|
Post by funkyodar on May 12, 2016 13:27:32 GMT -5
Understood. Reasonable minds differing and all that.
Also freely admit I watched thru a lense made hazy from some recent interactions, union scuttlebutt and Agency rumor mill fodder. Creates a perspective others wouldn't share.
In any event, I hope you are right.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on May 12, 2016 13:55:47 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. I'm with you---in the same boat. I have over 15 years of litigation experience in both admin and fed courts. I may not be the best writer there is, but I do know how to put together grammatically correct sentences and analyze facts and case law appropriately to reach a legal conclusion. This has just reopened an old wound.
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on May 12, 2016 13:55:52 GMT -5
Today's testimony (mainly from Deputy Commissioner Gruber): 2-8 vacancies exist per locationIncluding San Francisco and Brooklyn. Let that sink in. Then you're saying there's a chance, Gaidin!
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on May 12, 2016 14:07:46 GMT -5
Including San Francisco and Brooklyn. Let that sink in. Then you're saying there's a chance, Gaidin! I wonder where else? Any WAGs?
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on May 12, 2016 14:07:50 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. If nothing else, they should have at least gone over the WDs with a fine tooth comb to see if there was any way to move someone over the arbitrary "minimum score" hump. We all know written exams are super subjective. It also irritates me even more that they forced our hand into reapplying or appealing. There is no reason to prohibit those of us who went through the process for two years, and cleared all of the hoops, a chance for the panel to reevaluate our score and, while waiting on a decision, also reapply. If your appeal was deemed successful they could then just remove you from the app process.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 12, 2016 14:36:45 GMT -5
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. If nothing else, they should have at least gone over the WDs with a fine tooth comb to see if there was any way to move someone over the arbitrary "minimum score" hump. We all know written exams are super subjective. It also irritates me even more that they forced our hand into reapplying or appealing. There is no reason to prohibit those of us who went through the process for two years, and cleared all of the hoops, a chance for the panel to reevaluate our score and, while waiting on a decision, also reapply. If your appeal was deemed successful they could then just remove you from the app process. The reason is to limit litigation. By reapplying you have abandoned your appeal. If you continue with the appeal you will eventually exhaust your appeals and could conceivably litigate.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 12, 2016 14:37:57 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting.
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on May 12, 2016 14:40:53 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. Thanks Gaidin. I didn't follow. I would still love to know where they are hiring 8 positions. Where is there that much office space?
|
|
|
Post by raylan on May 12, 2016 14:42:24 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. Thanks Gaidin. I didn't follow. I would still love to know where they are hiring 8 positions. Where is there that much office space? Flint Michigan?
|
|
|
Post by berk727 on May 12, 2016 14:43:14 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. Thanks Gaidin. I didn't follow. I would still love to know where they are hiring 8 positions. Where is there that much office space? not sure about 8 spaces, but Mt. Pleasant could use 7 (or more if we go to non-conforming space). and since they can't leave for 15 months, it sure would be nice to get up to full strength.
|
|
|
Post by auroraborealis on May 12, 2016 14:49:44 GMT -5
If nothing else, they should have at least gone over the WDs with a fine tooth comb to see if there was any way to move someone over the arbitrary "minimum score" hump. We all know written exams are super subjective. It also irritates me even more that they forced our hand into reapplying or appealing. There is no reason to prohibit those of us who went through the process for two years, and cleared all of the hoops, a chance for the panel to reevaluate our score and, while waiting on a decision, also reapply. If your appeal was deemed successful they could then just remove you from the app process. The reason is to limit litigation. By reapplying you have abandoned your appeal. If you continue with the appeal you will eventually exhaust your appeals and could conceivably litigate. I recognize that as the goal, I just don't think it should be allowed. They shouldn't force someone to abandon their appeal rights, which is effectively what it does. IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on May 12, 2016 14:54:56 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. And, am I reading what is written above correctly in that there are 75 names for each location, i.e., cert?
|
|
momo
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by momo on May 12, 2016 14:55:07 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. May want to double-check the testimony. My notes have her saying that there was an AVERAGE of 2 or 3 vacancies per location, and that some had more (she gave a figure which may have been 8, but I didn't note it). I'm pretty sure she never said that there were at least 2 openings per location.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 12, 2016 14:58:33 GMT -5
Let me say something about the "WD". I have been with the Agency for 20 years. At least 25% of the writers in every office I have been in do not know how to write a persuasive argument. It is entirely embarrassing. We Judges spend way too much of our time editing decisions. Perhaps the "WD" is very tough because anyone hired will have to spend time editing and rewriting decisions. I think you all will be amazed with the quality work you will receive from those beneath you. Further, the Agency has made it a point to promote office clerks with no training in writing to paralegals at the same pay they can hire a new attorney at. So, trust the Funk, when he implies the Agency would hire Hearing Officers in a heart beat. This Agency seems to have a bias against professional people. They prefer home grown, home spun employees. This is the largest law office in the world run by non-lawyers... Buyer Beware... Funk, I think I copyrighted the "SSA is" phrase a long time ago, but I will officially give you and all others freedom to use it, because it is the truth...
|
|
|
Post by christina on May 12, 2016 15:03:47 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. And, am I reading what is written above correctly in that there are 75 names for each location, i.e., cert? yes,
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on May 12, 2016 15:29:04 GMT -5
numbersix according to what is written above every location on these certs has between 2 and 8 openings. That is what I was quoting. May want to double-check the testimony. My notes have her saying that there was an AVERAGE of 2 or 3 vacancies per location, and that some had more (she gave a figure which may have been 8, but I didn't note it). I'm pretty sure she never said that there were at least 2 openings per location. I haven't had the opportunity to listen to the whole thing and I missed that section when I was listening the first time. I was quoting upperwolfjaw above. aljdiscussion.proboards.com/post/98489/thread
|
|
|
Post by beenlurking on May 12, 2016 15:46:16 GMT -5
And, am I reading what is written above correctly in that there are 75 names for each location, i.e., cert? yes, So, that would indicate that the "what cities would you keep on the April 2016 cert" polls are but a low percentage of the number of people that are actually on these certs, no?
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 12, 2016 16:03:30 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. I think that under the Administrative Procedures Act, it does have to be just one. My recollection is that the APA treats all ALJ's as fungible and orginally contemplated the possibility of an ALJ serving more than one agency. I'm rusty on my admin law on this topic, so feel free to look it up and set us straight. I don't have time to do the research today.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on May 12, 2016 16:05:38 GMT -5
The other aspect that everybody seems to forget is the GAL problem. This is the first set of certs post-GAL expansions. I suspect that in the 600 left on the Register there was a small but significant percentage that was previously not reachable because of restricted or in-your-dreams-type GAL specifications. It will be interesting to see if that has changed enough to help SSA get to its numbers this year.
|
|
|
Post by minny on May 12, 2016 16:10:07 GMT -5
Keep in mind that theoretically every cert could have the same 75 names. I know that is not the case because I am on far less than all, but I am very sure that many, many people are on multiple certs so there is no 75x81 formula at work here.
|
|