Debate over the Efficacy of the Transfer List

[okeydokey]

The transfer list might be worth a new thread. So here it is.

The current situation is (as far as I can tell): If an ALJ with two years of experience requests transfer to a new HO, ODAR may not fill an opening in an HO with an ALJ lower on the transfer list, an ALJ from another agency, or from the certificate of eligibles, unless the it first offers the position to the ALJ and the ALJ declines the offer.

The current situation is good for ALJs who want to transfer. The AALJ likes the situation because it saw transfers as a carrot that management offered to "favored" employees. And it perceived management's offer of transfer to "good" ALJs as a de facto performance rating.

The current situation is bad for HOs in "undesireable" locations who have no say in the matter and, if given their druthers might rather keep the experienced ALJ than hire a new ALJ off the certificate of eligibles.

Under the current system, a collateral casualty is that those on the register who have applied for "desirable" locations.

If the system changes, a collateral casuatly of the system will be that those ALJs who were hired with the expectation that the transfer list would remain (which may be lessened, given the warnings reportedly given during the last/current iterations of interviews).

As a result of the system, someone who wants to go to a desireable location, for example, D.C., will take a job in an undesireable location, for example, Flint, Michigan, and, theoretically, be able to move to D.C. in two years. And those who have lower scores, but want to stay in Flint, Michigan are squeezed out.

Another result is that HOs in undesireable locations have a huge turnover of ALJs.

The debate question is: Resolved, use of the transfer list is beneficial to ODAR.

Have at it

[alj]

I think that many of you have scrambled the eggs of transfer analysis when you consider what is a desirable location vs. a not so desirable location. As another poster said in a prior thread, " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What is desirable for one, may be dreaded by another.

For example, consider little Knoxville, TN. Hardly a DC, NYC or a LA type location. But for years, it was impossible to get into Knoxville from the register, and very difficult to transfer into. One judge I am aware of, spent 11 years trying to get back to Knoxville, where his family was located. Just made it back last year.

The reason? Knoxville had a full complement of judges when he was appointed. There were three judges a class or two ahead of him from Knoxville who were trying to get back home, and maybe one who transferred there a year or so after he was appointed.

Even though no one would think of Knoxville as a "desirable" location, it was certainly desirable to those who wanted to get back home. Even though this is a fairly rare situation, it does happen, and what one would normally think of as an undesirable location, isn't necessarily that way. So, it could be difficult to transfer to any given location, without regard to its desirability, or lack thereof.

Because of that, my advice is to not accept an appointment to a location you can't see yourself living in for at least 10 years. I think most of the judges who have been around a while will agree with that bit of wisdom.

Be forewarned.

[wallace]

Don't be dissin Flint. It's a GREAT hearing office.

[morgullord]

Tupelo is a great place, too!

[ruonthelist]

I don't propose to join in the debate, but only to offer a caution at jumping to conclusions about what locations are desirable. According to the 4/09 union transfer list:

All 3 judges who had listed Baltimore (two of whom listed it when the list was created in 2001) declined offers there in January and February of this year.

All 4 judges who listed DC (including two who listed it in 2001) declined offers there between January and March of this year.

All 4 judges who have listed Fort Lauderdale and all 5 judges who have listed Tampa declined offers there between 12/07 and 4/08.

Evanston, IL and San Diego, CA have the same number of requests.

Greenville, SC has one more request than Santa Barbara, CA.

Flint and Tupelo have one request each: the same number as Boston, New York, and Orlando (and the judge who requested NYC declined an offer there in 2007).

Other than DC, I have never lived in any of those cities and have only visited a few of them, so I would not presume to call any of them undesirable. I only offer these anecdotal data for whatever interest they may hold.

[optimistic]

ruonthelist,

Thanks for providing information that is substantive and will be helpful to many of us.

[valkyrie]

I would just like to note that I only mentioned some cities as "undesirable" based upon stereotypical representations rather than my own personal opinion. There are a lot of typically thought of "backwaters" that I would not mind being offered at all. However, I have to imagine that most candidates have a terrifyingly "frozen" impression of Fargo ND, Appalachia location impressions that are Deliverance-driven, and Mississippi impressions that are, well, Mississippi-driven. If you cannot detect the SEC scorn in that last sentence, you must be a pathetic "Big" Ten fan.