How many disqualified in last stages?

[shadow]

The following was posted yesterday on the ALJImprovement board:

"Astrue announced today that there are going to be 175 ALJs hired this year.

One of the group supervisors in my office told me he had heard a rumor from a reliable source that of the 427 applicants were who interviewed by SSA last month, half failed some aspect of the three part process (the interview, the background check, and the call to references). If true, that would leave slightly more than 200 people to fill 175 slots. Great odds if you are among the 200."

I know the first paragraph is true - saw the email from the COSS myself. It's the second paragraph I wonder about. We all know that unreliable information gets posted on the other board, although Ben seems to be trying to clean things up.

Does anyone on the inside know if it's true that half of us were knocked out of the process in these last stages? Seems unlikely, but who knows? [not the shadow, obviously]

[judicature]

I, too, wonder about the "failed" part. There was a previous post claiming that certain candidates were disqualified by SSA. Does SSA have the authority to disqualify candidates certified as qualified by OPM? I know as the hiring agency SSA can reject candidates for any reason they choose (subject to vet pref rules). This is a little different, however, as the undercurrent is that a certain number of the candidates have been disqualified in the SSA process.

Is there a difference between being disqualified and simply being rejected for another, more qualified candidate?

[chieftain]

The second part seems a bit far fetched to me. The chances seem very remote that all 71 offices can be filled from a pool of 200 people. SSA would either need to relax the rules allowing the remaining 200 candidates to expand their geographical preferences, delay some of the hiring until the register can be re-opened, or change the offices for which judges will be hired. None seems like a palatable choice.

[snowman]

My interviewers said that they would forward an evaluation, not a score or grade. Similarly, how could one "fail" a reference check unless false information about past employment was provided. Maybe it is just the use of the word "fail" that is throwing me off.

If something turns up in a background check, doesn't the law require the Administration to notify the candidate in case of mistake? Are we only going to know if we are hired and not receive any "rejection" notice?

[cybear]

Paragraph two is, as is generally the case with the old board, total baloney. Count on it.

With all of the upcoming machinations to be performed on the draft board by the Agency, can you imagine half of the available candidates suddenly canned on the basis of these less than wonderfully consistent and not terribly well-executed background checks? Not a chance.

It is simply not credible that there are that many felons, psychotics and credit unworthy among us, let alone references, generally hand-picked by applicants for their likelihood to be supportive, who would drop kick half of the pool. While we're on the subject of the absurd, just how does one "fail" an interview.

Want to see some successful litigation (and no I'm not talking about litigation against the Agency and yes, I do recall the adhesive language in that authorization form we all signed)? Imagine if half of those on this cert were actually disqualified as a result of these "background checks". Recall that we are dealing with a private contractor, upon whose shoulders no cloak of governmental immunity rests, waiver form notwithstanding.

[shadow]

While I'd still like to hear from someone on the inside, I also seriously doubt most of the second paragraph. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if a handful of candidates were adjudged not to have done well in their interview, and got a thumbs down that way. I'm just hoping I'm not in that handful.

Thanks to everyone for their comments on this.

[privateatty]

cybear said:

Paragraph two is, as is generally the case with the old board, total baloney. Count on it.

With all of the upcoming machinations to be performed on the draft board by the Agency, can you imagine half of the available candidates suddenly canned on the basis of these less than wonderfully consistent and not terribly well-executed background checks? Not a chance.

It is simply not credible that there are that many felons, psychotics and credit unworthy among us, let alone references, generally hand-picked by applicants for their likelihood to be supportive, who would drop kick half of the pool. While we're on the subject of the absurd, just how does one "fail" an interview.

Want to see some successful litigation (and no I'm not talking about litigation against the Agency and yes, I do recall the adhesive language in that authorization form we all signed)? Imagine if half of those on this cert were actually disqualified as a result of these "background checks". Recall that we are dealing with a private contractor, upon whose shoulders no cloak of governmental immunity rests, waiver form notwithstanding.

I agree with you cybear. But snowman raises a point heretofore unknown by me--that is the OMNI "evaluation". I had raised this issue a month or so ago but got no responses. Thus, what "value" does the "evaluation" have? For instance can it push you from the "we'd be OK with you" column to to the "want to have you column"?

And judicature, please recall that the interviews and OMNI/Yale/Whomever reference checking was going on simultaneously. Thus, they had planned on interviewing all 420-450 regardless.

[judicature]

privateatty - point well taken.

[cybear]

PA,

Didn't Snowman refer to or at least mean to refer to the "evaluation" as coming from the ALJs who interviewed us, rather than from OMNI/Yale? My understanding is that these folks will just fill in blanks in forms and submit them to the Agency. Heaven help all of us if the people who have been hired by the people who have been hired to investigate us are allowed some form of interpretive license.

[shadow]

I would guess that if anyone gets knocked out at this point, the kiss of death would come from the ALJs who interviewed us. Come to think of it, those guys did kiss me on both cheeks as I was leaving. Darn!!#%&

[snowman]

Yes, I referred to or at least meant to refer to the "evaluation" as coming from the ALJs who interviewed us. But, in my mind, that does not eliminate simply filling in blanks on forms and submitting them to the Agency. Sorry, didn't mean to create confusion.

[privateatty]

cybear said:

PA,

Didn't Snowman refer to or at least mean to refer to the "evaluation" as coming from the ALJs who interviewed us, rather than from OMNI/Yale? My understanding is that these folks will just fill in blanks in forms and submit them to the Agency. Heaven help all of us if the people who have been hired by the people who have been hired to investigate us are allowed some form of interpretive license.

Yes, my mistake, the ALJs who interviewed us do an evaluation. But I wonder about the OMNI/Yale/Whomever folks. What if they have columns like "Excellent" Good" whatever? Is there a look-see at this (whatever it is) by the folks in Falls Church who are evaluating us now?

[morgullord]

My guess is that OMNI/Yale/etc have been using a yes/no format with space for a comment from those interviewed to further define the answer.

[nothingventured]

I'm not exactly superstitious but still I hesitate to ask these questions: For those unlucky folks who interviewed but do not get hired, will SSA notify them or will they just wait and wait and eventually figure it out? What has happened in the past?

[privateatty]

shadow said:

I would guess that if anyone gets knocked out at this point, the kiss of death would come from the ALJs who interviewed us. Come to think of it, those guys did kiss me on both cheeks as I was leaving. Darn!!#%&

I imagine it as one of three kisses: immediate ascension, assuming your OMNI sheet is clean; the second being another look see if need be and the third, the dreaded kiss of death.

[mle06]

shadow said:

The following was posted yesterday on the ALJImprovement board:

"Astrue announced today that there are going to be 175 ALJs hired this year.

One of the group supervisors in my office told me he had heard a rumor from a reliable source that of the 427 applicants were who interviewed by SSA last month, half failed some aspect of the three part process (the interview, the background check, and the call to references). If true, that would leave slightly more than 200 people to fill 175 slots. Great odds if you are among the 200."

I know the first paragraph is true - saw the email from the COSS myself. It's the second paragraph I wonder about. We all know that unreliable information gets posted on the other board, although Ben seems to be trying to clean things up.

Does anyone on the inside know if it's true that half of us were knocked out of the process in these last stages? Seems unlikely, but who knows? [not the shadow, obviously]

References are still being checked---I know this because earlier today I received a call from one of my references telling me they had just talked with someone from Yale. Does not seem feasible that anyone would have been disqualified at this point. It is true that the Commissioner's lastest "broadcast" to SSA employees indicated a total ALJ hire of 175.

[nonamouse]

shadow said:

I would guess that if anyone gets knocked out at this point, the kiss of death would come from the ALJs who interviewed us. Come to think of it, those guys did kiss me on both cheeks as I was leaving. Darn!!#%&

Sorry to add to the dread. I've heard that the "kiss" can come from more ALJs than merely the ones at the interview. Especially for an inside candidate, there are other people who will get to provide input even if it is on an informal basis. RCALJs and HOCALJs and bears. Oh my! For anyone, there is the possibility that someone listed as a reference will give a less than stellar report.

It always seems like there are a couple of people who are completely oblivious to what people really think about them. Those folks could be in trouble for listing references who will provide inadequate responses even if they don't come right out and nail them.

[testtaker]

nonamouse said:

For anyone, there is the possibility that someone listed as a reference will give a less than stellar report. It always seems like there are a couple of people who are completely oblivious to what people really think about them. Those folks could be in trouble for listing references who will provide inadequate responses even if they don't come right out and nail them.

I was victim to the inadequate responses from a past employer. I did not list him as a reference, but he was called because he was listed as a previous employer.

Q: Can this person take instructions?
A: ALJs don't take instruction! They work in a collegial atmosphere, as we do in our office. They don't take instruction.

Q: Could this person dispose of 50 cases a month?
A: That depends - are they good cases or junk ones? The disability analyst could have done a poor job of working the case up.

Those responses really gave Yale a lot of information regarding my productivity. NOT.

[nightowl]

There is no doubt in my mind that there is some sort of scoring or evaluation system for the interview and reference check. Obviously, there will be a few candidates who are eliminated by a poor interview or poor reference check. Should I say that again? A few candidates will be eliminated. The vast majority will be in the mix especially when geographic preferences need to be considered. I cannot conceive of any employer eliminating half of the candidates presented to them. No, I do not know any more than any one else, but common sense should prevail, even with the federal government. Also, the agency must take into account the rule of three for every single geographic location. If they did not like half the candidates, then they may be stuck taking someone they are not excited about. Yes, SSA can game the system, but that only goes so far. Breathe people, breathe.

[workdrone]

stallerscott said:

[Excellent points snipped for brevity's sake]Yes, SSA can game the system, but that only goes so far. Breathe people, breathe.

Nightowl,

I agree with all your points. The rumor about half the pool eliminated doesn't make much sense when you factor in veteran's preference and rule of three. So let's all breathe and continue the wait in calmness.