|
|
Post by blahblahblah on Mar 1, 2022 20:58:32 GMT -5
Not sure what the significance may be, but they just posted a 1 year detail looking for 2 people to assist with ALJ hiring As I assume this was an internal post and not on USAJobs (because I can't find it there), does the posting say how long the application period is open? Just trying to read the tea leaves. Posting closes March 8th. Period of detail is scheduled to start on or about March 13th for a period NTE 1 year |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Mar 2, 2022 11:00:03 GMT -5
I realize that some offices might need new judges but I find the need for new judges somewhat laughable. In my office, they have not been able to give us more than 30 hearings per month since last September. Every month I request fifty and get 28. Some months I request 60 and get 28.
This will likely change when they open the field offices for SSI applications. But this is the case at least into June. Hard to enforce a quota when we get half of what we request.
And, yes, without mandatory transfers, I am sure that new hiring is the only way to fill the offices without sufficient judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 2, 2022 11:05:32 GMT -5
I realize that some offices might need new judges but I find the need for new judges somewhat laughable. In my office, they have not been able to give us more than 30 cases per month of hearings since last September. Every month I request fifty and get 28. This will likely change when they open the field offices for SSI applications. But this is the case at least into June. Hard to enforce a quota when we get half of what we request. And, yes, without mandatory transfers, I am sure that new hiring is the only way to fill the offices without sufficient judges. I mean they have done everything but tie a pork chop around the necks of some of these offices and gotten no transfers. Many offices are at a small fraction of what they need in a world with in person hearings. Some places will still be overstaffed but for others it's the exact opposite. Particularly, when you consider they probably aren't hiring anybody until the summer at the earliest and it will take at least 6 months before those new hires are hearing a full load of cases. Right about the time that any increase in applications from the field offices reopening starts to hit our benches. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Mar 2, 2022 11:29:39 GMT -5
I realize that some offices might need new judges but I find the need for new judges somewhat laughable. In my office, they have not been able to give us more than 30 cases per month of hearings since last September. Every month I request fifty and get 28. This will likely change when they open the field offices for SSI applications. But this is the case at least into June. Hard to enforce a quota when we get half of what we request. And, yes, without mandatory transfers, I am sure that new hiring is the only way to fill the offices without sufficient judges. I mean they have done everything but tie a pork chop around the necks of some of these offices and gotten no transfers. Many offices are at a small fraction of what they need in a world with in person hearings. Some places will still be overstaffed but for others it's the exact opposite. Particularly, when you consider they probably aren't hiring anybody until the summer at the earliest and it will take at least 6 months before those new hires are hearing a full load of cases. Right about the time that any increase in applications from the field offices reopening starts to hit our benches. I don't remember seeing any transfer possibilities in a long time (and I am on the list for many cities) but it is likely my cities didn't come up. But I did see Jacksonville on the list sent out today and I am on the list for that office. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Mar 2, 2022 12:02:07 GMT -5
I realize that some offices might need new judges but I find the need for new judges somewhat laughable. In my office, they have not been able to give us more than 30 cases per month of hearings since last September. Every month I request fifty and get 28. This will likely change when they open the field offices for SSI applications. But this is the case at least into June. Hard to enforce a quota when we get half of what we request. And, yes, without mandatory transfers, I am sure that new hiring is the only way to fill the offices without sufficient judges. I mean they have done everything but tie a pork chop around the necks of some of these offices and gotten no transfers. Many offices are at a small fraction of what they need in a world with in person hearings. Some places will still be overstaffed but for others it's the exact opposite. Particularly, when you consider they probably aren't hiring anybody until the summer at the earliest and it will take at least 6 months before those new hires are hearing a full load of cases. Right about the time that any increase in applications from the field offices reopening starts to hit our benches. I looked at the stats for last month and receipts were slightly up for Jan (Feb numbers not out yet). The total number of ALJs is 1229, which is 91 below where the budget request through the end of FY2020 (both stats by CPMS). There was a story I read earlier this week that detailed the fact that Medicare is about to be cut off for a large number of Americans. During Covid, the Feds and states basically allowed anyone on Medicare to remain on it without a review of whether they deserved it. I’m sure that the termination of Medicare for these people will result in additional disability applications. But as you say, this hire would likely be a necessity due to in person hearings. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 3, 2022 18:29:28 GMT -5
From a Member:
"So I have rumors from a very good source about the hiring.
Small hire towards the end of FY22 with a large hire in FY23."
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 4, 2022 0:32:43 GMT -5
From a Member: "So I have rumors from a very good source about the hiring. Small hire towards the end of FY22 with a large hire in FY23." Makes sense. Since this is an entirely new hiring process there is going to be bugs to be worked out, beat to start out with a small class. Plus, remains to be seen if this hiring is met with either a lawsuit or legislation that returns the hiring process back to the OPM process, so better to just poke the bear without a huge investment. |
|
Happy_in_KS
Full Member
I can do this all day
Posts: 31
|
Post by Happy_in_KS on Mar 4, 2022 13:32:37 GMT -5
Hmmm this is very interesting, thanks to all who provided information in this thread.
As an AA with almost 5 years experience post licensure, I'm wondering whether TPTB will continue to require 7 years experience post licensure now that OPM is out of the picture. As we've seen with some of the ALJ postings on USAJOBS, other agencies have gotten rid of or reduced this requirement. If so, I might have an outside chance at one of these upcoming rounds of hiring. But you never know, sometimes old habits die hard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Mar 4, 2022 16:44:34 GMT -5
From a Member: "So I have rumors from a very good source about the hiring. Small hire towards the end of FY22 with a large hire in FY23." A real sign of how much things have changed is Pixie 's post is almost a day old and there are only two responses, there is no poll up, and there isn't an entirely new thread dedicated to some niche topic within the 100 or so responses to this post. You all are slackers. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Mar 4, 2022 17:26:11 GMT -5
Hmmm this is very interesting, thanks to all who provided information in this thread. As an AA with almost 5 years experience post licensure, I'm wondering whether TPTB will continue to require 7 years experience post licensure now that OPM is out of the picture. As we've seen with some of the ALJ postings on USAJOBS, other agencies have gotten rid of or reduced this requirement. If so, I might have an outside chance at one of these upcoming rounds of hiring. But you never know, sometimes old habits die hard. I've seen a mix. Some agencies have asked for 10. Most of the others that I am aware of have asked for 7. And that isn't licensure years its years of experience either in litigation or subjected matter specific work. Since the death of the register I haven't seen anything that didn't require some experience (and usually 7+ years). But I'm the first to admit post register its still a new world. |
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Mar 4, 2022 18:30:25 GMT -5
Generally - I’ve seen an increase in qualification criteria not a reduction.
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Mar 4, 2022 21:24:57 GMT -5
I find it hard to imagine they will drop the 7 year requirement, but I guess it waits to be seen. If anything, I could see them maybe adding a subject matter experience factor in like many other agencies have post-OPM process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Mar 7, 2022 10:24:06 GMT -5
From a Member: "So I have rumors from a very good source about the hiring. Small hire towards the end of FY22 with a large hire in FY23." A real sign of how much things have changed is Pixie 's post is almost a day old and there are only two responses, there is no poll up, and there isn't an entirely new thread dedicated to some niche topic within the 100 or so responses to this post. You all are slackers. Because we do not know what to make of it. I had a position on the register that I got in Feb of 2018, and no hiring was done after I got on the register. If hiring were off the register, I would have many questions. With the hiring process an unknown, I am not able to posit meaningful questions. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Mar 7, 2022 11:29:35 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, of course - A. I do not believe I've ever put forth any sort of effort to deny this, and 2. Your point is simultaneously moot and well taken |
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Mar 7, 2022 13:27:18 GMT -5
If they follow the DOT, an ALJ is an SVP 8 job. 😉.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 10, 2022 12:57:21 GMT -5
It’ll be interesting to see if receipts jump up in the future to keep up with dispositions, particularly when we’re able to dismiss cases for abandonment. I’m guessing a significant chunk of the current pending consists of cases that simply can’t be scheduled or dismissed. I wonder if management will allow for the return of the rocket docket in the future for those types of cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 10, 2022 17:13:35 GMT -5
It’ll be interesting to see if receipts jump up in the future to keep up with dispositions, particularly when we’re able to dismiss cases for abandonment. I’m guessing a significant chunk of the current pending consists of cases that simply can’t be scheduled or dismissed. I wonder if management will allow for the return of the rocket docket in the future for those types of cases. Definitely not in the near term. The whole point is to not have too many people in the waiting rooms at once. Sure, we don't expect them to show up. But what if they do? |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Mar 11, 2022 8:24:52 GMT -5
I’ve heard only 25% of scheduled in person hearings have shown so far. Fire up the dismissal train!
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Mar 11, 2022 8:55:41 GMT -5
Interesting. I actually thought there might be a short burst where they prioritized scheduling the claimants who insisted on (or required) in person hearings but were very much staying in touch before they went after the backlog of claimants who are lost in the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Mar 11, 2022 12:27:12 GMT -5
It’ll be interesting to see if receipts jump up in the future to keep up with dispositions, particularly when we’re able to dismiss cases for abandonment. I’m guessing a significant chunk of the current pending consists of cases that simply can’t be scheduled or dismissed. I wonder if management will allow for the return of the rocket docket in the future for those types of cases. Definitely not in the near term. The whole point is to not have too many people in the waiting rooms at once. Sure, we don't expect them to show up. But what if they do? I have seen a full docket(not mine), I believe 6 hearings, that had mixed in-person and video. I guess it is possible for a modified rocket docket. But, inserting the customary disclaimer, I have nothing to base that possibility upon and please accept it as pure speculation on my part. |
|
