|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 22:29:39 GMT -5
Of course, THAT just smacks of an invitation for a poll on how old everyone is, doesn't it? My personal SWAG estimate is that the age range of those that made the register - with the requisite 7 years litigation experience - is about is about 37 to 65. My SWAG is that the majority are over 40, and I'll even venture to guess that the majority are over 45. Sorry, I'm not touching that one. I don't think age really matters in their decision making and I don't ask folks their age because my mom taught me it was rude. I suppose I should add, I do not ask all the ALJs their ages, this is from eyeballing it and putting together the pieces when people drop references to significant historical events from their (relative) youth.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on May 18, 2015 22:29:43 GMT -5
Has my Jedi nemesis returned from the dark side to do battle again???
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 22:33:25 GMT -5
It's not only who makes the register but who (age wise) has been selected by the hiring agency. Exactly what i was getting at. OPM clearly does not care, but there is clearly a youth movement in SSA. Well relatively anyway.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 22:36:28 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm not touching that one. I don't think age really matters in their decision making and I don't ask folks their age because my mom taught me it was rude. Oh, Grasshopper, you have learned well!
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 18, 2015 22:38:56 GMT -5
My presumption is that SSA is acting totally properly in its hiring. They're staffed by diligent professional people so I see no reason not to make that presumption. Thus, in the absence of actual evidence to the contrary, I am not prepared to accuse SSA of violating federal law.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 22:42:24 GMT -5
Um...yeah. I was thinking, "because it violates federal law?" I'm just relating what I see. Obvi, no one is going to say that out loud, but is has certainly been an observable phenomenon. Please point me to all the olds being hired, I'll eat my words. I would love to be wrong, and remember, I'm not even 40 yet! Well, if there is a "pattern and practice" the EEOC might be very interested. But I think OPM and SSA are well aware of employment law.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 22:56:29 GMT -5
My presumption is that SSA is acting totally properly in its hiring, so in the absence of actual evidence to the contrary, I am not prepared to accuse SSA of violating federal law. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but statistically speaking, I think there is a sweet spot from 38-45 where you have the best chance of being hired. Whether that is a function of age, experience, or other factors, I don't know. There's a lot of factors associated with age that don't necessarily have anything to do with your age. E.g. one could argue that older applicants had a harder time with the online portion of the SJ test due to the relative proficiency with computers vs. younger applicants who have been raised online (to take a horribly stereotyped example). This would not be age discrimination per se, but does have the net effect of weeding out older applicants on the whole. I think one could also argue that there may be less older applicants on the whole, because at some point, folks just get comfortable doing what they do and living where they live, and don't want to move to Tupelo just to make 10-20K more than they already do.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 23:13:57 GMT -5
My presumption is that SSA is acting totally properly in its hiring, so in the absence of actual evidence to the contrary, I am not prepared to accuse SSA of violating federal law. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but statistically speaking, I think there is a sweet spot from 38-45 where you have the best chance of being hired. Whether that is a function of age, experience, or other factors, I don't know. There's a lot of factors associated with age that don't necessarily have anything to do with your age. E.g. one could argue that older applicants had a harder time with the online portion of the SJ test due to the relative proficiency with computers vs. younger applicants who have been raised online (to take a horribly stereotyped example). This would not be age discrimination per se, but does have the net effect of weeding out older applicants on the whole. I think one could also argue that there may be less older applicants on the whole, because at some point, folks just get comfortable doing what they do and living where they live, and don't want to move to Tupelo just to make 10-20K more than they already do. To what "statistics" are you referring?
|
|
|
Post by aljhopeful2 on May 18, 2015 23:20:45 GMT -5
Of course, THAT just smacks of an invitation for a poll on how old everyone is, doesn't it? My personal SWAG estimate is that the age range of those that made the register - with the requisite 7 years litigation experience - is about is about 37 to 65. My SWAG is that the majority are over 40, and I'll even venture to guess that the majority are over 45. I second this idea for a poll!
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 18, 2015 23:28:27 GMT -5
I am not accusing anyone of anything, but statistically speaking, I think there is a sweet spot from 38-45 where you have the best chance of being hired. Whether that is a function of age, experience, or other factors, I don't know. There's a lot of factors associated with age that don't necessarily have anything to do with your age. E.g. one could argue that older applicants had a harder time with the online portion of the SJ test due to the relative proficiency with computers vs. younger applicants who have been raised online (to take a horribly stereotyped example). This would not be age discrimination per se, but does have the net effect of weeding out older applicants on the whole. I think one could also argue that there may be less older applicants on the whole, because at some point, folks just get comfortable doing what they do and living where they live, and don't want to move to Tupelo just to make 10-20K more than they already do. To what "statistics" are you referring? For the life of me I can't find it now, but I have seen a chart that graphed the ages of SSA ALJs in 5 or 10 year blocks. The highest current group was like 50-60 (maybe 50-55). Factoring in the (very rough) estimate that most ALJs have been going at least 10 years, the extrapolation was that 45 ish was the average hiring age. This was a year or so ago, and the jist of the thing (or what I got out of it) being that the average age would move to 50 as the youngest groups (35-40 and 40-45 I think) were the fastest growing, and obviously the older folks were retiring or otherwise moving on. Please note that all of my posts *might* be slightly pessimistic and should not be read as some super insider gospel, as I am inclined to cynicism.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 18, 2015 23:42:54 GMT -5
The only numbers I can pull up on a quick internet search are comments by an OPM rep in a 2007 congressional hearing referring to "the most recent figures" (would have been from 2006 or earlier) made during the course of the hold-up for the Adzell suit. There is a reference to the fact that ALJ's tend to retire at 70 after 32 years of service, whereas the average federal employee retires at 59 after 28 years of experience.
I don't think these numbers have any bearing on the current, post-Adzell hiring, nor are they current or reliable enough to support an extrapolation that SSA illegally targets a specific age range for hiring.
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on May 19, 2015 0:09:03 GMT -5
The only numbers I can pull up on a quick internet search are comments by an OPM rep in a 2007 congressional hearing referring to "the most recent figures" (would have been from 2006 or earlier) made during the course of the hold-up for the Adzell suit. There is a reference to the fact that ALJ's tend to retire at 70 after 32 years of service, whereas the average federal employee retires at 59 after 28 years of experience. I don't think these numbers have any bearing on the current, post-Adzell hiring, nor are they current or reliable enough to support an extrapolation that SSA illegally targets a specific age range for hiring. This was literally a chart hanging in a SSA hearing office. It was current at the time, maybe reflecting 2012 or 2013 numbers. It was quite eye opening though. Again, nothing illegal going on, and I wouldn't tell anyone with 30-40 years of experience that they won't be hired or should be discouraged, but between that and what I have seen antecdotally, it seems like the average hiring age was early to mid 40's. Nothing nefarious, the average has to be somewhere, right? Those numbers you cite are interesting to me though, in the sense that the overall trend of ALJs lasting longer than your average Fed, which makes sense. When I started, being an ALJ was commonly referred to as "working retirement" for article III judges who had retired from the bench. Times have clearly changed, but the job is still a sweet gig relative to lots of other jobs. It also leads me to doubt that there will be a lot of ALJ hiring after this register is done. If most ALJs last 30 years, and there are only what 1600-2000 in the country, you've got 400 (at least) being hired off this register and another 400 (?) off the 09 register, well that's half your ALJ core right there. I think 09-13 registers are going to be the golden age of ALJ hiring, and probably won't be eclipsed until the current crop ages out and begins retiring en masse 2025-2030. One could argue that the growing population will require additional ALJs over the course of time, but I am not sure this is necessarily true (boomers have inflated the current numbers somewhat it seems) and good luck finding a lot of people (i.e. politicians) going to the mat to expand the base of essentially tenured federal employees making over 150K a year just so they can pay more disability claims (there are at least three political hand grenades in that sentence alone!). Of course, this pertains only to SSA, and it may be that other areas, like immigration, will expand in response to political winds and open up more ALJ jobs.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on May 19, 2015 6:10:32 GMT -5
I have nothing to add. But I will note that the term, "judginess," was originally mine (at least thru this incarnation of the Reg). Gaidin, you may pay royalties to my agent, JudgeRatty. Good to see you again, your judginess. How was the first day at your new salt mine? The first day was wonderful! This is a good group of people. I keep looking for the shackles, but I was told that there aren't any ... Amazing. Gaidin, you can lawyer up as much as you want, but it is still my word. Although if gary can get away with the TM "today," you've got a good advocate. But it is still mine. As to the current turn of the discussion, I recently celebrated my 29th birthday...again. Add that to your anecdotal data.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 6:45:26 GMT -5
Montyburns: "Please point me to all the olds being hired, I'll eat my words. I would love to be wrong, and remember, I'm not even 40 yet!" Enjoy those words those morning; you are pointing at one right here. Age 58 and proud on hiring date. And not alone. Now hurry along so you don't miss the school bus.
|
|
|
Post by mikeinthehills on May 19, 2015 6:51:55 GMT -5
Good to see you again, your judginess. How was the first day at your new salt mine? The first day was wonderful! This is a good group of people. I keep looking for the shackles, but I was told that there aren't any ... Amazing. Gaidin, you can lawyer up as much as you want, but it is still my word. Although if gary can get away with the TM "today," you've got a good advocate. But it is still mine. As to the current turn of the discussion, I recently celebrated my 29th birthday...again. Add that to your anecdotal data. And on my birthday back in February, anotherfed was nice enough to wish me a happy 29th too. And we did an age poll back at the first cert. Here's the link aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/2635/first-cert-ageDraw your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 19, 2015 6:59:50 GMT -5
Good to see you again, your judginess. How was the first day at your new salt mine? The first day was wonderful! This is a good group of people. I keep looking for the shackles, but I was told that there aren't any ... Amazing. Gaidin, you can lawyer up as much as you want, but it is still my word. Although if gary can get away with the TM "today," you've got a good advocate. But it is still mine. As to the current turn of the discussion, I recently celebrated my 29th birthday...again. Add that to your anecdotal data. I just graphed your age and I'm afraid I have bad news: you've flatlined.
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on May 19, 2015 7:07:50 GMT -5
As my board friends know my first day on this job was March 23. I am well over 40 and while I don't know the ages of those in my training class, I don't think many were under 40 and I think many were at least close to my age. SSA and OPM clearly didn't care how old (or young at heart haha) I am. If you really want to try for this job, don't let cynicism about age factoring in keep you from trying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 7:13:09 GMT -5
Montyburns:"I think one could also argue that there may be less older applicants on the whole, because at some point, folks just get comfortable doing what they do and living where they live, and don't want to move to Tupelo.."
monty, monty, monty......you are getting off to a rough start this morning. First kicking us "old guys" and now you lobbed a direct hit on Funkyodar. Ohhhhhh Monty...
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on May 19, 2015 7:19:29 GMT -5
Of course, THAT just smacks of an invitation for a poll on how old everyone is, doesn't it? My personal SWAG estimate is that the age range of those that made the register - with the requisite 7 years litigation experience - is about is about 37 to 65. My SWAG is that the majority are over 40, and I'll even venture to guess that the majority are over 45. Sorry, I'm not touching that one. I don't think age really matters in their decision making and I don't ask folks their age because my mom taught me it was rude. Well said Gaidin, but I am willing to venture luckylady2 is not that far off in her estimates of ages on this Register.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 19, 2015 7:32:17 GMT -5
The register will open again before 2019, no matter how this new wrinkle plays out. Hope your right, but I am not sure how anyone could predict such a hing with any confidence. Remember the decade with no opening of the application process? With so many young judges coming on, I don't see it happening until 2020's, at least. This was the make or break year or two when everyone retires. I think if you miss this boat and are over 40, the ship has sailed, IMH(and relatively uninformed)O. The ten years, or however long it was, was due to litigation. It was less than four years between the last large refresh and the new register. For all the ones coming in the door, there are a lot going out the other end. All the ones coming in are not that young. For you to say that the ship has sailed if you are over 40 is just not true. People well over 40 have been, and will be, hired. I don't know how old you are, and it doesn't matter. If you think you are out of the running due to age, that's up to you.
|
|