|
Post by burwell on Jun 9, 2016 22:46:20 GMT -5
Let me add this wrinkle though.
Remember, the news from the management call was that they had selected 107 "for the June class", and were beginning another round of selections.
What if...they DID create a third class that starts on July 10, and they picked 107 people to be hired for and split among June 26 and July 10 start dates at their respective home offices. And then they are ALSO selecting another 50 or so people to start July 24?
That would at least be consistent both with the news yesterday regarding the management call and with these new reports of a July 10 start date.
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Jun 9, 2016 22:53:36 GMT -5
I don't think so. These training classes have to be planned way in advance. They book the rooms, get the materials ready, schedule the ALJs to block off time from their hearing schedule and fly in to do the training. It appears to me from all the reports that there are two training classes scheduled months ago and that cannot be changed easily with all the logistics necessary to schedule them. In addition, they cannot overlap. Even if they had enough space, they would need to add new instructors not already committed to the other classes, and it is not easy to drop their schedule and fly at the last minute to do training. Hearings are scheduled months in advance and it takes an act from FC to cancel or move hearings.
It's more likely that FC is being flexible when people are reporting to their respective office for whatever reason. FC is also flexible when it comes to the reporting date for transfers and this seems reasonable. The training classes cannot be changed so easily. Yesterday it was reported that 107 offers went out, but it is clear they are not done yet. I don't know when they finish, but I'm hopeful for all waiting that the calls keep going out.
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 9, 2016 23:02:26 GMT -5
No, yesterday it was reported that as of last Friday they had selected 107 people for the June class.
And also that they were moving on to another round.
Not that offers went out. Not that they were done, either.
And the number of 107 was attributed to June. Which is the whole reason I suggested that maybe they are splitting 107 among two classes now, hence this new July 10 date.
I realize training has to be scheduled. But simply put, the report yesterday made no sense. And neither does a July 10 date. Unless you put the two together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 23:05:16 GMT -5
Insiders only get two weeks at the new office, NODARs get 3 weeks, if that helps with this discussion!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 9, 2016 23:05:30 GMT -5
Let me add this wrinkle though. Remember, the news from the management call was that they had selected 107 "for the June class", and were beginning another round of selections. What if...they DID create a third class that starts on July 10, and they picked 107 people to be hired for and split among June 26 and July 10 start dates at their respective home offices. And then they are ALSO selecting another 50 or so people to start July 24? That would at least be consistent both with the news yesterday regarding the management call and with these new reports of a July 10 start date. We have had intel for a long time on FC training 7/18-8/12 and 8/15-9/9. A 7/11 class would also mean FC training 8/1-8/26. In the period 8/1-8/12 SSA would need space and trainers to accommodate the entire 6/27 and 7/11 classes and in the period 8/15-8/26 SSA would need space and trainers to accomodate the entire 7/11 and 7/25 classes. I do not know that they have allocated the resources to do this. I am unaware of intel so far that would corroborate that theory.
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 9, 2016 23:09:21 GMT -5
I know all about the Intel. But see yesterday's management call Intel. That counts too. See the July 10 start date Intel, confirmed as applicable to NON-insiders. Put all of this Intel into a pot. What do you get?
Just trying to stimulate thought. Obviously none of us have much of a clue where things stand right now. And things have been damn slow the past two days.
Best of luck to you all.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Jun 9, 2016 23:10:07 GMT -5
Got the call earlier today, and voted in the polls. This is a very happy day for us, and I sincerely hope you will get called soon. This board has been a tremendous resource, and your contributions are appreciated! Thank you so very much to Propmaster, Pixie, Gaiden, Gary, ... too many names to list. Congrats UWJ, It is indeed an exciting time!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 9, 2016 23:16:23 GMT -5
That is what has me confused.
A 7/11 start date for NODARs does not make sense to me in the context of other start dates of 6/27 and 7/25; 3 weeks HO training; followed by 4 weeks FC training. This is not to say it isn't possible, just that it is so far out of the norm of what I've known SSA to do in the past that it doesn't seem likely.
And yet we do have very solid intel that some NODARs are starting 7/11.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Jun 10, 2016 0:21:18 GMT -5
I know all about the Intel. But see yesterday's management call Intel. That counts too. See the July 10 start date Intel, confirmed as applicable to NON-insiders. Put all of this Intel into a pot. What do you get? Just trying to stimulate thought. Obviously none of us have much of a clue where things stand right now. And things have been damn slow the past two days. Best of luck to you all. Actually, some of us do have a clue because our offer or deferments have been made with specific dates. Others have info from reliable inside sources. Not that the info doesn't change over time, but I think we can be pretty sure of the dates already set for the folks that have already received offers.
|
|
|
Post by almostheaven on Jun 10, 2016 3:41:31 GMT -5
Could the July 10 start date be an accommodation for those in the June hiring class who asked for a delayed start due to pre-scheduled vacations during July 4 week, as an alternative to a deferment to the July hiring class?
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 10, 2016 5:51:53 GMT -5
I know all about the Intel. But see yesterday's management call Intel. That counts too. See the July 10 start date Intel, confirmed as applicable to NON-insiders. Put all of this Intel into a pot. What do you get? Just trying to stimulate thought. Obviously none of us have much of a clue where things stand right now. And things have been damn slow the past two days. Best of luck to you all. Actually, some of us do have a clue because our offer or deferments have been made with specific dates. Others have info from reliable inside sources. Not that the info doesn't change over time, but I think we can be pretty sure of the dates already set for the folks that have already received offers. Yes, of course. I was referring to those of us who have not received offers/word who are trying to figure out where things stand. I also incorporated all reliable source information known to date on this board in my thought process.
|
|
|
Post by burwell on Jun 10, 2016 5:55:13 GMT -5
Could the July 10 start date be an accommodation for those in the June hiring class who asked for a delayed start due to pre-scheduled vacations during July 4 week, as an alternative to a deferment to the July hiring class? Possibly, but then they would presumably only get a week in-office before training. Also, that doesn't explain the call intel that 107 were selected for June, and that they were then continuing on with another round. I had assumed this was simply a mistatement, and that the 107 were for June and July, and that perhaps the "new round" referred to was the September group, and they were requesting new certs or somehting. But the July 10 date adds a new wrinkle. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jun 10, 2016 6:25:36 GMT -5
Could the July 10 start date be an accommodation for those in the June hiring class who asked for a delayed start due to pre-scheduled vacations during July 4 week, as an alternative to a deferment to the July hiring class? The member who reported a July 10 start date to me requested and received a deferment from the June class, if that helps in the analysis. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Jun 10, 2016 6:41:46 GMT -5
So maybe someone (or someones) who would have started in June and trained in July is now starting in July, just two weeks before the others, and will have five weeks pre-training in the office instead of three.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Jun 10, 2016 6:50:03 GMT -5
I'm a little confused as to why this is all speculation. Do not board members that have been hired have both a start date and a FC training date? If the 11 July start date was reported to a board member, are they not able to say what their training dates are? Seems to me that y'all should ask the board members that have been hired what their start and training dates are. If they all report consistent dates that are not 11 July, then it appears very likely that the reported 11 July date is an abnormal accommodation for one or two persons.
Sorry if this is an ignorant post. I'm trying not to post in this thread since this is way beyond where I'm at and I'm just trying to read to learn for the future.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 10, 2016 6:56:10 GMT -5
Could the July 10 start date be an accommodation for those in the June hiring class who asked for a delayed start due to pre-scheduled vacations during July 4 week, as an alternative to a deferment to the July hiring class? Then they'd either: 1. Get 1 week in the HO before FC training, which seems too short for NODARs; or 2. Get 5 weeks in the HO before FC training, which seems unnecessary when they could just be deferred to the 7/25 start; or 3. Have their own training in FC after the usual 3 weeks in the HO, in which case their FC training dates would overlap those of both the 6/27 starters and the 7/25 starters.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jun 10, 2016 6:59:53 GMT -5
I'm a little confused as to why this is all speculation. Do not board members that have been hired have both a start date and a FC training date? If the 11 July start date was reported to a board member, are they not able to say what their training dates are? Seems to me that y'all should ask the board members that have been hired what their start and training dates are. If they all report consistent dates that are not 11 July, then it appears very likely that the reported 11 July date is an abnormal accommodation for one or two persons. Sorry if this is an ignorant post. I'm trying not to post in this thread since this is way beyond where I'm at and I'm just trying to read to learn for the future. This is a very constructive contribution to the discussion. And don't be concerned about joining in the discussion just because you don't have a horse in this particular race. When you have constructive comments like this your participation is very welcome.
|
|
|
Post by rusty on Jun 10, 2016 7:08:43 GMT -5
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Forty One reported having NORs 73 and above on this cert.
Forty hires reported as of late 6/9/16.
Need to subtract three from the number due to the hires reported for scores of 68 and below.
|
|
bee
Full Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by bee on Jun 10, 2016 7:27:42 GMT -5
My husband told me he's given up all hope of me ever getting the call. Talk about a downer. I'm not even on this cert. When I told him there was a chance for September, he just rolled his eyes. The same for my wife! My husband is oblivious to all of this. He knows I made the register. Not sure he even cares if I become an ALJ. Yellowbird, I'm not on this cert either. I just hope for the best for the next one! I only share my anxiety about the process with one co-worker (and my fellow board members!). My heart sank a bit when I saw one of my very few selected cities taken, but I am truly happy for the board member who snagged such a prize! I share in the happiness for everyone who has received The Call.
And a big congrats to Gaidin. Wonderful news.
|
|
|
Post by Erik Breukink on Jun 10, 2016 7:36:30 GMT -5
Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Forty One reported having NORs 73 and above on this cert. Forty hires reported as of late 6/9/16. Need to subtract three from the number due to the hires reported for scores of 68 and below. Is it possible they are, instead of picking and choosing, just entirely clearing the register- bases on the metric above, can that be the case? And i dont mean this as a slight to my higher scoring brethren-just seems like before odar was criticized for restricting itself when the argument can be made that if you are on the register- you are qualified.
|
|