|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 15, 2014 11:49:15 GMT -5
Its the candidate that is being wasteful! How can you apply for a position like this and not put a lot of research into it? We're talking about legal professionals applying for a high level federal job, not a high school dropout claimant trying to negotiate the disability process! Not all of us who have small GALs were caught off-guard, but I think it's a bit judgmental to think that every applicant should have found their way ...ummm... here to take advantage of the wisdom of those who have done this before. Is there really any other place that would have given them this nugget of GAL wisdom? Okay, I'm not going to let this go, and I'm going to tell you why. Anyone just kind of meandering through this process has no business being in it. We're all "grown up" attorneys here, (7 year experience minimum), with established careers, practices, etc. If my brother-in-law/friend/cousin calls me up with a "great job opportunity," I am sure as hell not just going to put in my retirement papers, and go into a new venture, half-cocked, without doing some serious due dilligence to find out what the hell I'm getting myself into. Yep, there's some of that lawyer talk, "due dilligence." I'm hoping that you all provide due dilligence for your clients. Is it too much to ask that you do the same for yourselves? Yes, the people already working for SSA do have an advantage through institutional knowledge and inside opportunities to ask questions, but that sure as hell does not excuse you from doing your own research to catch up to the insiders. Put on your grown-up pants and do some research like real lawyers. You certainly would expect the same of an SSA staff attorney who one day decided, "hey I want to be lawyer specializing in estates and trusts," quit his job at SSA, and took a job with a firm. Are you going to cut him some slack because he just wasn't all that familiar with the Probate Court? I'll bet the judge and opposing counsel won't! This kind of crap is what scares me as an Insider. There are people who aren't all that motivated to research how the ALJ selection process works, or find out what it takes to win the job, who still end up getting a golden ticket anyway. Fine. Congratulations! Now these same people NEED to learn the laws and regs of SSA Disability, learn how the organization works, the computer system, the work flow, the staff, etc. Will they? Good question! Some people have a difficult time believing it when we tell them some of the horror stories of ALJs who just seem to ignore the regs, procedures, or work, but should it realy be any surprise when they couldn't even take the time to figure out what they are getting into?
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 12:15:51 GMT -5
Not all of us who have small GALs were caught off-guard, but I think it's a bit judgmental to think that every applicant should have found their way ...ummm... here to take advantage of the wisdom of those who have done this before. Is there really any other place that would have given them this nugget of GAL wisdom? Okay, I'm not going to let this go, and I'm going to tell you why. Anyone just kind of meandering through this process has no business being in it. We're all "grown up" attorneys here, (7 year experience minimum), with established careers, practices, etc. If my brother-in-law/friend/cousin calls me up with a "great job opportunity," I am sure as hell not just going to put in my retirement papers, and go into a new venture, half-cocked, without doing some serious due dilligence to find out what the hell I'm getting myself into. Yep, there's some of that lawyer talk, "due dilligence." I'm hoping that you all provide due dilligence for your clients. Is it too much to ask that you do the same for yourselves? Yes, the people already working for SSA do have an advantage through institutional knowledge and inside opportunities to ask questions, but that sure as hell does not excuse you from doing your own research to catch up to the insiders. Put on your grown-up pants and do some research like real lawyers. You certainly would expect the same of an SSA staff attorney who one day decided, "hey I want to be lawyer specializing in estates and trusts," quit his job at SSA, and took a job with a firm. Are you going to cut him some slack because he just wasn't all that familiar with the Probate Court? I'll bet the judge and opposing counsel won't! This kind of crap is what scares me as an Insider. There are people who aren't all that motivated to research how the ALJ selection process works, or find out what it takes to win the job, who still end up getting a golden ticket anyway. Fine. Congratulations! Now these same people NEED to learn the laws and regs of SSA Disability, learn how the organization works, the computer system, the work flow, the staff, etc. Will they? Good question! Some people have a difficult time believing it when we tell them some of the horror stories of ALJs who just seem to ignore the regs, procedures, or work, but should it realy be any surprise when they couldn't even take the time to figure out what they are getting into? Val I don't think it is an insider or outsider issue at all. As an outsider, I say as attorneys, we should know how to do research or if not we shouldn't be attorneys. Are you going to turn in a brief or go to trial without doing any research? I think not, unless you plan on losing. It isn't an insider or outsider thing, it is a lack of "due diligence" or proper preparation by some. Either you make your decisions based upon a lot of forethought and knowledge from researching things or you fly by the seat of your pants and give no thought to your decisions until much later thinking decisions have no consequences. Consider it to be the consequences for those with limited GALs (who now wish those GALs were much larger) for a lack of proper research which means you may not make a cert from SSA with the present Register. Is it fair? It depends upon which side of the fence you are standing, however I will say a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth now going on from some could have been avoided with proper research and due diligence in decision-making for GALs to start. If you now decided you are willing to go anywhere for the position or you have no chance to make a cert because of a limited GAL, then it is a little too late under the rules. Decisions have consequences and hopefully some have learned to be more careful in your decision-making in the future. It's not like I have no sympathy, but it is also why I do extensive research prior to making life altering or major decisions. Should you be rewarded for lack of initiative in doing your "due diligence" in your decision-making, when others did take the initiative?
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Apr 15, 2014 12:40:20 GMT -5
Okay, I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to speak up for myself and on behalf of anyone else in the same situation. I may not have discovered this board before DC, but I did my due diligence and came to the conclusion that a wide-open gal could mean at least two years off away from my family (which cannot move - my spouse has a great job, recently got a promotion and upon retirement will receive a nice pension - but retirement isn't coming in the next year or two) and potentially longer since there is not guarantee that a transfer back to "home" would be available. So I opted to include on my gal those cities that were within a reasonable distance from home for a commute by car. So please stop painting with such a broad brush about those of us with small gals. Some of us balanced everything and while we want the job as much as those with wide open gals, family comes first, and if that ultimately means not making it on a cert (although my cities are probably considered crapland by most, as I've mentioned before), then so be it.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 15, 2014 12:44:26 GMT -5
I don't agree that it's a lack of due diligence if an applicant didn't discover this board before hitting "submit." I didn't find this board until after I'd submitted my application. I did, however, seriously consider where I'd be willing to move when I checked the little boxes. At first I checked 'em all . . . and then I reconsidered. Between the cost of the move(s) and the impact on my family, I chose cities that I could see myself living in for the long haul. Perhaps now, knowing the potential to relocate, others realize they would've been willing to make the "sacrificial move" for the job. But please stop dividing us into "insiders and outsiders," "motivated and lazy," "deserving and not deserving of the job," and any other non-productive labels. Every person on this register earned his or her spot, regardless of whether they discovered the board. The very least we can do is treat one another with respect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 12:50:14 GMT -5
Is there really any other place that would have given them this nugget of GAL wisdom? IMHO,
Not to jump on the pile, but just reading the job posting closely would of got you to the "GAL wisdom." I read it several times before I even started and deduced correctly from the below paragraph that I would have more chances of making a Cert by being the high three on as many GAL cities that I could see myself living in for a few years. 10 points helped a lot, but my pre-vet points score would also get me on a Cert as I listed 85 cities and without vet points, a NOR in the 70s. Receiving Employment Consideration:
If you receive a NOR with a final numerical rating, your name will be placed on the new ALJ register. The ALJ register is a list of candidates eligible for selection used to make referrals to agencies for employment consideration when they have entry level ALJ vacancies to fill. Names are referred in descending rank order, based on the duty location of the position(s) to be filled and the geographical preference of candidates. It is the responsibility of the hiring agency to make selections from the list of candidates referred for employment consideration from among the highest three available names, taking into consideration veterans' preference and other civil service rules.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 12:50:43 GMT -5
Okay, I've tried to stay out of this, but I have to speak up for myself and on behalf of anyone else in the same situation. I may not have discovered this board before DC, but I did my due diligence and came to the conclusion that a wide-open gal could mean at least two years off away from my family (which cannot move - my spouse has a great job, recently got a promotion and upon retirement will receive a nice pension - but retirement isn't coming in the next year or two) and potentially longer since there is not guarantee that a transfer back to "home" would be available. So I opted to include on my gal those cities that were within a reasonable distance from home for a commute by car. So please stop painting with such a broad brush about those of us with small gals. Some of us balanced everything and while we want the job as much as those with wide open gals, family comes first, and if that ultimately means not making it on a cert (although my cities are probably considered crapland by most, as I've mentioned before), then so be it. If you read my post ok1956 you would have seen (now I bolded it for you) that I was specifically speaking to those who are bemoaning the fact they didn't know about a wide GAL versus a small GAL and would have made a different decision. In your case, you made the absolute correct decision for yourself and your family.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 15, 2014 12:56:03 GMT -5
I think things like that ("should have done your research," "should have found this board sooner," etc.) are fun to say if you are on the right end of it. I think the issue is simply a non-issue based on the two passages from the application pointed out by hopefalj earlier. If you failed to see those, picked a few cities, and now wish you had picked more, just chalk it up to life's learning process. It is what it is. Does not matter where you fall out on it; there's no judging to be done here. Agree with this. Reading the instructions would tell you a lot. When I applied the first time in 2009, I did not know about this Board. I heard about "the message board" sitting in the "waiting room" for the SI. If I had, I would have learned ALL the ramifications of a wider GAL, the transfer list, popular cities, etc. But, at the time I applied, I read the instructions, understood them, and picked, as I recall, nine cities in several states, all of which I would have, and still would be, willing to live in. They are all relatively popular, as I would later find out, but I was on several certs based on them. This time around, I've picked a virtually wide open GAL, subject to winnowing. I really don't think doing, or not doing, the research to find this Board has anything to do with how good an ALJ someone will be. Sorry, valkyrie, I think you doth protest too much. NO ONE who made it this far through this new OPM gauntlet and is on the new register is "meandering through the process". Period. And we all deserve to be exactly where we are, whether that leads to an ALJ appointment or not. JMO, of course.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Apr 15, 2014 12:57:39 GMT -5
MPD - I was actually responding to Val's several posts about those with small gals and the assumption that anyone with a small gal can't or didn't do our due diligence. I'm not trying start an argument, I just don't like feeling as though everyone with a small gal, intended or not, is being lumped into one big category. Sorry I didn't post my comment until after yours - my bad for causing the confusion. I'm definitely not bemoaning my decision and, thus, didn't read your post as directed at my situation.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 13:00:32 GMT -5
I don't agree that it's a lack of due diligence if an applicant didn't discover this board before hitting "submit." I didn't find this board until after I'd submitted my application. I did, however, seriously consider where I'd be willing to move when I checked the little boxes. At first I checked 'em all . . . and then I reconsidered. Between the cost of the move(s) and the impact on my family, I chose cities that I could see myself living in for the long haul. Perhaps now, knowing the potential to relocate, others realize they would've been willing to make the "sacrificial move" for the job. But please stop dividing us into "insiders and outsiders," "motivated and lazy," "deserving and not deserving of the job," and any other non-productive labels. Every person on this register earned his or her spot, regardless of whether they discovered the board. The very least we can do is treat one another with respect. Sorry BagLady but you are painting with a broad brush here, not me. I never stated anyone on the Register didn't deserve to be there. If you made the Register you are a gifted individual and attorney, however as I stated decisions usually have consequences (small GAL versus large GAL). It could be a two-edged sword against those with a large GALs too, because maybe SSA will three strike us faster as opposed to the person who only has two locations listed and can't be three struck. However, I am willing to live with my decision, I am not bemoaning my decision as being unfair. If I end up three stuck that would be the consequences for my decision of a wide open GAL. I will live with those consequences, just as those with narrow GALs have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 15, 2014 13:08:26 GMT -5
MPD - I was actually responding to Val's several posts about those with small gals and the assumption that anyone with a small gal can't or didn't do our due diligence. I'm not trying start an argument, I just don't like feeling as though everyone with a small gal, intended or not, is being lumped into one big category. Sorry I didn't post my comment until after yours - my bad for causing the confusion. I'm definitely not bemoaning my decision and, thus, didn't read your post as directed at my situation. Val's post wasn't directed towards you. In fact, you did exactly as the job announcement instructed. She is referring to people that limited their GAL initially and now rue the decision because they didn't know how the process works. Her point isn't about all folks with wide GALs. It's about people that complain about having a limited GAL because they weren't aware that their limited GAL effectively eliminates their chances at getting hired.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 15, 2014 13:18:08 GMT -5
The gal choice was arguably the single most important decision any of us made aside from deciding to apply in the first place. And whether you went wide or narrow, there are consequences.
Those that put real thought in it, looked at the list and only checked the boxes where they knew they and their family could be happy played it right, in my opinion.
If you went narrow and now, caught up in the thought of "losing the game," you wish you could expand....what's changed? Its still the same job you applied for. Fargo is no closer nor any more suited to you and your family's needs and desires than it was when you didn't select it before. I posit that all that has changed is that you are now caught up in the competition, you've invested time, effort and funds and you don't like the idea of missing out on the job even if its somewhere you would hate. You think, now, that you could take the gig anywhere and then transfer to where you want to be. if that's the case, you have fallen for the same trap that those who went wide thinking they could land the gig, wait the 90 days then transfer are in.
Transfers simply aren't going to be as easy or as frequent as in the past. They only work the transfer list when there is a hire and those are nowhere near as frequent as they once were. Further, if the cities on your gal hardly ever have an opening for new hires, what makes you think they would have a slot for you to transfer into? Remember, you are gonna be dead last on the transfer lists.
If you went wide, you better put a lot of thought into narrowing it to actual places you and your family can be happy for a good long time. if you went narrow, either by doing your "due diligence" or just because you assumed the announcement meant there would actually be openings in each of the 179 cities, you still chose the ones you did for a reason. For it to change now, I'd hope its for a better reason than competitive fervor.
|
|
|
Post by Highlander on Apr 15, 2014 13:22:11 GMT -5
I think empathy is an important quality in a judge
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 15, 2014 13:30:34 GMT -5
Well . . . now that that is settled and needs no further discussion ever . . . Amen.
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Apr 15, 2014 13:34:31 GMT -5
Of course Valkyrie's argument assumes (and we all know what happens if you assume too much) that everyone discovered the announcement in time to actually conduct the exhaustive research BEFORE the closing of the application period. Some of us are just lowly private practice attorneys chasing clients and billable hours and not planning our GAL for years.
Like Tigerlaw I read the announcement, however I didn't want to move across the country permanently, what the announcement does not tell you is that SSA, in particular, has the option to transfer within 90 days of an appointment. The announcement does not tell you the transfer list for each location. The announcement does not tell you that certain locations are only filled by transfers. The only way you can discover that information is reading through hundreds if not thousands of posts here.
There is no way an outsider would be able to "guess" that an SSA ALJ position is so mobile or how the transfer game is played. It was not mentioned on SSA's website or any other third party site I read.
With that being said if I had a mulligan I would definitely expand my GAL, but only to include locations near an airport that would give me the opportunity to travel home frequently.
There is really no need to hammer folks who are just venting about their limited GAL and wishing that they had an opportunity to expand it. It smacks of elitism and is quite condescending to assume that everyone should have your "inside baseball" knowledge of the intricate workings of transfer lists and GAL's.
Anonymous boards tend to bring out the worst in people...
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 13:35:13 GMT -5
I think empathy is an important quality in a judge INMO, I think you feel empathy only when you have been in someone else's exact or similar situation previously, where you feel sympathy because you can understand someone else's situation despite never being in it exactly. I would feel sympathy a lot more as a judge, but may occasionally feel empathy. While I may have had some shared similar experiences to clients or claimants in front of me allowing me to express empathy, I am more likely to be sympathetic to their cause or needs as a judge due to compassion.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 15, 2014 14:12:29 GMT -5
I wasn't responding to your post, and I absolutely agree that you make your bed and you have to lie in it. My post was directed to Val's broad comments ("Anyone just kind of meandering through this process has no business being in it," for example, and making the giant leap that a person who failed to find this board will ignore the regs, etc.). I much prefer constructive discussions about the process. No reason to beat each other up. (And I don't know what happened to your quoted text, but I can't seem to get it back!)
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 15, 2014 14:22:10 GMT -5
LOL!, BagLady, I have hexed your computer so you can't quote me in your replies. Just kidding. I can understand the animosity toward Val's comments and I don't agree with the use of Val's broad terms in denigrating others. I know this means Val will now likely comment on me, but so be it. Que Sera, Sera.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 15, 2014 14:25:43 GMT -5
SSA needs to drop that cert so the natives stop eating their young!
EDIT: And on that note, I'm a Legend. LOL
|
|
|
Post by gary on Apr 15, 2014 14:29:56 GMT -5
SSA needs to drop that cert so the natives stop eating their young!
EDIT: And on that note, I'm a Legend. LOL And their old.
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Apr 15, 2014 14:34:09 GMT -5
I'd eat any of you to get ahead. Young or old.
|
|