|
|
Post by Judge McJudgeypants on Jul 10, 2018 16:13:40 GMT -5
Same here. But I fear this is it. I have tried and tried applying for federal jobs outside of my area, because I don't want to be in my area. Never called to interview. Word on here was that this was likely due to the fact I was not local to the offices hiring. If ALJ openings come to also favor local candidates, there is no point in me applying for these either. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 10, 2018 16:15:07 GMT -5
That is an interesting take on the EO.Ā It is for the protection of the ALJs!Ā He could have just issued an EO ordering the agency heads to ratify or otherwise appoint their existing ALJs without blowing up the process. Right? I read that headline and L-O-Led. I suppose it does protect current ALJs, but only at the cost of all future ALJs, and the whole premise of ALJs under the APA in general |
|
vinc
New Member
Posts: 19 
|
Post by vinc on Jul 10, 2018 16:16:30 GMT -5
After reading the EO twice here are my takes.
Any agency can chose to hire off the OPM register or hire through individual job postings. The latter process would appear to assist HODs and other management personnel.
Veterans still have preference but the agency may chose to hire from postings that do not reach veterans (like they currently do for attorney advisors).
New ALJs can be fired more easily than current ones.
Anyone disgree or believe the EO contains additional changes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 16:17:53 GMT -5
After reading the EO twice here are my takes. Any agency can chose chose to hire off the OPM register or hire through individual job postings. Veterans still have preference but the agency may chose to hire from postings that do not reach veterans (like they currently do for attorney advisors). New ALJs can be fired more easily than current ones. Anyone disgree or believe the EO contains additional changes? I just had this discussion with another ALJ friend ā I see no reason why the agencies couldnāt use the testing scores, but they donāt have to. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Jul 10, 2018 16:18:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 10, 2018 16:18:57 GMT -5
That is an interesting take on the EO. It is for the protection of the ALJs! He could have just issued an EO ordering the agency heads to ratify or otherwise appoint their existing ALJs without blowing up the process. But it does nothing to clarify the position of 100s of ALJ "appointed" since the last confirmed Commissioner. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 10, 2018 16:19:40 GMT -5
I hope we go get nors just so I can tell OPM to ttake heir score and shove it You will not get an NOR.Ā The register is terminated. Well that kinda sucks, Iāll never know how I did. Would love to get my 1k and 20+ hours of leave back. I guess it doesnāt really matter anyway |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 10, 2018 16:21:36 GMT -5
That is an interesting take on the EO.Ā It is for the protection of the ALJs!Ā He could have just issued an EO ordering the agency heads to ratify or otherwise appoint their existing ALJs without blowing up the process. But it does nothing to clarify the position of 100s of ALJ "appointed" since the last confirmed Commissioner. I would think POTUS himself would be signing appointment certificates for most current ALJs as part of this |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jul 10, 2018 16:25:29 GMT -5
Re: those of us who are current ALJs, note this language in the EO:
"Incumbents of this position who are, on July 10, 2018, in the competitive service shall remain in the competitive service AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS." (Emphasis mine.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 10, 2018 16:26:48 GMT -5
The fact the intel turned out to be good is irrelevant.Ā It was a reckless thing to disseminate whether true or not.Ā If true, it may have burned a source in the administration.Ā Multiple people might have been suspected of a leak even of not guilty of one. LOL. And yes, I'm LOL'ing or (L'ingOL, if you prefer) on an adult message board. First you demand some accountability by wondering where he got the info. Then you said absent a source, it's a reckless rumor that could have been written by the Onion. Now that your original point has been shown to be baseless due to this EO coming out, your argument has turned to the OP being reckless by possibly outing a WH source, the very thing you originally asked for on this thread before brushing the OP aside for lack of a source. I do enjoy your logical backbends on this board. āReckless rumorsā is going to be the name of my Fleetwood Mac cover band. Iāll credit IF1 in the liner notes of our first album |
|
|
|
Post by orchid on Jul 10, 2018 16:27:38 GMT -5
If SSA never properly appointed most of its ALJs can they be incumbents?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 10, 2018 16:29:12 GMT -5
If SSA never properly appointed most of its ALJs can they be incumbents? š¤. Iām guessing so? |
|
vinc
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by vinc on Jul 10, 2018 16:30:36 GMT -5
Honestly I see no reason SSA would change anything except if they wanted to spefically hire a desirable insider whom did not make the register.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellaluna on Jul 10, 2018 16:32:43 GMT -5
Re: those of us who are current ALJs, note this language in the EO: "Incumbents of this position who are, on July 10, 2018, in the competitive service shall remain in the competitive service AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS." (Emphasis mine.) Might this mean if an ALJ transfers to a different office, he or she loses competitive service protections? |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 10, 2018 16:34:42 GMT -5
Re: those of us who are current ALJs, note this language in the EO: "Incumbents of this position who are, on July 10, 2018, in the competitive service shall remain in the competitive service AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS." (Emphasis mine.) Might this mean if an ALJ transfers to a different office, he or she loses competitive service protections? I think it's is ok if you stay with same agency but if you take a new position, then that position is excepted. At least that's what I hope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 16:35:25 GMT -5
Honestly I see no reason SSA would change anything except if they wanted to spefically hire a desirable insider whom did not make the register.Ā Ā I had this same thought; the competitive process is in place both for quality assurance AND to ensure fair hiring. I would think a less rigorous process would open the agency up to various employment discrimination claims, which government hiring seems to be designed to prevent. |
|
|
|
Post by aljwishhope on Jul 10, 2018 16:42:17 GMT -5
See the current post for attorney examiner trademark trial and appeal board iudges.
I see no reason why OHO cannot hire ALJs from their ranks and from experienced ssi disability attorneys as USPTO hires for trademark and patent judges.
Mind you OHO might get 10000 apps for 100 jobs!
|
|
vinc
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by vinc on Jul 10, 2018 16:46:14 GMT -5
But how would any litigation prevail. The executive branch has sole power to appoint and the latest supreme Court decision clearly allows for this EO. Game over if SSA chooses to implement its own hiring without OPM. o
|
|
|
|
Post by mentor67 on Jul 10, 2018 16:48:43 GMT -5
Re: those of us who are current ALJs, note this language in the EO: "Incumbents of this position who are, on July 10, 2018, in the competitive service shall remain in the competitive service AS LONG AS THEY REMAIN IN THEIR CURRENT POSITIONS." (Emphasis mine.) I am wondering what the disadvantages are of moving from a competitive service classification (current ALJ job) to an exempted position (new job if the ALJ moves to another agency)? I know that it would hurt in terms of jobs that one could apply for - but what else would one lose in terms of benefits? Just curious b/c it looks like that will be the future for all ALJs who wish to move to a different agency now. Any thoughts? Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by mentor67 on Jul 10, 2018 16:52:25 GMT -5
I mean excepted service classification - sorry
|
|
