|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 13, 2015 12:00:08 GMT -5
With all due respect to my esteemed friend, this part is not entirely true. They can use local HOCALJs or just not bring as many interviewers in for certain days. The interviewers do not have to stay the whole 4 days, and they all do not have to stay for all sessions. Each group does not have to be equal. There can be 4 in a group and then only have that one group on that particular day. Or they can vary and have 3 time slots with 4 in one and 2 in another. Equal numbers is not something that has to be true. I wouldn't go as far as esteemed friend.....friend yes, esteemed I am not so sure about. LOL! Respect who needs that unless I am wearing a robe, which hasn't happened yet. Now, now we will just agree to disagree on the numbers. Your opinion is as valid as my opinion and everyone know what they say about opinions. So, sratty I accept your opinion, but I do not happen to agree with it. Absolutely! And hey, we are lawyers, we like to take a side and argue the points. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 13, 2015 12:00:50 GMT -5
There's nothing like sticking a bunch of lawyers on a discussion forum and throwing out an idle piece of speculation Great minds, just posted something similar. LOL! So funny.
|
|
|
Post by cheesy on May 13, 2015 13:14:58 GMT -5
There's nothing like sticking a bunch of lawyers on a discussion forum and throwing out an idle piece of speculation I object, no, I strenuously object to your characterization of the distinguished members of this august Board as a bunch. After all, are we all bananas?
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 13, 2015 13:17:40 GMT -5
There's nothing like sticking a bunch of lawyers on a discussion forum and throwing out an idle piece of speculation I object, no, I strenuously object to your characterization of the distinguished members of this august Board as a bunch. After all, are we all bananas? As Groucho Marx said, "I'd never belong to a club that would have me as a member."
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 13, 2015 15:41:56 GMT -5
Everyone may know this or maybe not, but someone in the know told me that the current class only has 2 insiders in it. Perhaps less insiders means less Board members? I am surprised at the low number of insiders.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 13, 2015 16:52:39 GMT -5
Everyone may know this or maybe not, but someone in the know told me that the current class only has 2 insiders in it. Perhaps less insiders means less Board members? I am surprised at the low number of insiders. I think the low insider rate is all the way around. There were less insiders on this register than in registers past. Also, being an insider is not an automatic hire as I am sure you are aware. Although there are several of us insiders who have not been picked up yet, there are not many left.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on May 13, 2015 17:28:36 GMT -5
SSA has a very large hire planned, with a very small pool of candidates to choose from. The fact of the matter is that they plan to hire 500 people from a register that may have as few as 800 names on it, many of those with single city or very small GALs. I am sure that the logistics of accommodating small GALs (which should be apparent very quickly given how wide these Certs go across the country) so as to not knock out a candidate that they feel like they can live with are driving a lot of the decision making. There are a lot of moving parts here, and we are very early in on a very big hire. Insiders typically have wide GALs and are not as common on this register as in the past. Spreading them out over the hires and using them to knock out people they know they don't want would be a sensible thing to do from a hiring standpoint. Same idea would also apply to veterans with wide GALs.
Also we have all been concentrating on this FY and next FY. Attrition will continue on after that, and SSA will need to hire 50-100 a year to keep up with retirements.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 13, 2015 18:19:59 GMT -5
There's nothing like sticking a bunch of lawyers on a discussion forum and throwing out an idle piece of speculation I object, no, I strenuously object to your characterization of the distinguished members of this august Board as a bunch. After all, are we all bananas? I agree. We should be referred to by our correct group name. We are a gaggle.
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 13, 2015 18:58:23 GMT -5
I object, no, I strenuously object to your characterization of the distinguished members of this august Board as a bunch. After all, are we all bananas? I agree. We should be referred to by our correct group name. We are a gaggle. No. In this case I think you mean a "frenzy." At least in connection with this process. www.sharks-world.com/what_is_a_group_of_sharks_called/This is based upon public opinion. Or media stereotyping ... not my opinion of course ...
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 13, 2015 19:15:57 GMT -5
SSA has a very large hire planned, with a very small pool of candidates to choose from. The fact of the matter is that they plan to hire 500 people from a register that may have as few as 800 names on it, many of those with single city or very small GALs. I am sure that the logistics of accommodating small GALs (which should be apparent very quickly given how wide these Certs go across the country) so as to not knock out a candidate that they feel like they can live with are driving a lot of the decision making. There are a lot of moving parts here, and we are very early in on a very big hire. Insiders typically have wide GALs and are not as common on this register as in the past. Spreading them out over the hires and using them to knock out people they know they don't want would be a sensible thing to do from a hiring standpoint. Same idea would also apply to veterans with wide GALs. Also we have all been concentrating on this FY and next FY. Attrition will continue on after that, and SSA will need to hire 50-100 a year to keep up with retirements. Back to the purpose of this thread. saao is at the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. There are many fewer insiders on this register. And it is the insiders who make up the bulk of the wide open GAL group. Fewer insiders means fewer wide open GAL's. A lot fewer I believe. The GAL poll confirms this. 60% of the remaining register have four or fewer cities on their GAL. That is really something. This is a conundrum for SSA to try to hire the numbers they need from a register that is likely under 650 at this stage. All of those on the register outside of the most popular locales for transfers are in a very good place. There is no place else for SSA to get the bodies at this point. The very small group of new interviews from certs that cover almost 40% of all ODAR offices is just more evidence of the situation. Cue Sratty ...
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 13, 2015 19:25:51 GMT -5
SSA has a very large hire planned, with a very small pool of candidates to choose from. The fact of the matter is that they plan to hire 500 people from a register that may have as few as 800 names on it, many of those with single city or very small GALs. I am sure that the logistics of accommodating small GALs (which should be apparent very quickly given how wide these Certs go across the country) so as to not knock out a candidate that they feel like they can live with are driving a lot of the decision making. There are a lot of moving parts here, and we are very early in on a very big hire. Insiders typically have wide GALs and are not as common on this register as in the past. Spreading them out over the hires and using them to knock out people they know they don't want would be a sensible thing to do from a hiring standpoint. Same idea would also apply to veterans with wide GALs. Also we have all been concentrating on this FY and next FY. Attrition will continue on after that, and SSA will need to hire 50-100 a year to keep up with retirements. Back to the purpose of this thread. saao is at the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. There are many fewer insiders on this register. And it is the insiders who make up the bulk of the wide open GAL group. Fewer insiders means fewer wide open GAL's. A lot fewer I believe. The GAL poll confirms this. 60% of the remaining register have four or fewer cities on their GAL. That is really something. This is a conundrum for SSA to try to hire the numbers they need from a register that is likely under 650 at this stage. All of those on the register outside of the most popular locales for transfers are in a very good place. There is no place else for SSA to get the bodies at this point. The very small group of new interviews from certs that cover almost 40% of all ODAR offices is just more evidence of the situation. Que Sratty ... I was getting ready to accuse you of plagiarism until I saw your citation at the end of the post.
|
|
|
Post by wingnut on May 13, 2015 19:41:53 GMT -5
I hopefully will have a chance to check in tomorrow but have a very long flight home.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 13, 2015 19:46:52 GMT -5
SSA has a very large hire planned, with a very small pool of candidates to choose from. The fact of the matter is that they plan to hire 500 people from a register that may have as few as 800 names on it, many of those with single city or very small GALs. I am sure that the logistics of accommodating small GALs (which should be apparent very quickly given how wide these Certs go across the country) so as to not knock out a candidate that they feel like they can live with are driving a lot of the decision making. There are a lot of moving parts here, and we are very early in on a very big hire. Insiders typically have wide GALs and are not as common on this register as in the past. Spreading them out over the hires and using them to knock out people they know they don't want would be a sensible thing to do from a hiring standpoint. Same idea would also apply to veterans with wide GALs. Also we have all been concentrating on this FY and next FY. Attrition will continue on after that, and SSA will need to hire 50-100 a year to keep up with retirements. Back to the purpose of this thread. saao is at the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. There are many fewer insiders on this register. And it is the insiders who make up the bulk of the wide open GAL group. Fewer insiders means fewer wide open GAL's. A lot fewer I believe. The GAL poll confirms this. 60% of the remaining register have four or fewer cities on their GAL. That is really something. This is a conundrum for SSA to try to hire the numbers they need from a register that is likely under 650 at this stage. All of those on the register outside of the most popular locales for transfers are in a very good place. There is no place else for SSA to get the bodies at this point. The very small group of new interviews from certs that cover almost 40% of all ODAR offices is just more evidence of the situation. Que Sratty ... It's a great time to be on the register!
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on May 13, 2015 19:59:33 GMT -5
Why would more insiders have wide open GALs?
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 13, 2015 19:59:38 GMT -5
Back to the purpose of this thread. saao is at the heart of the matter as far as I am concerned. There are many fewer insiders on this register. And it is the insiders who make up the bulk of the wide open GAL group. Fewer insiders means fewer wide open GAL's. A lot fewer I believe. The GAL poll confirms this. 60% of the remaining register have four or fewer cities on their GAL. That is really something. This is a conundrum for SSA to try to hire the numbers they need from a register that is likely under 650 at this stage. All of those on the register outside of the most popular locales for transfers are in a very good place. There is no place else for SSA to get the bodies at this point. The very small group of new interviews from certs that cover almost 40% of all ODAR offices is just more evidence of the situation. Que Sratty ... It's a great time to be on the register! Well said!
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 13, 2015 20:16:51 GMT -5
Why would more insiders have wide open GALs? Because insiders, as a general proposition, are much more familiar with the process when it comes time to submit an application and GAL for the position. Insiders would have known the importance of having a wide open GAL to getting an offer, and the transfer rules that would allow a new hire to obtain the position and transfer later to a more desirable location. Outsiders, as a general proposition, apply thinking that they have as good a chance of getting hired in their home city or one within an hour or two of home, as any other ODAR office in the country. So insiders generally are more likely to have selected wide open GAL's when they applied for the position than outsiders. The polling that shows that 60% of the register (made up mostly of outsiders) have GAL's of four cities or less confirms this. It's not a criticism of insiders or an indictment of the process. But I think it is factually accurate. Others may have things to add.
|
|
|
Post by herronner on May 13, 2015 20:49:46 GMT -5
Why would more insiders have wide open GALs? Because insiders, as a general proposition, are much more familiar with the process when it comes time to submit an application and GAL for the position. Insiders would have known the importance of having a wide open GAL to getting an offer, and the transfer rules that would allow a new hire to obtain the position and transfer later to a more desirable location. Outsiders, as a general proposition, apply thinking that they have as good a chance of getting hired in their home city or one within an hour or two of home, as any other ODAR office in the country. So insiders generally are more likely to have selected wide open GAL's when they applied for the position than outsiders. The polling that shows that 60% of the register (made up mostly of outsiders) have GAL's of four cities or less confirms this. It's not a criticism of insiders or an indictment of the process. But I think it is factually accurate. Others may have things to add. That, and insiders (including feds from other agencies) are looking at a paid relocation, whereas outsiders will be moving on their own dime.
|
|
|
Post by coolmom on May 13, 2015 20:55:33 GMT -5
Sratty and Gaidin - I hope you are right. It would be nice to get some further info from the folks interviewing this week as to how many interview time slots per day are taking place. Keep in mind these interviews are only for those who had not been interviewed before because they only NOW have a city appearing on the cert list for the first time. A lot of these cities on this list of 62 are repeats and people have already interviewed.
Once we add even more new cities that have not appeared on any cert for this register, those people will be interviewed as well, whenever that happens. But there will be less and less each time interviews happen.
I think Sratty is right. I have a very limited GAL and this is the first time any of my cities have appeared on a cert.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on May 13, 2015 22:03:42 GMT -5
Why would more insiders have wide open GALs? Because insiders, as a general proposition, are much more familiar with the process when it comes time to submit an application and GAL for the position. Insiders would have known the importance of having a wide open GAL to getting an offer, and the transfer rules that would allow a new hire to obtain the position and transfer later to a more desirable location. Outsiders, as a general proposition, apply thinking that they have as good a chance of getting hired in their home city or one within an hour or two of home, as any other ODAR office in the country. So insiders generally are more likely to have selected wide open GAL's when they applied for the position than outsiders. The polling that shows that 60% of the register (made up mostly of outsiders) have GAL's of four cities or less confirms this. It's not a criticism of insiders or an indictment of the process. But I think it is factually accurate. Others may have things to add. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 14, 2015 6:45:37 GMT -5
I don't think insiders or outsiders have anything to do with it. I believe it comes down to the size of one's GAL and who SSA wants to reach. If the choice is someone with a very limited GAL and a lower score, SSA will work to pick that person up if SSA wants him/her. The people with wider GALs can be picked up at any time. However, sometimes SSA has to pick up a wider GAL candidate to get to the lower scoring limited GAL candidate it wants. So, you might have a lower scoring person getting picked up over a higher scoring person just because SSA knows it can come back and get the wider GAL person at any time. It's all about a process of having a draft board like in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. They set up a board of who they want and how they reach that person. It's a bunch of moving parts. At some point, unless SSA doesn't want you at all, SSA will be back around again for other candidates passed over in the past due to their wide GAL.
|
|