Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 16:58:34 GMT -5
Just to be clear, the AALJ newsletter frequently wraps up with notes from their most recent meeting with management. It's presented in a Q and A format. AALJ asked about future hiring and the response by the agency is what I quoted above. It's not the union position, it hey are just passing on the response. As am I.
Mostly I thought it was a way to say to those who got their letter "chin up, more hiring to follow!"
|
|
|
Post by ba on Oct 14, 2015 18:09:20 GMT -5
I don't know if this will make anyone feel better or not, but the AALJ newsletter from this morning said the following... "While the Agency intended to hire 75-80 new judges for September, they were only able to hire 38 because not enough names were provided by OPM. OPM’s decision to restrict testing has reduced the size of the register (the agency does not know how many names are left on the register). OPM needs to reopen the register and get more people on the list. OPM is reportedly contacting candidates who were rejected due to low scores and telling them they can advance in the process of being selected." "…reported on future ALJ hiring plans: 200 for 2015; 250 to 300 for 2016; 250 for 2017; 175 for 2018. This will be contingent upon OPM reopening the register and our agency having the budget to do the hiring. The agency faces a logistical mountain to climb to train this many judges." So they couldn't hire the 75 because "not enough names were provided by OPM."? I dunno, I have to say at first glance that I'm not buying this. Were there that many GAL specific candidates such that they couldn't hire in crapland? Until I see concrete evidence to the contrary (and that will not happen anytime soon unless one of our trusted posters raises her or his right hand), I will postulate that a more likely scenario is that the three names for the cities provided did not ring bells at Puzzle Palace. IOW, unlike the old days when the list was four pages with all the cities on it, this new hiring format imposed on Puzzle Palace by OPM does not allow them to cherry pick those whom they really want. Ergo, we get lean hires. Puzzle Palace is always willing to blame OPM. I'd love to hear OPM's side of the story, but again, that won't happen anytime soon. OPM's side of the story is, "Sure we let all your personal information go to China, but they probably had it all anyway."
|
|
|
Post by hereforthedance on Oct 14, 2015 21:10:58 GMT -5
Is there anyone else that did not get the FOAD? Before you ask, I have checked spam.
|
|
|
Post by february on Oct 15, 2015 8:55:37 GMT -5
Is there anyone else that did not get the FOAD? Before you ask, I have checked spam. I didn't. But I also couldn't interview because I was out of the country, so even though I was on the cert, I wasn't actually considered for a position. I don't know if that's the reason why I didn't get the FOAD.
|
|
|
Post by litig8tor on Oct 16, 2015 14:11:01 GMT -5
So they couldn't hire the 75 because "not enough names were provided by OPM."? I dunno, I have to say at first glance that I'm not buying this. Were there that many GAL specific candidates such that they couldn't hire in crapland? Until I see concrete evidence to the contrary (and that will not happen anytime soon unless one of our trusted posters raises her or his right hand), I will postulate that a more likely scenario is that the three names for the cities provided did not ring bells at Puzzle Palace. IOW, unlike the old days when the list was four pages with all the cities on it, this new hiring format imposed on Puzzle Palace by OPM does not allow them to cherry pick those whom they really want. Ergo, we get lean hires. Puzzle Palace is always willing to blame OPM. I'd love to hear OPM's side of the story, but again, that won't happen anytime soon. OPM's side of the story is, "Sure we let all your personal information go to China, but they probably had it all anyway." I think there may be another factor at work here resulting in SSA's position that "not enough names were provided by OPM." In between OPM providing the list to SSA and SSA making its decisions, all the candidates got to strike cities off their SSA consideration list. I don't know if OPM takes that step into consideration when deciding how many names to provide for each city cert, but certainly it is at best a guessing game. IMHO it is entirely possible that more people removed cities from consideration than anyone could reasonably have anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Oct 16, 2015 21:21:50 GMT -5
Most people who have posted along the way want to expand, not limit, their GALs. Occasionally somebody posts about how to eliminate a city, but more often the question has been the opposite - how or when can I expand my list? Of course that all may change with the proposed new contract provision on transfers, but it would not explain what has happened in the past. I expect there is some selective striking for various reasons, but I would be really surprised if there is enough wholesale striking to create a numbers problem. That may start soon, however.
|
|
bendy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by bendy on Oct 17, 2015 9:35:18 GMT -5
I received my first FOAD letter and am happy that I at least made it another step in this process.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Oct 17, 2015 9:42:04 GMT -5
I received my first FOAD letter and am happy that I at least made it another step in this process. FOAD letters are the first step to next certs. Or more generically, no is the first step to yes.
|
|
bendy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by bendy on Oct 17, 2015 9:52:35 GMT -5
With my limited GAL, I'm pretty sure I'll never get to yes without an expansion. Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Oct 17, 2015 9:58:56 GMT -5
With my limited GAL, I'm pretty sure I'll never get to yes without an expansion. Fingers crossed. Don't despair Bendy - there were a number of small GAL people in my class (including me, 7 cities). It can happen.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Oct 17, 2015 12:14:45 GMT -5
With my limited GAL, I'm pretty sure I'll never get to yes without an expansion. Fingers crossed. Don't despair Bendy - there were a number of small GAL people in my class (including me, 7 cities). It can happen. I was hired on a three-city GAL.
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on Oct 17, 2015 12:24:39 GMT -5
Small GAL doesn't necessarily mean no or little chance as reflected above - it really depends on what cities are on your GAL - if you have a small GAL with say San Francisco and San Rafael or Oakland only and maybe - I dunno - let's say Honolulu, that is a very different story than say having a small GAL with Tupelo, etc. My point is, there are small GALs and quite different small GALs.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Oct 17, 2015 14:33:23 GMT -5
With my limited GAL, I'm pretty sure I'll never get to yes without an expansion. Fingers crossed. Not necessarily. It depends on so many circumstances that you can't generalize. I had 5 offices on my GAL. I was passed over twice while 4 people were hired for one office on my list and no people were hired for the others. I would caution you to be very careful about which offices you list. Don't get caught up in the GAL-o-mania on the board. Make sure you can live in each place on your list or do the commute 5 days a week. If you make a mistake, it's not easy to fix it and often not easy to live with it.
|
|