|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 27, 2015 10:24:31 GMT -5
Once you accept a transfer, you can't get on any transfer list for two years. So this would provide more stability than a new hire. This is the real issue of 2 years, i assume. There are still hardships and HOCALJ style transfers, and I supposed the "expectation" means no transfering for other reasons that the transfer list, either.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 27, 2015 10:25:33 GMT -5
I find Minneapolis the most curious office listed. I don't recall it being on every register like Tupelo or Middlesboro? sealaw90 am I remembering correctly? I would say that the offer of relo benefits probably has a lot more to do with needing stability in the office and getting a guaranteed 2 years of a judge in that office. Zep I don't know that its time to start crying yet. Perhaps they just don't think you would stay for two winters in MtP? Correct. Charleston, Fayetteville, Mt. Pleasant, Tupelo and West Des Moines has been on every group of certs pulled off the current register, although there has not always been a hire for each time the city showed up. Minneapolis has appeared 6 times since 2007, as frequently as Johnstown, Paducah and Fresno. Nobody should start crying yet. Let's see if this email gets any takers, let's see who gets a phone call tomorrow or next week, then we can horse trade and cry and made all sorts of castigations about the stupid hiring process!!!
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 27, 2015 10:30:14 GMT -5
So. Those of us withering on the vine with these cities on our GAL can begin the process of accepting we were deemed unworthy? Or is it that they can't require a newbie to commit for 2 years? No. That's not a tear stain on my keyboard. I have something in my eye. : ) Even worse than the last time I bemoaned a seeming indication from the powers that be that they would rather have no one in, say, Fargo, than have me (who listed it the whole time), I feel like the student with my hand up while the teacher asks for someone to read from the primer. "Would anyone like to read?" "Oh, Me!" "Anyone? Anyone at all?" "Me! I have my hand up teacher. Pick me!" "No one wants to read?" "Oh! Oh! Oh oh oh me!" "Come on, please? I'll give whomever reads a cookie and a juicebox as a reward... ??" "Oh my gosh, I'll do it! I will! I can read, I promise, oh please please please, oh please, pick me!" "Oh well, I guess there will be no story time today. I am going to crumble this cookie up and throw it away because no one wants it." "I'll take it! I'll read! I don't even need the cookie, I just want to read... please?!?!" "And now I have dumped this juicebox right down the drain. Nobody? I guess I will just light this primer on fire and no one will ever get to read it again because you're all a bunch of worthless kindergarteners who can't be bothered to participate in class. No more stories for you! Ever! Now get out your math texts and your protractors." "Argh!" <swoons>
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 27, 2015 10:31:40 GMT -5
I went to an experimental school, obviously.
I deny that it was "special."
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 27, 2015 10:51:20 GMT -5
I went to an experimental school, obviously. I deny that it was "special." I'll take your explanation and loved the vignette,but could you please explain your new avatar? Tears from sweat? Tears for not getting picked up to be an ALJ?
|
|
|
Post by owl on Aug 27, 2015 10:51:13 GMT -5
Relo may be a boon for some but there probably isn't going to be a stampede to accept, and SSA knows it. The two-week window just makes the number of acceptances even more likely to be low. Then SSA can go back to OPM and say, ok, we offered relo like you asked us to, now let's get moving on that GAL expansion we've been asking for.
If I am still in the wannabe pool and there's a GAL expansion, 80% of these cities are going on my list but man, I am going to have to leave Harlingen, Fargo, and Sioux Falls to the rest of you intrepid souls. Although Fargo at least has looked lively when ESPN College GameDay has shown up.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Aug 27, 2015 10:57:33 GMT -5
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 27, 2015 To: All Administrative Law Judges Office of Disability Adjudication and Review
From: Mark Sochaczewsky Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge
Subject: Administrative Law Judge Vacancy – multiple locations
The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (OCALJ) is soliciting volunteers from among Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for reassignment at government expense to the offices identified on the attached list.
The identified offices have either had a high “turnover” of ALJs due to transfers to other locations, without sufficient incoming transfers of other ALJs to replace them, or otherwise have not had sufficient eligible “new” ALJs selected to meet the respective service delivery needs.
To help us establish a better continuity of ALJ presence in these offices, we are providing relocation allowances to ALJs who transfer to them, in accordance with applicable federal regulations and policy. We expect that all ALJs who are selected to fill these vacancies will remain in these locations for a two year period, without requesting a transfer to other offices. Please note that ALJs who are reassigned to Puerto Rico offices must either have been appointed as ALJs from a “bilingual” certificate from the Office of Personnel Management, or must otherwise demonstrate similar Spanish language fluency/literacy.
If you are interested in a reassignment to any of these offices, please submit a written request and resume with any supporting materials via e-mail to ODAR.OCALJ@ssa.gov. Please be advised that applications for this solicitation may only be submitted via email. The deadline for submission of email applications is two weeks from the date of this correspondence.
Please note that consideration for this reassignment is limited to current ODAR ALJs only.
cc: Chief Administrative Law Judge Debra Bice Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judges Regional Office Management Teams Judge Randall Frye/AALJ
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 27, 2015 11:06:55 GMT -5
I went to an experimental school, obviously. I deny that it was "special." I'll take your explanation and loved the vignette,but could you please explain your new avatar? Tears from sweat? Tears for not getting picked up to be an ALJ? My art is ambiguous, like my appendix functioning. The avatar is supposed to be a sweatshop worker, shirtless from the heat, unkempt in hair and hygiene from the long, arduous hours, and crying from the pain and stress of a seemingly pointless and painful existence. But, it serves double duty. It also represents, as you suggest, an ODAR worker, shirtless from the ability to telework, unkempt in hair and hygiene due to the lack of dress code, and crying from the pain and stress of a seemingly pointless and painful process of applying unsuccessfully to be an ALJ.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 27, 2015 11:16:47 GMT -5
on a different but still related topic, i suspect Funky and tiger have scared everyone away from Tupelo heck, Funky even scared tiger away and that takes some doing. on the plus side, i heard ole miss has the best tailgaiting in the country. how far away is ole miss from Tupelo funky? and i saw the movie Fargo, too much snow and bizarre murders for my taste!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 11:27:28 GMT -5
I will throw some gasoline on the fire here (I have two no shows and an hour to burn) just for conversation sake. Just suppose, in light of the always present consolidation of hearings offices rumors, that this solicitation is actually being used to show the powers to be: 1. Look here are hearings offices that are perpetually in need of ALJs 2. that we cannot find enough new ALJ's interested in moving to, 3. that as result are contributing to continual backlogs, 4. that we cannot even fill with this "volunteer" offer to sitting ALJ's, so.... 5. Isn't this reason enough to close these offices and consolidate their hearings/staff/ALJs elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 27, 2015 11:45:23 GMT -5
So. Those of us withering on the vine with these cities on our GAL can begin the process of accepting we were deemed unworthy? Or is it that they can't require a newbie to commit for 2 years? No. That's not a tear stain on my keyboard. I have something in my eye. : ) Even worse than the last time I bemoaned a seeming indication from the powers that be that they would rather have no one in, say, Fargo, than have me (who listed it the whole time), I feel like the student with my hand up while the teacher asks for someone to read from the primer. "Would anyone like to read?" "Oh, Me!" "Anyone? Anyone at all?" "Me! I have my hand up teacher. Pick me!" "No one wants to read?" "Oh! Oh! Oh oh oh me!" "Come on, please? I'll give whomever reads a cookie and a juicebox as a reward... ??" "Oh my gosh, I'll do it! I will! I can read, I promise, oh please please please, oh please, pick me!" "Oh well, I guess there will be no story time today. I am going to crumble this cookie up and throw it away because no one wants it." "I'll take it! I'll read! I don't even need the cookie, I just want to read... please?!?!" "And now I have dumped this juicebox right down the drain. Nobody? I guess I will just light this primer on fire and no one will ever get to read it again because you're all a bunch of worthless kindergarteners who can't be bothered to participate in class. No more stories for you! Ever! Now get out your math texts and your protractors." "Argh!" <swoons> Thanks Prop, I enjoyed the vignette very much and I sort of feel the same way regarding my time on the register so far as many others do too.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 27, 2015 11:46:15 GMT -5
MEMORANDUM Date: August 27, 2015 To: All Administrative Law Judges Office of Disability Adjudication and Review From: Mark Sochaczewsky Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge Subject: Administrative Law Judge Vacancy – multiple locations The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (OCALJ) is soliciting volunteers from among Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for reassignment at government expense to the offices identified on the attached list. The identified offices have either had a high “turnover” of ALJs due to transfers to other locations, without sufficient incoming transfers of other ALJs to replace them, or otherwise have not had sufficient eligible “new” ALJs selected to meet the respective service delivery needs.
To help us establish a better continuity of ALJ presence in these offices, we are providing relocation allowances to ALJs who transfer to them, in accordance with applicable federal regulations and policy. We expect that all ALJs who are selected to fill these vacancies will remain in these locations for a two year period, without requesting a transfer to other offices. Please note that ALJs who are reassigned to Puerto Rico offices must either have been appointed as ALJs from a “bilingual” certificate from the Office of Personnel Management, or must otherwise demonstrate similar Spanish language fluency/literacy. If you are interested in a reassignment to any of these offices, please submit a written request and resume with any supporting materials via e-mail to ODAR.OCALJ@ssa.gov. Please be advised that applications for this solicitation may only be submitted via email. The deadline for submission of email applications is two weeks from the date of this correspondence. Please note that consideration for this reassignment is limited to current ODAR ALJs only. cc: Chief Administrative Law Judge Debra Bice Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges Hearing Office Chief Administrative Law Judges Regional Office Management Teams Judge Randall Frye/AALJ Thanks for posting mcb I appreciate it. No further need to guess what it actually states or doesn't state.
|
|
|
Post by lawdog77 on Aug 27, 2015 11:46:30 GMT -5
Why not have a one or two year stay requirement on the front end for all cities? This would make people really think about their GAL, and probably make the offices more productive. Plus, acceptance of an offer might be quicker because you will have already taken a hard look at the cities. Just a thought....
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 27, 2015 11:50:32 GMT -5
Why not have a one or two year stay requirement on the front end for all cities? This would make people really think about their GAL, and probably make the offices more productive. Plus, acceptance of an offer might be quicker because you will have already taken a hard look at the cities. Just a thought.... Perhaps because there is a CBA which governs how transfers can occur and when they can occur. If the CBA was changed, it could be done as you suggested lawdog77. I think your idea has some merit for continuity.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 27, 2015 11:50:36 GMT -5
no, used to be a 2 year transfer. current system seems to work better, having seem both in play. gives people a shot to at least get back closer to home in less than 2 years. and i believe once a person transfers, they cannot retransfer for 2 years anyway.
odar could look at encouraging people to stay in the above offices longer perhaps. ie, a person gets conditional offer. you get city x... but you have to willing to stay there 12 months, or maybe 18 or 24 months. i doubt it would get past union but given some of the turnovers, it could be looked at.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 27, 2015 11:59:15 GMT -5
Relo may be a boon for some but there probably isn't going to be a stampede to accept, and SSA knows it. The two-week window just makes the number of acceptances even more likely to be low. Then SSA can go back to OPM and say, ok, we offered relo like you asked us to, now let's get moving on that GAL expansion we've been asking for. If I am still in the wannabe pool and there's a GAL expansion, 80% of these cities are going on my list but man, I am going to have to leave Harlingen, Fargo, and Sioux Falls to the rest of you intrepid souls. Although Fargo at least has looked lively when ESPN College GameDay has shown up. I would add all cities with few if any exceptions but these 3 would definitely be up for discussion on the exclusion list. On the other hand several of them would be considered big wins and I likely would have put them on the transfer list upon reaching 90 days anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 27, 2015 12:04:18 GMT -5
Why not have a one or two year stay requirement on the front end for all cities? This would make people really think about their GAL, and probably make the offices more productive. Plus, acceptance of an offer might be quicker because you will have already taken a hard look at the cities. Just a thought.... The CBA problem has already been stated and is the primary reason. However, I think any discussion about the GAL being given greater consideration is a false premise. Lots and lots of people were absolutely and completely honest about their GAL when they filled out the application in March 2013. In August 2015 many of the reasons a person chose that GAL have changed and they are still stuck with it. This is the primary reason I wish I had included every location on my GAL.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 27, 2015 12:11:28 GMT -5
I will throw some gasoline on the fire here (I have two no shows and an hour to burn) just for conversation sake. Just suppose, in light of the always present consolidation of hearings offices rumors, that this solicitation is actually being used to show the powers to be: 1. Look here are hearings offices that are perpetually in need of ALJs 2. that we cannot find enough new ALJ's interested in moving to, 3. that as result are contributing to continual backlogs, 4. that we cannot even fill with this "volunteer" offer to sitting ALJ's, so.... 5. Isn't this reason enough to close these offices and consolidate their hearings/staff/ALJs elsewhere? Okay, I'll accept this as a possible explanation, especially if we had another rumor about closing one of these offices to corroborate your WAG. I don't think Funky is going to like it if his office closes...just saying. If nothing else my ego appreciates this theory more than the "all remaining candidates on the register suck" theory. Talk about a FOAD letter.
|
|
|
Post by lawdog77 on Aug 27, 2015 12:13:44 GMT -5
Why not have a one or two year stay requirement on the front end for all cities? This would make people really think about their GAL, and probably make the offices more productive. Plus, acceptance of an offer might be quicker because you will have already taken a hard look at the cities. Just a thought.... The CBA problem has already been stated and is the primary reason. However, I think any discussion about the GAL being given greater consideration is a false premise. Lots and lots of people were absolutely and completely honest about their GAL when they filled out the application in March 2013. In August 2015 many of the reasons a person chose that GAL have changed and they are still stuck with it. This is the primary reason I wish I had included every location on my GAL. Good points. As a private practice attorney, I forgot about the CBA in place. It has been a long time since this process began, and many have had life changes along the way. I hope we ALL get the call!
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 27, 2015 12:35:30 GMT -5
Of course, the open announcement by ODAR of the cities that are most likely to get applicants a phone call BEFORE any GAL expansion is very, very helpful, too.
|
|