|
|
Post by testtaker on Feb 7, 2008 17:32:50 GMT -5
I interviewed on 2/4, and at that time only one of my past supervisors had been contacted. Between Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon, an additional 6 people were contacted. This really is picking up speed now. You interviewed on 2/4? I thought the last interview was Friday, 2/1? |
|
|
|
Post by mama on Feb 8, 2008 15:18:58 GMT -5
I was contacted today and was a contact for a collue also in the process. I am therefore not so sure they are done just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolekole on Feb 8, 2008 16:07:10 GMT -5
I interviewed in the first half of January, and two of my references were contacted today, so if they are waiting for everyone's results before making offers, next week doesn't look good!
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Feb 13, 2008 14:49:41 GMT -5
Just heard from 2 of my personal references that they were called this afternoon. This is reassuring, since my current supervisor was called weeks ago (same day as my interview) and I'd heard nothing about anyone else being called.
|
|
|
|
Post by testtaker on Feb 13, 2008 15:13:01 GMT -5
I interviewed in the first week. My previous employers were contacted shortly after that (two that I know of). It wasn't until yesterday afternoon that they started calling my "background check" references. Two lawyers were called yesterday from my second section. Today, three ALJs and a lawyer I had listed as a personal reference. I'm not sure if they just go to six or whether they go to seven, but I can only account for six. I'm relieved that this portion is over.
|
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Feb 13, 2008 15:29:08 GMT -5
So, what do you think? Are reference checks a "go/no-go" outcome on hiring or are they actually scored by SSA in some fashion?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 14, 2008 7:23:05 GMT -5
So, what do you think? Are reference checks a "go/no-go" outcome on hiring or are they actually scored by SSA in some fashion? Personally, I can't imagine anything in the process not "counting" although reference checks are not going to be the top of the list. Reference checks are, pretty much, just to see if you are licensed, don't have bad debt, could probably get a security clearance, and don't have some horrible secret lurking in your past that someone YOU NAMED to be a reference is going to blurt out. BTW, my judicial reference was called almost immediately; supervisor was called a couple of weeks ago, but my legal references were not called until yesterday. Bits and pieces.....bits and pieces..... |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 14, 2008 8:35:57 GMT -5
24 years of Personnel experience tells me that the reference checks/background check being done by a contractor will not rise to the "make or break" level in this process. I'm not saying it won't be important....(like I noted, if you named an enemy who is going to indicate that you simply do not play well with others, then, well - you made your bed....) but the questions being asked are confirmation questions as to what you have already indicated in your interviews; can you produce; can you use a computer; do you work hard; are you ethical...(like I said, if you provided the name of someone who hates you.....);the background information is to confirm what you have already told them: yes, you are admitted to the Bar; yes, you paid your bar dues; no, you haven't been disciplined; no, you don't have any bad debt......it appears you might not be an embarassment to the agency. I suspect we are being racked and stacked on a consolidated score with annotations from your background check as to "works hard," "plays well," and "basically A-ok." Or not. Throw in Vet Preference, Rule of Three, and location, location, location - and the SSA has their hands full.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 14, 2008 9:13:24 GMT -5
What if after the interviews they have 125 people they feel they "gotta have"? And they have another 100 (maybe more, maybe less) that they feel they certainly could hire, but are not in the first column. Folks from the first column, the "gotta haves" could go to the second column and vice versa based upon very, very positive or even remotely negative comments/scores from the contractors. In that sense both Pixie and jagghagg are right. Comments that are not really glowing will break you at this time, but they won't "kill" you. After all, the hiring of the supplemental 25 happens very soon and all of them are going to come from the second column.
Just my theory...
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 14, 2008 9:27:21 GMT -5
What "if wishes were horses then beggars could ride" ? (Sorry, it is just something my mother - who clearly raised a wicked daugher - used to say to me.) I know that we all wish this was over and done with and we all knew what was what instead of knowing that what will be will be.
That being said, so what if ? What if they have 125 people they "gotta have" but who may have some "negative" comments from a contracting investigative service ? If the SSA jus' gotsta have 'em, then SSA will probably take 'em. Negative comments from references may have some weight because - and I repeat this ad naseum - you provided the references. (Yes, yes - if your boss hates you and blackballs you, then there is nothing you can do about that, but if ALL your bosses hate you, then you might want to re-think your career choices. What I mean is that one bad boss is not absolutely certain to spoil the mix.) I don't think that comments that are neutral or veiled will kill you; I think if someone in your past shouts out that you are a mass murderer, then - yeah - the SSA is probably gonna move you into the "maybe" column. Call me crazy.....
|
|
|
|
Post by hopeful2 on Feb 14, 2008 9:36:18 GMT -5
To Pixie, regarding production reports: Are they going to take into account that in some jobs being highly productive does not mean closing as many cases as it is possible to do with ODAR? Do they realize that asking about how many cases one closed per month does not tell the whole story? I am not sure my supervisor told the interviewers that I was the top producer in my office, because I understand the question was specifically "how many"? I was second in production while at OHA before leaving to seek qualifying experience (second only to someone who worked overtime every Saturday), but that was long enough ago that the exact number escapes me and I am sure the supervisor who was called. Otherwise, I am sure I got good references.....as most folks on this board did. So.....?? How are they going to compare "apples" and "oranges"? I posed this question before, but not directly to you and prior to your suggestion that production may be a main criterion for selection. Should I be be bracing for a disappointment? I almost feel disadvantaged by having left in order to get the qualifying experience because now the number of cases I close each month is a fraction of what I used to close while working for OHA.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Feb 14, 2008 12:21:31 GMT -5
BTW, not to make anybody more agitated than they already are, but I have just heard from another judicial reference and two professional references - Yates asked if I could "handle a 500-700 case caseload." Of course that's not quite accurate; what SSA wants to know is if over the course of a year could handle 500-700 dispositions. My good friend (a professional reference) said, "Come on, NO ONE can handle a current 500 case caseload - but if you are asking me if she can do the work there at SSA, yes, she can." And, of course, he went on about efficiency, work ethic, ability to organize, meet deadlines, etc. Just tends to make me think that SSA is going to have to take those background check reports with a HUGE saltlick. Thank goodness SSA monitors these boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Feb 14, 2008 12:37:41 GMT -5
BTW, not to make anybody more agitated than they already are, but I have just heard from another judicial reference and two professional references - Yates asked if I could "handle a 500-700 case caseload." Of course that's not quite accurate; what SSA wants to know is if over the course of a year could handle 500-700 dispositions. My good friend (a professional reference) said, "Come on, NO ONE can handle a current 500 case caseload - but if you are asking me if she can do the work there at SSA, yes, she can." And, of course, he went on about efficiency, work ethic, ability to organize, meet deadlines, etc. Just tends to make me think that SSA is going to have to take those background check reports with a HUGE saltlick. Thank goodness SSA monitors these boards. I had a similar experience with one of my personal references. Apparently, in response to the 500-700 decisions a year, she gave an audible gasp but, (and this is why I listed her) responded that I could "handle anything that's thrown at me." (She said that she wanted to say "500-700 decisions! What, are you crazy?") I subsequently warned all my other personal references that the question was coming, so that they wouldn't be so shocked. We handle a lot of work in my agency and the practice is intense, but the raw numbers don't compare. |
|
|
|
Post by govtattorney on Feb 14, 2008 13:22:52 GMT -5
add me to the list. all of my references were contacted yesterday/today. same questions asked with similar answers. opposing counsel remembered things that i did from 10 years ago. i was impressed. anyway, on to the waiting game.
again, best of luck to all. i won't post to the board again unless/until i get a thumbs up or down. some of you won't be on here anymore after march. thanks for your imput and for sharing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 14, 2008 15:41:42 GMT -5
BTW, not to make anybody more agitated than they already are, but I have just heard from another judicial reference and two professional references - Yates asked if I could "handle a 500-700 case caseload." Of course that's not quite accurate; what SSA wants to know is if over the course of a year could handle 500-700 dispositions. My good friend (a professional reference) said, "Come on, NO ONE can handle a current 500 case caseload - but if you are asking me if she can do the work there at SSA, yes, she can." And, of course, he went on about efficiency, work ethic, ability to organize, meet deadlines, etc. Just tends to make me think that SSA is going to have to take those background check reports with a HUGE saltlick. Thank goodness SSA monitors these boards. I had a similar experience with one of my personal references. Apparently, in response to the 500-700 decisions a year, she gave an audible gasp but, (and this is why I listed her) responded that I could "handle anything that's thrown at me." (She said that she wanted to say "500-700 decisions! What, are you crazy?") I subsequently warned all my other personal references that the question was coming, so that they wouldn't be so shocked. We handle a lot of work in my agency and the practice is intense, but the raw numbers don't compare. Well, I guess I'm lucky. In my office, I have about 600 cases assigned to me at any given time and I am the manager of the unit, which means I oversee about 200 unassigned cases and consult on 800 more. I'm also the network administrator, do community education, do most of the drafting for court, design and print about half the publishing (brochures, newsletters), etc. No reason for telling you all this. I think I'm just trying to make myself feel better about my chances, which feelings go up and down and up and down. And up and down. Like a roller coaster. Did I say I was lucky?? Sheesh... |
|
witz
Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by witz on Feb 14, 2008 21:49:47 GMT -5
Are references still being contacted? It's been a few weeks since my adversary attorney contacts were made but none of my other references or present employer have been contacted. The anticipation of next week's Pixie prediction is turning up the pressure. Does anyone know if they are still making contacts?
Thanks and all the best to everyone next week!
Witz
|
|
|
|
Post by booboo on Feb 14, 2008 22:22:49 GMT -5
I had my interview on January 9 and my employment references were contacted the following week. However, no other references were contacted until Monday, February 11, when my judicial, opposing counsel, and personal references were contacted by Yale Associates. According to one of my personal references who played telephone tag with a Yale Associates caller, my reference checks were just completed yesterday. So, indeed, this has been a long process and Yale Associates appears to be divvying up the calls among its employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by nothingventured on Feb 14, 2008 22:23:29 GMT -5
One of my personal references was contacted yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdtksbp on Feb 15, 2008 0:46:53 GMT -5
Well I am thinking maybe I should be getting worried now. I have tried to be patient (at least in my own mind). Pixie indicates that offers may be made by the end of next week, yet my references still have not been contacted. I only know of two past employers that were contacted a few weeks ago. No other references have been contacted yet. Does anyone know if references will continue to be called through next week when offers may go out? Should I try to contact someone to check on this? If so, who should I contact and how? Any advice is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Waffle on Feb 15, 2008 5:07:22 GMT -5
NV: Don't panic. References are still being checked. 3 of mine were called yesterday. They will get to you, and all others. BREATH!  |
|
