|
|
Post by cinderella on Sept 2, 2007 19:20:58 GMT -5
Chris, I'm not sure, but I believe the current ALJ transfer list has priority over the soon to be newbie ALJs.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 2, 2007 19:32:19 GMT -5
I know the transfer list has priority but an office doesn't have to take a transfer does it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 2, 2007 20:16:11 GMT -5
The office pretty much has to take what what Falls Church sends them. Not much room for negotiating.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 2, 2007 20:22:37 GMT -5
Doesn't Falls Church contact the HOCALJ first to see if they want a particular transfer?
|
|
|
|
Post by lamplighter on Sept 2, 2007 21:26:26 GMT -5
Sorry guys - look for the union label on this one. Transfers get first priority.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 2, 2007 21:35:45 GMT -5
I understand that transfers get first priority. That's not an issue. Everyone agrees that transfers have priority over new judges. But I also understand that many people who want to transfer do not get to transfer, apparently sometimes even when there is an opening. So would someone please explain what factors result in someone not getting a transfer? My guess is that Falls Church does not operate in a vacuum. They look at stats and talk to local offices. If a judge is nonproductive, and no one wants that judge, Falls Church is not going to be interested in transferring that judge.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Sept 2, 2007 22:03:02 GMT -5
In my experience the RCALJ does have some say. In one case the RCALJ called the HOCALJ to see whether he really wanted the transfer. He indicated that he did and things moved fairly quickly thereafter. In this case, the HOCALJ was able to make the choice, supported by the RCALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 2, 2007 22:04:39 GMT -5
That's the way it used to work. Now with the union agreement, the first one on the list gets the transfer. The agreement does not mention productivity.
|
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Sept 2, 2007 22:13:14 GMT -5
This transfer took place about 3 months ago. When did the union agreement go into effect? Of course it wasn't tested because the office wanted the person transfering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 2, 2007 22:25:13 GMT -5
The union agreement went into effect five or six years ago. I believe the transfer provision was in the original agreement. Of course, there is usually wiggle room, and I think that a hardship transfer might be considered outside the strict provisions of the contract.
You have to remember that management doesn't like being handcuffed by the contract, and will find ways around it. But I think that is the exception rather than the rule. Pix.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Sept 3, 2007 6:20:57 GMT -5
My understanding is similar to Pixie's. Prior to the AALJ contract, it was entirely management's perogative as to who would/would not be transferred, and this decision was usually dependent on productivity, office behavior, etc. Now, there's a transfer list, compiled by AALJ, and the agency must offer transfers to a particular office by means of date of transfer request.
In short, if Judge X has the oldest pending request for transfer to Billings, for example, but issues only 20 decisions per month and is not well-regarded by his/her current HOCALJ, then ODAR will have to make the tough decision as to how desperate it is to fill the empty office and work down the backlog in Billings. And, as long as Judge X remains on the active transfer list and hasn't declined an offer of a transfer to Billings, ODAR will be in violation of the AALJ agreement if it offers a position in Billings to a new, albeit cream-of-the crop, ALJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by notafed on Sept 4, 2007 16:04:42 GMT -5
Forgive me if this is redundant and/or dumb; I am new and I am confused.
I understand that OPM will compile a register in order of the scores, right?
But I don't understand what happens then. Say SSA asks for a "certificate" for 50 openings. Does OPM send them 150 names (3 x the number of openings)?
Who sorts the names on the certificate by the city/ODAR the candidate selected, OPM or SSA?
Are all 150 candidates on the certificate interviewed in Falls Church or are the candidates sent to the city/ODAR where the openings are?
Feel free to add more info to clarify...
THANKS
NotaFed
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 4, 2007 16:24:34 GMT -5
Any numbers on transfers re Kansas, Oklahoma? Judicature, I saw that your question about transfers to Oklahoma had not been answered, so I checked with a source today. Two are on the list for a transfer to OK City, none for a transfer out. One for a transfer to McAlester, none for a transfer out. I believe these are the only locations in OK that have hearing offices. This information was current as of 7/9/07. Pix. |
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Sept 4, 2007 17:00:38 GMT -5
Forgive me if this is redundant and/or dumb; I am new and I am confused... Are all 150 candidates on the certificate interviewed in Falls Church or are the candidates sent to the city/ODAR where the openings are?... NotaFed There is theory and then again there is actual practice. I know the theory, but I don't trust it. Let me give you the theory and then we can discuss actual practice. Assume 50 slots to be filled. ODAR requests a certificate and gets somewhat more than 3x that number of names, ranked in order of scores. Each name has a location availability tag. ODAR then randomly generates the order of cities it will consider. They start at the top of the list and look for the top three names willing to go to that location. They can select any one of the three BUT if one or more is a Vet Preference candidate, they can not pass over that person to take a non-vet preference candidate with a lower score without going through a detailed justification process. The reality tends to be that the top scores all have Vet Preference, so the justification issue is moot. They play the vets off against each other. After the first selection, they go to the next city and repeat the process. Generally, one can expect that the two passed over candidates will be considered again with a new third. One is selected and two return to the pot and on to the third city. The difficult part is that they only need to consider each candidate three times. A candidate with a very high score can theoretically be passed over three times and be taken out of the game without there being anything wrong with him/her. In practice, I do not think they do this, but that is just my intuition. I suspect that they can manipulate the process to avoid a high scoring vet but I have no way to confirm that. I am a bit of a cynic and I believe they generate their list of cities to allow them to hire the judges they really want. I have no actual basis for this belief other than the fact that a high number of candidates who had very restrictive geographical requests ended up where they wanted to be. If this were all as random as postulated, I do not believe that could happen. The ODAR interviews have traditionally been conducted in Regional locations. There are three interviewers, mostly comprised of office Chiefs or former office Chiefs. They have a canned set of questions so everyone is treated the same. They evaluate each candidate but do not actually participate in the selection process. They send their notes to the team in Falls Church that does the actual selections. The interview team will have no idea which offices you may be considered for. As an aside, this selection process is called "the rule of three." Three refers both to the number of candidates considered for each opening and the number of times a candidate can be considered before dropping out of consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by judicature on Sept 4, 2007 17:53:01 GMT -5
Pix -
Thanks for the info - Oklahoma has one more hearing office in Tulsa; with respect to Kansas, there is a hearing office in Wichita, which the previous post was also silent about.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 4, 2007 20:08:49 GMT -5
Hooligan,
Thank you for the extensive post above. That explains a lot more about how things may work. Interestingly enough, I know a judge in the east who has been trying to transfer west for 4-5 years now with no luck. It will be interesting to see if he makes it this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 5, 2007 5:03:43 GMT -5
Pix - Thanks for the info - Oklahoma has one more hearing office in Tulsa; with respect to Kansas, there is a hearing office in Wichita, which the previous post was also silent about. If I can remember, I'll check on those today. |
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Sept 5, 2007 5:27:30 GMT -5
I have a question to one of the aljs. My understanding is that at some point in the actual selection process, if you want to knock off certain locations, you can do so without penalty. Could someone who's been through the process explain how this works?
|
|
|
|
Post by tootsie on Sept 5, 2007 6:42:05 GMT -5
I also have a question about the ODAR interviews and selection process- if it goes as Hooligan described, won't it take an inordinate amount of time to make 150 selections? Even if they only give folks 24-hours to respond, it would take a few months. n'est ce pas?
|
|
|
|
Post by cinderella on Sept 5, 2007 7:01:03 GMT -5
Tootsie- I was thinking the same thing. If the first Cert is only 50, and they have to interview 150 people to get the 50- that could take some time! Imagine if a Cert were 100 or 150- I can't fathom the logistics of interviewing 300+ people in a timely manner! It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. Maybe someone "in the know" can help us understand the timeline and process better.
|
|
