|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 30, 2015 10:46:24 GMT -5
Update: DOL, in their OALJ offices are looking for current ALJs in the following locales; DC Covington, LA Cincinnati Pittsburgh Newport News, VA
Some folks on this board apparently interviewed for some of these cities this spring. Did anyone get hired, or is this the new announcements because DOL didn't like the folks off the register? Amy Intel would be appreciated, even a pm. Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2015 13:11:35 GMT -5
"I turned down the Skype interview because anyone interviewing in that manner is not going to be on the same footing as those that interview in person, it is just a fact of life."
Really? A "fact of life"? I was in private practice for 2 decades, did innumerable hearings via video. Never saw one iota of difference betwen a video hearing and a "live" hearing. As an ALJ video hearings are likely +95% of my hearing docket. Once again I have yet to see one iota, one shred, of difference between a video hearing and a "live" hearing. (As contemplating life as a future ALJ realization must be made that 99.99999% of your time, including hearings will be in front of and using a computer screen. Refusing to do same before one even gets the job will likely be frowned upon.)
In all the decades of practice from both sides of the bench I have yet to see one shred, one iota, of evidence definitively proving that video hearings are somehow less ....quality(?) (I don't even know the correct word to place here) than live hearings. (In fact of life video hearings are so clear now that I can zoom into to a person and quite literally begin counting freckles on their face; something impossible in live hearings.) In fact of life the vast majority of criminal courts would greatly disagree as hearings are routinely conducted there with the defendant via video from a remote locations and all due process of law is rightly assumed. The vast majority of international corporations, if not almost all the major world corporations, would certainly disagree as interviews, hiring and daily business activities are routinely conducted via video 24/7/365 and have been for years. The US military itself conducts a large portion of its wars now via video from 1000's of miles away from the battlefront rather than inserting "live" bodies there. My better half routinely conducts highly technical and multi-person video conferences and seminars for major universities across the country as the proper and recognized method rather than trying to do same in live settings.
Sorry, but to be blunt, demanding a "live" meeting in lieu of video makes as much sense as demanding that you will only watch the evening news if Scott Pelley himself stands in your living room to read the news, otherwise his nightly video TV feed is not credible.
If the interviewer is already conducting hiring by video interview (i.e. a very large red flag that video conferencing is SOP for that company/agency) and you decline you may have already placed an irremovable Luddite stamp across your forehead.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Jun 30, 2015 15:48:45 GMT -5
With all due respect Papa, I think you were a bit harsh on the original poster, particularly since the original post was almost three months old and others expressed disagreement with his post. Historically, on this board, people who are, or want to be judges, tend to refrain from calling others names.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on Jun 30, 2015 16:12:24 GMT -5
Gosh, I would jump at the chance to have put some of my military criminal defense clients on VTC vice hearings in person. There's nothing like the Military Judge face-to-face with your military-bearing-optional accused to make you wish you had a Tandberg in the way to provide a little *less* granularity on the many flaws in the person standing next to you.
Also, the MJ won't be there in person when your overly dramatic accused gets sick before the bench. (That was a fun day.)
Dear SSA/Bob, can we redo my interview? This time, let's go for VTC. Thanks,
C
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 30, 2015 16:26:14 GMT -5
Update: DOL, in their OALJ offices are looking for current ALJs in the following locales; DC Covington, LA Cincinnati Pittsburgh Newport News, VA Some folks on this board apparently interviewed for some of these cities this spring. Did anyone get hired, or is this the new announcements because DOL didn't like the folks off the register? Amy Intel would be appreciated, even a pm. Thanks Is this a USAJobs announcement? They interviewed a number of people off the register. I do not believe any were extended offers. This is based on the judges listed at the various regional offices then and now. I do believe they are short several judges, with retirements on the way.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 30, 2015 19:03:23 GMT -5
Update: DOL, in their OALJ offices are looking for current ALJs in the following locales; DC Covington, LA Cincinnati Pittsburgh Newport News, VA Some folks on this board apparently interviewed for some of these cities this spring. Did anyone get hired, or is this the new announcements because DOL didn't like the folks off the register? Amy Intel would be appreciated, even a pm. Thanks Is this a USAJobs announcement? They interviewed a number of people off the register. I do not believe any were extended offers. This is based on the judges listed at the various regional offices then and now. I do believe they are short several judges, with retirements on the way. I think that is a fair assessment. And no, this was an appeal to sitting Judges. They obviously did not hire from the Register. Now they have alot of vacancies due to retirement and history tells us that they will be filled by sitting ODAR Judges or possibly one from another Agency. BTW, its sure nice to see Chinook on these pages.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 30, 2015 20:03:35 GMT -5
Update: DOL, in their OALJ offices are looking for current ALJs in the following locales; DC Covington, LA Cincinnati Pittsburgh Newport News, VA Some folks on this board apparently interviewed for some of these cities this spring. Did anyone get hired, or is this the new announcements because DOL didn't like the folks off the register? Amy Intel would be appreciated, even a pm. Thanks Is this a USAJobs announcement? They interviewed a number of people off the register. I do not believe any were extended offers. This is based on the judges listed at the various regional offices then and now. I do believe they are short several judges, with retirements on the way. Yes, this was a USA Jobs post.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jun 30, 2015 21:42:10 GMT -5
I looked it up, Sea - and it just lists all their offices. I think they are short 2 in Pittsburgh, 1 in Newport News and, maybe, 1 in DC. It won't be a big hire, but if they pull 3 or 4 from ODAR, it will create vacancies for next year.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 30, 2015 21:56:12 GMT -5
With all due respect Papa, I think you were a bit harsh on the original poster, particularly since the original post was almost three months old and others expressed disagreement with his post. Historically, on this board, people who are, or want to be judges, tend to refrain from calling others names. Good to see you posting! Your comments are always appreciated and informative.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 8:17:57 GMT -5
Yeah, likely right I was a bit harsh. And yes, my apology to the Board.
Reasoning for harshness: whenever anyone supports a theory with "its a well known fact...." my hackles rise when it is well known no such fact actually exists. Had a rep throw out this very same statement in a hearing the other day (right before I saw the same post on here) and upon my inquiry of the rep to show me this "well known fact" the scenario became abundantly clear (to his clients utmost embarrasment) that his was all just BS in attempt to cover a very weak spot in the claim.
Unfortunately here the prior poster caught the brunt of my shoe finally reaching the rep's posterior post hoc. Mea culpa et al.
Mantra of the day: “I always listen to what people don't say, it's a lot more interesting than the ________ they want you to believe.” ― Maverick Hill
|
|
|
Post by HallmarkFan on Jul 6, 2015 4:59:27 GMT -5
For what it's worth, I decided not to interview for the Cincinnati office in April.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 6, 2015 7:05:52 GMT -5
Sorry - I said "maybe" D.C. - but you reminded me, Coffee - the other vacancy was in Cincy.
|
|
tula
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by tula on Aug 31, 2015 7:04:01 GMT -5
Has anyone on the Board received an offer? The interviews ended a couple of weeks ago so offers should be going out soon.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Aug 31, 2015 7:09:40 GMT -5
Are you sure you're not confusing a DOL with a NLRB? The DOL was back in the Spring and we never confirmed they hired anyone off the register - THEN they followed up with a USAJobs.gov announcement for existing ALJs. NLRB is a different entity.
|
|
tula
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by tula on Aug 31, 2015 11:21:13 GMT -5
No. I'm talking about the DOL USAJobs posting from the end of June. Has anyone heard any reports of hiring from that posting?
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Sept 1, 2015 13:59:42 GMT -5
Ah - I got you. Sorry for my misinterpretation. I'm not sure we got any board member to indicate that he/she was pursuing DOL pursuant to this announcement. I may have missed it, though.
|
|