|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 19, 2014 10:47:27 GMT -5
I'm curious about something, and I'm using the term cert in lieu of certs, although I recognize that the new process includes multiple certs. Can SSA request and receive a cert with all remaining names for the selected locations, including those that have been considered three times, and if they don't feel they have enough new candidates on the cert, reject it and request a brand new cert with all three-struck candidates removed before anyone is notified about the second cert?
|
|
merry
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by merry on Aug 19, 2014 10:47:58 GMT -5
I hope they keep people informed about their status. Especially, if someone was three struck, they need to remember that the right to request EEO counseling runs very quickly in the federal sector. If the reason is a bad interview result, you really have no way of knowing what the motivation of the panel members was absent an investigation by a third party.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 19, 2014 10:59:24 GMT -5
I'm curious about something, and I'm using the term cert in lieu of certs, although I recognize that the new process includes multiple certs. Can SSA request and receive a cert with all remaining names for the selected locations, including those that have been considered three times, and if they don't feel they have enough new candidates on the cert, reject it and request a brand new cert with all three-struck candidates removed before anyone is notified about the second cert? SSA could return one or more of the certs unused with an explanation about why it was unused. Then it could request new certs without any of those having three strikes on the new certs. And I don't see why they couldn't do that before any of the candidates is notified since it is SSA that sends out the emails to the candidates about the certs. I think that would achieve what you suggest. I do not, however, think any of that will be necessary because I anticipate the size of OPM's certs will take into account not only those who have accumulated three strikes, but also those who have accumulated one and two strikes, and will have sufficient, but not many more than sufficient, names for SSA to both maximally hire and maximally use its authority not to consider any candidate after a candidate has been considered three times. Not that SSA is required to 1) maximally hire; or 2) maximally use the three-strike.
|
|
witty
Full Member
i tawt i taw a puddy tat (Livingston/Foster/May/ made famous by Tweety B.)
Posts: 66
|
Post by witty on Aug 19, 2014 11:15:21 GMT -5
I'm curious about something, and I'm using the term cert in lieu of certs, although I recognize that the new process includes multiple certs. Can SSA request and receive a cert with all remaining names for the selected locations, including those that have been considered three times, and if they don't feel they have enough new candidates on the cert, reject it and request a brand new cert with all three-struck candidates removed before anyone is notified about the second cert? SSA could return one or more of the certs unused with an explanation about why it was unused. Then it could request new certs without any of those having three strikes on the new certs. And I don't see why they couldn't do that before any of the candidates is notified since it is SSA that sends out the emails to the candidates about the certs. I think that would achieve what you suggest. I do not, however, think any of that will be necessary because I anticipate the size of OPM's certs will take into account not only those who have accumulated three strikes, but also those who have accumulated one and two strikes, and will have sufficient, but not many more than sufficient, names for SSA to both maximally hire and maximally use its authority not to consider any candidate after a candidate has been considered three times. Not that SSA is required to 1) maximally hire; or 2) maximally use the three-strike. "I cannot forecast to you the action of D>Russia<D [INSERT "ODAR"]. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is D>Russian<D [INSERT "ODAR's"] national interest." W. Churchill
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Aug 19, 2014 11:29:33 GMT -5
I'm curious about something, and I'm using the term cert in lieu of certs, although I recognize that the new process includes multiple certs. Can SSA request and receive a cert with all remaining names for the selected locations, including those that have been considered three times, and if they don't feel they have enough new candidates on the cert, reject it and request a brand new cert with all three-struck candidates removed before anyone is notified about the second cert? SSA could return one or more of the certs unused with an explanation about why it was unused. Then it could request new certs without any of those having three strikes on the new certs. And I don't see why they couldn't do that before any of the candidates is notified since it is SSA that sends out the emails to the candidates about the certs. I think that would achieve what you suggest. I do not, however, think any of that will be necessary because I anticipate the size of OPM's certs will take into account not only those who have accumulated three strikes, but also those who have accumulated one and two strikes, and will have sufficient, but not many more than sufficient, names for SSA to both maximally hire and maximally use its authority not to consider any candidate after a candidate has been considered three times. Not that SSA is required to 1) maximally hire; or 2) maximally use the three-strike. I doubt that OPM will take into account any strikes except where SSA specifically tells OPM that a candidate is three struck. Based on OPM's stance up to this point, they will most likely operate under the assumption that any name that they give SSA is still good for three considerations because that is the approach that requires the least amount of work on their part.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 19, 2014 11:40:52 GMT -5
SSA could return one or more of the certs unused with an explanation about why it was unused. Then it could request new certs without any of those having three strikes on the new certs. And I don't see why they couldn't do that before any of the candidates is notified since it is SSA that sends out the emails to the candidates about the certs. I think that would achieve what you suggest. I do not, however, think any of that will be necessary because I anticipate the size of OPM's certs will take into account not only those who have accumulated three strikes, but also those who have accumulated one and two strikes, and will have sufficient, but not many more than sufficient, names for SSA to both maximally hire and maximally use its authority not to consider any candidate after a candidate has been considered three times. Not that SSA is required to 1) maximally hire; or 2) maximally use the three-strike. I doubt that OPM will take into account any strikes except where SSA specifically tells OPM that a candidate is three struck. Based on OPM's stance up to this point, they will most likely operate under the assumption that any name that they give SSA is still good for three considerations because that is the approach that requires the least amount of work on their part. OPM knows the number of strikes each candidate has accumulated from SSA. I think if OPM does not take into account all the strikes of the eligibles referred, the numbers they provide will come up very short of the numbers needed. But I could be wrong--believe it or not, it happens occasionally. We'll have a better idea which way OPM did it when we know how many positions are on the second certs and the total number of eligibles OPM referred.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 19, 2014 11:55:58 GMT -5
My understanding is that three-striking is discretionary and is an ODAR tool. They use it as a way to remove people they have decided they don't want and get to people they do. I don't think OPM does anything about three-striking except remove a name from ODAR consideration when ODAR requests that it be removed. My understanding is that an ODAR three-strike doesn't remove the person from the register or from consideration by another agency. Am I missing something here?
|
|
jmgjr
Full Member
Posts: 57
|
Post by jmgjr on Aug 19, 2014 12:02:08 GMT -5
I also received the email rejection. I have asked opm for clarification.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 19, 2014 12:15:19 GMT -5
My understanding is that three-striking is discretionary and is an ODAR tool. They use it as a way to remove people they have decided they don't want and get to people they do. I don't think OPM does anything about three-striking except remove a name from ODAR consideration when ODAR requests that it be removed. My understanding is that an ODAR three-strike doesn't remove the person from the register or from consideration by another agency. Am I missing something here? Three striking is in fact a tool the use of which is discretionary with the hiring agency. It is not fundamentally a tool to have OPM leave names off of certs, though it can be used to do that. It permits a hiring agency in its discretion not to consider for a position somebody who has previously received three bona fide considerations (i.e., strikes) for the same position. Thus, if say 20 of the eligibles included on the second certs have accumulated three strikes, SSA can decide not to consider them when they are in the top 3 for a position. If they are the top 20 scores for a city, SSA can consider just 21, 22, and 23 on the list for that city. Or if SSA chooses it can hire one of the eligibles having three strikes. It is up to SSA. Similarly, if a candidate has already accumulated two strikes on the first certs and winds up getting a third on the second certs, SSA need not consider them when they come up in top 3s, or can hire them, at its discretion. This is unlike the situation for someone without strikes, who must be considered and not hired three times before SSA has the discretion to not consider them. It is my opinion that if OPM just ignores the strikes already accumulated by the eligibles it places on the lists for the second certs, OPM will come up short in providing SSA with sufficient eligibles to have three to consider for each vacancy. As always, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 19, 2014 12:17:35 GMT -5
I also received the email rejection. I have asked opm for clarification. Good. I would be interested to know what their response is, if you choose to post it.
|
|
|
Post by WhereIsTheFrontDoor on Aug 19, 2014 13:02:14 GMT -5
Crud. Just reread my letter, and it is addressed "Dear Scumbag".
Kinda concerning?
|
|
|
Post by zepplin on Aug 19, 2014 13:04:58 GMT -5
Crud. Just reread my letter, and it is addressed "Dear Scumbag". Kinda concerning? I didn't even get one yet. I'm even unworthy of polite rejection.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 19, 2014 13:09:53 GMT -5
Crud. Just reread my letter, and it is addressed "Dear Scumbag". Kinda concerning? You must have received mine by mistake. Oh, wait. I didn't make the first certs.
|
|
|
Post by pubdef on Aug 19, 2014 13:13:04 GMT -5
It's probably just a form that went out to everyone interviewed and not hired. But, with regard to their invitation "If you have questions about your status on OPM’s ALJ register, please email OPM directly at aljapplication@opm.gov.," I hope someone who received the e-mail takes them up on it. I'm dying to hear their answer. I don't mind if someone takes them up on it, but I hope not everyone does. I'm still under the delusion that OPM is actually processing appeals and will send out notices about the results from those in the next couple years. The last thing OPM needs is further distractions.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 19, 2014 14:11:28 GMT -5
I think unless SSA had you disqualified on a basis that would disqualify you from being on the register, all you'll get from OPM is that you remain on the register. That said, if I were a first certer not hired, I would ask OPM for clarification of my register status to be sure I remained on the register. I suppose one could do that in a huge excess of caution, but you don't come off OPM's register just because one agency didn't pick you. I don't think you can be removed from the register without notice, if it's not for a reason the applicant initiated.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 19, 2014 14:14:18 GMT -5
My understanding is that three-striking is discretionary and is an ODAR tool. They use it as a way to remove people they have decided they don't want and get to people they do. I don't think OPM does anything about three-striking except remove a name from ODAR consideration when ODAR requests that it be removed. My understanding is that an ODAR three-strike doesn't remove the person from the register or from consideration by another agency. Am I missing something here? No, you aren't -- it doesn't take you off the register or affect any other agency. And ODAR can decide to hire you anyway, if you are reachable on a cert.
|
|
|
Post by Missundaztood on Aug 19, 2014 14:40:00 GMT -5
BTW thought y'all might be interested in the trivia that my FOAD email didn't come from Bob. Maybe Bob only gives good news?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 19, 2014 19:10:47 GMT -5
I think unless SSA had you disqualified on a basis that would disqualify you from being on the register, all you'll get from OPM is that you remain on the register. That said, if I were a first certer not hired, I would ask OPM for clarification of my register status to be sure I remained on the register. I suppose one could do that in a huge excess of caution, but you don't come off OPM's register just because one agency didn't pick you. I don't think you can be removed from the register without notice, if it's not for a reason the applicant initiated. observer53 is correct on this. In the past folks have been on a Register for years. I don't think this one will last more than two years given the numbers and SSA"s past predilictions, but they are going to have to hire from it next year. sratty is correct, this is a good time to be on this one.
|
|
|
Post by bettyrubble on Aug 20, 2014 6:18:37 GMT -5
Crud. Just reread my letter, and it is addressed "Dear Scumbag". Kinda concerning? I didn't even get one yet. I'm even unworthy of polite rejection. Maybe that's a good thing got you?
|
|
|
Post by bettyrubble on Aug 20, 2014 6:24:33 GMT -5
Crud. Just reread my letter, and it is addressed "Dear Scumbag". Kinda concerning? I didn't even get one yet. I'm even unworthy of polite rejection. Maybe that's a good thing for you?
|
|