|
Post by prescient on Aug 13, 2013 12:17:58 GMT -5
Why did OPM change the test? I feel like the rationale for the changes must be on this site somewhere, but I cannot seem to find it.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 13, 2013 12:24:13 GMT -5
2. Words on the street is the Agency is unhappy with how the test progression turned out this time due to significant insider attrition. So don't be surprised that it pushes OPM to do a refresh as soon as it can. What is a "refresh"? Is that OPM administering the test again? And when you say insider attrition, does that mean they are displeased with the number of insiders that failed to move on to the final round of testing? A "refresh" is opening the register for new applications, putting those folks through the testing, and then adding those to the then existing register. Whether SSA is dissatisfied or not (rumors notwithstanding) I don't see OPM going to the expense of a refresh for at least two years after this register gets done. If there is litigation over the testing this time, or a lengthy appeal process for those shut out at the first two steps this time, etc., they are going to need to get through that, and any changes in the testing that may bring about, before opening up the register again. So, what SSA may want may not happen. They had a LOT of input into the process or the new application. If it didn't work out like they wanted, or they wanted it to favor insiders (here we go again), and that didn't happen, oh, well.
|
|
|
Post by crab on Aug 13, 2013 12:29:56 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, observer. I'd incorrectly assumed that the refresh meant the folks who made the register would have to retake it like this time. Much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 13, 2013 12:31:04 GMT -5
What is a "refresh"? Is that OPM administering the test again? And when you say insider attrition, does that mean they are displeased with the number of insiders that failed to move on to the final round of testing? A "refresh" is opening the register for new applications, putting those folks through the testing, and then adding those to the then existing register. Whether SSA is dissatisfied or not (rumors notwithstanding) I don't see OPM going to the expense of a refresh for at least two years after this register gets done. If there is litigation over the testing this time, or a lengthy appeal process for those shut out at the first two steps this time, etc., they are going to need to get through that, and any changes in the testing that may bring about, before opening up the register again. So, what SSA may want may not happen. They had a LOT of input into the process or the new application. If it didn't work out like they wanted, or they wanted it to favor insiders (here we go again), and that didn't happen, oh, well. I agree that SSA had a lot of input in the testing. OPM will not refresh for at least two years. Also, if there is litigation it is likely to take several more years and then a creation of an updated test which means that SSA will have its back against the wall with no hiring over the next three or four years and will have to hire several times from this Register whether they like it or not, prior to a new refresh. Just as last time, the courts are likely to allow the present Register to be used until a Refresh occurs. Perhaps those quote "insiders" who made it were indeed the cream of the crop and deserved to make it. Perhaps, the quality of people at SSA/ODAR is not quite as deep as SSA thought and they are finally realizing it. Sure, there may have been a few who tested bad for one reason or another, but just because you work at SSA/ODAR doesn't mean you are qualified to be an ALJ. The testing takes into the situation the entire process of being an ALJ, not just where someone works.
|
|
|
Post by trekker on Aug 13, 2013 12:44:33 GMT -5
Neutral on insider vs. outsider preference -- that's just life in general. How many of us were hired for similar reasons. One issue that may be getting overlooked is the actual substantive knowledge of the Social Security Act or even administrative law. I know that most of us going through Phase 3 are intelligent (heck even those who did not make it past Phase 1 are intelligent) but there are some nuances in the Social Security statutes, regulations and policies that do take time to learn. It is not all reviewing medical records and determining disability (although that is the bulk of the work). There is a learning curve as there is in any job and SSA is getting heat for the back log in cases and how long it is taking for claimants to get a hearing (more than a year). Given that every member of Congress has a SSA liaison should tell you something. No matter what your view is on taxes, etc, members of Congress do not like having to tell their voters they have to wait for their benefits - and that more often than not also includes health care benefits.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 13, 2013 12:54:19 GMT -5
Neutral on insider vs. outsider preference -- that's just life in general. How many of us were hired for similar reasons. One issue that may be getting overlooked is the actual substantive knowledge of the Social Security Act or even administrative law. I know that most of us going through Phase 3 are intelligent (heck even those who did not make it past Phase 1 are intelligent) but there are some nuances in the Social Security statutes, regulations and policies that do take time to learn. It is not all reviewing medical records and determining disability (although that is the bulk of the work). There is a learning curve as there is in any job and SSA is getting heat for the back log in cases and how long it is taking for claimants to get a hearing (more than a year). Given that every member of Congress has a SSA liaison should tell you something. No matter what your view is on taxes, etc, members of Congress do not like having to tell their voters they have to wait for their benefits - and that more often than not also includes health care benefits. The SSA rules and regulation is no more complex than many other substantive areas of administrative law. As a SSA practitioner for close to thirty years, as well as practicing in other substantive administrative Law areas, I find it no more difficult or nuanced than any other area of the law. Did it take time to learn? Of course it did, but I can say the same about most other substantive areas of administrative law. Don't make out SSA to be the "bear" of administrative law because it isn't that by far. I think it would be harder for those who don't normally review medical in their law practice to learn to do that correctly and efficiently, than learn the substantive area of SSA rules and regulations.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 13, 2013 13:04:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification, observer. I'd incorrectly assumed that the refresh meant the folks who made the register would have to retake it like this time. Much obliged. One more little point of clarification. Those already on the register CAN retake the testing if they want to improve their score, but, as you have noted, they are not required to. And, those already on the register can change their GALs during a "refresh" while the application period is open, WITHOUT reapplying.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 13:08:31 GMT -5
At the expense of turning this into yet another discussion of insider v outsider, i think its impoirtant to recognize the two separte debates. Some debate whether it's a good or bad thing for SSA to have a perceived preference for former ODAR employees. That debate is different from the one in which there is a real argument over whether they actually do have such a preference or not. While debate can be had and continued on the former, I think the latter is settled. Whether it is good or not matters little, SSA does have such a preference. Now, as other said, it cuts both ways. As an insider, SSA may have a proclivity to hire me, but they also have access to much more info on my work history than they do an outsider. So, being an insider isnt enough, you need to be a valued insider and not someone that the agency feels is a loafer or troublemaker.
And the issue of why such a preference exists, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the complexity of social security law or medical record review. In this agency it is all about production. Someone with ODAr experience can start moving cases qu9icker than someone who has no such experience. Not becaus ethey are smarter or better attorneys, but because they are already used to the computer systems and programs in use and wont go through the "culture shock" that routinely hits new ODAR employees fresh from private practice.
I know that sounds stupid...that knowing a few programs and policies that anyone could learn in a few weeks would make a difference...but with an agency that cares only about numbers hiring, someone who can hit the floor running after the mandated training and not require additional help with the computers or cost time with time/attendance systems or have difficulty learning the pecking order and adapting to the culture is very important.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 13:10:07 GMT -5
And, those already on the register can change their GALs during a "refresh" while the application period is open, WITHOUT reapplying. Now that is very interesting. Thanks Observer
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 13:18:48 GMT -5
Given that every member of Congress has a SSA liaison should tell you something. No matter what your view is on taxes, etc, members of Congress do not like having to tell their voters they have to wait for their benefits - and that more often than not also includes health care benefits. And therein is the wildcard on hiring, in my opinion. Seems pretty simple to me. SSA wants more $. They have also been hit with congressional mud about "paying down the backlog." So, what do they do? We see limited hiring, near removal of OTR authority from senior attorneys and a huge push on quality over quantity including even the official disuse of dispositional goals. The effect is a complete change in agency priorities. The result will be a larger backlog and longer wait times for hearings. Why would the agency want this? To have those constituents calling and complaining to their congressperson about their wait time and essentially doing SSA's lobbying for them. Sooner or later, when reps and senators are so inundated with calls from angry voter/claimants, they will get off the "quality" bandwagon, pour money into hiring and generally give SSA all that it wants. Unfortunately, one thing SSA wants is more control and disciplinary ability over the ALJ corp. And they are pushing for that by scapegoating the ALJs now. Good news for us is the last time they did such a drastic change in policy, it didnt take long for the backlog to skyrocket and congress to start complaining. Then there were new hires everywhere and everyone was happy. Bad news for us is, this time, we may land an ALJ gig but have the job with much less independence and protection than before. All depends on how bad SSA lets it get and how gullible is congress.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 13, 2013 13:19:33 GMT -5
At the expense of turning this into yet another discussion of insider v outsider, i think its impoirtant to recognize the two separte debates. Some debate whether it's a good or bad thing for SSA to have a perceived preference for former ODAR employees. That debate is different from the one in which there is a real argument over whether they actually do have such a preference or not. While debate can be had and continued on the former, I think the latter is settled. Whether it is good or not matters little, SSA does have such a preference. Now, as other said, it cuts both ways. As an insider, SSA may have a proclivity to hire me, but they also have access to much more info on my work history than they do an outsider. So, being an insider isnt enough, you need to be a valued insider and not someone that the agency feels is a loafer or troublemaker. And the issue of why such a preference exists, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the complexity of social security law or medical record review. In this agency it is all about production. Someone with ODAr experience can start moving cases qu9icker than someone who has no such experience. Not becaus ethey are smarter or better attorneys, but because they are already used to the computer systems and programs in use and wont go through the "culture shock" that routinely hits new ODAR employees fresh from private practice. I know that sounds stupid...that knowing a few programs and policies that anyone could learn in a few weeks would make a difference...but with an agency that cares only about numbers hiring, someone who can hit the floor running after the mandated training and not require additional help with the computers or cost time with time/attendance systems or have difficulty learning the pecking order and adapting to the culture is very important. Funky I agree completely with your logic as it is absolutely correct. However, I do think that those from ODAR who made the cut deserve to be here and if hired it will not be because of their their extensive knowledge of SSA computers, programs, regulations, etc., but because they are highly qualified and have excellent skills and knowledge to be ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 13:42:59 GMT -5
At the expense of turning this into yet another discussion of insider v outsider, i think its impoirtant to recognize the two separte debates. Some debate whether it's a good or bad thing for SSA to have a perceived preference for former ODAR employees. That debate is different from the one in which there is a real argument over whether they actually do have such a preference or not. While debate can be had and continued on the former, I think the latter is settled. Whether it is good or not matters little, SSA does have such a preference. Now, as other said, it cuts both ways. As an insider, SSA may have a proclivity to hire me, but they also have access to much more info on my work history than they do an outsider. So, being an insider isnt enough, you need to be a valued insider and not someone that the agency feels is a loafer or troublemaker. And the issue of why such a preference exists, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the complexity of social security law or medical record review. In this agency it is all about production. Someone with ODAr experience can start moving cases qu9icker than someone who has no such experience. Not becaus ethey are smarter or better attorneys, but because they are already used to the computer systems and programs in use and wont go through the "culture shock" that routinely hits new ODAR employees fresh from private practice. I know that sounds stupid...that knowing a few programs and policies that anyone could learn in a few weeks would make a difference...but with an agency that cares only about numbers hiring, someone who can hit the floor running after the mandated training and not require additional help with the computers or cost time with time/attendance systems or have difficulty learning the pecking order and adapting to the culture is very important. Funky I agree completely with your logic as it is absolutely correct. However, I do think that those from ODAR who made the cut deserve to be here and if hired it will not be because of their their extensive knowledge of SSA computers, programs, regulations, etc., but because they are highly qualified and have excellent skills and knowledge to be ALJs. Oh I agree that each odar insider that made it this far will be highly qualified for the gig. Not sdaying they will get the job simply because they are insiders. But, i think an insider with the same scores as an outsider gets the job over the outsider because of the ability to hit the ground running. I would also go so far as to say a lower scored insider gets the job over a higher scored outsider for that reason. Just not sure of how many points the inisder status would make up for. A 70 point outsider that does well on the interview probably beats out a 60 point insider. But a 65 point outsider....not so sure. Also, from what i gather, most think the agency interview is the real make or break moment in determining if you get the job. From what I have read, the purpose of that interview is to see if you are a "fit" for the agency. It's only logical to think someone already inside the agency, with day to day experience with that "fit" will do better on such an interview than someone who has no such experience. Again, not saying such a preference is right and I have already written my views on whether insiders or outsiders make the best judges. merely saying i think it is established fact that SSA prefers insiders. Given that, and the rumors of OCALJ and others saying they are displeased with the fact that more insiders didnt make the cut, i think its possible SSA raids the register for the preferred insiders and higher scoring outsiders then sits back and watchs or actively roots for litigation and/or congress to fix the perceived problem. As for the argument that SSA shouldnt be surprised that few insiders made it, I'm not buying it. First off, from what info I have seen, SSA was involved heavily in only one portion of the new testing, the SJT. Second, the complaints of the old SSA OPM feud and OPM's end run on this new testing are just too loud and multiple to be completely ignored. For years OPM and SSA fought over SSA's desire to have its decision writing/admin experience count toward the 7 years. Vicious political fighting from what I have heard. They finally got there way in the last testing/register and SSA was able to hire oodles of insiders. OPM reportedly caught grief from the other agencies it serves that there were not enough "litigators" and OPM reportedly has a burr under its saddle about being considered just SSA's hr department. SSA took all it wanted from the register, then wanted a new one. OPM didnt want to do a new one and wanted to force SSA to hire some more off the old register (those SSA hadn't wanted in the initial rush to hire). Congress got involved. Reportedly there was some deal struck. SSA would hire some limited number off the old register if they had hiring authority and OPM would do a new register with new testing. Supposedly SSA was under the impression that whatever new testing OPM derived would include the ability to have a good number of insider pass through, just like the old system after they won the "7 years" war. OPM, now mandated to allow 7 years of "admin experience" to count, then pulled a fast one and made the remainder of the test so litigation centric that people with no litigation experience couldnt realistically advance. This effectively lets most insiders thru phase 1 only to cut them at phase 2. Given the history and animosity between the two agencies, and the fact that every insider I know from management to executive service are saying the same things....i think it's pretty clear SSA isnt happy with the number of insiders that were cut. And i dont think the cut had much to do with general quality of the applicants...but as a designed focus on a specific qulaity that was known by OPM to have the effect of cutting SSA insiders.
|
|
|
Post by lurker/dibs on Aug 13, 2013 13:46:21 GMT -5
I actually worked as a SS liaison with a congressman. Fielding those calls was a full time job. I can assure you that the representatives hear the complaints. Though I'm not so sure most really care. My job was to send letters of inquiry to SSA and to pacify constituents. From my experience, most representatives really have no idea of what happens on a day-to-day basis in the life of SS. I always urge my clients to complain to their representatives if they are unhappy with the current process. Though to this point I don't see it making any difference. I have even offered to "help" the current congressman with insider info regarding representing claimants, the processes, what is good, what is bad, etc. I have received no response from the current congressman, despite years of working with his predecessor and representing claimants. So my point is, I think it will have to get really, really bad, with really, really loud complaints before congress will actually do anything to change it.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Aug 13, 2013 13:58:25 GMT -5
I actually worked as a SS liaison with a congressman. Fielding those calls was a full time job. I can assure you that the representatives hear the complaints. Though I'm not so sure most really care. My job was to send letters of inquiry to SSA and to pacify constituents. From my experience, most representatives really have no idea of what happens on a day-to-day basis in the life of SS. I always urge my clients to complain to their representatives if they are unhappy with the current process. Though to this point I don't see it making any difference. I have even offered to "help" the current congressman with insider info regarding representing claimants, the processes, what is good, what is bad, etc. I have received no response from the current congressman, despite years of working with his predecessor and representing claimants. So my point is, I think it will have to get really, really bad, with really, really loud complaints before congress will actually do anything to change it. I would go further to state that Congress's only concern is getting re-elected to office. Until the outpouring of concern from constituents actually threatens their seats, most will be content doing as they do now (placating the public with lip service). Speaking from political experience on the State level and not Federal, I, however, think they both act the same, most politicians are more concerned with how many dollars they can raise from specific constituent businesses or deep pockets of rich constituents, not the everyday constituent with a personal problem to solve. However, if the everyday constituent became a big monetary backer of the politician, then the politician will go to bat for him/her. Unfortunately, this is how politics works now, money talks and buys you time and effort on your behalf. No big money donated, then little time given to you other than a token action or lip service. It is sad politics has come to this stage.
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Aug 13, 2013 15:03:45 GMT -5
When is an insider no longer an insider? Obviously if they are working for SSA now they are an insider. But would a former AA/SAA/GS/HOD be considered an insider? If so how long gone would make a difference? Say a AA working for SSA 5 years, gone a year? gone 2 years? gone 5 years? gone 10 years? When do they archive their production stats? When do they archive their performance reviews? When do they say they are no longer an insider?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 13, 2013 15:52:04 GMT -5
funky, don't get hung up on NOR scores. Read the old posts.
In 2007 Pixie told us "scores didn't matter". BUT BUT, I cried!
Pixie was right. SSA will three strike their way to get to you even with what is considered on this Board to be a low score. It has happened on every big hire on this Board. Now, mind you, SSA needs alot of bodies to play this game correctly (litigation has kept them honest). And they love to do a "re-fresh" so that they can scoop up a few more favorite sons and daughters that they couldn't get to. But polls and posts have seen folks with 50-60 scores hired (mind you that's the old testing scoring--probably not relevant now).
You are right on, though, regarding whom they want. And the idea that folks can't hit the groung running after training seems a bit weak, but then that's my supposition. I don't know about SSA, but agree that every area of the law has a learning curve.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 13, 2013 15:58:17 GMT -5
When is an insider no longer an insider? Obviously if they are working for SSA now they are an insider. But would a former AA/SAA/GS/HOD be considered an insider? If so how long gone would make a difference? Say a AA working for SSA 5 years, gone a year? gone 2 years? gone 5 years? gone 10 years? When do they archive their production stats? When do they archive their performance reviews? When do they say they are no longer an insider? If you have references who are HOCALJs and who can vouch for your production and integrity, you are in good shape. My Agency values hard work, an ability to get along and not be a prima donna, one who won't embarass them and of course an ability to get cases out the door. SSA, IMHO, is just all that on steroids.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 17:07:20 GMT -5
As I understand it SBB, once you make a cert there is more paperwork to fill out including a listing of a ton of professional and personal references.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 13, 2013 17:38:03 GMT -5
funky, don't get hung up on NOR scores. Read the old posts. In 2007 Pixie told us "scores didn't matter". BUT BUT, I cried! Pixie was right. SSA will three strike their way to get to you even with what is considered on this Board to be a low score. It has happened on every big hire on this Board. Now, mind you, SSA needs alot of bodies to play this game correctly (litigation has kept them honest). And they love to do a "re-fresh" so that they can scoop up a few more favorite sons and daughters that they couldn't get to. But polls and posts have seen folks with 50-60 scores hired (mind you that's the old testing scoring--probably not relevant now). You are right on, though, regarding whom they want. And the idea that folks can't hit the groung running after training seems a bit weak, but then that's my supposition. I don't know about SSA, but agree that every area of the law has a learning curve. Thanks for the reality check PA. Now the only question is am I one of the "favored sons." When I joined Odar a wise old alj told me to think of it as a deer herd. Get to big and run too far ahead of the herd and some hunter will hang your head on the wall. Run to slow to keep up and you're wolf food. In keeping wit that, I haven't rocked the boat, kept my productivity above the average and generally played nice. But I haven't done a lot of details or won any significant awards. Local management seems to like me. I have no doubt my hocalj and two other offices hocaljs that worked as aljsin my office would give me high reccs. But I doubt anyone in higher region or national office could pick me from a lineup. After 2 years as an AA I had pretty high production, a low remand rate, respect from the aljs as one of the better writers in the office and way more experience outside odar than any other candidate, so I got the promotion to SAA over several who had been there years longer. But I dunno if I have anything that would give me "favored" status. Pretty sure thereis nothing to make them automatically tank me. Guess Im hoping a slightly above average insider with no negatives is enough to qualify as a "favored son" on a register that has much fewer insiders than ssa anticipated. With those thoughts and your post with the Pixie info, I can face the process without too much dread. As long as Idon't totally funk the exams and don't shart in the SI, if I can just stay above the mean, I think I will be ok. That's the upside to the new register being insider lite. Also means better chances for outsiders, but I think they will need higher scores to differentiate themselves from the larger number of outsiders.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 13, 2013 18:23:43 GMT -5
funky, don't get hung up on NOR scores. Read the old posts. In 2007 Pixie told us "scores didn't matter". BUT BUT, I cried! Pixie was right. SSA will three strike their way to get to you even with what is considered on this Board to be a low score. It has happened on every big hire on this Board. Now, mind you, SSA needs alot of bodies to play this game correctly (litigation has kept them honest). And they love to do a "re-fresh" so that they can scoop up a few more favorite sons and daughters that they couldn't get to. But polls and posts have seen folks with 50-60 scores hired (mind you that's the old testing scoring--probably not relevant now). You are right on, though, regarding whom they want. And the idea that folks can't hit the groung running after training seems a bit weak, but then that's my supposition. I don't know about SSA, but agree that every area of the law has a learning curve. Thanks for the reality check PA. Now the only question is am I one of the "favored sons." When I joined Odar a wise old alj told me to think of it as a deer herd. Get to big and run too far ahead of the herd and some hunter will hang your head on the wall. Run to slow to keep up and you're wolf food. In keeping wit that, I haven't rocked the boat, kept my productivity above the average and generally played nice. But I haven't done a lot of details or won any significant awards. Local management seems to like me. I have no doubt my hocalj and two other offices hocaljs that worked as aljsin my office would give me high reccs. But I doubt anyone in higher region or national office could pick me from a lineup. After 2 years as an AA I had pretty high production, a low remand rate, respect from the aljs as one of the better writers in the office and way more experience outside odar than any other candidate, so I got the promotion to SAA over several who had been there years longer. But I dunno if I have anything that would give me "favored" status. Pretty sure thereis nothing to make them automatically tank me. Guess Im hoping a slightly above average insider with no negatives is enough to qualify as a "favored son" on a register that has much fewer insiders than ssa anticipated. With those thoughts and your post with the Pixie info, I can face the process without too much dread. As long as Idon't totally funk the exams and don't shart in the SI, if I can just stay above the mean, I think I will be ok. That's the upside to the new register being insider lite. Also means better chances for outsiders, but I think they will need higher scores to differentiate themselves from the larger number of outsiders. Funky I think if your HOD & HOCALJ like you, you are golden. That's my take. I think their opinions are at the top of the list. Other ALJs of course, but the folks who talk to region on a regular basis who can attest to your ability to hit the ground running if hired would be key.
|
|