|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 9, 2016 13:00:50 GMT -5
Well--I got the call with a provisional offer dependent on the security clearance from the Nov 2015 posting. Many thanks to the board members and particularly ALJWatch and Jafo for the specific Intel on IJ positions! It has been invaluable! This is fantastic news breen!
Will you keep your ALJ application active and go to DC for the WD/LBMT/SI? I hope you do, as it's always good to keep your options open.
Congrats again.
|
|
|
|
Post by breen68 on Sept 9, 2016 13:14:15 GMT -5
Well--I got the call with a provisional offer dependent on the security clearance from the Nov 2015 posting. Many thanks to the board members and particularly ALJWatch and Jafo for the specific Intel on IJ positions! It has been invaluable! This is fantastic news breen!
Will you keep your ALJ application active and go to DC for the WD/LBMT/SI? I hope you do, as it's always good to keep your options open.
Congrats again.
Thank you!
I applied for both the IJ and ALJ positions. I agree it is best to keep options open. I do believe the IJ position is better suited to my talents and interests and I'm very excited for the opportunity. However, I currently have my WD/LBMT/SI scheduled for the last available week in March. I suppose it will ultimately depend on how fast the security clearance process takes and whether the election derails or delays any of the IJ hiring.
|
|
|
|
Post by tigger on Sept 9, 2016 15:13:30 GMT -5
Hey breen68, can you tell us if you were provisionally offered your top pick of the 6 cities you applied for?
|
|
|
|
Post by jafo on Sept 9, 2016 15:28:14 GMT -5
Well--I got the call with a provisional offer dependent on the security clearance from the Nov 2015 posting. Many thanks to the board members and particularly ALJWatch and Jafo for the specific Intel on IJ positions! It has been invaluable! Congrats and thanks for the kind words. Did they give you any indication of what class you may be attending? Also, did you get your first choice or a city down your location preference list? There are classes planned before the end of the year but unless your background check is done in a record, record time it looks like your investiture will be in calendar year 2017. If nothing else, it allows more time for your success to sink in before you are behind the bench under the world's microscope. Have one on me this weekend- you've earned it! |
|
|
|
Post by breen68 on Sept 9, 2016 15:52:28 GMT -5
Well--I got the call with a provisional offer dependent on the security clearance from the Nov 2015 posting. Many thanks to the board members and particularly ALJWatch and Jafo for the specific Intel on IJ positions! It has been invaluable! Congrats and thanks for the kind words. Did they give you any indication of what class you may be attending? Also, did you get your first choice or a city down your location preference list? There are classes planned before the end of the year but unless your background check is done in a record, record time it looks like your investiture will be in calendar year 2017. If nothing else, it allows more time for your success to sink in before you are behind the bench under the world's microscope. Have one on me this weekend- you've earned it! Thanks Jafo. I did not receive my first choice location. However, I was prepared to immediately accept any of the 6 cities where I submitted an application. I was informed that my first choice currently did not currently have any available office space. I'm still thrilled to receive the offer even if it wasn't my first choice. Also, when I received the call, it was mentioned that it may take 6-9 months for a security clearance. When I participated in my 2nd interview, they mentioned 4-6 months for the clearance process. So, we shall see, but in any scenario I believe I'm looking at next year sometime. |
|
|
|
Post by 3rdxacharm on Sept 10, 2016 13:11:32 GMT -5
Were your calls all going to the same telephone number? (That is if you have more than one office number) And has anyone received a call after normal business hours?
|
|
|
|
Post by slainte on Sept 10, 2016 15:10:24 GMT -5
Congrats breen!
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Sept 11, 2016 15:04:45 GMT -5
Breen--All the best with the clearance, & good luck.
As there was a question about whether they take from outside DOJ/ICE/immigration what generally was your employment background in the past 5 years or so? And if you ran into others during your interviews what were their backgrounds?
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Sept 15, 2016 12:36:09 GMT -5
Wow, this is fascinating reading. Anybody know where she went to? OMHA? SSA? Thanks for posting papajudge. Interesting indeed. She would not fit in well at OMHA, but evidently she had trouble fitting in at EOIR, too. Evidently, you don't know who or what you are talking about. What EOIR didn't comment on is that they misled her by telling her that she could telework, only to tell her that is for emergencies only after she was appointed. Judge Paddack, in addition to being a fine ALJ is also a mother who takes both responsibilities very seriously. And when it came to choosing between EOIR and seeing her school-age children, the choice was obvious. Since she left, two people who were finalists for her job have withdrawn their applications based on discovering the same misrepresentation. So evidently, you shouldn't make assumptions. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Sept 15, 2016 13:28:14 GMT -5
Interesting indeed. She would not fit in well at OMHA, but evidently she had trouble fitting in at EOIR, too. Evidently, you don't know who or what you are talking about. What EOIR didn't comment on is that they misled her by telling her that she could telework, only to tell her that is for emergencies only after she was appointed. Judge Paddack, in addition to being a fine ALJ is also a mother who takes both responsibilities very seriously. And when it came to choosing between EOIR and seeing her children, the choice was obvious. Since she left, two people who were finalists for her job have withdrawn their applications based on discovering the same misrepresentation. So evidently, you shouldn't make assumptions. Well "ba" here is the problem with your logic. Ms. Paddack may indeed take her responsibilities as a parent (possibly in addition to being an ALJ) seriously, but the change in telework abilities shouldn't have stopped her from performing her duties, unless her home was an extreme distance from her place of work making the drive to work or back home too difficult. (However, if this was the case she should have moved closer to her place of work.) Telework is not to be used to allow an employee to save on daycare costs and perform their own daycare or baby-sitting activities for their children, rather than performing their official work duties. Telework wasn't created, so you can watch your children, your pet, your disabled spouse or anybody else. You should be performing the same amount of work at home while teleworking as you are capable of performing in the office, not taking extended breaks to spend time with your children as a parent. If your intent is to parent, then take leave or resign from your work position (as she supposedly did). Otherwise, spend time with your children on the weekend and during the early mornings or evenings, like everyone else who works does with family. If you cannot handle the position, then do what she did. Do not state, as you clearly did, she chose her children over EOIR because you may be misstating the facts here. The real reason she left EOIR may clearly be she disliked their misstatement to her of facts regarding her likely working conditions, not that she took her parenting job just as seriously as her actual working job. We have way too many people who think that their employment gives them entitlements. Teleworking, like having a drivers' license and driving, is a privilege and not a right. Too many people "want their cake and eat it, too. Most people who are taking advantage of teleworking are actually producing more work at a higher quality at home, than when at work. They are not taking time out to parent or oversee the actions of others in their home, in addition to actually working. Those that are doing parenting activities, in addition to doing their paid working activities, are purely taking advantage of their ability to telework and are cheating their employers. Those with the "wow, look at that, I just saved a ton on money on daycare" shouldn't be teleworking in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Sept 15, 2016 13:37:31 GMT -5
Evidently, you don't know who or what you are talking about. What EOIR didn't comment on is that they misled her by telling her that she could telework, only to tell her that is for emergencies only after she was appointed. Judge Paddack, in addition to being a fine ALJ is also a mother who takes both responsibilities very seriously. And when it came to choosing between EOIR and seeing her children, the choice was obvious. Since she left, two people who were finalists for her job have withdrawn their applications based on discovering the same misrepresentation. So evidently, you shouldn't make assumptions. Well "ba" here is the problem with your logic. Ms. Paddack may indeed take her responsibilities as a parent (possibly in addition to being an ALJ) seriously, but the change in telework abilities shouldn't have stopped her from performing her duties, unless her home was an extreme distance from her place of work making the drive to work or back home too difficult. (However, if this was the case she should have moved closer to her place of work.) Telework is not to be used to allow an employee to save on daycare costs and perform their own daycare or baby-sitting activities for their children, rather than performing their official work duties. Telework wasn't created, so you can watch your children, your pet, your disabled spouse or anybody else. You should be performing the same amount of work at home while teleworking as you are capable of performing in the office, not taking extended breaks to spend time with your children as a parent. If your intent is to parent, then take leave or resign from your work position (as she supposedly did). Otherwise, spend time with your children on the weekend and during the early mornings or evenings, like everyone else who works does with family. If you cannot handle the position, then do what she did. Do not state, as you clearly did, she chose her children over EOIR because you may be misstating the facts here. The real reason she left EOIR may clearly be she disliked their misstatement to her of facts regarding her likely working conditions, not that she took her parenting job just as seriously as her actual working job. We have way too many people who think that their employment gives them entitlements. Teleworking, like having a drivers' license and driving, is a privilege and not a right. Too many people "want their cake and eat it, too. Most people who are taking advantage of teleworking are actually producing more work at a higher quality at home, than when at work. They are not taking time out to parent or oversee the actions of others in their home, in addition to actually working. Those that are doing parenting activities, in addition to doing their paid working activities, are purely taking advantage of their ability to telework and are cheating their employers. Those with the "wow, look at that, I just saved a ton on money on daycare" shouldn't be teleworking in the first place. My problem isn't a question of logic. My problem is that you decided to cast aspersions on someone you know nothing of in a situation you know nothing about, implying that an ALJ has difficulty getting along with others based on your profound speculation. And your response demonstrates you making the same erroneous assumptions. The issue wasn't daycare, despite your assumption. The issue was being told you didn't need to uproot your family and being sold one bill of goods when offered a position only to get a different one when you received the appointment. Maybe that's something you would accept at OHMA, but I think you have some real moxie trashing someone who decides otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 15, 2016 13:51:38 GMT -5
Evidently, you don't know who or what you are talking about. What EOIR didn't comment on is that they misled her by telling her that she could telework, only to tell her that is for emergencies only after she was appointed. Judge Paddack, in addition to being a fine ALJ is also a mother who takes both responsibilities very seriously. And when it came to choosing between EOIR and seeing her children, the choice was obvious. Since she left, two people who were finalists for her job have withdrawn their applications based on discovering the same misrepresentation. So evidently, you shouldn't make assumptions. Well "ba" here is the problem with your logic. Ms. Paddack may indeed take her responsibilities as a parent (possibly in addition to being an ALJ) seriously, but the change in telework abilities shouldn't have stopped her from performing her duties, unless her home was an extreme distance from her place of work making the drive to work or back home too difficult. (However, if this was the case she should have moved closer to her place of work.) Telework is not to be used to allow an employee to save on daycare costs and perform their own daycare or baby-sitting activities for their children, rather than performing their official work duties. Telework wasn't created, so you can watch your children, your pet, your disabled spouse or anybody else. You should be performing the same amount of work at home while teleworking as you are capable of performing in the office, not taking extended breaks to spend time with your children as a parent. If your intent is to parent, then take leave or resign from your work position (as she supposedly did). Otherwise, spend time with your children on the weekend and during the early mornings or evenings, like everyone else who works does with family. If you cannot handle the position, then do what she did. Do not state, as you clearly did, she chose her children over EOIR because you may be misstating the facts here. The real reason she left EOIR may clearly be she disliked their misstatement to her of facts regarding her likely working conditions, not that she took her parenting job just as seriously as her actual working job. We have way too many people who think that their employment gives them entitlements. Teleworking, like having a drivers' license and driving, is a privilege and not a right. Too many people "want their cake and eat it, too. Most people who are taking advantage of teleworking are actually producing more work at a higher quality at home, than when at work. They are not taking time out to parent or oversee the actions of others in their home, in addition to actually working. Those that are doing parenting activities, in addition to doing their paid working activities, are purely taking advantage of their ability to telework and are cheating their employers. Those with the "wow, look at that, I just saved a ton on money on daycare" shouldn't be teleworking in the first place. MPD I like you man but you're talking out you @$$ here and also being pretty dismissive of another judge based upon an article and a no comment. Particularly, when another judge says they know the situation and it's not what you say it is. If I was told I could telework meaning live in state A during the hiring process and was then told upon hiring that they didn't really mean that and I would have to relocate to state B to keep the job. That isn't me being a poor team player or not prioritizing a job. That means the fundamental terms of employment have been changed and I am well within my rights to say thanks but no thanks. IIRC you had trimmed your GAL over time. What if they offered you the job in X but then said after you had already started doing the job "we really can't let you work in X. You need to go work in Y." Would you be a bad employee or a poor fit for another agency if you said "No."? |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 15, 2016 14:01:54 GMT -5
This is off the rails! The ALJ just wanted what she was promised! She didn't need daycare (for her older kids who she just wants to SEE on more than an occasional basis) and that is over the top MPD! Geez man, the details are pretty clear to people who KNOW her. Let it go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 15, 2016 14:31:07 GMT -5
Yes, time to let it go, as J.Ratty said above. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Sept 15, 2016 14:51:18 GMT -5
This is off the rails! The ALJ just wanted what she was promised! She didn't need daycare (for her older kids who she just wants to SEE on more than an occasional basis) and that is over the top MPD! Geez man, the details are pretty clear to people who KNOW her. Let it go. sorry pixie I just have to make one more comment. Telework is not to take the place of daycare. Believe you me I put in long days teleworking. What it allows me to do is take time off the clock to run to school to volunteer- to be home when kids get home etc. my kids are older. I am freeing up the 2 to 4 hours of getting ready for work and commuting and giving that time back to myself and my family. I am a happier less stressed and more productive employee for it. |
|
|
|
Post by jafo on Sept 15, 2016 15:01:17 GMT -5
[Original and quoted material deleted]
I said to let it go. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 15, 2016 15:33:01 GMT -5
Let's move on to something else. This thread not only has wandered off track, which is not unusual after this many pages, but it has turned vituperative as well. The day is too pretty to be snapping at each other. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Sept 16, 2016 12:09:15 GMT -5
a friend recently got the nod as an IJ. He was not with DOJ but with DOHS
However he did have a clearance plus military preference. Makes me think that perhaps one reason for the preference for hiring from within is to keep costs down on any clearances they need to get? When I catch up with him I'll pass on any thoughts he has.
Good luck to all on the journey.
On the off topic issue--maybe move that to the ALJ life section as some of the discussion is valuable for those who think their situation is such that they will need the telecommuting option.
|
|
dvsw
Full Member
Posts: 63 
|
Post by dvsw on Sept 17, 2016 12:34:01 GMT -5
Back to topic... Does anyone know how long the "second interview" processing (for Nov 2015 applicants) will or may last? Since they are looking to fill over 300 IJs this fiscal, I believe, I'm assuming it may take quite some time to get through the second round as it involves not just chief IJs but also other DOJ personnel to sit on the panel. Put another way, those who haven't received a call for a 2d interview by ....(x).. should probably stop hoping. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljwatch on Sept 18, 2016 19:10:16 GMT -5
I don't know, but the last time around they continued to conduct second interviews for candidates who had applied in Aug 2014 even after the new ad had gone out for IJs in Nov 2015. [essentially they seemed to have treated them as two separate hiring tracks]. So, for those who have had a first interview from the Nov 2015 ad, I don't think there is any reason to give up hoping yet that you might get a second interview. Good luck to all still waiting!
|
|
