|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Mar 29, 2014 9:25:04 GMT -5
I would appreciate some clarification of how the Vet Preference works in actual application for the cert and job offers. (Please don't take this as me questioning the VP--I full support helping our vets in this way.)
City has 4 people who put it on their GALs, with these scores (vet pref 10 and 5 pts already included):
Able (nonV) 84 5pV 82 Baker(nonV) 80 10pV 77
1) Who makes the cert, and in what order? 10pV, then 5pV, then Able?
2) If all three have good interviews and refs, is it required that 10pV get the offer?
3) If 10pV and 5pV don't interview as well as Able, can Able be given the offer? If so, do the regs requiring extra justification apply?
4) If in scenario 3 either 10pV or 5pV must receive the offer despite their interview problem, does that make the interview superfluous for Able? Or is that still his "one" interview for any other vacancy for which he may be considered, so he must do well?
5) If Able loses this position I assume it counts as a "strike." Can it even be said that Able got "bona fide consideration" when he had the misfortune to be placed a cert with two vets, and was thus pre-ordained to lose? And related, does ODAR, upon seeing this scenario unfolding, and not wishing to have Able accumulate strikes unnecessarily, have the discretion to take him off the cert, and consider Baker instead, "reserving" Able for a vacancy where he has a chance of being chosen?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 29, 2014 9:53:25 GMT -5
I may be wrong sandy, and if so I'm sure observer, ace or someone knows.
but, in your example, I don't think the 10ptV makes the cert. Atleast not top 3.
vp doesn't mean they jump the top 3. I think it just means they cannot pick anyone whose score is below a 10ptV. So, if able had an 80, the 10ptV a 75 and baker a 70, the agency could pick able, just not baker.
And counting it as a strike is agency perogative. They don't have to count a pick of able as a strike against 10ptV or baker, but they could if it helps them meet some other purpose down the road.
Again, I may be funktastically wrong.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 29, 2014 10:33:58 GMT -5
I may be wrong sandy, and if so I'm sure observer, ace or someone knows. but, in your example, I don't think the 10ptV makes the cert. Atleast not top 3. vp doesn't mean they jump the top 3. I think it just means they cannot pick anyone whose score is below a 10ptV. So, if able had an 80, the 10ptV a 75 and baker a 70, the agency could pick able, just not baker. And counting it as a strike is agency perogative. They don't have to count a pick of able as a strike against 10ptV or baker, but they could if it helps them meet some other purpose down the road. Again, I may be funktastically wrong. That's the way I understand it, too. The 77 might make the cert as filler, but he doesn't jump over the ones with the higher scores.10ptv also doesn't get a strike, as he never got bona fide consideration.
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Mar 29, 2014 11:30:54 GMT -5
Of course, you are right. My bad hypo.
If the highest scores for, and only GALs including City are:
Able 84 10pV 82 Baker 80 5pV 77
Then the cert will be, in order, 10pV, A, and B. If they all interview/ref acceptably, then must 10pV get the nod for the job? Or does his advantage end with just making the cert, and his interview/refs determines whether he gets the job against non-vets?
And what about the situation in which 10pV has an unacceptable interview, while Able and Baker interview well. Can either of them get the job? Does that trigger the special circumstances justification reporting required for passing over a vet to hire a non-vet?
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 29, 2014 11:37:15 GMT -5
Of course, you are right. My bad hypo. If the highest scores for, and only GALs including City are: Able 84 10pV 82 Baker 80 5pV 77 Then the cert will be, in order, 10pV, A, and B. If they all interview/ref acceptably, then must 10pV get the nod for the job? Or does his advantage end with just making the cert, and his interview/refs determines whether he gets the job against non-vets? And what about the situation in which 10pV has an unacceptable interview, while Able and Baker interview well. Can either of them get the job? Does that trigger the special circumstances justification reporting required for passing over a vet to hire a non-vet? In this situation, the cert would be able (1) 10pt (2) and baker (3) 5 pt could be on as filler. The agency could hire able over the 10pt no prob cause score is higher. Could not hire baker over 10 pointer without some justification.
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 29, 2014 12:13:57 GMT -5
You guys are making the vet pref too complicated. All vets have pref in their final scote via the extra points added be it 5 or 10 pts. In the rule of three without the three candidates having any vet pref the agency can choose anyone of the three. If anyone of the top three has vet pref that vet cannot be passed over by a LOWER ranked non pref eligible. Also there is no diff between a 10 pt and a 5 point vet pref eligible. You can choose #3 a five pointer over # 1 a 10 pointer and not have to give an explanation and the 10 pointer gets a strike
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 29, 2014 21:31:50 GMT -5
Further a 10 pt vet with a not recommended will not get hired, even if the other two are highly or even recommended. The vet pref gets one an invitation to the party, but that is about it. Since the interview is mostly arbitrary (I hate to say that, but...) if one doesn't get a recommend or highly recommend it doesn't matter what their score or vet pref is. Come on Guys, when will you listen? ODAR does as ODAR wants to do. One would have thought that changing the position description of sitting ALJ's would have taken an act of Congress, but no...
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 29, 2014 22:22:01 GMT -5
The score people got on their nor included any applicable vet points, so I assume sandy's hypo did as well. If not, you would be correct in the cert order you laid out, bob.
|
|
|
Post by jetcdr on Mar 30, 2014 13:38:01 GMT -5
I am a 5-point vet. Other than the bump I got on my score, does my vet status benefit me in any other way.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 30, 2014 14:08:38 GMT -5
I am a 5-point vet. Other than the bump I got on my score, does my vet status benefit me in any other way. Welcome to the Board. The answer to your question is no.
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 30, 2014 21:23:20 GMT -5
I am a 5-point vet. Other than the bump I got on my score, does my vet status benefit me in any other way. FYI: Section 3309 (referred to in the below attachment) is the Vet preference.
|
|
|
Post by dpageks on Mar 30, 2014 22:01:55 GMT -5
I have read dozens of posts which state that a person's GALs (chosen at the time of application) is the most important factor for getting their name on a Certification of Eligibles (the cert).
However, I cannot find a single U.S.C.A. or C.F.R. which states that a person's GALs are even a factor for being placed on a cert; to the contrary, 5 C.F.R. 332.402 states candidates will be referred for consideration "on all certificates" for which they are "interested, eligible, and within reach". I've reviewed these terms and none of them have anything to do with a person's GALs.
I truly post this in all humility; if I am wrong, please show me and I will graciously admit my error.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 30, 2014 22:06:00 GMT -5
I would assume that the "interested" part means you selected a city (and thus showed an interest in jobs in that city) in your gal selection when given that opportunity.
It has been suggested that one shouldn't think of this process as applying to be a judge. You applied for several judge positions, any that are open where you told them you were "interested" by checking that city in your gal.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 30, 2014 22:11:27 GMT -5
I have read dozens of posts which state that a person's GALs (chosen at the time of application) is the most important factor for getting their name on a Certification of Eligibles (the cert). However, I cannot find a single U.S.C.A. or C.F.R. which states that a person's GALs are even a factor for being placed on a cert; to the contrary, 5 C.F.R. 332.402 states candidates will be referred for consideration "on all certificates" for which they are "interested, eligible, and within reach". I've reviewed these terms and none of them have anything to do with a person's GALs. I truly post this in all humility; if I am wrong, please show me and I will graciously admit my error. Funky is correct. "Interested" in this case includes listing one or more cities for which the cert is requested on your GAL. The more cities in which you are "interested" in working as an ALJ, the greater the chance you will end up on a cert.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Mar 30, 2014 22:28:22 GMT -5
I understand your frustration dpk. If one didn't know of this board and relied on the announcement, it would be easy to assume there would be an opening in each of the 170+ locations.
But, each of us was afforded the opportunity to consider the job and each locale (including time to research given the unprecedented 2 week open period) and choose where we would be willing to go for the job.
And, really, how but the gal process could this be done? If they didn't have us select them at the app stage, what? Everyone goes thru testing and interviews, gets ranked and a hirng agency has to keep going down the list till they find someone willing to take fargo?
It sucks to be suckered, but it was a fair process and gal selections have to be made for this whole thing to work.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 30, 2014 22:41:59 GMT -5
I agree that the purpose of the GAL is to show interest. At first, I did not see what purpose could be served by preventing an applicant from increasing the size of his/her GAL. Now I think I see the purpose of doing it this way is to encourage maximum GALs up front to get applicants for the hard-to-fill spots. Put another way, this approach deters applicants from selecting a small GAL up front thinking they can always increase it later if they don't get their dream spot! So from this perspective it all makes sense, more or less!
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 30, 2014 22:54:42 GMT -5
One thing that is important to remember is that the GAL is used for ALL KINDS of federal jobs for which positions exist in more than one city... it's not unique to the ALJ register, though ALJ is likely one of a relatively few positions for which openings in dozens of cities are filled at the same time. I don't think OPM cares what size GAL someone picks, and I don't think that is the reason for the limit on changing them. They give you directions on it, and leave it at that. For most positions, I suspect they don't get wide GALs. A clerk typist is less likely to move all the way across the country for a job than an ALJ is.
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 31, 2014 7:17:40 GMT -5
Good points Observer. I think I fell victim to the late-night trap of attributing logic to a mechanical process because the result appeared to be logical. I guess there is still a possibility that those who created the process applied that logic, but as you pointed out, the logical result is more likely coincidental! Happily, the result does benefit SSA, because they get a lot of highly qualified applicants who are willing to take the job in places they might not otherwise think of working!
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Mar 31, 2014 7:29:49 GMT -5
One thing that is important to remember is that the GAL is used for ALL KINDS of federal jobs for which positions exist in more than one city... it's not unique to the ALJ register, though ALJ is likely one of a relatively few positions for which openings in dozens of cities are filled at the same time. I don't think OPM cares what size GAL someone picks, and I don't think that is the reason for the limit on changing them. They give you directions on it, and leave it at that. For most positions, I suspect they don't get wide GALs. A clerk typist is less likely to move all the way across the country for a job than an ALJ is. Agreed. I tested for Customs and Border Patrol a few years ago. They had a GAL too. Their instructions did tell you that chances of getting anything other than Southwest Border were slim because their need was in that region. The ALJ job did not contain that extra bit of info but a goole search would have led you to a discussion on this site
|
|
|
Post by FlaTreeFarm on Mar 31, 2014 8:01:47 GMT -5
Their instructions did tell you that chances of getting anything other than Southwest Border were slim because their need was in that region. The ALJ job did not contain that extra bit of info but a goole search would have led you to a discussion on this site I don't think the ALJ job announcement could give you that information, even if they wanted to, because it appears to be a constantly moving target!
|
|