|
Post by 71stretch on Feb 16, 2017 6:55:25 GMT -5
Good and bad thoughts. My score is mid 60s and I have never interviewed so I could not be a person that they are trying to reach? That is I could not have a highly recommend. Good news I hope to interview and be so designated. Am I just filler? Or am I really in the running? Can a 65 highly recommended be offered the job over a 70 recommend? I think not. If they really want both if possible they need to offer the 70 a job in a location other than one on 65s GAL (or leaving options open for 65) so that when 70 is removed from contention 65 may more up to a top 3 position. Why am I now picturing Taraji H (as hidden figures character) at OPM holding.a piece of chalk and deducing the mathematical permutations. Go Taraji Go!! You don't get a "highly recommend" or recommend, or not recommend, until you have been interviewed. Everyone on this current set of certs who has not already been interviewed in connection with a past set of certs WILL be interviewed this time. (everyone is only interviewed one time per register). If you do well, you may indeed be one of thsose people they are trying to reach. A lot depends on the order the vacancies are filled in terms of who ends up actually being considered for a vacancy. Then, as others have said, the agency has other ways to pass over higher scorers they don't want in order to get to you and other lower scorers. So, do your best on the interview, and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 16, 2017 9:06:03 GMT -5
Good luck to all of you (way too numerous to mention by name such as Gary, BERK727, 71stretch, Ace Midnight, jessejames, etc., etc., etc. ) on the Board yet from my original class of test-taking buddies back in 2013 which are still awaiting the call. I hope all of you receive the call for an ALJ position. I can say without a doubt it is well worth the wait and I wish all of you the best.
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 9:41:46 GMT -5
via mobile
berk727 likes this
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 9:41:46 GMT -5
Good luck to all of you (way too numerous to mention by name such as Gary, BERK727, 71stretch, Ace Midnight, jessejames, etc., etc., etc. ) on the Board yet from my original class of test-taking buddies back in 2013 which are still awaiting the call. I hope all of you receive the call for an ALJ position. I can say without a doubt it is well worth the wait and I wish all of you the best. Thanks MPD. It's been awhile--how're you doing?
|
|
|
Post by northbend on Feb 16, 2017 9:54:56 GMT -5
Count me among those who had given up but fortunately an email from Mellinda rekindled my hope. Just sent in everything. 34 cities... I'll again go to any of them.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 10:12:13 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not, but you certainly have a couple of legs up on the competition. Don't be confused. Go back and read again. If you still don't understand, ask another question. We don't want anyone to go away confused. Sorta like a military mess hall,* they don't want anyone to go away hungry. We don't want anyone to go away confused. ____________ *The Air Force calls them cafeterias. Thanks Pixie yes, the Air Force also has better food. LOL.
I know that a recommend or otherwise is not a direct line to a job, but as long as I'm not a not recommend I'll keep the faith.
I guess what I'm most confused about is this: if the SSA does not care about your OPM scores and they only rate us by recommends and such, where do the scores come into play for A, B and C in the scenarios above? Thanks for your patience, first time will always be the most difficult I'm sure.
In the examples I only considered a single location at the time of hiring for a single position in that location. I only looked at the three candidates with the top scores on that location's cert because they were the only ones then reachable. The cert for the location likely included candidates D, E, F, G, etc. who were unreachable. The scores of A, B, and C put them in the top 3 and so within reach for the position being hired. Once in the top 3, absent a VP issue, SSA doesn't give a fig about your score. Therefore, scores are absolutely crucial until they're not.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 10:25:13 GMT -5
And they cannot pass over a VP candidate without good cause, correct? They can only pass over a preference-eligible to hire a lower scoring non-preference-eligible on grounds of lack of qualifications, certain conduct, and certain medical issues. See SF 62: www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf62.pdf
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 10:35:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 10:35:26 GMT -5
I'm very chill about whether it happens or not as well. I just want the process to be fair and the Federal Law followed. I don't get how the "three strikes" policy over rides the Federal 10 pt VP. Seems to me a Federal Law would supersede SSA's policy that they themselves enforce or don't enforce as it pleases them. The 3 strikes and 3 considerations rules aren't created by SSA. Those are at a minimum OPM guidelines and I'm pretty sure they are derived from Federal law also. The three considerations rule is contained in a federal regulation. See: "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. I am not aware of the three-strike procedure being specifically set forth in a statute or regulation. I view it as being logically derived from the above regulation. If an agency that is not required to consider a thrice-considered eligible again requests that the eligible be omitted from certs on the basis that the agency will never hire that person, it makes no sense to require that the thrice-considered eligible be included on the certs.
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 10:52:25 GMT -5
gary likes this
Post by Pixie on Feb 16, 2017 10:52:25 GMT -5
Thanks Pixie yes, the Air Force also has better food. LOL.
I know that a recommend or otherwise is not a direct line to a job, but as long as I'm not a not recommend I'll keep the faith.
I guess what I'm most confused about is this: if the SSA does not care about your OPM scores and they only rate us by recommends and such, where do the scores come into play for A, B and C in the scenarios above? Thanks for your patience, first time will always be the most difficult I'm sure.
In the examples I only considered a single location at the time of hiring for a single position in that location. I only looked at the three candidates with the top scores on that location's cert because they were the only ones then reachable. The cert for the location likely included candidates D, E, F, G, etc. who were unreachable. The scores of A, B, and C put them in the top 3 and so within reach for the position being hired. Once in the top 3, absent a VP issue, SSA doesn't give a fig about your score.
Therefore, scores are absolutely crucial until they're not. Very succinctly put. I will have to remember this. I like things to be brief as I am always in a hurry (that's how I make mistakes). Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Lulu on Feb 16, 2017 11:01:06 GMT -5
Thanks again to gary and Pixie for all the helpful information. I've turned in my paperwork so I'm going to wait to find out when the interviews are for those of us on a cert for the first time. I'll do my best and hope for the same. I really, genuinely, wish the best of luck to everyone...I wish there was space for all of us. Fingers crossed. I'm going to try and just write decisions and forget about the cert until the next step, otherwise I'll just worry myself to death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 11:11:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 11:11:52 GMT -5
I have read and re-read this string. As a newbee, I have a question or two which may or may not belong here but I will ask anyway. My GAL included 44 locations. On this round I was placed on two, though many other locations on my GAL had been listed. Question 1: Does than mean I did not score high enough for the other locations? Question 2: Given that I will be interviewed, as this is my first time on a cert, how will the locations play into the process? I have looked at the ODAR Offices Cert & Hire chart and see that in the last 3-4 years there have been limited or no hires for many locations. While not applying "game theory" here, I'm just trying to get real with the prospects. Thanks for any replies!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 11:25:03 GMT -5
1. It is likely your score is not high enough to make the other certs. However, they do occasionally make mistakes with this. If your score is near the lower end of the scores poll I suspect they got it right and you made just the two.
2. Being on the certs is no guarantee you will wind up in a top 3 during the hiring, though I believe it does mean they could follow a hiring path to reach you if they choose.
3. Unless you decline all locations you have certed for, all you can do is try to wow them at the interview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 11:47:14 GMT -5
gary likes this
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2017 11:47:14 GMT -5
1. It is likely your score is not high enough to make the other certs. However, they do occasionally make mistakes with this. If your score is near the lower end of the scores poll I suspect they got it right and you made just the two. 2. Being on the certs is no guarantee you will wind up in a top 3 during the hiring, though I believe it does mean they could follow a hiring path to reach you if they choose. 3. Unless you decline all locations you have certed for, all you can do is try to wow them at the interview. Thanks! And, I plan just that.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Feb 16, 2017 12:41:00 GMT -5
I'm very chill about whether it happens or not as well. I just want the process to be fair and the Federal Law followed. I don't get how the "three strikes" policy over rides the Federal 10 pt VP. Seems to me a Federal Law would supersede SSA's policy that they themselves enforce or don't enforce as it pleases them. The 3 strikes and 3 considerations rules aren't created by SSA. Those are at a minimum OPM guidelines and I'm pretty sure they are derived from Federal law also. The three considerations rule is contained in a federal regulation. See: "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. I am not aware of the three-strike procedure being specifically set forth in a statute or regulation. I view it as being logically derived from the above regulation. If an agency that is not required to consider a thrice-considered eligible again requests that the eligible be omitted from certs on the basis that the agency will never hire that person, it makes no sense to require that the thrice-considered eligible be included on the certs. If I understand correctly, a cert should cut off at the same spot on the register regardless of whether people who have already received 3 considerations are left off (three-struck) the cert or kept on. OPM has to give the agency enough names to have at least a top 3 that consists of people who have not yet received 3 considerations.
Assume a register of x people with descending NORs: A, B, C, D, E, F, etc.; that A and C have received three considerations; and that one position is being certed.
If the people with 3 considerations are kept on, the cert would effectively look like this: A B C D E
If the people with 3 considerations are left off, the cert looks like this: B D E
In either case, A and C are effectively not taken into account for purposes of determining who gets on the cert.
The big practical difference, obviously, is that if the agency gets the first cert, it could still choose to hire A or C (or B, D, or E), whereas in the second case, only B, D, or E can get the call. But there is no legal difference between the two certs.
Striking all candidates who have received 3 considerations off of certs definitely runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (pretty sure many ALJs have been hired after technically receiving 3 considerations), and for no greater gain than merely removing some names the agency wouldn't have needed to consider anyway, so I'll be surprised if we ever see it happen again.
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 12:59:11 GMT -5
Post by desert2beach on Feb 16, 2017 12:59:11 GMT -5
There are conceivably situations where a high scoring veteran with a narrow GAL may really make things difficult for ODAR, because the veteran can only be considered in a handful of places, where the veteran's score may make it impossible for ODAR to find someone else who can be selected over the veteran. There have been some cities in the past that have been certed without hires and I know that I've heard others theorize that there is a high scoring veteran who the agency does not want to hire who is preventing ODAR from hiring in those cities, but this is really just WAGulation.
I'd like to explore this a bit further, from the perspective of GAL strategy. I'm a 10 pointer who is in Phase 1, so I may not even make it far enough for this to matter, but here goes. When I did the GAL selection, I went as wide as possible in an effort to broaden my chances. A few of the locations I selected would make me a geographic bachelor, which neither I nor my family really wants.
If I ultimately score high enough (70's?, 80's?), would it be strategically better for me to narrow my GAL to force the agency's hand? Or is it better to leave it as is, hope to be hired somewhere, do my time, and hope for a transfer?
Or am I fundamentally misunderstanding the process, which is entirely possible ...
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 16, 2017 13:15:00 GMT -5
If you want the job, keep the net as wide as possible. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 16, 2017 13:24:15 GMT -5
The three considerations rule is contained in a federal regulation. See: "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. I am not aware of the three-strike procedure being specifically set forth in a statute or regulation. I view it as being logically derived from the above regulation. If an agency that is not required to consider a thrice-considered eligible again requests that the eligible be omitted from certs on the basis that the agency will never hire that person, it makes no sense to require that the thrice-considered eligible be included on the certs. If I understand correctly, a cert should cut off at the same spot on the register regardless of whether people who have already received 3 considerations are left off (three-struck) the cert or kept on. OPM has to give the agency enough names to have at least a top 3 that consists of people who have not yet received 3 considerations.
Assume a register of x people with descending NORs: A, B, C, D, E, F, etc.; that A and C have received three considerations; and that one position is being certed.
If the people with 3 considerations are kept on, the cert would effectively look like this: A B C D E
If the people with 3 considerations are left off, the cert looks like this: B D E
In either case, A and C are effectively not taken into account for purposes of determining who gets on the cert.
The big practical difference, obviously, is that if the agency gets the first cert, it could still choose to hire A or C (or B, D, or E), whereas in the second case, only B, D, or E can get the call. But there is no legal difference between the two certs.
Striking all candidates who have received 3 considerations off of certs definitely runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (pretty sure many ALJs have been hired after technically receiving 3 considerations), and for no greater gain than merely removing some names the agency wouldn't have needed to consider anyway, so I'll be surprised if we ever see it happen again.
I may not be understanding you properly, but in the first situation, only A, B, or C will be in play as they are the top three for that location. If the Agency decided the last time that A and C would not be acceptable, but they weren't thrice stricken, then they will keep showing up on certs and will preclude the Agency from considering anyone with a lower score. That is why the Agency uses the three strike rule and formally notifies OPM that A and C are not suitable and have been given three formal considerations. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Feb 16, 2017 14:28:01 GMT -5
If you want the job, keep the net as wide as possible. Pixie I agree completely (and I'm not SSA so I'm not just apple polishing here). I had a decent NOR and a broad GAL, which I pared in half when the first SSA certs I was eligible for came out. 3 of my top 5 locations were not even filled, and I did not get picked up for any of the other 20. It caused me a ton of self doubt about possibly having bombed the SSA interview, and worrying if I had been 3-struck. I wondered whether I had slit my own throat by reducing my GAL. It was a horrible 3-weeks. I'll never know now, as I was fortunate to be selected by OMHA before the next set of SSA certs were acted on. SSA's process still bugs me - particularly that I may have suffered a self-inflicted wound.
I understand that you have to be careful what you ask for as you may just get it and have to live with it. But, the real decision is whether you really want to be an ALJ. Yes, transfers take time, but a bird in hand is, well you know. If you really want it, like anything else, you need to maximize your opportunities (looked but couldn't find another cliché to fit in here). You may well surprise yourself with how far ALJ pay goes, especially in smaller locations.
My wife is not happy yet with my new location (and won't be until hot weather arrives), but she's coming around to the benefits of my new job and our new location. Also, our retirement future looks a lot brighter now, and I'm no longer coming home angry because of a rotten commute - and home is now nearly twice the house for less money.
Good luck to all, and remember - as opposed to a lot of other options, it's good to be the judge!
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 14:47:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Mjǿlner likes this
Post by gary on Feb 16, 2017 14:47:34 GMT -5
The three considerations rule is contained in a federal regulation. See: "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. I am not aware of the three-strike procedure being specifically set forth in a statute or regulation. I view it as being logically derived from the above regulation. If an agency that is not required to consider a thrice-considered eligible again requests that the eligible be omitted from certs on the basis that the agency will never hire that person, it makes no sense to require that the thrice-considered eligible be included on the certs. If I understand correctly, a cert should cut off at the same spot on the register regardless of whether people who have already received 3 considerations are left off (three-struck) the cert or kept on. OPM has to give the agency enough names to have at least a top 3 that consists of people who have not yet received 3 considerations.
Assume a register of x people with descending NORs: A, B, C, D, E, F, etc.; that A and C have received three considerations; and that one position is being certed.
If the people with 3 considerations are kept on, the cert would effectively look like this: A B C D E
If the people with 3 considerations are left off, the cert looks like this: B D E
In either case, A and C are effectively not taken into account for purposes of determining who gets on the cert.
The big practical difference, obviously, is that if the agency gets the first cert, it could still choose to hire A or C (or B, D, or E), whereas in the second case, only B, D, or E can get the call. But there is no legal difference between the two certs.
Striking all candidates who have received 3 considerations off of certs definitely runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (pretty sure many ALJs have been hired after technically receiving 3 considerations), and for no greater gain than merely removing some names the agency wouldn't have needed to consider anyway, so I'll be surprised if we ever see it happen again.
I understand the process the same way you do. The regulation I quoted in a prior post operates whether or not the agency is having OPM leave those with three considerations off the certs. In the example, if the agency wishes to hire B, D, or E, it would consider those three, hire the one it chooses, and lay a consideration on each of the other two. If the the agency wished at this point to hire A, it would consider A, B and D, hire A, and lay a consideration on B and D. Having those with three considerations on the certs increases the agency's hiring options. This however is only useful if one or more of those with three prior considerations is somebody the agency would be willing to hire in the right circumstances. If they are all never-hire people, having them on the certs just increases the agency's work and puts the never-hires to pointless effort in responding to the cert emails.
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 16:47:56 GMT -5
Post by southernfun on Feb 16, 2017 16:47:56 GMT -5
True or False: A highly rated 10 pt vet that submits three cities or less has to be hired if she is #1 on at least one of the three cities, because there wont be a way for SSA to use the three times considered rule to bypass her.
|
|
|
Cert
Feb 16, 2017 16:53:18 GMT -5
Post by Pixie on Feb 16, 2017 16:53:18 GMT -5
True or False: A highly rated 10 pt vet that submits three cities or less has to be hired if she is #1 on at least one of the three cities, because there wont be a way for SSA to use the three times considered rule to bypass her. Don't forget the Agency may have a valid reason for not hiring her.
|
|