|
Post by gary on May 1, 2016 15:45:48 GMT -5
The more I read about this process, the more confused I am. You don't really need to understand the whole process. You just need to do your best at every stage and give yourself the largest opportunity for success (say/write smart things, follow directions, be nice to people, have as large a gal as you can) and the process will be what it will be. Many navigate it successfully without understanding it or knowing anything about this board. And we sneer at them as we call them Your Honor.
|
|
|
Post by rogo49 on May 1, 2016 23:01:21 GMT -5
OK, trying to simplify this even more for someone such as myself who has absolutely no understanding of this process.....
1. Lets say someone has a "score" of 76 and has a wide open GAL 2. Another person has a "score" of 72 and has a wide open GAL 3. Yet a third person has a "score" of 68 and has a wide open GAL
Person #1 receives a "list" of 60 cities Person #2 receives a "list" of 30 cities (not all of which are the same as #1, but some are) Person #3 receives a "list" of 15 cities (not all of which are the same as #1 or #2, but some are) So, why are all 3 people not receiving the same list of cities even though they all had wide open GAL's?
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 1, 2016 23:47:11 GMT -5
OK, trying to simplify this even more for someone such as myself who has absolutely no understanding of this process..... 1. Lets say someone has a "score" of 76 and has a wide open GAL 2. Another person has a "score" of 72 and has a wide open GAL 3. Yet a third person has a "score" of 68 and has a wide open GAL Person #1 receives a "list" of 60 cities Person #2 receives a "list" of 30 cities (not all of which are the same as #1, but some are) Person #3 receives a "list" of 15 cities (not all of which are the same as #1 or #2, but some are) So, why are all 3 people not receiving the same list of cities even though they all had wide open GAL's? Because they are not the only 3 people in this process. And you haven't stated whether any of them has a veteran's preference - which overlays another set of considerations. AND because ODAR can pick the order in which they consider various cities, they seem to need at least 25-30 (or more!) names per city-cert. It's entirely possible that person #3 in your example may be on city certs with #1 and #2, and may be on some city-certs that neither #1 nor #2 is on (because a "wide-open GAL" does NOT mean all 3 have exactly the same cities in their GAL's) Sorry, but there is a point where the process cannot be over-simplified and truly understood.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 1, 2016 23:50:50 GMT -5
Is this a trick question? The answer seems obvious to me. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 2, 2016 8:40:30 GMT -5
OK, trying to simplify this even more for someone such as myself who has absolutely no understanding of this process..... 1. Lets say someone has a "score" of 76 and has a wide open GAL 2. Another person has a "score" of 72 and has a wide open GAL 3. Yet a third person has a "score" of 68 and has a wide open GAL Person #1 receives a "list" of 60 cities Person #2 receives a "list" of 30 cities (not all of which are the same as #1, but some are) Person #3 receives a "list" of 15 cities (not all of which are the same as #1 or #2, but some are) So, why are all 3 people not receiving the same list of cities even though they all had wide open GAL's? Ok. If we assume that "wide open GAL" means all locations and no applicant indicated when they applied that they were bilingual in Spanish then your hypothetical is wrong. There should be no location on Person #2 or 3's cert lists that is not on Person #1's. There should be no location on Person#3's cert list that is not on Person #2's. 2 & 3 may not be reachable for all of the locations that 1 is reachable for but 1 is reachable for all locations that the lower scoring candidates with the same locations on their GAL have available. Now if you are using the term "wide open GAL" the way many people on this Board do then you are meaning that it includes many but not all locations in which case the answer is that the applicants don't share all of the same locations.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2016 8:44:27 GMT -5
OK, trying to simplify this even more for someone such as myself who has absolutely no understanding of this process..... 1. Lets say someone has a "score" of 76 and has a wide open GAL 2. Another person has a "score" of 72 and has a wide open GAL 3. Yet a third person has a "score" of 68 and has a wide open GAL Person #1 receives a "list" of 60 cities Person #2 receives a "list" of 30 cities (not all of which are the same as #1, but some are) Person #3 receives a "list" of 15 cities (not all of which are the same as #1 or #2, but some are) So, why are all 3 people not receiving the same list of cities even though they all had wide open GAL's? Ok. If we assume that "wide open GAL" means all locations and no applicant indicated when they applied that they were bilingual in Spanish then your hypothetical is wrong. There should be no location on Person #2 or 3's cert lists that is not on Person #1's. There should be no location on Person#3's cert list that is not on Person #2's. 2 & 3 may not be reachable for all of the locations that 1 is reachable for but 1 is reachable for all locations that the lower scoring candidates with the same locations on their GAL have available. Now if you are using the term "wide open GAL" the way many people on this BOARD do then you are meaning that it includes many but not all locations in which case the answer is that the applicants don't share all of the same locations. Arrrggghhhh! LBMT flashback!!!!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 2, 2016 9:28:35 GMT -5
OK, trying to simplify this even more for someone such as myself who has absolutely no understanding of this process..... 1. Lets say someone has a "score" of 76 and has a wide open GAL 2. Another person has a "score" of 72 and has a wide open GAL 3. Yet a third person has a "score" of 68 and has a wide open GAL Person #1 receives a "list" of 60 cities Person #2 receives a "list" of 30 cities (not all of which are the same as #1, but some are) Person #3 receives a "list" of 15 cities (not all of which are the same as #1 or #2, but some are) So, why are all 3 people not receiving the same list of cities even though they all had wide open GAL's? Ok. If we assume that "wide open GAL" means all locations and no applicant indicated when they applied that they were bilingual in Spanish then your hypothetical is wrong. There should be no location on Person #2 or 3's cert lists that is not on Person #1's. There should be no location on Person#3's cert list that is not on Person #2's. 2 & 3 may not be reachable for all of the locations that 1 is reachable for but 1 is reachable for all locations that the lower scoring candidates with the same locations on their GAL have available. Now if you are using the term "wide open GAL" the way many people on this Board do then you are meaning that it includes many but not all locations in which case the answer is that the applicants don't share all of the same locations. And, as someone else indicated, the hypothetical doesn't take into account all the other people on the register and their scores and GALs.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on May 2, 2016 10:33:30 GMT -5
I may misunderstand, but I think the rational gripe with the process is this:
Some of us may be confident that we are qualified for hiring. But we may not be so confident to think that we are at, or near, the top of the list, especially without a veterans preference boost. If someone in that position is on a lot of certs, the fear becomes that he/she will admirably receive consideration for several location hires, but not be at the top. By the time enough of the top scorers are hired, he/she will have received more than the allowed considerations, even though he/she would now be a "higher scorer" than someone who gets an offer for the next location considered.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2016 10:45:50 GMT -5
I may misunderstand, but I think the rational gripe with the process is this: Some of us may be confident that we are qualified for hiring. But we may not be so confident to think that we are at, or near, the top of the list, especially without a veterans preference boost. If someone in that position is on a lot of certs, the fear becomes that he/she will admirably receive consideration for several location hires, but not be at the top. By the time enough of the top scorers are hired, he/she will have received more than the allowed considerations, even though he/she would now be a "higher scorer" than someone who gets an offer for the next location considered. You only receive a consideration if you are one of the top 3 scores for a position and someone else is hired. If you are one of the top 3 scores for a position, SSA does not seem to care whether you are 1, 2, or 3 on the list (unless a preference eligible is one of the top 3 and has a higher score than you).
|
|
|
Post by rusty on May 2, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5
I may misunderstand, but I think the rational gripe with the process is this: Some of us may be confident that we are qualified for hiring. But we may not be so confident to think that we are at, or near, the top of the list, especially without a veterans preference boost. If someone in that position is on a lot of certs, the fear becomes that he/she will admirably receive consideration for several location hires, but not be at the top. By the time enough of the top scorers are hired, he/she will have received more than the allowed considerations, even though he/she would now be a "higher scorer" than someone who gets an offer for the next location considered. You only receive a consideration if you are one of the top 3 scores for a position and someone else is hired. If you are one of the top 3 scores for a position, SSA does not seem to care whether you are 1, 2, or 3 on the list (unless a preference eligible is one of the top 3 and has a higher score than you). That is what I understand. Theoretically, you could be the second best candidate on the first three locations considered and the fourth best candidate in the whole hiring process and not get hired.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2016 10:54:23 GMT -5
You only receive a consideration if you are one of the top 3 scores for a position and someone else is hired. If you are one of the top 3 scores for a position, SSA does not seem to care whether you are 1, 2, or 3 on the list (unless a preference eligible is one of the top 3 and has a higher score than you). That is what I understand. Theoretically, you could be the second best candidate on the first three locations considered and the fourth best candidate in the whole hiring process and not get hired. You could be the top score on the whole register and not get hired. That could even be true if you were preference eligible, though hiring others in locations in your GAL may be more complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 2, 2016 11:10:18 GMT -5
You only receive a consideration if you are one of the top 3 scores for a position and someone else is hired. If you are one of the top 3 scores for a position, SSA does not seem to care whether you are 1, 2, or 3 on the list (unless a preference eligible is one of the top 3 and has a higher score than you). That is what I understand. Theoretically, you could be the second best candidate on the first three locations considered and the fourth best candidate in the whole hiring process and not get hired. There is nothing to prevent them from hiring you if you have been considered a hundred times. Whether to 3 strike a candidate is discretionary. Just receiving three valid considerations does not preclude you from later hiring.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on May 2, 2016 11:28:46 GMT -5
That is what I understand. Theoretically, you could be the second best candidate on the first three locations considered and the fourth best candidate in the whole hiring process and not get hired. There is nothing to prevent them from hiring you if you have been considered a hundred times. Whether to 3 strike a candidate is discretionary. Just receiving three valid considerations does not preclude you from later hiring. Thanks. I trust you are correct as that would add some reasonableness to the rule. I have seen it argued hereabouts that the three considerations was, or should be, a hard and fast rule. Hence my confusion.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 2, 2016 11:59:20 GMT -5
There is nothing to prevent them from hiring you if you have been considered a hundred times. Whether to 3 strike a candidate is discretionary. Just receiving three valid considerations does not preclude you from later hiring. Thanks. I trust you are correct as that would add some reasonableness to the rule. I have seen it argued hereabouts that the three considerations was, or should be, a hard and fast rule. Hence my confusion. It's never been hard and fast in terms of the rule language. It became effectively hard and fast toward the end of the last register when ODAR told OPM to leave all the three struck people off the certs. That allowed them to look at some people they would not have even seen on the list before.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 2, 2016 12:09:49 GMT -5
There is nothing to prevent them from hiring you if you have been considered a hundred times. Whether to 3 strike a candidate is discretionary. Just receiving three valid considerations does not preclude you from later hiring. Thanks. I trust you are correct as that would add some reasonableness to the rule. I have seen it argued hereabouts that the three considerations was, or should be, a hard and fast rule. Hence my confusion. What Gaidin tells you is accurate. To think otherwise is to misapprehend the process. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on May 2, 2016 12:14:03 GMT -5
Ok. If we assume that "wide open GAL" means all locations and no applicant indicated when they applied that they were bilingual in Spanish then your hypothetical is wrong. There should be no location on Person #2 or 3's cert lists that is not on Person #1's. There should be no location on Person#3's cert list that is not on Person #2's. 2 & 3 may not be reachable for all of the locations that 1 is reachable for but 1 is reachable for all locations that the lower scoring candidates with the same locations on their GAL have available. Now if you are using the term "wide open GAL" the way many people on this Board do then you are meaning that it includes many but not all locations in which case the answer is that the applicants don't share all of the same locations. And, as someone else indicated, the hypothetical doesn't take into account all the other people on the register and their scores and GALs.Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 2, 2016 14:16:21 GMT -5
Is this a correct summary of what is being explained:
A higher NOR will always appear in the top 3 of a cert at a specific location before a lower NOR person unless the higher NOR person has been officially 3 struck.
|
|
|
Post by roggenbier on May 2, 2016 14:17:38 GMT -5
No, but being considered three times allows them to temporarily set you aside and go deeper into the register as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on May 2, 2016 14:34:10 GMT -5
No, but being considered three times allows them to temporarily set you aside and go deeper into the register as I understand it. Ahh this is interesting. So if you have been in the top 3, 3 times, then you may not be in the top 3 the next time you have a top 3 NOR on a cert you are otherwise eligible for - "casually" I thought that ODAR had to specifically strike them, not just "willy-nilly" (highly technical term) skip over high NOR people...
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 2, 2016 14:45:02 GMT -5
No, but being considered three times allows them to temporarily set you aside and go deeper into the register as I understand it. Ahh this is interesting. So if you have been in the top 3, 3 times, then you may not be in the top 3 the next time you have a top 3 NOR on a cert you are otherwise eligible for - "casually" I thought that ODAR had to specifically strike them, not just "willy-nilly" (highly technical term) skip over high NOR people... The applicable regs say: "An appointing officer, with sole regard to merit and fitness, shall select an eligible for: (a) The first vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are available for appointment; and (b) The second and each succeding vacancy from the highest three eligibles on the certificate who are unselected and available for appointment." 5 CFR 332.404. "An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position." 5 CFR 332.405. The three considerations rule does not alter the order in which your score places you. In fact, SSA in its discretion could consider a thrice-considered applicant if that applicant's score and GAL allow. However, SSA need not consider that applicant if it does not wish.
|
|