|
|
Post by neufenland on Jul 12, 2022 13:53:29 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same line, but if SSA.gov’s disposition data shows an ALJ with very few dispositions in FY 22 when compared to colleagues (and I mean significantly fewer, like 2 or 3 total), is it implausible to assume that ALJ has retired? I mean, there could be other reasons, of course, but might it not show where a vacancy is potentially occurring?
Yes, I understand there’s no way to know this and it requires a fair bit of gamesmanship, but it might show where a need is more pressing, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Jul 12, 2022 14:21:23 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same line, but if SSA.gov’s disposition data shows an ALJ with very few dispositions in FY 22 when compared to colleagues (and I mean significantly fewer, like 2 or 3 total), is it implausible to assume that ALJ has retired? I mean, there could be other reasons, of course, but might it not show where a vacancy is potentially occurring? Yes, I understand there’s no way to know this and it requires a fair bit of gamesmanship, but it might show where a need is more pressing, no? This is a tantalizing thought. Transfers are a potential complication though. How do you exclude the possibility that one of the other ALJs is the retired ALJ's replacement? I guess the replacement ALJ would have some dispositions from a different office, so that would be a clue. I suppose you could also compare the number of ALJs currently in the office with historic numbers for that office. The earlier datasets are still available. |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jul 12, 2022 14:21:42 GMT -5
I'm also interested in whether this is the only shot for those with interviews or if their names will be put back in the hiring pool next time around. Yeah, I have the same question. My guess is that if a candidate seems desirable and "ALJ worthy" when all is said and done, but he or she isn't placed in this round because superior candidates were available, then the agency would keep that candidate in the mix for future rounds. But if a candidate looks bad on closer inspection, his/her application goes in the metaphorical 'reject' pile and SSA doesn't contact him/her again in future rounds. So I think if you have a solid showing in this round, you would remain in the mix even if not hired. Just a guess. I don't know why they would want to do more than one interview. I suspect that it will be much like it was in the past where you get an interview and if you're not hired, you don't know if you are in the reject pile or still in consideration in future hiring rounds. |
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Jul 13, 2022 9:15:52 GMT -5
Somewhat on the same line, but if SSA.gov’s disposition data shows an ALJ with very few dispositions in FY 22 when compared to colleagues (and I mean significantly fewer, like 2 or 3 total), is it implausible to assume that ALJ has retired? I mean, there could be other reasons, of course, but might it not show where a vacancy is potentially occurring? Yes, I understand there’s no way to know this and it requires a fair bit of gamesmanship, but it might show where a need is more pressing, no? This is a tantalizing thought. Transfers are a potential complication though. How do you exclude the possibility that one of the other ALJs is the retired ALJ's replacement? I guess the replacement ALJ would have some dispositions from a different office, so that would be a clue. I suppose you could also compare the number of ALJs currently in the office with historic numbers for that office. The earlier datasets are still available. More on this. I looked at the publicly available ALJ disposition data on SSA.gov for this year, 2021, 2020, and 2019 just to look for changes in the number of ALJs per hearing office for the locations on my GAL. Not surprisingly, almost all of the offices had fewer ALJs than in 2019. So this was not very helpful for spotting where hiring might occur, although it did make me think that my preferred location might have space for additional ALJs. I also think the March 2022 transfer list might have some predictive value. If you check that list against the ALJ disposition data, you can maybe tease out which of the HOs have not received new ALJs yet via transfer. In general, though, this type of sleuthing feels a bit like playing solitaire with half a deck. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jul 13, 2022 13:56:45 GMT -5
This is a tantalizing thought. Transfers are a potential complication though. How do you exclude the possibility that one of the other ALJs is the retired ALJ's replacement? I guess the replacement ALJ would have some dispositions from a different office, so that would be a clue. I suppose you could also compare the number of ALJs currently in the office with historic numbers for that office. The earlier datasets are still available. More on this. I looked at the publicly available ALJ disposition data on SSA.gov for this year, 2021, 2020, and 2019 just to look for changes in the number of ALJs per hearing office for the locations on my GAL. Not surprisingly, almost all of the offices had fewer ALJs than in 2019. So this was not very helpful for spotting where hiring might occur, although it did make me think that my preferred location might have space for additional ALJs. I also think the March 2022 transfer list might have some predictive value. If you check that list against the ALJ disposition data, you can maybe tease out which of the HOs have not received new ALJs yet via transfer. In general, though, this type of sleuthing feels a bit like playing solitaire with half a deck. this publicly released number is likely skewed by ALJs who were “loaned” from one office to another and did remote hearings in 2019-20. I know my office was shown to have one more ALJ than actually present because of a judge from a different city who took cases in our office. That judge counted for both offices. I don’t remember when she left our office but it’s possible that some ALJs are counting in multiple cities. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 13, 2024 13:49:05 GMT -5
It appears that everyone is too timid to post In this, the Application Manager thread. Or the younger board members have referred to it as their "Status Check."
So, I will get the ball rolling and make the first post in this thread in two years.
This is the only thread that a status may be mentioned, and it is the only thread in which the word "status" may be used. Failure to follow these instructions may result in disciplinary action. I ran out of patience with these infractions years ago. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 13, 2024 14:57:42 GMT -5
I had the same thought, although I was also thinking there would not be quite the same rush to report having a See Detsils status. I'm allowing myself to be cautiously optimistic. This is true. Their rush would be more to the situational bourbon. It's also possible OPM is doing the "Completes" first and will follow up with the "See details" afterward. With this post I am hoping to bring this thread back to the top of the board. Pixie |
|
