|
Post by useorlose on Dec 8, 2014 10:38:41 GMT -5
Alright, I'm going nuts. It's now been three weeks since my interview and none of my references have been contacted. Is anyone else in this position?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Dec 8, 2014 11:20:26 GMT -5
Alright, I'm going nuts. It's now been three weeks since my interview and none of my references have been contacted. Is anyone else in this position? I was until Thursday of last week. Have you contacted your references to see if any of them have been called and they forgot to let you know? Just curious. Now, the vast majority of mine have been contacted by the reference checkers.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Dec 8, 2014 11:22:48 GMT -5
I was in the same position until Thursday. They started calling them on Thursday, got a few on Friday. I don't think they've called everyone yet.
It is a terrible feeling to be in that position. There are others still in those circumstances too, I believe.
I wonder whether this process is being driven by the locations. That is, if SSA knows a particular location will be hiring in March or May, not January, they may be taking applicants in order of which cert will be filled first. It is only a guess. I only have one city on this cert, a location that was added on November 4th, after the original list came out. I was thinking that might be why my references were checked so late.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 8, 2014 11:25:18 GMT -5
And I am sure mine were all checked and have been completed because I submitted my paperwork the day we received it. I think that is the only reason mine are all in. It was fairly spread out too, not all were called in the same week.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Dec 8, 2014 12:03:33 GMT -5
I was until Thursday of last week. This is not something to stress about. They may not all be called, (that is NOT unusual), but at least some of them will be. There is no rhyme or reason to the order in which calls are made. There hasn't been in the past, and I don't believe there is now. There is too much overanalyzing going on on the board. They shipped stack of forms to the contractor, and the contractor is processing them in the order they see fit, which is very likely relatively random. Not to worry.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Dec 8, 2014 13:03:17 GMT -5
"There is too much overanalyzing going on on the board. "
But it's a human trait to try to make sense of events and patterns out of the formless void. And if I don't think about this, I will have to think about all the work I have to do this week.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Dec 8, 2014 13:20:05 GMT -5
There is too much overanalyzing going on on the board. Unpossible!
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Dec 8, 2014 13:38:43 GMT -5
1) References are still being gathered for some people 2) They do NOT need all of a person's references to consider the reference "complete" and there is no penalty for not having all of them contacted
These are pieces of information I deduced (i.e., was not directly told) from a reference phone call today.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Dec 8, 2014 14:35:07 GMT -5
A colleague just called to say she got a reference call an hour ago. So they are still checking.
She said the woman told her she usually does Homeland Security reference checks.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Dec 8, 2014 18:05:04 GMT -5
Of the 14 names I submitted for supervisory, judicial, adversarial, and professional references, 11 have been contacted. I submitted on Nov 6 (Thursday of cert week). Linked In checked.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Dec 8, 2014 20:52:57 GMT -5
If you're on LinkedIn, you can subscribe to a premium service that will allow you to see who has checked your profile.
|
|
|
Post by almostheaven on Dec 8, 2014 22:39:19 GMT -5
Another reminder of the importance of alerting your references about the process; One of my references called today to tell me she had gotten a call for a reference but for someone she didn't know. She insisted she didn't know that person through several questions and then asked the caller if they should be asking about me. The interviewer told her my name and my reference 's name were on his list but not linked together. He called back about an hour later and asked her the reference questions for me. If she had not been expecting the call, there may have been a bad report on the unknown person and maybe on me if the names were wrong. I understand mistakes happen so I am glad she asked the caller extra questions!
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Dec 8, 2014 22:52:06 GMT -5
Another reminder of the importance of alerting your references about the process; One of my references called today to tell me she had gotten a call for a reference but for someone she didn't know. She insisted she didn't know that person through several questions and then asked the caller if they should be asking about me. The interviewer told her my name and my reference 's name were on his list but not linked together. He called back about an hour later and asked her the reference questions for me. If she had not been expecting the call, there may have been a bad report on the unknown person and maybe on me if the names were wrong. I understand mistakes happen so I am glad she asked the caller extra questions! Good intel, but I hope no one has a panic attack...
|
|
|
Post by almostheaven on Dec 9, 2014 6:51:16 GMT -5
Not my intent to cause a panic, just reporting on reality of interview calls when the caller has a list vs the paperwork you filed. The interviewer was willing to double check and correct his list.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 9, 2014 8:16:30 GMT -5
Another reminder of the importance of alerting your references about the process; One of my references called today to tell me she had gotten a call for a reference but for someone she didn't know. She insisted she didn't know that person through several questions and then asked the caller if they should be asking about me. The interviewer told her my name and my reference 's name were on his list but not linked together. He called back about an hour later and asked her the reference questions for me. If she had not been expecting the call, there may have been a bad report on the unknown person and maybe on me if the names were wrong. I understand mistakes happen so I am glad she asked the caller extra questions! This is a super good post. Everyone on the reference list and past supervisors should be expecting the call and know what questions to expect. This is probably advice for those who have not made a cert yet or who have not had the reference checks yet. I think making a point of keeping in contact with all of the people who have on your paperwork will make things a bit more smooth. Just like going to trial, you have prep work to do!
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Dec 9, 2014 9:23:16 GMT -5
I provided mine not only with a copy of the questions, but also an updated resume, and summary of why I had asked for them to be a reference. For example, I reminded my mentor that he had a history with me going back to law school and was the only reference who had known me that long, I reminded a professional reference that she had actually observed me conduct hearings, I reminded a coworker who was a former group sup that she could speak to my productivity. I think it helps if they know what "piece" of your personal puzzle they are in a unique (or at least special) position to provide.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Dec 9, 2014 9:33:03 GMT -5
Not my intent to cause a panic, just reporting on reality of interview calls when the caller has a list vs the paperwork you filed. The interviewer was willing to double check and correct his list. I know. I just meant that if you prepped your references, you really can't help what comes out of their mouths ultimately. So, folks don't have to assume this happened to them too. We have always had reports of random numbers of references being called, in random order. But if you haven't prepped 'em...
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Dec 9, 2014 9:55:03 GMT -5
I had former supervisors that I was unable to get in touch with, although most received a narrative of what I've been up to over the past x years. My main hope is that if they aren't returning my emails or calls, they won't be returning the contractor's. I wonder if there's a minimum amount of time you need to work somewhere before they'll contact that supervisor.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Dec 9, 2014 10:01:37 GMT -5
I had former supervisors that I was unable to get in touch with, although most received a narrative of what I've been up to over the past x years. My main hope is that if they aren't returning my emails or calls, they won't be returning the contractor's. I wonder if there's a minimum amount of time you need to work somewhere before they'll contact that supervisor. No minimum as far as I know. I had a 6 week paid temp summer job at a firm in my last year of law school at the edge of the 15 years and they contacted that supervisor! So if it is on your paperwork, it is apparently fair game.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Dec 9, 2014 10:24:12 GMT -5
I'm old enough to have started in the days when the FBI was tasked with doing the background checks. As you can imagine, most of the checks were less-than-enthusiastic; it's not exactly the picture that comes to mind when you picture being an FBI agent. The background checks would get back-burnered in favor of just about anything else and would take forever.
I'm not defending the contractors. I just think that it's kind of dull work that ends up going to the lowest common denominator that can do the job (sort of a Reverse Peter Principle).
|
|