|
|
Post by tallgreenfrog on Apr 23, 2009 10:35:35 GMT -5
That's just great. They said that in the past. Many of us will have to walk away from our houses if that is true.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Apr 23, 2009 11:01:43 GMT -5
I interviewed last year but have been told that candidates this year are being being advised that the policy of allowing transfers to a different (more preferable) office with an opening after 2+ years of service is going to be significantly limited in the future, and a candidate should not accept an appointment to a city expecting to transfer out in a few years.  "Less desirable" offices can't afford to continue to lose good judges and go back into a training mode every few years. Can current interviewees confirm or deny this admonishment? This is a significant development if true. Maybe some Pixie dust can be sprinkled on the issue? Present union contract requires a transfer list. This COSS is very anti-union and may order it violated. He also may lose if he does so. If contract is followed then a judge can get on a list after 2 years for 3 sites and the agency has to offer a transfer before it hires a new judge for those sites. |
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Apr 23, 2009 11:02:04 GMT -5
I didn't get any kind of admonishments at the interview. There were no discussions re terms/conditions of employment. Although I had a couple questions at the end about when to expect to know (some time after 5/11), where the training would be (Falls Church), and whether they look at this board (yes), there was no extra info conveyed to me. I imagine that changes to transfer rights would require a renegotation of the union contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 23, 2009 11:31:17 GMT -5
I commented on the possibility of this before. Last year's hiring was really the beginning of uncharted territory for ODAR. Besides all of the electronic changes we are now seeing some of the largest influxes of personnel ever, and I would not be surprised if some contracts are renegotiated, if not violated.
But really, will they have to do anything about transfers? Offices are literally being filled to physical capacity with ALJs, along with other positions, and because of the economy retirements are probably going to be down for awhile. If the agency gets next year's new cert for 200 ALJs out before the 2008 ALjs make it to their two year anniversary. there could be very few openings to transfer to unless it is a "trade" situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Apr 23, 2009 13:09:47 GMT -5
I commented on the possibility of this before. Last year's hiring was really the beginning of uncharted territory for ODAR. Besides all of the electronic changes we are now seeing some of the largest influxes of personnel ever, and I would not be surprised if some contracts are renegotiated, if not violated. But really, will they have to do anything about transfers? Offices are literally being filled to physical capacity with ALJs, along with other positions, and because of the economy retirements are probably going to be down for awhile. If the agency gets next year's new cert for 200 ALJs out before the 2008 ALjs make it to their two year anniversary. there could be very few openings to transfer to unless it is a "trade" situation. Your take on it is what I was told last year about transfers being very limited, not due to something shady that violates the contract but because practicalities are going to make openings for transfers very limited. Regular hearing offices are already seeing a shifting of work from across the country to offices that have the capacity to handle it. Therefore, with electronic files and video hearings, the physical location of the ALJ becomes less important because work can be moved around at will. Additionally, a surprising number of my classmates last year were placed very close to "home" such as within the same metro or state. I believe that was also an effort to cut down on transfer requests. Another factor that new people don't seem to be thinking about is that once a new ALJ waits the 2 years to get on the transfer list, they are possibly behind a number of other ALJs with more seniority. Someone can wait many years if they want to transfer to a popular location or merely one where the office is at full capacity with no ALJs looking to move or retire. |
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 23, 2009 13:29:11 GMT -5
Transfers are done now according to the union contract.
I have a feeling that management believes they are being misused; i.e., slots are being taken to get a foot in the door on the anticipation of moving.
My guess is that transfers will not be in the next union contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by tallgreenfrog on Apr 23, 2009 15:12:28 GMT -5
when is the contract up for renegotiation?
|
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Apr 23, 2009 15:49:17 GMT -5
Now.
|
|
|
|
Post by puravida on Apr 23, 2009 16:05:42 GMT -5
I can confirm being told at my interview last week that people should be prepared to spend the rest of their careers at whatever office they are hired into. As nonamouse says, hearings can be conducted via video, so it makes no difference where the AJ is.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 23, 2009 16:33:41 GMT -5
I think stuck for the rest of one's career seems a little over the top. On the other hand, I don't see tranferring getting any easier either.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Apr 23, 2009 17:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Apr 23, 2009 18:56:28 GMT -5
I share your puzzlement. This is an old admonition and should not be a surprise to anyone. In part it simply states the obvious (transfers can be difficult) but it is also in part a friendly(?) warning not to accept an assignement unless you really want that location. |
|
