|
Post by funkyodar on May 12, 2016 11:51:05 GMT -5
The fundamental difference between Ole Perplexing Madness and S.S.A. ("We're A.S.S.backwards"), in my opinion, is the view of the "register". It creates all the hiring problems.
OPM takes the view that everyone on the register has been rigorously tested and is extremely qualified to be an "ALJ". Thus, subject to gal preferences, all on the register are basically plug and play and having 600 on the list is plenty if hiring is expected to be half that.
SSA basically views the "register" like a car dealership. Sure, you have 600 models. But only a small percentage of those models have the gas mileage, seating capacity, cargo capacity etc to meet SSA needs. While everyone on the list is qualified to be an "ALJ," the agency "fit interview" test drive shows much fewer have what they want in an "SSA ALJ."
To me, today's testimony essentially shows irreconcilable differences with neither side granting ground and the threat of congressional mediation possibly causing more problems than it fixes.
I dunno what the answer is short of divorcing SSA ALJ hiring from OPM. No one would argue SSA doesn't have the right, within applicable legal constrictions, to hire who it wants. As expansive as hiring rules are in the federal government, there is nothing that entitles anyone to the the job nor mandates an agency hire someone they know is a bad fit or incapable of doing the work.
If a divorce is the outcome and SSA is ultimately placed in power of its own, independent selection process, I fear that road eventually leads to "Hearing Officers" and all the negatives that entails.
Thus, while "it's a great time to be on the register," particularly if you have whatever inarticulated and likely inane qualities SSA seeks, it is also abundantly clear we are on the precipice of a a massive sea change in regard to the position itself. Good luck all interviewing and certed. 2016 may be the last hurrah of alj hiring as we know. For 2017 and beyond, beware, past that point there may well be monsters.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on May 12, 2016 11:52:40 GMT -5
I'd also be interested in a comparison of FY 2016 hiring with FY 2016 attrition. Gary:
According to OPM, 28 ALJ separations thus far in FY 16.
|
|
|
Post by advocatusdiaboli on May 12, 2016 11:56:30 GMT -5
Holy Guacamole Batman! That means 45% of the people on these certs could be hired. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but surely someone has informed DCDAR Gruber that she can request a supplemental certificate if she finds the 261 names an insufficient number? Odd that fact did not make it into her testimony.
|
|
|
Post by upperwolfjaw on May 12, 2016 12:07:54 GMT -5
Today's testimony (mainly from Deputy Commissioner Gruber):
1506 current SSA ALJs "at last count"
"current hiring plan" for total goal of 1900 SSA ALJs
"250 this year, 250 next year, 250 the following year"
"slightly adjusted our expectation for this year ... I'm thinking 225 to 250"
"more than 5,500 applications" from latest announcement
"approximately half of applicants fall out" and "about half fall out"
after some "fall out" ... "might be ... 2500"
"we will not have access to those names" (new applicants) until "about spring of 2017"
81 locations with current certs, 2-8 vacancies exist per location
75 names on each cert
5800 total names on current certs (not unique)
260 unique names on current certs (260 figure repeated several times)
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on May 12, 2016 12:19:34 GMT -5
This is frustrating to me as an individual that cut on the WD last time.
My understanding (or misunderstanding) is that prior OPM announcements to the "new" online+ method the only thing the WD or SI could do was make you have a lower NOR score, not cut you. If they had done the same for this new method just think how many more qualified folks would be available for hire (qualified as in able to perform the job of ALJ not OPMs arbitrary WD/SI pass).
Go back and look at the number of people with years of writing experience that were flabergasted by being cut at the WD. I can understand having a cut off but really believe they shot themselves in the foot by sitting it to high.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 12, 2016 12:24:37 GMT -5
Holy Guacamole Batman! That means 45% of the people on these certs could be hired. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but surely someone has informed DCDAR Gruber that she can request a supplemental certificate if she finds the 261 names an insufficient number? Odd that fact did not make it into her testimony. They really can't. They have been provided with every person who would be reachable under any hiring scenario.
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 12, 2016 12:26:23 GMT -5
The fundamental difference between Ole Perplexing Madness and S.S.A. ("We're A.S.S.backwards"), in my opinion, is the view of the "register". It creates all the hiring problems. OPM takes the view that everyone on the register has been rigorously tested and is extremely qualified to be an "ALJ". Thus, subject to gal preferences, all on the register are basically plug and play and having 600 on the list is plenty if hiring is expected to be half that. SSA basically views the "register" like a car dealership. Sure, you have 600 models. But only a small percentage of those models have the gas mileage, seating capacity, cargo capacity etc to meet SSA needs. While everyone on the list is qualified to be an "ALJ," the agency "fit interview" test drive shows much fewer have what they want in an "SSA ALJ." To me, today's testimony essentially shows irreconcilable differences with neither side granting ground and the threat of congressional mediation possibly causing more problems than it fixes. I dunno what the answer is short of divorcing SSA ALJ hiring from OPM. No one would argue SSA doesn't have the right, within applicable legal constrictions, to hire who it wants. As expansive as hiring rules are in the federal government, there is nothing that entitles anyone to the the job nor mandates an agency hire someone they know is a bad fit or incapable of doing the work. If a divorce is the outcome and SSA is ultimately placed in power of its own, independent selection process, I fear that road eventually leads to "Hearing Officers" and all the negatives that entails. Thus, while "it's a great time to be on the register," particularly if you have whatever inarticulated and likely inane qualities SSA seeks, it is also abundantly clear we are on the precipice of a a massive sea change in regard to the position itself. Good luck all interviewing and certed. 2016 may be the last hurrah of alj hiring as we know. For 2017 and beyond, beware, past that point there may well be monsters. I'll challenge the unchallengeable premise. SSA can't hire whomever it wants. When it comes to ALJs, it can only hire whomever it wants from the cert. And that divorce can't happen without an Act of Congress, because Title 5 specifically vests the selection process with OPM. And because there are other agencies and because SSA ALJs are 3105 ALJs under the APA who are subject to reappointed with other agencies, that isn't something Congress will change. And I really didn't get the sense from that hearing that there is a big bipartisan move towards eliminating ALJs for SSA determinations. In fact, it seemed pretty much like a bipartisan desire to retain them.
|
|
|
Post by gary on May 12, 2016 12:26:50 GMT -5
I'd also be interested in a comparison of FY 2016 hiring with FY 2016 attrition. Gary:
According to OPM, 28 ALJ separations thus far in FY 16.
Thanks for the info.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulop on May 12, 2016 12:26:53 GMT -5
This is frustrating to me as an individual that cut on the WD last time. My understanding (or misunderstanding) is that prior OPM announcements to the "new" online+ method the only thing the WD or SI could do was make you have a lower NOR score, not cut you. If they had done the same for this new method just think how many more qualified folks would be available for hire (qualified as in able to perform the job of ALJ not OPMs arbitrary WD/SI pass). Go back and look at the number of people with years of writing experience that were flabergasted by being cut at the WD. I can understand having a cut off but really believe they shot themselves in the foot by sitting it to high. Maybe the Committee should take testimony from those people!
|
|
|
Post by upperwolfjaw on May 12, 2016 12:38:32 GMT -5
Adding to my earlier post, these were OPM Associate Director Kennedy's quotes regarding the size of the current register:
"there are currently about 600 candidates on the register"
"this would be 600 individuals"
|
|
|
Post by Judicially Imployed on May 12, 2016 12:39:57 GMT -5
Today's testimony (mainly from Deputy Commissioner Gruber): 1506 current SSA ALJs "at last count" "current hiring plan" for total goal of 1900 SSA ALJs "250 this year, 250 next year, 250 the following year" "slightly adjusted our expectation for this year ... I'm thinking 225 to 250" "more than 5,500 applications" from latest announcement "approximately half of applicants fall out" and "about half fall out" after some "fall out" ... "might be ... 2500" "we will not have access to those names" (new applicants) until "about spring of 2017" 81 locations with current certs, 2-8 vacancies exist per location 75 names on each cert 5800 total names on current certs (not unique) 260 unique names on current certs (260 figure repeated several times) Wow... just wow!! So many WAGs, theories, rumors, suppositions... for so many years.... and one morning wham ... ... the answers to so many questions! - size of applicant pool. Check. - size of register. Check. - number of individual names on the cert. Check. - number of names on each cities cert. Check. Again, just, wow.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on May 12, 2016 12:59:57 GMT -5
I'll challenge the unchallengeable premise. SSA can't hire whomever it wants. When it comes to ALJs, it can only hire whomever it wants from the cert. And that divorce can't happen without an Act of Congress, because Title 5 specifically vests the selection process with OPM. And because there are other agencies and because SSA ALJs are 3105 ALJs under the APA who are subject to reappointed with other agencies, that isn't something Congress will change. And I really didn't get the sense from that hearing that there is a big bipartisan move towards eliminating ALJs for SSA determinations. In fact, it seemed pretty much like a bipartisan desire to retain them. But does there have to be just 1 register? Can't OPM issue one register solely for SSA, with one set of testing criteria, and then issue a second register for all other agencies, with its own, separate testing criteria? Applicants could then choose which (or both) of the registers they wish to apply for.
|
|
|
Post by msp on May 12, 2016 13:03:21 GMT -5
Yes, Lankford mentioned the bigger than WV case. christina, thanks for double-checking; once instance where I wished I misunderstood what was said.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 12, 2016 13:06:48 GMT -5
Today's testimony (mainly from Deputy Commissioner Gruber): 2-8 vacancies exist per locationIncluding San Francisco and Brooklyn. Let that sink in.
|
|
|
Post by dwNOT2balj on May 12, 2016 13:06:59 GMT -5
This is frustrating to me as an individual that cut on the WD last time. My understanding (or misunderstanding) is that prior OPM announcements to the "new" online+ method the only thing the WD or SI could do was make you have a lower NOR score, not cut you. If they had done the same for this new method just think how many more qualified folks would be available for hire (qualified as in able to perform the job of ALJ not OPMs arbitrary WD/SI pass). Go back and look at the number of people with years of writing experience that were flabergasted by being cut at the WD. I can understand having a cut off but really believe they shot themselves in the foot by sitting it to high. Maybe the Committee should take testimony from those people! I was thinking of writing the Subcommittee members a letter suggesting they tell OPM to do just that. Put everyone that went to DC on the Register. I obviously have a personal interest in that, but I think one bad test day or a fire alarm in the middle of the test should not disqualify people.
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 12, 2016 13:08:49 GMT -5
I'll challenge the unchallengeable premise. SSA can't hire whomever it wants. When it comes to ALJs, it can only hire whomever it wants from the cert. And that divorce can't happen without an Act of Congress, because Title 5 specifically vests the selection process with OPM. And because there are other agencies and because SSA ALJs are 3105 ALJs under the APA who are subject to reappointed with other agencies, that isn't something Congress will change. And I really didn't get the sense from that hearing that there is a big bipartisan move towards eliminating ALJs for SSA determinations. In fact, it seemed pretty much like a bipartisan desire to retain them. But does there have to be just 1 register? Can't OPM issue one register solely for SSA, with one set of testing criteria, and then issue a second register for all other agencies, with its own, separate testing criteria? Applicants could then choose which (or both) of the registers they wish to apply for. As many agencies hire sitting ALJs, there would be considerable backlash because their eligible applicants (present ALJs) would or could be affected by the "lesser" SSA ALJs. Also, while SSA isn't in the rotation, other agency ALJs will be "lent out" among agencies that need help due to insufficient numbers on occassion. Plus, the APA does not appear to contemplate "degrees" of ALJs. Remember, a federal ALJ is a federal ALJ. This is a generalist position. You just get hired in a specific agency.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on May 12, 2016 13:10:51 GMT -5
The fundamental difference between Ole Perplexing Madness and S.S.A. ("We're A.S.S.backwards"), in my opinion, is the view of the "register". It creates all the hiring problems. OPM takes the view that everyone on the register has been rigorously tested and is extremely qualified to be an "ALJ". Thus, subject to gal preferences, all on the register are basically plug and play and having 600 on the list is plenty if hiring is expected to be half that. SSA basically views the "register" like a car dealership. Sure, you have 600 models. But only a small percentage of those models have the gas mileage, seating capacity, cargo capacity etc to meet SSA needs. While everyone on the list is qualified to be an "ALJ," the agency "fit interview" test drive shows much fewer have what they want in an "SSA ALJ." To me, today's testimony essentially shows irreconcilable differences with neither side granting ground and the threat of congressional mediation possibly causing more problems than it fixes. I dunno what the answer is short of divorcing SSA ALJ hiring from OPM. No one would argue SSA doesn't have the right, within applicable legal constrictions, to hire who it wants. As expansive as hiring rules are in the federal government, there is nothing that entitles anyone to the the job nor mandates an agency hire someone they know is a bad fit or incapable of doing the work. If a divorce is the outcome and SSA is ultimately placed in power of its own, independent selection process, I fear that road eventually leads to "Hearing Officers" and all the negatives that entails. Thus, while "it's a great time to be on the register," particularly if you have whatever inarticulated and likely inane qualities SSA seeks, it is also abundantly clear we are on the precipice of a a massive sea change in regard to the position itself. Good luck all interviewing and certed. 2016 may be the last hurrah of alj hiring as we know. For 2017 and beyond, beware, past that point there may well be monsters. Agree completely with this.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on May 12, 2016 13:11:02 GMT -5
ba, my friend, I think you miss the scope intended by my post.
Of course SSA can only hire whomever it wants from the certs provided. That is the issue. Ssa wants more options, opm doesn't think it needs to provide them. You would agree with me, I'm sure, that ssa has the right to hire who they want from those deemed qualified by opm? Sure, there is that barrier. Add in rule of 3 and vet pref rules to further limit maneuverability but ssa still has the right to choose who they want from the available options. A 10 point vet with a wide open gal and a 110 NOR isn't guaranteed an ssa alj gig. Ssa's option may only be to not hire for a specific opening, but they don't have to merely accept who opm gives them.
Thus, if opm refuses to offer more options and ssa sticks to its guns, what's the end result? Who do you think Congress sides with? Opm, an agency detested by so many in government, deemed wasteful and slow and recently embarrassed by the Chinese? Or SSA that, despite major issues, is the most popular social program in the US and who brings to bear 1.1 million angry constituents?
If opm won't play ball, or can't play ball, my money is on ssa getting what it wants. And it's no secret it wants more options, more leeway and more control over its judges.
Maybe Congress only slightly amends the necessary stats to make opm create a separate, parallel ssa process and register. Maybe it blows it all up and looks at the VA (which has huge problems but did manage major strides in regard to its backlog) and decides giving ssa AJs is the path to take.
I'm not saying it will be quick. But, if you think Congress won't change anything because it's afraid of amending or obliterating longstanding precedent, acts and regs, I don't share your faith. 2 agencies are dug in. 1.1 million people are stuck in the mire. And what I saw today shows what is often the scariest thing that can be exhibited in congress...bipartisan agreement to Do Something.
Democrats want action on the backlog. Ssa tells them they need more judges to make it happen and if the only way to get more bodies is the hearing officer route, they will get on board.
Republicans are enthralled with fraud and corruption and since WV have been hearing the agency complain over not having more authority to remove, discipline or even monitor ALJs. Hearing Officers remedy that.
Of course Titles and Acts will have to be amended or obliterated. But, when red and blue get together, a purpley bruised ALJ Corp seems inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on May 12, 2016 13:11:05 GMT -5
Maybe the Committee should take testimony from those people! I was thinking of writing the Subcommittee members a letter suggesting they tell OPM to do just that. Put everyone that went to DC on the Register. I obviously have a personal interest in that, but I think one bad test day or a fire alarm in the middle of the test should not disqualify people. You know that causes me to wonder if they (TPTB) have the ability to go back and dip from the Oct-Dec folks as they did in 2nd phase testing....just wondering...oh okay so I am dreading going through all of the testing again.
|
|
|
Post by ba on May 12, 2016 13:22:11 GMT -5
ba, my friend, I think you miss the scope intended by my post. Of course SSA can only hire whomever it wants from the certs provided. That is the issue. Ssa wants more options, opm doesn't think it needs to provide them. You would agree with me, I'm sure, that ssa has the right to hire who they want from those deemed qualified by opm? Sure, there is that barrier. Add in rule of 3 and vet pref rules to further limit maneuverability but ssa still has the right to choose who they want from the available options. A 10 point vet with a wide open gal and a 110 NOR isn't guaranteed an ssa alj gig. Ssa's option may only be to not hire for a specific opening, but they don't have to merely accept who opm gives them. Thus, if opm refuses to offer more options and ssa sticks to its guns, what's the end result? Who do you think Congress sides with? Opm, an agency detested by so many in government, deemed wasteful and slow and recently embarrassed by the Chinese? Or SSA that, despite major issues, is the most popular social program in the US and who brings to bear 1.1 million angry constituents? If opm won't play ball, or can't play ball, my money is on ssa getting what it wants. And it's no secret it wants more options, more leeway and more control over its judges. Maybe Congress only slightly amends the necessary stats to make opm create a separate, parallel ssa process and register. Maybe it blows it all up and looks at the VA (which has huge problems but did manage major strides in regard to its backlog) and decides giving ssa AJs is the path to take. I'm not saying it will be quick. But, if you think Congress won't change anything because it's afraid of amending or obliterating longstanding precedent, acts and regs, I don't share your faith. 2 agencies are dug in. 1.1 million people are stuck in the mire. And what I saw today shows what is often the scariest thing that can be exhibited in congress...bipartisan agreement to Do Something. Democrats want action on the backlog. Ssa tells them they need more judges to make it happen and if the only way to get more bodies is the hearing officer route, they will get on board. Republicans are enthralled with fraud and corruption and since WV have been hearing the agency complain over not having more authority to remove, discipline or even monitor ALJs. Hearing Officers remedy that. Of course Titles and Acts will have to be amended or obliterated. But, when red and blue get together, a purpley bruised ALJ Corp seems inevitable. I understand your point Funky. And there are aspects in which I agree, but on there were some points on which that was not the dynamic I saw in the hearing.
|
|