|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 6:36:06 GMT -5
This sucks. There is no bright side to this unless it means that the recent intel that SSA is headed to attrition level hiring is incorrect. Absent this signaling an intent to increase the hiring levels even more, this means that those that were just added won't receive multiple considerations like the last group from 2013. Even if they were hiring at 250 per year, it would have taken 5 years to exhaust the register, so it would have made sense for them to wait about 3 years to start this. I think this is bad news for those with lower scores, as it will be hard for them to be considered over multiple certs. If they start refreshing every two years, then there will be a constant flow of higher scores onto the register. Plus, even if you have a higher score and made the first certs with a smaller GAL, it means that you will have less time for them to hit the right hiring combo to hit your GAL. This will only benefit those with a high score and small GAL that want to expand their GAL and of course, those didn't make the cut at some point in the last go around. So good for those that have been on this board and thought that they were out of the running for 4 or so years. Currently there are 1,642 ALJs total, the goal was 1,800 just a few years ago, so I don't think the "attrition level" hiring is a valid theory! Of those 1,642, you have a ton of DEAD WEIGHT such as 160+ HOCALJs (not you Pixie! ) Union leadership (yes, they are dead weight, IMHO) and soon to be retired Judges, so the demand is there for 200+ yearly to keep the 1.1 million claims moving along the "chicken deboning" line!
But, I agree if you are a low scoring type, you will not have the long run time to get selected as you did in the past, as the refresh will shake it up each time, such is life! Tiger
I have no ability to judge the validity of the attrition level hiring. What led to that theory was how these current certs were handled. The initial request to OPM was for 140 hires. After the certs were received, that hiring level was met with resistance by many (not all) hearing offices who said that they didn't have the office space or the support staff to support new judges. The projected hiring number was then dropped to 70 and the word was that SSA had decided to move the target for the total number of judges from 1900 to the current level and just hire to replace for the foreseeable future. The reports on the targeted hiring number for these certs has fluctuated from 70 to 100 to 125 and back since then. Again, most of this info either came from Pixie or other reliable sources and isn't speculation by no nothing outsiders like me. I sincerely hope your viewpoint is correct.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 6:39:15 GMT -5
One thing is for certain. If OPM turns to refreshing this often, they will completely remove SSA's ability to blame them for not having enough names on the register. The size of the register will easily outstrip SSA's hiring pace and when the backlog doesn't decrease, there won't be the ability to point to OPM as the problem.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Aug 4, 2017 6:48:01 GMT -5
One thing is for certain. If OPM turns to refreshing this often, they will completely remove SSA's ability to blame them for not having enough names on the register. The size of the register will easily outstrip SSA's hiring pace and when the backlog doesn't decrease, there won't be the ability to point to OPM as the problem. I've been trying to be upbeat about this unexpected turn of events, but it's tough to wrap the brain around the fact that this announcement was made literally during first cert interviews. Yikes.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 6:48:17 GMT -5
One thing is for certain. If OPM turns to refreshing this often, they will completely remove SSA's ability to blame them for not having enough names on the register. The size of the register will easily outstrip SSA's hiring pace and when the backlog doesn't decrease, there won't be the ability to point to OPM as the problem. I agree, regardless of whether OPM is doing this on its own or on request of SSA.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 6:55:55 GMT -5
I guess SSA could change how they do business. They could hire just the high recommends, slap a bunch of applicants with 3 considerations and actually use the 3 strike rule, which would let them chew through the register at a much quicker pace.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 7:01:11 GMT -5
One thing is for certain. If OPM turns to refreshing this often, they will completely remove SSA's ability to blame them for not having enough names on the register. The size of the register will easily outstrip SSA's hiring pace and when the backlog doesn't decrease, there won't be the ability to point to OPM as the problem. I've been trying to be upbeat about this unexpected turn of events, but it's tough to wrap the brain around the fact that this announcement was made literally during first cert interviews. Yikes. Yep. I had mentally settled in for a wait. My thought was that as long as I didn't blow the interview, then over the next three years they will eventually hit my target because I would be consistently popping up on the range. Now, that equation appears to be changing and that is what has thrown me. I was settling in for a long grind of waiting if necessary and that appears to not be an option. Oh well, just have to hope that my number comes up quick enough. As has been a blessing throughout this process, I have a good job with good people, so it doesn't throw me into the depths of despair to think I have to say here.
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Aug 4, 2017 7:05:50 GMT -5
I sure wish I had known this info a few weeks ago prior to removing a couple of cities on this cert. Oh well, such is life. Live, learn, and drink great beer.
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Aug 4, 2017 7:06:24 GMT -5
And not even the RFT could have foreseen this coming!
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Aug 4, 2017 7:06:47 GMT -5
I seem to remember the "alj application" announcement on the OPM website in Oct 2015 before the Apr 2016 application period, so its in line with every two years.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 7:12:06 GMT -5
I guess SSA could change how they do business. They could hire just the high recommends, slap a bunch of applicants with 3 considerations and actually use the 3 strike rule, which would let them chew through the register at a much quicker pace. So far as I know, the three considerations regulation is the basis for three-striking. I know of no specific three-strike regulation. Also, three-striking would not enable chewing through the register at a faster rate. I believe SSA uses the three-considerations regulation to a great extent to hire as it wishes. Just because it does not appear anyone has been three-struck does not mean SSA is not using the three-considerations regulation to avoid considering them. Hiring as many high recommends as possible seems to be a part of SSA's MO. They might well be hoping to increase the percentage of high recommends in their hiring, as you suggest. I'm not sure if they'd ever be able to get it to 100% of hires. My theory is if SSA is behind the coming refresh they want more eligibles to choose from on the register (of course their freedom of choice is limited by the process) and they want to keep the register stocked well enough so there is never a time when they have to slow hiring down by reason of insufficient numbers on the register.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 7:22:52 GMT -5
Also keep in mind that SSA's statutory authority to make binding requests that OPM administer ALJ examinations expires 12/31/2022. Given how long the testing process takes, there are only so many more times they'll be able to make the request. SSA may want to really stock the register before their requesting authority expires.
Now this may become more complicated if OPM is developing a new exam and will be terminating the current register in the next few years.
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Aug 4, 2017 7:25:43 GMT -5
I guess SSA could change how they do business. They could hire just the high recommends, slap a bunch of applicants with 3 considerations and actually use the 3 strike rule, which would let them chew through the register at a much quicker pace. So far as I know, the three considerations regulation is the basis for three-striking. I know of no specific three-strike regulation. Also, three-striking would not enable chewing through the register at a faster rate. I believe SSA uses the three-considerations regulation to a great extent to hire as it wishes. Just because it does not appear anyone has been three-struck does not mean SSA is not using the three-considerations regulation to avoid considering them. Hiring as many high recommends as possible seems to be a part of SSA's MO. They might well be hoping to increase the percentage of high recommends in their hiring, as you suggest. I'm not sure if they'd ever be able to get it to 100% of hires. My theory is if SSA is behind the coming refresh they want more eligibles to choose from on the register (of course their freedom of choice is limited by the process) and they want to keep the register stocked well enough so there is never a time when they have to slow hiring down by reason of insufficient numbers on the register. Okay, I guess I need reeducation. I understand your point about the regulatory basis for these topics. However, I thought the terms as used on this board meant the following. That 3 considerations meant that a person was still on the cert but that SSA could just ignore them for purposes of determining the top 3 at a location. They could hire them if they wanted but they could also reach down to #4 if they wanted. Sort of like you had a top 3 plus all 3 considered applicants. However, I thought that a 3 consideration applicant still counted for purposes of determining the number of applicants needed on the cert to ensure the last hire would have a pool of 3 applicants. I thought 3 strikes meant that SSA could formally tell OPM that an applicant had 3 considerations and that they should not be listed on future certs. Thus, when certs were issued, the 3 struck applicant would not be listed on the cert and a new name would have to be included to ensure there were sufficient names to ensure 3 remained on the last hire.
|
|
|
Post by aljnoobie on Aug 4, 2017 7:28:54 GMT -5
And not even the RFT could have foreseen this coming! The three eyed raven should have foreseen it though.....
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Aug 4, 2017 7:34:19 GMT -5
And not even the RFT could have foreseen this coming! The three eyed raven should have foreseen it though..... Agreed, especially since the three-eyed raven may have actually caused it................Hodor!
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 7:42:44 GMT -5
So far as I know, the three considerations regulation is the basis for three-striking. I know of no specific three-strike regulation. Also, three-striking would not enable chewing through the register at a faster rate. I believe SSA uses the three-considerations regulation to a great extent to hire as it wishes. Just because it does not appear anyone has been three-struck does not mean SSA is not using the three-considerations regulation to avoid considering them. Hiring as many high recommends as possible seems to be a part of SSA's MO. They might well be hoping to increase the percentage of high recommends in their hiring, as you suggest. I'm not sure if they'd ever be able to get it to 100% of hires. My theory is if SSA is behind the coming refresh they want more eligibles to choose from on the register (of course their freedom of choice is limited by the process) and they want to keep the register stocked well enough so there is never a time when they have to slow hiring down by reason of insufficient numbers on the register. Okay, I guess I need reeducation. I understand your point about the regulatory basis for these topics. However, I thought the terms as used on this board meant the following. That 3 considerations meant that a person was still on the cert but that SSA could just ignore them for purposes of determining the top 3 at a location. They could hire them if they wanted but they could also reach down to #4 if they wanted. Sort of like you had a top 3 plus all 3 considered applicants. However, I thought that a 3 consideration applicant still counted for purposes of determining the number of applicants needed on the cert to ensure the last hire would have a pool of 3 applicants. I thought 3 strikes meant that SSA could formally tell OPM that an applicant had 3 considerations and that they should not be listed on future certs. Thus, when certs were issued, the 3 struck applicant would not be listed on the cert and a new name would have to be included to ensure there were sufficient names to ensure 3 remained on the last hire. Very close. Where I disagree: 1. From reports returned by SSA on prior certs, OPM already knows who has three considerations when the lists of eligibles are drawn up. They don't need to be told by SSA when certs are requested. 2. In order to insure there will be three to choose from when SSA makes its final hire on a set of certs, OPM has to take into account who has three considerations when drawing up the lists of eligibles. OPM puts them on the lists for which they qualify, but then has to ignore their presence in deciding how far down to go for the lists.
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Aug 4, 2017 8:05:15 GMT -5
Gary,
I know I have seen you post GAL expansion info before... my question is when you think that will happen.
the Dec 2015 expansion was secondary to the "lower subgroup" testing in Oct-Dec and thereafter refreshing the register. That makes me think the gal expansion could occur as early as the application period, or as late as after the new applicants test (hypothetically in Sep 18-Mar 19...
Thoughts?
|
|
ucl
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ucl on Aug 4, 2017 8:36:54 GMT -5
I have to take the blame for this. Given that I made the register and was feeling relatively good about things, it was pretty much guaranteed that something weird and unprecedented would happen. My apologies to everyone.
|
|
|
Post by sophie22 on Aug 4, 2017 8:38:00 GMT -5
We know that the board had a 50% pass rate, so in theory there should be 1050 new names on the register. Is it possible that the pass rate was less than 50% and the register is in danger of being depleted in the next 2 years?
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Aug 4, 2017 8:44:43 GMT -5
The OPM "Latest News" says it "will open the exam to interested applicants in the near future by posting a job opportunity announcement on USAJOBS."
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 4, 2017 8:56:11 GMT -5
Gary, I know I have seen you post GAL expansion info before... my question is when you think that will happen. the Dec 2015 expansion was secondary to the "lower subgroup" testing in Oct-Dec and thereafter refreshing the register. That makes me think the gal expansion could occur as early as the application period, or as late as after the new applicants test (hypothetically in Sep 18-Mar 19... Thoughts? You will get the chance to modify your GAL when OPM opens the JOA. I think someone was told those were effective by the time of the next certs after the JOA closed last year, but don't hold me to that timing.
|
|