Transfer List and Sites

[aljsouth]

happy said:

Houston DT and Houston-Bissonnet are 2 different offices. Houston-B (also just called "Houston") is the former Houston-Bellaire, relocated in late 2003.

Thanks for clearing that up. Naming an office after the street address is a bad idea. Of course, some of us could be referred to as "name of city" crappy federal building Somehow I doubt ODAR will be that literal.

[2112]

Here is the list of Offices from the job announcement, in case someone wants to link up the rumored openings with that list



BIRMINGHAM
AL

FLORENCE
AL

MOBILE
AL

MONTGOMERY
AL

FORT SMITH
AR

LITTLE ROCK
AR

PHOENIX
AZ

TUCSON
AZ

ALAMEDA
CA

DOWNEY
CA

FRESNO
CA

IRVINE
CA

LONG BEACH
CA

LOS ANGELES (DOWNTOWN)
CA

LOS ANGELES (WEST)
CA

OAKLAND
CA

ORANGE
CA

PASADENA
CA

SACRAMENTO
CA

SAN BERNARDINO
CA

SAN DIEGO
CA

SAN FRANCISCO
CA

SAN JOSE
CA

SAN RAFAEL
CA

SANTA BARBARA
CA

STOCKTON
CA

COLORADO SPRINGS
CO

DENVER
CO

HARTFORD
CT

NEW HAVEN
CT

WASHINGTON
DC

DOVER
DE

FORT LAUDERDALE
FL

JACKSONVILLE
FL

MIAMI
FL

ORLANDO
FL

TAMPA
FL

ATLANTA
GA

ATLANTA NORTH
GA

MACON
GA

SAVANNAH
GA

HONOLULU
HI

WEST DES MOINES
IA

CHICAGO
IL

EVANSTON
IL

OAKBROOK TERRACE
IL

ORLAND PARK
IL

PEORIA
IL

EVANSVILLE
IN

FORT WAYNE
IN

INDIANAPOLIS
IN

WICHITA
KS

LEXINGTON
KY

LOUISVILLE
KY

MIDDLESBORO
KY

PADUCAH
KY

ALEXANDRIA
LA

COVINGTON
LA

METARIE
LA

NEW ORLEANS
LA

SHREVEPORT
LA

BOSTON
MA

SPRINGFIELD
MA

BALTIMORE
MD

ROCKVILLE
MD

PORTLAND
ME

DETROIT
MI

FLINT
MI

GRAND RAPIDS
MI

LANSING
MI

OAK PARK
MI

FORT SNELLING
MN

MINNEAPOLIS
MN

CREVE COEUR
MO

KANSAS CITY
MO

SPRINGFIELD
MO

ST. LOUIS
MO

HATTIESBURG
MS

JACKSON
MS

TUPELO
MS

BILLINGS
MT

CHARLOTTE
NC

GREENSBORO
NC

RALEIGH
NC

FARGO
ND

OMAHA
NE

MANCHESTER
NH

CHERRY HILL
NJ

NEWARK
NJ

VOORHEES
NJ

ALBUQUERQUE
NM

LAS VEGAS
NV

ALBANY
NY

BRONX
NY

BROOKLYN
NY

BUFFALO
NY

JERICHO
NY

MANHATTAN
NY

QUEENS
NY

SYRACUSE
NY

WHITE PLAINS
NY

CINCINNATI
OH

CLEVELAND
OH

COLUMBUS
OH

DAYTON
OH

McALESTER
OK

OKLAHOMA CITY
OK

TULSA
OK

EUGENE
OR

PORTLAND
OR

ELKINS PARK
PA

HARRISBURG
PA

JOHNSTOWN
PA

PHILADELPHIA
PA

PHILADELPHIA EAST
PA

PITTSBURGH
PA

WILKES-BARRE
PA

MAYAGUEZ
PR

PONCE
PR

SAN JUAN
PR

PROVIDENCE
RI

CHARLESTON
SC

COLUMBIA
SC

GREENVILLE
SC

RAPID CITY
SD

SIOUX FALLS
SD

CHATTANOOGA
TN

KINGSPORT
TN

KNOXVILLE
TN

MEMPHIS
TN

NASHVILLE
TN

ARLINGTON
TX

DALLAS (DOWNTOWN)
TX

DALLAS (NORTH)
TX

FORT WORTH
TX

HOUSTON
TX

HOUSTON (BELLAIRE)
TX

HOUSTON (DOWNTOWN)
TX

SAN ANTONIO
TX

SALT LAKE CITY
UT

ARLINGTON
VA

CHARLOTTESVILLE
VA

FALLS CHURCH
VA

NEWPORT NEWS
VA

NORFOLK
VA

RICHMOND
VA

ROANOKE
VA

SEATTLE
WA

SPOKANE
WA

MADISON
WI

MILWAUKEE
WI

CHARLESTON
WV

HUNTINGTON
WV

MORGANTOWN
WV

[aljsouth]

It looks complete to me. Anybody see any left off? From my earlier posts you can tell I know more about the southeast than other sections of the country

Remember a new location like VTC in Falls Church is not on the list. I don't know if they plan to hire new judges there or how they would offer postitions to people on the list since it was not present on the list as an area one would accept.

In the past the agency has simply advertised a new site and judges could request a transfer and the agency picked whom they wished. This was the case for Colorado Springs and Dover.

When I got on the list there was no Las Vegas hearing office on the OPM sheet given to us listing sites, but there was one by the time of my selection. None of us were given the opportunity to add that site to our list of agreeable sites. This may or may not remain the procedure. The agency is planning several new offices, two in Florida for example that would be popular sites.

[odarite]

Although I almost always resist the opportunity to look as ignorant as I almost always am, what announcement are you talking about, 2112?

[skibum]

The post was the May 4 OPM announcement of ALJ vacancies that started all this for many of us. In the application process you had to place a check in the box next to each city or office where you would be willing to work. 2112 posted a list of those cities.

[odarite]

in other words, every ODAR location in the country (or out of it depending on how you count PR), and by extension every city in which other agencies maintain offices.

[wentwest]

Right. That list is everywhere an ALJ is stationed, regardless of the Agency. Some really are not tied to a particular location except in job description. NLRB judges frequently work from home most of the time. That list is not an indication of openings. In my experience the filling of openings is very political, both within the world of the Chief Judge and the Regional Chiefs, and as a result of Congressional pressure. If ODAR declares an opening in an office the transfer list comes into play, and no one has a good grip on how it works in massive hires. If transferor 1 declines, does 2 get the offer? If 2 takes it, does SSA then declare the opening in the spot being vacated and go to the transfer list again, and for how many steps before it's done. I submit no one has a reliable answer. I suspect ODAR will try to cut the transfer list as little influence as possible, and grievances will fly.

Meanwhile, they've just got to hire ALJs and every one knows it. Attrition is continual, at about 8% to 10% a year. I was hired in 1994 and so were many others, and they are starting to retire. If logic ruled they would hire in the Mid-West and South first, but you will learn quickly that things happen in ODAR for many reasons, and logic is not always primary.

Finally, I recall one last opportunity to update your list of desired locations after you got your score. Will OPM do that again? Your guess is as good as mine.

[chris]

We already know the rules regarding changing locations and they say no updating until they open the exam again. As a practical matter, why would they allow it? It's just more work for OPM and provides them with no benefit. I assume they learned that from past experience and that's why the option is gone.

[ruonthelist]

wentwest and odarite are correct, the list in the announcement includes all cities in which ALJs of any agency are stationed, so it does not correlate precisely with the list of ODAR offices. For example, Arlington, VA and Irvine, CA are HHS OMHA offices. Cherry Hill, NJ and Newport News, VA, and maybe one or two others, are Labor Dept offices.

--------
Are YOU on the List?

[odarite]

The ALJ contract with the agency specifies that if they take one person off the transfer list, and they decide to fill the vacancy created by the transfer, then they go to the transfer list again. Once they have moved two judges pursuant to the transfer list, the contract no longer applies. In other words, the second vacancy created by a single string of transfers can be filled by a new hire.

[judicature]

The HHS OHMA field offices are located in 4 cities: Miami, FL (Southern), Cleveland, OH (Mid-West), Arlington, VA (Mid-Atlantic) and Irvine, CA (Western)

[aljsouth]

odarite said:

The ALJ contract with the agency specifies that if they take one person off the transfer list, and they decide to fill the vacancy created by the transfer, then they go to the transfer list again. Once they have moved two judges pursuant to the transfer list, the contract no longer applies. In other words, the second vacancy created by a single string of transfers can be filled by a new hire.

According to the President of AALJ the union negotiated a deal with Falls Church, and have a letter from a former chief judge confirming this, wherein the agency would go down the entire transfer list until someone took the transfer, or the list is exhausted. I still expect the agency to ignore this, or claim it applied only to the immediate hire at the time of the chief judge's letter -- something like that.

In 2001 they refused to use the list at all and lost grievances because of it and had to allow transfers to sites that probably did not need more judges. I would expect them to go to the first name on the list, after that I am uncertain of the agency's intention.

[cincinnatus]

With all due respect to those imputing logic or cosmic truth to the site selection for selectees, forget it! There are some regions with sites, e.g. Southern California, where 5-9 aljs, depending on the site, have been awaiting transfers for years, but will never get in due to some "desirable" offices receiving nothing but "hardship transfers" to those certain sites over the last seven years, despite those offices having dwindling receipts. The poster who said or implied, words to the effect, that it might be "who you know", is "right on" re those sites.

[odarite]

Two different topics here: One, which I previously posted about, is what the contract says about filling vacancies created by a transfer. The second, which aljsouth posted about, is covered by a different paragraph of the transfer article of the contract, is about what happens when there are more transfer requests than slots.

I hope and believe that OCALJ will follow the contract this time around, if for no other reason than what aljsouth pointed out: losing a grievance may result in yet again transferring judges to offices that don't need judges to the detriment of offices that do.

[2112]

"Wentwest" said something that struck me as counter-intuitive: "If logic ruled they would hire in the Mid-West and South first...." Why? It would seem to me they would hire on the coasts first -- the more desirable locations, I assume. Alternatively, it would seem to me that they would get some input from the top-tier candidates, let say the top 30 scoring people on the list (all of whom I would assume would have 10 point preferences, and thus scores over 100), as to a location they would like to be submitted to.

[aljsouth]

2112 said:

"Wentwest" said something that struck me as counter-intuitive: "If logic ruled they would hire in the Mid-West and South first...." Why? It would seem to me they would hire on the coasts first -- the more desirable locations, I assume. Alternatively, it would seem to me that they would get some input from the top-tier candidates, let say the top 30 scoring people on the list (all of whom I would assume would have 10 point preferences, and thus scores over 100), as to a location they would like to be submitted to.

2112, I don't agree with your theory that you hire for desirable locations. Desirability of location should not be a factor at all.

You would think anyone with sense would hire for need. Need is where the filings are highest with the lowest number of judges. The monthly report reflects the daily average of cases filed per available judge. There are sites where the number of cases on the docket divided by judge is over 1300. In other places this number is just over 300. Should the second place get more judges because it is desirable? Knowing ODAR they probably will.

As to allowing "top" candidates to have a say in where they want to go, this is not a factor in government hiring. Even the private sector won't overstaff by a large number any location because it is desirable. Certainly, all candidates do have some say in that they list sites to which they will go. Candidates are repeatedly told not to list sites to which they will not move. If someone ends up with an offer for a site they don't consider desirable it is not the fault of the agency.

[skibum]

aljsouth, your logic regarding adding judges based on caseload per judge makes sense. I remember seeing a link to the monthly report or similar statistical compilation by hearing office on this board or its predecessor.

Does anyone have the link so we can check out the statistics? I recognize that it may be an exercise in futility, but it gives us something to read and discuss while we wait...and wait...and wait.

[2112]

Obviously, I do not disagree with ALJSouth that offices with an average backlog of 1300 cases per judge should be serviced sooner than an office with a 1000 fewer cases per judge. But if one assumes that in a 10-month period 150 judges are going to be threaded into the system, it seems to me that the agency would be well-served institutionally over the long haul to get judges into positions where they are happy and content and not forever clamoring to get a transfer. I assume that means New England, the East Coast, California, Colorado, Virginia, Florida, and so forth. The usual suspects. So, again, I would not understand the logic of making a whole slate of top-tier candidates give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on someplace like North Dakota. Nothing against North Dakota. Truly. I fell in love with a girl from Devils Lake for a week once in 1977 -- but that's another story. :-) Perhaps ALJSouth is suggesting that these 1300 backlogs/judge sites are in the deep south or midwest, but, if so, I am not aware of that statistical quirk. Given that the lion's share of offices are going to have new ALJ faces in them come this time next year, I would not understand the institutional logic of embracing a placement system that put a hundred people in cities they were then going to devote two or more years of energy to trying to leave....

[odarite]

2112, your comment would suppose that the placement of federal employees, and in particular SSA ALJs, is for the benefit and convenience of the employee. That, however, is not nor has it ever been the case. Given that SSA cannot hire in the short run all the additional ALJs it needs to deal with the backlog, it certainly makes sense to do what OCALJ says they are going to do: place the hires they can get where the need is the greatest from the standpoint of the claimants, thus where the backlog is 1300 or even more per ALJ. And that is primarily the midwest and a couple of Florida offices, as best I can remember from the last time I saw the numbers.

[oldtimer]

2112-
The other flaw in your logic, if I understand your point correctly, is that you assume that ODAR (which does the hiring) has access to a list of candidates and can therefore identify the top candidates' first choices. My understanding (which admittedly should be much clearer than it is, since I've been with OHA for almost 30 years and went through this process myself) is that OPM holds all the info, and ODAR doesn't receive any until it advises OPM where it intends to hire judges, i.e., there's no "top 30" list of ALJ candidates, but instead a list which includes the top 3 candidates for each listed office. So, if ODAR sends OPM a list of 50 hearing offices, OPM sends them a certificate of 150 names, not the top 150 scores overall but the top 3 scores for each of the 50 locations.

Consequently, rather than listing the most "desirable" locations (whatever, of course, that means, since obviously it would be in the eye of the beholder; the person with the highest score might have dreams of Paducah/Newark, etc.), ODAR has to simply determine where the need for the agency is greatest (which most commonly translates to highest pending per ALJ). If anyone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.