|
|
Post by Recalcitro on Aug 1, 2015 9:55:13 GMT -5
I thought the way it worked was for every opening SSA has at a given location, OPM gives SSA 3 names to then interview and choose from. So if there are 2 openings in say Pittsburgh, there would 6 names to choose from. If this is the case, why do the polls show much higher and non divisible by 3 numbers for every Location? Some are in the 20's. Are they really looking to hire so many judges?
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 1, 2015 10:13:50 GMT -5
As I understand it, each cert has a lot more than three names per opening because each cert must have three unique names that can be reached if everybody else on the cert is hired elsewhere. If Aaron, Betty, and Caleb were the three names (highest scorers) for four cities with one opening each, there would be a problem. This could easily happen if, for example, people who recently got tested had very high scores (with veterans' pref) and GAL's with the same cities. Obviously it's a lot more complicated than that, but it's the easiest illustration I can think of. Some people on each cert are going to be "filler" who will not be reached, but may well be reached on a different cert or a subsequent cert.
As far as the divisible by three, for the reason stated above, it doesn't work that way. Even so, always remember that there are people on certs who are not aware of or pay no attention to the board and not everyone who follows the board posts in the polls. So even if it did work that way, the poll results would not necessarily be divisible by three.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 1, 2015 10:16:25 GMT -5
Say there are three openings in City A. So, SSA needs the top three scorers for each of those slots. But, each of those folks have GALs with more tha City A and they appear on certs for Cities B-T. They are likley high scorers on those certs too. And, if OPM only gave six names for A, if SSA chose those 6 (or struck them) while considering B-T (because OPM doesnt know which order SSA will choose, and SSA has reasons to manipulate the order) then by the time they get to A, those six are gone. So, OPM has to give SSA enough names to ensure SSA will have 6 names for A, no matter when they choose for A.
There is great discussion and tons of it on this topic on the board. Check out some of those threads, well worth the read.
(EDIT: Mamaru's explanation is way better).
|
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Aug 1, 2015 10:26:57 GMT -5
That hurts my head. I just hope luck is with me!
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2015 10:30:24 GMT -5
And they haven't even taken you down the rabbit holes of the three considerations rule and veterans preferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 1, 2015 11:56:43 GMT -5
And yes.the ARE looking to hire that many judges. The rumor is they are trying for around 90 in this round of hiring. Word is that they have funding to hire another 250 next year and will request funding to hire a comparable number in FY 2017. (The government's fiscal year goes Oct 1 to Sept 30, so this will be the last hire for FY 2015)
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 1, 2015 12:00:46 GMT -5
One caveat, there is no money for anything next year. Yet. The hope is to get funding for another 250, but we don't have a budget yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2015 12:03:49 GMT -5
One caveat, there is no money for anything next year. Yet. The hope is to get funding for another 250, but we don't have a budget yet. Which leaves SSA's FY 2016 funding up to the Congress. What could possibly go wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Aug 1, 2015 12:34:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 1, 2015 12:35:59 GMT -5
The CR will address the funding issue. No government shutdown since next year is an election year. Anticipate funding levels to remain at this year's level. Do not be scared funkless!
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Aug 1, 2015 12:44:26 GMT -5
The way I understand it is it's OPM's job to make sure that for every hiring decision that SSA makes, there are 3 names to choose from, taking into account the agency's prerogative to not have any of those names be someone they've already considered and passed over 3 times.
Just as a (probably oversimplified) hypothetical, if SSA requested a single cert for a single opening in a single office, OPM would give them the top 3 scorers to interview and choose from. If it was for 2 openings in that office, they would get 4 names. If it was for 3 openings, they would get 5 names. If it was for 4 openings, though, it would jump to 8 names because by the time they get down to filling the 4th opening, 3 will have been hired, and up to 2 *may* have been considered and passed over 3 times, and there always need to be 3 non-three-struck names to pick from at selection time.
It is possible when they get to the 4th opening, though, that nobody has accumulated three strikes. In that case, they only ended up actually considering 6 names - they hired 3, and for the 4th spot they have to pick from the top 3 that remain. But they did interview 8 total, because it was possible that the same 2 people would accumulate 3 strikes each through the first 3 hires.
So, when you consider that SSA almost always tries to fill dozens of openings in dozens of offices per hiring wave, and can go in any order it wants, and there is significant overlap amongst the names on the cert lists due to candidates being able to select multiple locations they're available for...it requires a lot of raw material to go into the hopper at the start to make sure there can still be 3 non-three-struck names when SSA gets around to filling that 45th...75th...90th? slot.
By the way, neither math nor OPM arcana are my strong suits. So in offering up this attempt at explanation in front of this erudite crowd, I feel a bit like the American sub captain in Hunt for Red October when he orders, "All back full," thus effectively disclosing his presence to the theretofore-unaware Soviet sub. "All right, Ryan - we just unzipped our fly..."
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2015 15:07:19 GMT -5
The CR will address the funding issue. No government shutdown since next year is an election year. Anticipate funding levels to remain at this year's level. Do not be scared funkless! Assuming rational actors. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 1, 2015 16:41:12 GMT -5
The CR will address the funding issue. No government shutdown since next year is an election year. Anticipate funding levels to remain at this year's level. Do not be scared funkless! Assuming rational actors. It's the election year that scares me. There's a pretty wide gap between the presidential budget request and the sequestration level funding ranges being discussed by the Congressional controlling party. Which one do you suppose will want to cave and look weak to rabid primary voters? Hell, half of one party's members are running for president. And racing to be the least cooperative, most "Conservative" to appeal to the most diehard of their base. Think any of them will stand up in South Carolina and tell the tea party how happy they are to have compromised on a budget? |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2015 17:33:45 GMT -5
The way I understand it is it's OPM's job to make sure that for every hiring decision that SSA makes, there are 3 names to choose from, taking into account the agency's prerogative to not have any of those names be someone they've already considered and passed over 3 times. Just as a (probably oversimplified) hypothetical, if SSA requested a single cert for a single opening in a single office, OPM would give them the top 3 scorers to interview and choose from. If it was for 2 openings in that office, they would get 4 names. If it was for 3 openings, they would get 5 names. If it was for 4 openings, though, it would jump to 8 names because by the time they get down to filling the 4th opening, 3 will have been hired, and up to 2 *may* have been considered and passed over 3 times, and there always need to be 3 non-three-struck names to pick from at selection time. It is possible when they get to the 4th opening, though, that nobody has accumulated three strikes. In that case, they only ended up actually considering 6 names - they hired 3, and for the 4th spot they have to pick from the top 3 that remain. But they did interview 8 total, because it was possible that the same 2 people would accumulate 3 strikes each through the first 3 hires. So, when you consider that SSA almost always tries to fill dozens of openings in dozens of offices per hiring wave, and can go in any order it wants, and there is significant overlap amongst the names on the cert lists due to candidates being able to select multiple locations they're available for...it requires a lot of raw material to go into the hopper at the start to make sure there can still be 3 non-three-struck names when SSA gets around to filling that 45th...75th...90th? slot. By the way, neither math nor OPM arcana are my strong suits. So in offering up this attempt at explanation in front of this erudite crowd, I feel a bit like the American sub captain in Hunt for Red October when he orders, "All back full," thus effectively disclosing his presence to the theretofore-unaware Soviet sub. "All right, Ryan - we just unzipped our fly..." Another thing to consider is that many candidates on the certs have already been considered 1, 2, or 3 times. For example, with a 1 city/1 position cert, you could conceivably have a list of say 20 eligibles--3 having had 2 or fewer prior considerations and 17 with 3 prior considerations. Or say it's a 1 city/2 position cert. If no candidate has had prior considerations, 4 eligibles are enough. But if the top 3 includes two candidates who were already twice considered, there would need to be 6 eligibles on the cert. The first hire could be someone with no prior considerations. That would give the other 2 candidates their 3rd considerations so there would need to be another 3 eligibles to be sure SSA has enough for a top 3 for the 2nd position without requiring them to consider someone with 3 prior considerations. |
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Aug 1, 2015 18:13:39 GMT -5
Gary, I'm serious. Stop it or else..........
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 1, 2015 20:33:54 GMT -5
Gary, I'm serious. Stop it or else.......... Wait until he starts discussing if there are dozens of cities. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 1, 2015 20:54:26 GMT -5
Gary, I'm serious. Stop it or else.......... Wait until he starts discussing if there are dozens of cities. Or the infield fly rule. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Aug 2, 2015 8:08:35 GMT -5
The bottom line is that no one really knows how decisions are made by TPTB. There are many variables ODAR can manipulate within the OPM framework to make its hires. We will never know how the Puzzle Palace makes its decisions. Gary's analyses aside, the best we can offer is conjecture. So after your interview, live your life to the fullest and try to table this process. Living in limbo will drive you crazy. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on Aug 2, 2015 8:21:00 GMT -5
The bottom line is that no one really knows how decisions are made by TPTB. There are many variables ODAR can manipulate within the OPM framework to make its hires. We will never know how the Puzzle Palace makes its decisions. Gary's analyses aside, the best we can offer is conjecture. So after your interview, live your life to the fullest and try to table this process. Living in limbo will drive you crazy. Good luck. Anotherfed, you are absolutely correct IMHO. However, no matter how hard I try, there is always a little bit of temptation everyday to think about what may (or, more often times, may not) happen. But, I, like so many, have ran the gauntlet and now must rest and leave it the TPTB and hope I did well enough. I don't care whether I am a lawyer or a LAWYER (whatever that really means), I just want the call. If I don't get it, It will be a huge downer, but my life will go on.....to the fullest. Thanks for your post!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Recalcitro on Aug 2, 2015 11:23:58 GMT -5
I feel a bit like the American sub captain in Hunt for Red October when he orders, "All back full," thus effectively disclosing his presence to the theretofore-unaware Soviet sub. "All right, Ryan - we just unzipped our fly..." "One ping only" |
|
