|
Post by anotherfed on Sept 19, 2014 22:12:27 GMT -5
Crap.
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Sept 20, 2014 7:31:17 GMT -5
The CR should have no impact because the Agency can operate at FY14 levels. I would imagine (though it is a guess) that the 2014 budget accounted for the ALJ hiring (after all a bunch of us were hired and on-boarded). The issue might be on-boarding during a CR, but there is no way that could even happen before the Dec date. I don't think the CR situation will have any impact on how the Agency moves forward with the next round of hires. I also don't believe Congress would allow a lapse of funds situation (like what occurred during testing) happen this time around, too politically sensitive.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 20, 2014 8:28:31 GMT -5
The CR should have no impact because the Agency can operate at FY14 levels. I would imagine (though it is a guess) that the 2014 budget accounted for the ALJ hiring (after all a bunch of us were hired and on-boarded). The issue might be on-boarding during a CR, but there is no way that could even happen before the Dec date. I don't think the CR situation will have any impact on how the Agency moves forward with the next round of hires. I also don't believe Congress would allow a lapse of funds situation (like what occurred during testing) happen this time around, too politically sensitive. Right on! I sure hope so!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 20, 2014 8:41:57 GMT -5
I thought the SSA hiring was funded thru the end of FY15 in a two year deal to get the staffing up to levels. I did too but apparently the budget was there, but not fully funded. Now we are back to the same ole CR issue. At least once this is signed we will be good through December. I guess I missed it, but the President signed the CR yesterday afternoon.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 20, 2014 17:02:48 GMT -5
The CR should have no impact because the Agency can operate at FY14 levels. I would imagine (though it is a guess) that the 2014 budget accounted for the ALJ hiring (after all a bunch of us were hired and on-boarded). The issue might be on-boarding during a CR, but there is no way that could even happen before the Dec date. I don't think the CR situation will have any impact on how the Agency moves forward with the next round of hires. I also don't believe Congress would allow a lapse of funds situation (like what occurred during testing) happen this time around, too politically sensitive. I have yet to read or hear from a pundit that Congress has the stomach for another sequester show down with the President. A CR until Dec. 1 is good news and I can't imagine that there will not be enough $ to get 200 hired--otherwise it would not have been so repeated by all the PTB.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Sept 20, 2014 18:28:41 GMT -5
I did too but apparently the budget was there, but not fully funded. Now we are back to the same ole CR issue. At least once this is signed we will be good through December. I guess I missed it, but the President signed the CR yesterday afternoon. Woo hoo!
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 22, 2014 18:52:27 GMT -5
Last week Deputy Sklar made a reference to ongoing negotiations with OPM (no details). That might be the delay.
It'll come.
You are worthy.
It's worth the wait.
~xo
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Sept 22, 2014 19:38:29 GMT -5
Last week Deputy Sklar made a reference to ongoing negotiations with OPM (no details). That might be the delay. It'll come. You are worthy. It's worth the wait. ~xo "Negotiations?" What an interesting word. I'll play a WAG card and say the subject of those negotiations is the "city-by-city" cert protocol. How about it insiders--any intel to share??
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 22, 2014 19:41:36 GMT -5
The negotiations also might be over the length of time SSA must give a candidate to respond to an offer.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Sept 22, 2014 20:22:43 GMT -5
Could be either or both. But, my money is on option 1 as the main "negotiating point".
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Sept 22, 2014 20:41:50 GMT -5
C. All of the above. And a woo hoo for good measure.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 22, 2014 21:32:53 GMT -5
I think A, B, and C are all viable but my money is on the number of candidates per cert.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 22, 2014 21:46:15 GMT -5
I think A, B, and C are all viable but my money is on the number of candidates per cert. Agreed. Number of unique names is likely the issue, much like it was with the first cert. Whether they have any greater success is a whole other matter.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Sept 22, 2014 23:07:21 GMT -5
Did we ever hear for sure that those with offers from Medicare also had 48 hours? That might let us know if it is an OPM rule or agency rule.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 22, 2014 23:18:50 GMT -5
I don't know what SSA could do with more unique names that would have to do with hiring on the certs for which OPM has sent them lists of eligibles. They can only reach a limited number of candidates to possibly put them in a top three on a particular set of certs.
SSA might like to have more unique names to get a peek at coming attractions, and use that info to plan subsequent certs. But I don't see why OPM would find that to be a good reason to expand the names on the lists of eligibles to include eligibles who could under no circumstances be reached in a top three in the set of certs at hand.
|
|
|
Post by floss on Sept 23, 2014 3:20:11 GMT -5
I know that this question may need to be asked on a different thread, but is the financial disclosure form one of the forms that has to be completed before the ssa interview or only when an offer is extended? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Sept 23, 2014 4:23:33 GMT -5
I know that this question may need to be asked on a different thread, but is the financial disclosure form one of the forms that has to be completed before the ssa interview or only when an offer is extended? Thanks. The OGE rules are that the form (278) needs to be completed within 30 days of appointment (the day you on-board). Extensions can be granted. Medicare wanted the form prior to the interview, but they were not submitted to OGE. For what it's worth, how long an Agency gives an applicant to accept or deny an offer is purely an Agency decision. The only rule is that the Agency be consistent among candidates.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 23, 2014 9:31:57 GMT -5
I don't know what SSA could do with more unique names that would have to do with hiring on the certs for which OPM has sent them lists of eligibles. They can only reach a limited number of candidates to possibly put them in a top three on a particular set of certs. SSA might like to have more unique names to get a peek at coming attractions, and use that info to plan subsequent certs. But I don't see why OPM would find that to be a good reason to expand the names on the lists of eligibles to include eligibles who could under no circumstances be reached in a top three in the set of certs at hand. I think you greatly underestimate how much flexibility SSA would have with additional unique names even with the new single-city certs. If there wasn't a way to work it, they wouldn't bother asking. It's possible only 70 were hired in round one because some cities didn't have enough names to actually consider three folks. If that were the case, that would be a pretty compelling argument for providing more unique names.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Sept 23, 2014 10:01:57 GMT -5
I don't know what SSA could do with more unique names that would have to do with hiring on the certs for which OPM has sent them lists of eligibles. They can only reach a limited number of candidates to possibly put them in a top three on a particular set of certs. SSA might like to have more unique names to get a peek at coming attractions, and use that info to plan subsequent certs. But I don't see why OPM would find that to be a good reason to expand the names on the lists of eligibles to include eligibles who could under no circumstances be reached in a top three in the set of certs at hand. I think you greatly underestimate how much flexibility SSA would have with additional unique names even with the new single-city certs. If there wasn't a way to work it, they wouldn't bother asking. It's possible only 70 were hired in round one because some cities didn't have enough names to actually consider three folks. If that were the case, that would be a pretty compelling argument for providing more unique names. Good point, hopefalj. As was discussed a bit before the first 2014 cert, the city-by-city scheme means that for OPM to adhere to the requirement that the cert contain sufficient names to fill the position, someone must do some complex scenario-running to be sure that under any combination of offers/strikes in a group of certs, when the dust settles there will be at least three names that were not affected by those offers/strikes. This is a monumental exercise in pure logic that OPM probably can't do/doesn't want to do. SSA is probably pointing out this problem, if, as you suggest, the low number of hires on the first cert was due to the failure of OPM to fulfill its certification duty. SSA may be pointing out to OPM that if they'd just give SSA X number of names, SSA could then more efficiently sort out who is eligible for what cities and place more judges per cert round. Sounds like a win-win to me.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 23, 2014 10:08:41 GMT -5
On the first round of certs, they had certs for a total of 90 positions. If all candidates had GALS which included all of the 44 or 45 cities the positions were in and if no one took themselves out of the running, the top 150 scores on the register would have provided SSA with sufficient names to hire 90, to make maximum use of their right to not consider those previously considered three times, and to have three candidates to consider for each and every slot. It appears the initial number of names OPM gave SSA was 158. I believe that was the number necessary to give SSA enough names to hire 90 and make maximum use of its right to not consider again a candidate who had previously been considered three times, taking into account the effect of GALs. (This of course does not mean SSA had to make maximum use of that right; only that OPM would need to allow for that in case it happened to assure an adequate number of eligibles on the certs.)
It will be a bit more complicated for the second set of certs because of eligibles from the first cert who will already have been considered one, two, or three times (assuming SSA doesn't tell OPM not to send it any candidates already considered three times), but I think the idea will be the same. On the second set of certs I expect OPM to send SSA enough names for SSA to hire for all the positions on the certs. to make maximum use of its right not to consider anyone already considered three times, and to have three candidates to consider for each slot. I expect in determining how many unique names are needed for this OPM will take into account the number of considerations candidates have already received.
I therefore expect the actual number of unique names on the second set of certs will depend on the number of positions on the certs, candidates' GALs, and the number of considerations received by first certers who are available for the second set of certs.
I would be surprised if OPM did not have this all set up for a computer to determine the names to go on the lists of eligibles for each cert rather than doing it manually.
I am not sure I see any part of this that OPM might be willing to negotiate, unless OPM wants to send less names than the above would yield.
|
|