|
Post by JudgeRatty on Nov 13, 2014 12:41:37 GMT -5
I have had several references reporting to me today that they have been called, starting last evening about 7:30 pm. When the refs called back after receiving the voice mail, they were placed in a Q on an ALJ candidate reference line for the next available operator. Really! They gave their name and then the person asked the questions. One of my refs said the caller ID was from Florida, and others were an 800 number. So you might want to pass along the calls may be from different numbers!
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Nov 13, 2014 12:54:35 GMT -5
Wow - that's kinda icky and gross. Very assembly-line, which is insulting to the entire marathon we've been going through, not to mention the insult to the folks we asked to be our references.
Have they contacted every one of your references? It always seems like folks report back that only half - two-thirds get called, not 100% of their references being called.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Nov 13, 2014 13:04:26 GMT -5
Wow - that's kinda icky and gross. Very assembly-line, which is insulting to the entire marathon we've been going through, not to mention the insult to the folks we asked to be our references. Have they contacted every one of your references? It always seems like folks report back that only half - two-thirds get called, not 100% of their references being called. Not all. I am now up to 4 who have reported to me. Two former employers, one current supervisor, and 1 off my reference list. No interview call yet. But at least getting these ref calls, I know they have my paperwork! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 13, 2014 13:19:56 GMT -5
The fact that SSA contracts to have references done means it can be done by a nondescript assembly line person who just asks preset questions and records the answers verbatim. It's just an assembly line way of handling the task the outside contractor was hired to do. It shouldn't matter to us as they are just recording what was said and SSA is looking for any negative remarks.
|
|
|
Post by orchid on Nov 13, 2014 13:50:44 GMT -5
At least they are working in it!!!!
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Nov 13, 2014 14:39:21 GMT -5
All but 4 of mine have been contacted.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 13, 2014 14:46:14 GMT -5
I am still waiting for my first reference call, but my paperwork didn't go in until near the end. So, not surprised by the fact others are having their references already contacted.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 13, 2014 14:57:10 GMT -5
The fact that SSA contracts to have references done means it can be done by a nondescript assembly line person who just asks preset questions and records the answers verbatim. It's just an assembly line way of handling the task the outside contractor was hired to do. It shouldn't matter to us as they are just recording what was said and SSA is looking for any negative remarks. Right. It fits with the government method of very standardized interviews:references.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Nov 13, 2014 15:33:16 GMT -5
The fact that SSA contracts to have references done means it can be done by a nondescript assembly line person who just asks preset questions and records the answers verbatim. It's just an assembly line way of handling the task the outside contractor was hired to do. It shouldn't matter to us as they are just recording what was said and SSA is looking for any negative remarks. Right. It fits with the government method of very standardized interviews:references. No, it doesn't fit in at all. What is the point of having a giant list of references? 95% of the jobs out there, including within the government, ask for 3 references. Why do we have to provide three-o-this and three-o-that? For many of us, and for the myriad reasons posted throughout here, we have a tough time ensuring that we can provide the exact number of opponents, supervisors, judges, etc. that won't tank us when called. It is a very trying and nerve-racking process to get this far. Litigators are not always the most pleasant people and we are not always known for making friends along the way, but we are very good at what we do. Not all references can convey that in such a way that won't come across as a negative. Other than 5 or so years in private practice, I have spent 25 years in the government - during college, after college and after law school. I have had many government employers. GOOD employers ASK for 3, and then call your 3, references and ask questions, and not only listen to the answers but listen to the tone of the speaker and the amount of information that is being provided. How is that information being captured by a contractor? If it has been reduced to just "checking the block" and making sure they don't say anything negative about you, then no one should really worry about their references. We will all be selecting average to better than average folks to vouch for us. But the real loss is to the agency who will no longer be capturing the real point of speaking to a prospective employee's references - will this person be a good employee who can adapt to different jobs and different situations and still have past employers speak well of them? It just doesn't make sense to provide all these references to ODAR and then they farm it out to a contractor. Why not ask for 2 judges, 2 supervisors and 1 collegue (or some combo like that), and then someone at ODAR calls all of them? Less references to talk to, but enough to get a good impression of the future ALJ. I get the part about contracting out testing, background investigations, etc., but reference checks? That's going a bit too far.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Nov 13, 2014 16:07:53 GMT -5
Right. It fits with the government method of very standardized interviews:references. No, it doesn't fit in at all. What is the point of having a giant list of references? 95% of the jobs out there, including within the government, ask for 3 references. Why do we have to provide three-o-this and three-o-that? For many of us, and for the myriad reasons posted throughout here, we have a tough time ensuring that we can provide the exact number of opponents, supervisors, judges, etc. that won't tank us when called. It is a very trying and nerve-racking process to get this far. Litigators are not always the most pleasant people and we are not always known for making friends along the way, but we are very good at what we do. Not all references can convey that in such a way that won't come across as a negative. Other than 5 or so years in private practice, I have spent 25 years in the government - during college, after college and after law school. I have had many government employers. GOOD employers ASK for 3, and then call your 3, references and ask questions, and not only listen to the answers but listen to the tone of the speaker and the amount of information that is being provided. How is that information being captured by a contractor? If it has been reduced to just "checking the block" and making sure they don't say anything negative about you, then no one should really worry about their references. We will all be selecting average to better than average folks to vouch for us. But the real loss is to the agency who will no longer be capturing the real point of speaking to a prospective employee's references - will this person be a good employee who can adapt to different jobs and different situations and still have past employers speak well of them? It just doesn't make sense to provide all these references to ODAR and then they farm it out to a contractor. Why not ask for 2 judges, 2 supervisors and 1 collegue (or some combo like that), and then someone at ODAR calls all of them? Less references to talk to, but enough to get a good impression of the future ALJ. I get the part about contracting out testing, background investigations, etc., but reference checks? That's going a bit too far. I don't disagree Sealaw, but I realize the circumstances of the situation as it is presented to ALJ applicants. You and I and other applicants look at this as very important to our futures, while for ODAR/SSA, this is just another hoop for you to jump through. I am not making excuses, but explaining that they look at things far different than we would or do. Perhaps, the idea is to determine if you can really can provide so many references to ODAR/SSA. It is the challenge itself of coming up with references that makes this difficult. Anyone can come up with three references they can count on, but how many of us can truly come up with nine such references. I am sure they are not just recording negative things, but positive things said about the candidates, too. All of what is said by the references is taken into consideration. I sat in as an interviewer for Behavioral Based Interviews in my previous position many times. The idea was to basically record as much as you could about what the person gave as an answer. You didn't have time to look them in the eye as they spoke because you had you head down writing as fast as the person spoke. It really is a rotten way to interview someone in reality. I would rather look the applicant in the eye and have a conversation with him or her during an interview, but that is not the way things are done today. This is what you will see in D.C. as well, much like at the OPM interview. According to the experts, past performance is a predictor of future behavior....I say what a joke!!! This assumes that someone could never better himself/herself from any previous actions and most people I have know grow and get better with experience. Hence, I just think you are getting to wound up in the nuances of the reference calls. Just consider it and the interview as more hoops for us to jump through. Does it mean ODAR/SSA will always hire the best people, probably not, but they will hire people they can feel comfortable with and can perform the position? I don't disagree with your post, but I do realize I do not control the process and I will do what is asked of me and hope for the best. Learn to go with the flow and accept things as they come along, the individualist will not do well at ODAR/SSA. You are just to be a cog in the process quickly producing the work. Just a bit of advice for you my friend. Good luck!!!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 13, 2014 16:51:07 GMT -5
Right. It fits with the government method of very standardized interviews:references. No, it doesn't fit in at all. What is the point of having a giant list of references? 95% of the jobs out there, including within the government, ask for 3 references. Why do we have to provide three-o-this and three-o-that? For many of us, and for the myriad reasons posted throughout here, we have a tough time ensuring that we can provide the exact number of opponents, supervisors, judges, etc. that won't tank us when called. It is a very trying and nerve-racking process to get this far. Litigators are not always the most pleasant people and we are not always known for making friends along the way, but we are very good at what we do. Not all references can convey that in such a way that won't come across as a negative. Other than 5 or so years in private practice, I have spent 25 years in the government - during college, after college and after law school. I have had many government employers. GOOD employers ASK for 3, and then call your 3, references and ask questions, and not only listen to the answers but listen to the tone of the speaker and the amount of information that is being provided. How is that information being captured by a contractor? If it has been reduced to just "checking the block" and making sure they don't say anything negative about you, then no one should really worry about their references. We will all be selecting average to better than average folks to vouch for us. But the real loss is to the agency who will no longer be capturing the real point of speaking to a prospective employee's references - will this person be a good employee who can adapt to different jobs and different situations and still have past employers speak well of them? It just doesn't make sense to provide all these references to ODAR and then they farm it out to a contractor. Why not ask for 2 judges, 2 supervisors and 1 collegue (or some combo like that), and then someone at ODAR calls all of them? Less references to talk to, but enough to get a good impression of the future ALJ. I get the part about contracting out testing, background investigations, etc., but reference checks? That's going a bit too far. I agree with everything moopigsdad has stated above. When I applied I was very concerned about the fact that counsel that I had to put down as references would in all likelihood say things that might make me wince if I heard them. I rather think it puts the outsiders in private practice at a disadvantage--particularly if you are a litigator. I also believe that the folks who process this information, passed on and filtered by contractors (and let's not forget that that is by no means an exact science) may or may not appreciate the nuances, motives and intent behind the comments. sealaw, you just have to leave it all up to TPTB. You make your choices and have to live with them. The process will choose a Clark Kent over a Superman every time. Some of us are more adept at being Clark and channeling his persona that others. I should know.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 13, 2014 17:45:31 GMT -5
I understand the concerns, but maybe I have worked in and around the government so long that this sort of technique does not faze me. They may well not call all nine (or ten) for everyone. I know that was the case many times in the past, but they cover all the categories. I don't have adversaries, but I have ten people who have known me at least 20 years, some far more than that (one of the callers mentioned that up one of my references the first time around) So, if length of association counts for anything, I'm in good shape. We will see how many get a call.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Nov 13, 2014 19:28:49 GMT -5
Oh I am hip to the game and can play it as well as anybody, but it is an appointment for life. Maybe it is a test, or testament, to compile 9 references from various parts of your professional life. And maybe we really are just supposed to be good little doobies for ODAR instead of clear thinking, level headed, intelligent, thoughtful jurists. That would explain the hoops and the lack of 100% completion rate on contacting references. I am neither angry nor frustrated, just a bit insulted and perplexed that they would use contractors to call references. The hiring of a federal lifetime appointee has the appearance of an inherently governmental activity, and while contractors can play a supporting role, the value derived in checking references should play more than a supporting role. JMHO of course. Glad for the discourse, and I will no longer obsess over references like I thought I had to! I've got a number of great bosses from my past who can vouch for me, assuming they actually get called ... Now I know to warn them about the phone queue!
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Nov 13, 2014 19:52:41 GMT -5
Sea, one of the judges that I clerked for described a similar process when he was being vetted for his Article III position.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Nov 13, 2014 19:57:09 GMT -5
Oh I am hip to the game and can play it as well as anybody, but it is an appointment for life. Maybe it is a test, or testament, to compile 9 references from various parts of your professional life. And maybe we really are just supposed to be good little doobies for ODAR instead of clear thinking, level headed, intelligent, thoughtful jurists. That would explain the hoops and the lack of 100% completion rate on contacting references. I am neither angry nor frustrated, just a bit insulted and perplexed that they would use contractors to call references. The hiring of a federal lifetime appointee has the appearance of an inherently governmental activity, and while contractors can play a supporting role, the value derived in checking references should play more than a supporting role. JMHO of course. Glad for the discourse, and I will no longer obsess over references like I thought I had to! I've got a number of great bosses from my past who can vouch for me, assuming they actually get called ... Now I know to warn them about the phone queue! When I was a reference for a judge in 2007 they used contractors then too. The person I spoke to knew nothing of SSA or the position being sought. He just asked verbatim questions and recorded my answers.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Nov 13, 2014 20:21:50 GMT -5
Well, I guess you learn something new everyday! Thanks for the heads up sratty.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Nov 13, 2014 21:45:59 GMT -5
Bob, I will be a doobie! Sealaw, you have 666 posts now.
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 13, 2014 22:15:15 GMT -5
I can't necessarily disagree with ODAR's wanting judicial, adversary, and professional references. On the other hand, if you held a position as a decision maker, or other, for over a decade, or longer, then you haven't appeared before a judge or adversary during that time. Hard to get these folks to agree to be a reference since they haven't seen you or dealt with you for an extended period of time.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 13, 2014 22:23:28 GMT -5
I can't necessarily disagree with ODAR's wanting judicial, adversary, and professional references. On the other hand, if you held a position as a decision maker, or other, for over a decade, or longer, then you haven't appeared before a judge or adversary during that time. Hard to get these folks to agree to be a reference since they haven't seen you or dealt with you for an extended period of time. That's why they tell you you don't have to have adversaries, and why you can use ALJs instead of judges. Some of us know judges in other contexts than just having appeared in front of them, also.
|
|
|
Post by Who Me? on Nov 13, 2014 22:32:14 GMT -5
observer:
Very true. In my case, I have only been in this state for a few years, having accepted a job offer while living in another state. Finding current references in the new state can be difficult, especially if you have only recently been admitted to the practice of law in the new state.
But, I did find folks who knew me when and agreed to be references.
|
|