|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 10, 2015 22:30:03 GMT -5
"This is why we can't have nice things." That and Funky's attitude last spring/early summer! And thread is spelled t..h..r..e..a..d! I'm working hard on my spelling words today. tiger Whatever, I spelled the title of the thread wrong.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 10, 2015 22:54:01 GMT -5
Actually, ba, it looks like he may have made the 1st cert:
But it looks like he hasn't bothered to read to figure out the process, so he keeps complaining about "transparency." JGTBH - On the first cert, there were people who scored in the 80's and maybe higher. Many were 5- and 10-point vets. You are only eligible for the cities in the GAL you indicated on your initial application in March 2013. If your cities have not been the subject of any subsequent certs, it's because SSA (or any other agency) hasn't asked for hires there since the first cert. The OPM regs for hiring ALJs are in 5 CFR. (Gary can give you a more precise cite.) There's probably more transparency there than you may have found if you haven't read them. It includes consideration only among the top three scorers and vet preference rules. The FAQ section at the top of the General Board also explains most of the process very well, so if you haven't read it, you might not see much "transparency."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Sept 10, 2015 23:18:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Sept 10, 2015 23:20:43 GMT -5
"This is why we can't have nice things." That and Funky's attitude last spring/early summer! And thread is spelled t..h..r..e..a..d! I'm working hard on my spelling words today. tiger I agree, I am pretty sure this is all Funky's fault! That said, let me help you with thread, it is "thread," there are no periods between the letters! T.h.e.r.e a.r.e n.o.p.e.r.i.o.d.s b.e.t.w.e.e.n.t.h.e. l.e.t.t.e.r.s.!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2015 7:10:19 GMT -5
I have been reading this and the other thread with chin in one hand and index finger of other hand tepidly tapping up and down on mouse. What the one poster at the center of controversy, who continues to ask "why not me" appears to miss is quite obvious. Perhaps this may help to alleviate the ongoing tête-à-tête and result in some needed self-thinking and redacted keyboarding before again clicking "create post".
The base subject here is the United States Government and "why" they did or did not choose to hire a specific person. This is an open board. On the open internet. And let me emphasize again, this involves the United States Government. One should always realize and understand that every post on here is viewed by that government. Do not doubt that for one second. (BTW> Good morning, Bob!) When one desires a job placement it is very likely best for that applicant not to publicly post negative rants, whines, disparagements about the desired employer, other applicants, or how unfair/biased/idiotic that employer's hiring selection in hiring one other candidate over another and "why not me". That desired employer is reading your posts. And likely taking note. (BTW> More coffee, Bob?) And in generic terms, after reading such posts, that subtly grinning employer is very likely, to blackflag that name and never contact that poster for any reason, leaving the latter eternally hanging and twisting in the wind whispering "why not me" over and over ad infiniti, therafter moving on to more receptive applicants. (BTW> Going back to the phones now, Bob? Have a great day!)
|
|
|
Post by lawmom90 on Sept 11, 2015 7:24:47 GMT -5
I have been reading this and the other thread with chin in one hand and index finger of other hand tepidly tapping up and down on mouse. What the one poster at the center of controversy, who continues to ask "why not me" appears to miss is quite obvious. Perhaps this may help to alleviate the ongoing tête-à-tête and result in some needed self-thinking and redacted keyboarding before again clicking "create post".
The base subject here is the United States Government and "why" they did or did not choose to hire a specific person. This is an open board. On the open internet. And let me emphasize again, this involves the United States Government. One should always realize and understand that every post on here is viewed by that government. Do not doubt that for one second. (BTW> Good morning, Bob!) When one desires a job placement it is very likely best for that applicant not to publicly post negative rants, whines, disparagements about the desired employer, other applicants, or how unfair/biased/idiotic that employer's hiring selection in hiring one other candidate over another and "why not me". That desired employer is reading your posts. And likely taking note. (BTW> More coffee, Bob?) And in generic terms, after reading such posts, that subtly grinning employer is very likely, to blackflag that name and never contact that poster for any reason, leaving the latter eternally hanging and twisting in the wind whispering "why not me" over and over ad infiniti, therafter moving on to more receptive applicants. (BTW> Going back to the phones now, Bob? Have a great day!)
Over the span of my now 25 years in public service, I have developed a philosophy that works well for me. Never write anything in a letter, pleading or email that you wouldn't want on the front page of the (insert popular newspaper here)
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 11, 2015 9:22:22 GMT -5
I keep seeing references to the "rule of 3" in various threads on this site. At times, I felt like John the Baptist on this point, but recently read a post from Pixis that seems to confirm my belief. Since November 1,2010 there is no "rule of 3" in the hiring process used by agencies in the executive branch of government. This is pursuant to a memorandum issued by the president in 2010 and in compliance with the federal hiring regs. So while hiring through the judicial or legislative branches may still employ the rule, the executive branch does not. The selections are made from a pool of the best qualified candidates. The only provisions that still apply with regard to scores concern veterans. A vet in the pool cannot be passed over for someone with a lower score unless an exception applies. I found the memo by googling "presidential memo 2010 hiring." The OPM cite had a reference to that part of the federal regs that make memos such as these enforceable.
What this also means is there is no longer any "three strikes" provisions either. I found this in a hiring handbook issued by OPM. So if you make the best qualified pool, you will appear again and again on certificates of eligibles even if the agency has no intention of hiring you. To me, that would be the worst aspect of this process. It's like waves bashing a boat against the rocks again and again.
And as for the question about why ODAR or any other federal agency for that matter does not disclose why you were passed over, I have to ask what private employer does that? None that I am aware of. You get the same polite "thanks, but no thanks" response.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 11, 2015 9:43:53 GMT -5
JGTBH: You need to know that the agency does not care that you received a high score from OPM. It uses its own criteria in determining the quality of the candidate it wants to hire. Many candidates get hung up on the fact that they have a high score, but were not selected by the agency. It really matters not to the agency what your score is. Pixie. I really don't like to quote myself in a response, but I have had two PMs asking about this comment. It appears Lizdarcy understands, but many others may not. I didn't say scores are not important. What I said was, the agency does not use the OPM score to determine the quality of the candidate. It doesn't care what your score is, as it uses its own criteria. That doesn't mean the scores aren't important; they are extremely important, even at the agency level. But the agency doesn't use the score as a measure of the worth of the candidate. It has its own measure. That is my point. Pix. Yes and just to tack on further here: Labor, OMHA and SEC have all hired off the Register of late and the only way they are going to reach you is with a high score. Puzzle Palace, on the other hand, has historically been able to leap-frog over high scorers and select those whom they really want. However, with the new cert/city paradigm that ability if you will has been significantly curtailed. Nonetheless as a recent poster has pointed out he/she had a relatively low score and was able to get hired. So with a sufficent population and GAL variety, Puzzle Palace can apparently continue to three strike and "leap-frog" if you will. Yes, it would be nice to know why you weren't picked up. However, even if they had the manpower and procedural rules in place (which would never happen) they would also be opening themselves up to litigation. That is why OPM has and will be so secretive--they've been sued and sued and sued and they are tired of it. Puzzle Palace feels the same way. Historically there have been thousands that have languished on Registers. On this Board just go to the list of Members. The only consolation I can give you is that you are in very good company. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 11, 2015 9:56:48 GMT -5
PrivateAttorney said: Yes, it would be nice to know why you weren't picked up.
PA: The reason he wasn't picked up is that he hasn't yet made a cert! Hard to get picked up if the agency hasn't even had a chance to consider him. Pix.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Sept 11, 2015 11:21:46 GMT -5
I think some people confuse an effort to understand and explain a process with a defense of that process.......I also think that to the extent we can understand where we are in that process there is some tendency to identify with the process to some degree..... After all once you agree to play by certain rules you generally prefer that the rules remain the same until the final buzzer sounds
|
|
|
Post by minny on Sept 11, 2015 11:33:20 GMT -5
I keep seeing references to the "rule of 3" in various threads on this site. At times, I felt like John the Baptist on this point, but recently read a post from Pixis that seems to confirm my belief. Since November 1,2010 there is no "rule of 3" in the hiring process used by agencies in the executive branch of government. This is pursuant to a memorandum issued by the president in 2010 and in compliance with the federal hiring regs. So while hiring through the judicial or legislative branches may still employ the rule, the executive branch does not. The selections are made from a pool of the best qualified candidates. The only provisions that still apply with regard to scores concern veterans. A vet in the pool cannot be passed over for someone with a lower score unless an exception applies. I found the memo by googling "presidential memo 2010 hiring." The OPM cite had a reference to that part of the federal regs that make memos such as these enforceable. What this also means is there is no longer any "three strikes" provisions either. I found this in a hiring handbook issued by OPM. So if you make the best qualified pool, you will appear again and again on certificates of eligibles even if the agency has no intention of hiring you. To me, that would be the worst aspect of this process. It's like waves bashing a boat against the rocks again and again. And as for the question about why ODAR or any other federal agency for that matter does not disclose why you were passed over, I have to ask what private employer does that? None that I am aware of. You get the same polite "thanks, but no thanks" response. Not quite true. Category rating procedures are an option, not a requirement. Anytime you receive an actual score, rather than a category rating (e.g., A, B, C), you are under the old selection rules. I believe that all standing registers, like the ALJ register, are still old rules.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Sept 11, 2015 11:37:59 GMT -5
I feel compelled to add ( based on the efforts Gaidin has devoted to this Board ) that throwing a stink bomb into a thread constructed for purposes of positivity was a graceless act.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 11, 2015 12:30:31 GMT -5
I feel compelled to add ( based on the efforts Gaidin has devoted to this Board ) that throwing a stink bomb into a thread constructed for purposes of positivity was a graceless act. We aren't going to revive the consternation of the locked thread in this thread. I thought I made that clear in my comments before I locked it? Pix.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Sept 11, 2015 13:39:29 GMT -5
PrivateAttorney said: Yes, it would be nice to know why you weren't picked up.
PA: The reason he wasn't picked up is that he hasn't yet made a cert! Hard to get picked up if the agency hasn't even had a chance to consider him. Pix. Pix - we actually don't know - and from one of his early posts, it looks like he might have made the 1st cert. Hard to say. But his posts also seem to indicate a lack of basic understanding of the process whether he's made a cert or not.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 11, 2015 13:45:29 GMT -5
Yes, I later saw in a post that he may have made the first cert, but I was too lazy to go back and correct it. Thanks for correcting it for me. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Sept 11, 2015 17:22:16 GMT -5
I for one found the original post in this thread outstanding. Having not yet gotten to whatever other thread is making people jumpy, I just took it at face value.
I really had not thought back to "regular" hiring processes. I know as a member of a hiring committee, we never once told the truth to an applicant who sought a rationale for their failure to be chosen. We viewed the request itself as weird and vaguely offensive, and we always said things like, "lots of people were qualified, and we had to go with specific experience," or, "during the interviews we found a need for a spcific skillset in this position that was better respresented in another applicant." We never said, "you acted really weird and we thought maybe you were crying a little," or, "your body language was so off-putting that we couldn't consider your merits at all." It's not the potential employer's job to train a person in interviewing.
Hmm. I have no idea whose job it is. Parents? Maybe it is a potential employer's job. But no one told me at the time.
But in any case, seeing so much of the governmental transparency in other things has warped my sense of ... everything, I guess. The original post in this thread was a real paradigm-shifter for me on accepting (not understanding, agreeing with, or "defending") the process. We had no scores on the bar exams when I took them - it was pass or fail. If you failed, you might only fail one section, so you'd kind of have an idea - and there was a multi-state score for purposes of transferring your scores.
And in most jobs, you don't know who or whether or when they actually hired. You know, we have TOO MUCH information. I'll be darned. Thanks Gaidan.
Now I have to go read that allegedly locked 'tread' with all the arguing in it.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Sept 11, 2015 17:48:02 GMT -5
I for one found the original post in this thread outstanding. Having not yet gotten to whatever other thread is making people jumpy, I just took it at face value. I really had not thought back to "regular" hiring processes. I know as a member of a hiring committee, we never once told the truth to an applicant who sought a rationale for their failure to be chosen. We viewed the request itself as weird and vaguely offensive, and we always said things like, "lots of people were qualified, and we had to go with specific experience," or, "during the interviews we found a need for a spcific skillset in this position that was better respresented in another applicant." We never said, "you acted really weird and we thought maybe you were crying a little," or, "your body language was so off-putting that we couldn't consider your merits at all." It's not the potential employer's job to train a person in interviewing. Hmm. I have no idea whose job it is. Parents? Maybe it is a potential employer's job. But no one told me at the time. But in any case, seeing so much of the governmental transparency in other things has warped my sense of ... everything, I guess. The original post in this thread was a real paradigm-shifter for me on accepting (not understanding, agreeing with, or "defending") the process. We had no scores on the bar exams when I took them - it was pass or fail. If you failed, you might only fail one section, so you'd kind of have an idea - and there was a multi-state score for purposes of transferring your scores. And in most jobs, you don't know who or whether or when they actually hired. You know, we have TOO MUCH information. I'll be darned. Thanks Gaidan. Now I have to go read that allegedly locked 'tread' with all the arguing in it. Actually ..my son was interviewing recently and mentioned that he emailed an interviewer on a job he did not get to ask about why he wasn t selected ..... I thought it was pretty bizarre but he says its more common nowadays.... but its apparently a last chance suck up opp as much as it is any real chance of getting genuine feedback... like "such a great place to work how might I improve my compatibility with your company "
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 11, 2015 18:43:12 GMT -5
I for one found the original post in this thread outstanding. Having not yet gotten to whatever other thread is making people jumpy, I just took it at face value. I really had not thought back to "regular" hiring processes. I know as a member of a hiring committee, we never once told the truth to an applicant who sought a rationale for their failure to be chosen. We viewed the request itself as weird and vaguely offensive, and we always said things like, "lots of people were qualified, and we had to go with specific experience," or, "during the interviews we found a need for a spcific skillset in this position that was better respresented in another applicant." We never said, "you acted really weird and we thought maybe you were crying a little," or, "your body language was so off-putting that we couldn't consider your merits at all." It's not the potential employer's job to train a person in interviewing. Hmm. I have no idea whose job it is. Parents? Maybe it is a potential employer's job. But no one told me at the time. But in any case, seeing so much of the governmental transparency in other things has warped my sense of ... everything, I guess. The original post in this thread was a real paradigm-shifter for me on accepting (not understanding, agreeing with, or "defending") the process. We had no scores on the bar exams when I took them - it was pass or fail. If you failed, you might only fail one section, so you'd kind of have an idea - and there was a multi-state score for purposes of transferring your scores. And in most jobs, you don't know who or whether or when they actually hired. You know, we have TOO MUCH information. I'll be darned. Thanks Gaidan. Now I have to go read that allegedly locked 'tread' with all the arguing in it. Actually ..my son was interviewing recently and mentioned that he emailed an interviewer on a job he did not get to ask about why he wasn t selected ..... I thought it was pretty bizarre but he says its more common nowadays.... but its apparently a last chance suck up opp as much as it is any real chance of getting genuine feedback... like "such a great place to work how might I improve my compatibility with your company " Maybe it is generational because neither I or Mrs. G would have ever thought to do it. Prop makes me wonder what I would have said to some foljs. If asked.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Sept 11, 2015 21:33:41 GMT -5
I served on our office's hiring committee for several years. Our office prohibited us from having any further contact with interviewees after the interview was concluded. Hiring committee members frequently received e-mails from unsuccessful applicants politely asking us to share constructive criticism so that they could improve their interview skills. I dutifully forwarded those e-mails to HR and deleted them without responding.
There have been times when I wish I could have said, "you did great in your interview and we'd be lucky to have you working here, but you were edged out by another candidate with specific experience in litigating X types of cases." Of course, there were also the times when I wanted to say, "you spent the whole hour talking about your volunteer work with the Possum Rescue, which caused the 'Danger, Will Robinson' alarm to echo in my head." Sometimes candidates look great on paper - top of their law school class, years of litigation experience, and stellar references - but after spending an hour with them in an interview, the only possible ratings they could earn are "no," "hell no," or "go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all full up around here."
I think that's how I view the OPM vs agency interview process here: the OPM screening/testing makes you eligible for an interview, but the agency interview is where your future employer determines if you're going to fit in at their agency or in that office. Are you going to play well with others? Or are the support staff going to cry/go on strike/call in sick because you're a mean SOB? Hiring the smartest person in the world to work in my office does me no good if I have to spend time every day dealing with the fallout from Smartie's obstreperous personality.
Of course, that's just me - someone who just last week managed to live through the LBMT/WD and SI but won't know for months whether I achieved the minimum score to earn an NOR....much less a spot on any register.....and not anywhere close to an agency interview. At best, a call from Bob / Mellinda is probably two years off for me, if ever. So please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
|
|
|
Post by keepsake on Sept 11, 2015 21:45:50 GMT -5
Same with me in terms of what feedback we were allowed to give attorneys coming through the doors interviewing for positions. Often did get emails following the interview - but mostly of the sort - thank you for the time, etc. - not specifically asking for feedback. Unfortunately for these folks emailing, my evaluation had almost always already been given to HR and these emails were not really relevant other than showing a certain expected sense of professionalism after having gotten the interview. In fact, a lot of CYA going on in terms of the interview itself in terms of what you were supposed to say and more importantly perhaps what not to say.
Hope the testing went well for you Pumpkin btw.
|
|