|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 12, 2015 7:52:40 GMT -5
Expecting the feds to select a logical and cost-effective method may be a hamster-wheel scenario. I guess I should get my wheel oiled up. That may never happen. In the past, it was extremely rare for those on the register to modify the GAL and I think it only happened once. But who knows, this new register process has shown us that all kinds of new things are possible. Very hard to say what OPM will do! I would think it would be a very cheap way of allowing more people to get into cities that they need. But then again, that would be logical and cost effective. A couple of things... in fairness to OPM (and I'm seldom fair to OPM), they pretty explicitly stated in the announcement to list everywhere you would accept a position. I know there are certainly folks that would have done things differently had they known how the game was played or folks that have been freed from their geographic shackles, but OPM may be okay waiting for a refresh to allow folks to expand them. Also, does anyone from the previous register know how the GAL expansion actually affected the candidate pool? Was it reported that several folks significantly added to their GAL? If not, OPM might not find the exercise worth going through, too.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 12, 2015 12:18:11 GMT -5
Expecting the feds to select a logical and cost-effective method may be a hamster-wheel scenario. I guess I should get my wheel oiled up. A couple of things... in fairness to OPM (and I'm seldom fair to OPM), they pretty explicitly stated in the announcement to list everywhere you would accept a position. I know there are certainly folks that would have done things differently had they known how the game was played or folks that have been freed from their geographic shackles, but OPM may be okay waiting for a refresh to allow folks to expand them. Also, does anyone from the previous register know how the GAL expansion actually affected the candidate pool? Was it reported that several folks significantly added to their GAL? If not, OPM might not find the exercise worth going through, too. From what you could glean from Board members, I think a fair number did expand their GALs. It's an easy and cheap option for making the register bigger functionally without adding any more people.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 12, 2015 13:30:57 GMT -5
I think one thing they would have to look at is what the GAL mix would look like based upon the candidate pool. My SWAG is that a refresh would seem likely to net you generally the same GAL pools but have the added costs of more testing and processing. Whereas a GAL expansion should net you about 30% broadly expanding their GAL and another nearly 40% expanding it some without the testing costs.
I believe they will do a GAL expansion sometime before the September hire and a refresh sometime in the Spring.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Jun 12, 2015 13:40:40 GMT -5
I think one thing they would have to look at is what the GAL mix would look like based upon the candidate pool. My SWAG is that a refresh would seem likely to net you generally the same GAL pools but have the added costs of more testing and processing. Whereas a GAL expansion should net you about 30% broadly expanding their GAL and another nearly 40% expanding it some without the testing costs. I believe they will do a GAL expansion sometime before the September hire and a refresh sometime in the Spring. As someone who is really putting the cart before the horse, I'm hopeful that I'll be able to expand my GAL in that my situation has changed since March 2013. Fortunately, those locations I selected originally are still my first choices, but I would certainly like the opportunity to expand my horizons.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 12, 2015 14:07:35 GMT -5
I think one thing they would have to look at is what the GAL mix would look like based upon the candidate pool. My SWAG is that a refresh would seem likely to net you generally the same GAL pools but have the added costs of more testing and processing. Whereas a GAL expansion should net you about 30% broadly expanding their GAL and another nearly 40% expanding it some without the testing costs. I believe they will do a GAL expansion sometime before the September hire and a refresh sometime in the Spring. I doubt it Gaidin. OPM is moving along new people to bring to the register. So, it is unlikely any expansion will occur until all new people are aboard and run through.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 16, 2015 8:41:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lawdog77 on Jun 22, 2015 16:34:43 GMT -5
Any idea how the early retirement option for ALJs might have an impact on hiring:
On March 4, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved our request for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA). The authority will expire on December 31, 2015. VERA allows eligible employees to retire if they have completed 20 years of creditable service and are at least 50 years of age, or have at least 25 years of creditable service at any age. Employees must be serving under a non-time-limited appointment and have been continuously on the Agency’s rolls since November 23, 2014. In addition, employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) must have served in a CSRS position for at least 1 year out of the 2 years immediately before retirement. As for specifics, here is our plan, which is very similar to how we have done this over the past several years: Announce the opportunity to all employees via an HR Internal Communication (HRIC) message require employees to indicate their intent to take early out by June 30, 2015,
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Jun 22, 2015 17:47:37 GMT -5
Any idea how the early retirement option for ALJs might have an impact on hiring: On March 4, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved our request for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA). The authority will expire on December 31, 2015. VERA allows eligible employees to retire if they have completed 20 years of creditable service and are at least 50 years of age, or have at least 25 years of creditable service at any age. Employees must be serving under a non-time-limited appointment and have been continuously on the Agency’s rolls since November 23, 2014. In addition, employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) must have served in a CSRS position for at least 1 year out of the 2 years immediately before retirement. As for specifics, here is our plan, which is very similar to how we have done this over the past several years: Announce the opportunity to all employees via an HR Internal Communication (HRIC) message require employees to indicate their intent to take early out by June 30, 2015, The hiring targets are set. I am sure that this was baked into the cake, when the hiring numbers were calculated. Even in the unlikely event that this was not considered, I don't see them getting more money to hire above their targets. The 500 planned hires are already extremely expensive in terms of salary and training costs, not to mention the needed increases in support staff. I don't see there being money for any more.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Jun 24, 2015 13:19:46 GMT -5
Any idea how the early retirement option for ALJs might have an impact on hiring: On March 4, 2015, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved our request for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA). The authority will expire on December 31, 2015. VERA allows eligible employees to retire if they have completed 20 years of creditable service and are at least 50 years of age, or have at least 25 years of creditable service at any age. Employees must be serving under a non-time-limited appointment and have been continuously on the Agency’s rolls since November 23, 2014. In addition, employees under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) must have served in a CSRS position for at least 1 year out of the 2 years immediately before retirement. As for specifics, here is our plan, which is very similar to how we have done this over the past several years: Announce the opportunity to all employees via an HR Internal Communication (HRIC) message require employees to indicate their intent to take early out by June 30, 2015, The hiring targets are set. I am sure that this was baked into the cake, when the hiring numbers were calculated. Even in the unlikely event that this was not considered, I don't see them getting more money to hire above their targets. The 500 planned hires are already extremely expensive in terms of salary and training costs, not to mention the needed increases in support staff. I don't see there being money for any more. Plus, they seem unlikely to make 500 anyway, so raising it would just increase their margin of failure. Let's look for continued voluminous hiring into future years.
|
|