" policy is always worse than a "opt in" policy. So, perhaps unless you receive an email from someone saying they don't mind having their name included on your list, you should not submit it to anyone else. Requiring someone to remove their name shouldn't be a requisite to keep their name off a list (which was received from an anonymous source) you are now planning to share. Not everyone is a SSA employer or would have access to such a list. I do agree that at some point most people will indeed be introduced and will find out who is in their class, but it shouldn't be sent out to anyone else not a part of the SSA world and privy to it in the first place. If SSA wanted all the new ALJs to have the list, it would have sent it out to the entire class. Quite frankly, you wouldn't have the list either except for receiving a PM from an anonymous source. So, why do you keep the source of the information and list anonymous, but are easily willing to publish a somewhat private list of offerees to anyone in the class? This is just my opinion on the topic. Although, I have no interest one way or the other in the list, I just think private information not for public dissemination (or even contemplated for dissemination with other new ALJs) should never be shared with anyone else, even the new ALJs. But he's not sending the list to "the public", or to you, or me, or anyone else not in the August class. I dont see the issue. It's not like once y'all arrive at training that you'll be able to remain anonymous amongst your co-attendees. It seems to me, it's nothing more than a preview get-to-know each other. But obviously, I have no horse in this race.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Aug 11, 2014 9:56:28 GMT -5
I agree with the "opt in" policy. For many people, getting affairs in order is a much higher priority than checking the board right now.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 11, 2014 10:08:33 GMT -5
I thought about an "opt in" as opposed to the "opt out" but figured there would be less people wanting out than in, so less work to redact than to keep a list of those not minding. I've gone over and over in my head how to handle it. On one hand, I don't want to post people's real names on the board. And I won't do that. On the other, we all report in two weeks. If you think you are gonna be able to remain anonymous once you report....well, that just won't happen. Plus, the only people I would be willing to share the list with are those on the list. In five weeks from today you will stand up and introduce yourself to the people on this list at training. You won't be able to say "I want to remain anonymous" or use your board name. By sharing the list now, you can see if you know someone that got hired. You can see the names of the other newbies in your office. maybe you want to contact a fellow newbie and see what they are doing for Temp Quarters or what they have heard about the new office. I can't tell you how many folks have PM me asking if I can connect them with other new hires in their office. I guess I dont see the harm. But I am perfectly willing to admit that is just my perspective.
I don't have to publish the info to anyone. I gave the cities represented in the class and maybe that is enough. I dunno. I will just keep checking this thread and my PMs for a couple days and see what others think and make a decision later.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 11, 2014 10:13:28 GMT -5
Funky I think the "opt out" policy is always worse than a "opt in" policy. So, perhaps unless you receive an email from someone saying they don't mind having their name included on your list, you should not submit it to anyone else. Requiring someone to remove their name shouldn't be a requisite to keep their name off a list (which was received from an anonymous source) you are now planning to share. Not everyone is a SSA employer or would have access to such a list. I do agree that at some point most people will indeed be introduced and will find out who is in their class, but it shouldn't be sent out to anyone else not a part of the SSA world and privy to it in the first place. If SSA wanted all the new ALJs to have the list, it would have sent it out to the entire class. Quite frankly, you wouldn't have the list either except for receiving a PM from an anonymous source. So, why do you keep the source of the information and list anonymous, but are easily willing to publish a somewhat private list of offerees to anyone in the class? This is just my opinion on the topic. Although, I have no interest one way or the other in the list, I just think private information not for public dissemination (or even contemplated for dissemination with other new ALJs) should never be shared with anyone else, even the new ALJs. But he's not sending the list to "the public", or to you, or me, or anyone else not in the August class. I dont see the issue. It's not like once y'all arrive at training that you'll be able to remain anonymous amongst your co-attendees. It seems to me, it's nothing more than a preview get-to-know each other. But obviously, I have no horse in this race. However, if SSA wished all the recent hires to have the list it would have provided it to them. Evidently, that is not the case here. Instead, funky received it from an anonymous source, not because SSA sent it to him as a new ALJ September ALJ class attendee in FC. I just think opt-out is wrong and opt-in is preferred by most people. The last thing someone should have to worry about is whether their information is being shared with others without them opting out. What if the list contained addresses and other information rather than just names, should funky share that too? I say the answer should be no, unless SSA shares it with everyone, not funky from an anonymous source. However, I don't have a "dog in this race", but I am stating how I would feel if I did have a "dog in this race".
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 11, 2014 10:18:02 GMT -5
Funky as a person with no dog in the fight what so ever I would stick with your plan. The fact is that the whole lot of you are going to be sitting in a room with each other doing the whole introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about you thing in just a few weeks. I know if I was about to pack up and relocate to another city I would appreciate knowing who was making a similar journey.
Also nothing in that list would be tied to any board members name except where only 1 person is going to a city and has been pointed out several times lately we will be able to go online in a little more than a month and see who the new judges are. If we have that kind of time and I don't.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 11, 2014 10:20:45 GMT -5
Funky I am not picking a fight with you, but I am expressing an opinion on how I would feel and I am sure how others feel about you sharing anonymous email information not meant for public knowledge. Yes, it will become common knowledge to the attendees when they show up in FC, but until then it should not be divulged. What is the difference if everyone waits an additional five weeks to find out? Do we live in a world where everything has to be known now/immediately? Cannot some things remain somewhat private until necessary? If someone wanted to find out if someone else received an offer as an ALJ, all he or she have to do is ask the person themselves. If that person wishes to share that information I am sure they would clearly write back to the person with the information. Otherwise, the email or information might not be divulged or ignored by the other person until the actual starting date in FC training.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 11, 2014 10:32:05 GMT -5
Funky as a person with no dog in the fight what so ever I would stick with your plan. The fact is that the whole lot of you are going to be sitting in a room with each other doing the whole introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about you thing in just a few weeks. I know if I was about to pack up and relocate to another city I would appreciate knowing who was making a similar journey. Also nothing in that list would be tied to any board members name except where only 1 person is going to a city and has been pointed out several times lately we will be able to go online in a little more than a month and see who the new judges are. If we have that kind of time and I don't. Gaidin then why hide behind an assumed name and avatar on the Board? Why not just give out everyone's information right now? There are things I know about funky that were told to me by himself, but is kept private. I don't share something not in the public domain yet. When it becomes public domain then you cannot hide or keep a secret, but until then you aren't owed the ability to know things not public. Why is it necessary for you to know the name of someone else making a similar journey across country or elsewhere? Is knowing someone else name now instead of five weeks from now going to make any difference to how you conduct yourself? Once again, the list of cities and names was not made public by SSA to the newly hired ALJs, hence it is not for them to have until SSA decides to share it or you stand up and introduce yourself. (Now, quite frankly I don't care if someone knows my name or not or even when they know my name in the future. I am just speaking from a privacy prospective for others.) As an ALJ, when you review a file it is supposedly a private file not to be shared with others. Do ALJs divulge and talk about files in their caseload? I am sure they do, although legally they shouldn't do so unless they are using the proverbial hypothetical. The file should have limited access to it under the law, just as I as a SSA practitioner cannot see a client's file until he/she gives me permission to do so. Without permission, I think it remains a private affair until revealed by the person himself/herself.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 11, 2014 10:34:36 GMT -5
I'm certainly not picking a fight with you either MPD. I really am somewhat back and forth on how I feel about having the info and what to do with it. With that said, while I appreciate your comments and perspective, this really involves 44 people on the list. I am not posting it to the world. If the 44 people that I MAY (havent decided yet) disclose the info to want the info, why not give it to them? I can tell you that as of now, significantly more have asked for a copy than have asked for redaction.
I'm not giving the list to the board, to you MPD or anyone else not on the list. Again, if it appears the majority of folks don't want the list or feel it's improper, I will honor their wishes. If someone wants to be redacted I will honor that. The list is the person's name and what city they were hired for. No addresses, no emails, phone numbers or anything else.
I for one have had several conversations with my fellow new judge and they have been very worthwhile. If this list let's people meet and converse before hand with their fellow new hires, great.
Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. I want to see what others think. Maybe I can figure a way to meet everyone's expectations of privacy and requests for a couple more weeks of anonymity...if I can't I wont forward the list.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 11, 2014 10:40:17 GMT -5
Funky how do you converse with someone when all you have is a name and no email address? If more than one person was hired for a city you may not be able to tell who is who and how to converse with them through the Board's PMs. As I said I don't care, but I am only making the counter argument because nobody else was willing to make it on the Board. I always enjoy looking at an issue from every angle as I know you do too. I understand the dilemma you now face. Perhaps, the answer is to allow those who PM you that they would like the list to just share their information with the others and leave the rest off, more like my opt-in argument. Just a thought for you.....
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 11, 2014 10:57:01 GMT -5
Definitely something to consider.
|
|