|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 14, 2015 9:36:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sweetd on Apr 14, 2015 10:32:39 GMT -5
I have a question. If I decline interest in a location I have been certified for, the notice says I will be removed from consideration at that location. Is that the only adverse consequence? I presume my status with regard to the other locations on my GAL remain unaffected. This process has taken so long that I have moved and can't relocate to certain locations across the country.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Apr 14, 2015 10:41:45 GMT -5
Only that location will be removed. It doesn't affect other locations.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 14, 2015 11:17:03 GMT -5
I have a question. If I decline interest in a location I have been certified for, the notice says I will be removed from consideration at that location. Is that the only adverse consequence? I presume my status with regard to the other locations on my GAL remain unaffected. This process has taken so long that I have moved and can't relocate to certain locations across the country. It only removes that one location (or however many you remove) and keeps in the running for the ones you choose.
EDIT: Anotherfed beat me to it. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by batdog on Apr 14, 2015 11:30:53 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming that for any given location that you can divide the total number of people who are on the list for that site and that's how many slots there are to be filled? So, for instance, if 15 people indicate they are on the list for a given city (recognizing that it is theoretically possible that not everyone who made a cert is a forum member and completed the poll) does that mean there are likely 5 open positions?
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 14, 2015 11:37:13 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming that for any given location that you can divide the total number of people who are on the list for that site and that's how many slots there are to be filled? So, for instance, if 15 people indicate they are on the list for a given city (recognizing that it is theoretically possible that not everyone who made a cert is a forum member and completed the poll) does that mean there are likely 5 open positions? That is not correct.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2015 11:53:52 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming that for any given location that you can divide the total number of people who are on the list for that site and that's how many slots there are to be filled? So, for instance, if 15 people indicate they are on the list for a given city (recognizing that it is theoretically possible that not everyone who made a cert is a forum member and completed the poll) does that mean there are likely 5 open positions? Not correct. There is a lot of duplication of names on the certs for the various cities, first of all, so there are several "extra" names. It's very rare to fill more than two slots at a time on an existing office, no matter how many names are on the cert for that city.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 14, 2015 11:53:53 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming that for any given location that you can divide the total number of people who are on the list for that site and that's how many slots there are to be filled? So, for instance, if 15 people indicate they are on the list for a given city (recognizing that it is theoretically possible that not everyone who made a cert is a forum member and completed the poll) does that mean there are likely 5 open positions? As Gary said that is not correct. When assigning people to Certs OPM provides enough people that each position certed for can be filled no matter what order they are filled. The best numbers on this sort of thing we have was the first set of certs and there were substantially more than 3 per position. I remember seeing more than 20 for a number of positions and determining later there was only one position at that location.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Apr 14, 2015 12:36:37 GMT -5
Am I correct in assuming that for any given location that you can divide the total number of people who are on the list for that site and that's how many slots there are to be filled? So, for instance, if 15 people indicate they are on the list for a given city (recognizing that it is theoretically possible that not everyone who made a cert is a forum member and completed the poll) does that mean there are likely 5 open positions? Not correct. There is a lot of duplication of names on the certs for the various cities, first of all, so there are several "extra" names. It's very rare to fill more than two slots at a time on an existing office, no matter how many names are on the cert for that city. I disagree. For this Register, we have seen multiple people hired for a single office many times. Not sure I remember correctly, but I think Fresno hired 4 from the first cert round.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2015 12:55:38 GMT -5
Not correct. There is a lot of duplication of names on the certs for the various cities, first of all, so there are several "extra" names. It's very rare to fill more than two slots at a time on an existing office, no matter how many names are on the cert for that city. I disagree. For this Register, we have seen multiple people hired for a single office many times. Not sure I remember correctly, but I think Fresno hired 4 from the first cert round. Read more carefully. I said it was rare to have more than two for an existing office in one hiring round. I did NOT say it doesn't happen. I don't think Fresno had four in one round, I haven't checked --but if they did, it's still rare to have that happen, which is what I said. The main point is, batdog's assumption is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Apr 14, 2015 13:37:57 GMT -5
I disagree. For this Register, we have seen multiple people hired for a single office many times. Not sure I remember correctly, but I think Fresno hired 4 from the first cert round. Read more carefully. I said it was rare to have more than two for an existing office in one hiring round. I did NOT say it doesn't happen. I don't think Fresno had four in one round, I haven't checked --but if they did, it's still rare to have that happen, which is what I said. The main point is, batdog's assumption is incorrect. For this Register, I do not think it is rare. In the first cert round, 21 locations had multiple hires (Fresno had 3, Mt Pleasant had 5). In January, 10 offices had multiple hires. And in March, 9 offices had multiple hires. Some of those hires were limited to two, but 14 of those cities had more than two hired from a single cert. I just don't think we can apply conventional wisdom to anything pertaining to this new Register -- especially since ODAR is no longer physically constrained on number of hires in one location.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 14, 2015 13:46:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 14, 2015 18:26:01 GMT -5
Read more carefully. I said it was rare to have more than two for an existing office in one hiring round. I did NOT say it doesn't happen. I don't think Fresno had four in one round, I haven't checked --but if they did, it's still rare to have that happen, which is what I said. The main point is, batdog's assumption is incorrect. For this Register, I do not think it is rare. In the first cert round, 21 locations had multiple hires (Fresno had 3, Mt Pleasant had 5). In January, 10 offices had multiple hires. And in March, 9 offices had multiple hires. Some of those hires were limited to two, but 14 of those cities had more than two hired from a single cert. I just don't think we can apply conventional wisdom to anything pertaining to this new Register -- especially since ODAR is no longer physically constrained on number of hires in one location. Oh, there are still constraints out there, but there do seem to be offices with more openings than usual because of the long gap waiting for the register, and the attrition that went on during that time on top of the vacancies that already existed. I think there may be more of the two at a time hires as the certs progress, but two will be more typical than more than two, and batdog's assumption is still wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Apr 14, 2015 22:53:16 GMT -5
While it is true that the Agency is looking for non-conforming offices to house more ALJ's, sticking newbies and transfers in the supply closet won't cut it. (Yes, I know some of you will say that would be fine, but you do need enough room for a chair, desk, computer and a couple of monitors, at least, even if you are willing to forgo the American flag, fancy credenza, and fleet of visitor's chairs.) SSA still has to house staff, which will increase to serve the additional (above and beyond the replacements) judges added, even if the new folks are not physically in the same place as the new judge(s). It also has to have adequate hearing rooms or additional space for video hearings - those can't be done in the lobby due to PII, not to mention chaos. And there have to be adequate mentors which, with a high volume of turnover through retirements and transfers, can be a realistic limit in locations able to physically house new judges. Although utilization of existing space is subject to creative thinking, there are still constraints.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Apr 15, 2015 8:53:57 GMT -5
Another shameless plug for folks to vote in the polls! Congrats everyone and good luck!
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 15, 2015 9:06:29 GMT -5
I would like to start speculation about when offers will start rolling. I believe some cities that have been hired from previously may hire as soon as Friday.
That is my SWAG. However, I am curious about what everybody else thinks.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 15, 2015 9:09:08 GMT -5
Mamaru makes valid points. But, I think Middlesboro is quite a telling example. When I and my fellow August 14 classmate transferred out, that left exactly one ALJ in the office. The Hocalj had previously transfered to another office and was splitting time as interim for MB and at the new office. To date they have not filled the Hocalj position.
Then, 4 brand new newbies arrived in March. 4 Nodars. So, that office now has one experienced ALJ and 4 newbies that began FC training this week.
That one experienced ALJ and the 4 newbies fill all ALJ offices except for the vacant Hocalj office which will presumably need to remain open for a Hocalj hire.
Yet, MB is on this cert. Maybe they won't hire another for there, maybe they will. There are three hearing rooms (so 6 judges) and another three in a permanent remote site nearby, so hearing room space isnt a precluding issue. There is a vacant writer's office or two, I believe.
Point is, the agency apparently had no problem hiring 4 brand new, no agency experience ALJs and placing them in an office with one experienced judge to mentor them. And now appears poised to hire another one or two.
It's a brave new world folks. The old paradigms don't apply. If there is open space at an HO, dont be surprised to see a judge sitting in it soon. Despite any issues that may have prevented such in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Apr 15, 2015 9:12:27 GMT -5
I would like to start speculation about when offers will start rolling. I believe some cities that have been hired from previously may hire as soon as Friday. That is my SWAG. However, I am curious about what everybody else thinks. The only issue I have with Friday is that, what I am now re-naming the "omni-certers" like myself (and I suspect that should be some of the super high scorers, unlike myself), have until Friday to return paperwork, including references. Could that be enough time for the quick credit check, compare if any changes on the Personal History Form, and whatever else needs to be done before an offer is extended this round?
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Apr 15, 2015 9:15:43 GMT -5
So we're back to talking about potential closet shortages ...
|
|
|
Post by cubbietax on Apr 15, 2015 9:20:54 GMT -5
I would like to start speculation about when offers will start rolling. I believe some cities that have been hired from previously may hire as soon as Friday. That is my SWAG. However, I am curious about what everybody else thinks. Do you, or other in the seem to know this process better than most, think it is possible that they could hire for the May start date at a location that has been on previous certs, but has never had anyone hired yet? It would seem that they could because it would seem that they have conducted the interviews necessary to hire.
Also, it does not seem impossible that they could hire at certain new locations even before interviews. For example, Evanston Il is a new cert city. Orland Park IL has been on prior certs. These offices are only 40 miles apart. The odds that a person would have Evanston on GAL and not Orland Park is low, not impossible I admit, but unlikely. If the top three have all already interviewed, it does not seem like anything would preclude hiring at that location.
Now, the second question I pose would likely only apply to a very small set of cities, but it seems possible.
Guesses? Hunches? WAGs?
|
|