|
Post by hilltopper on Sept 6, 2007 14:17:47 GMT -5
Workdrone et. al.,
When completing the application, I limited my selections to the Southeast. On reconsideration, I would not mind going to Texas, Colorado or the Pacific Northwest.
I've seen the discussion thread and response where you will be able to edit down your original "All locations" selection when the Register is published.
Is there an opportunity to broaden your geographic choices where you have initially restricted them?
Thanks.
Hilltopper
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Sept 6, 2007 15:11:46 GMT -5
Since all the rules have been rewritten for this new register, past practice may tell you nothing about what will happen this time. I remember being told I could eliminate cities which I had originally selected but could not add any.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 6, 2007 15:31:58 GMT -5
Wish I could offer something concrete but as ODARite said, we are in uncharted territories here due to the new procedures (and I'm not an OPM insider so I have no idea what they're cooking up). I'd say if it's keeping you up at night, you can try the certified letter thing Pixie mentioned in the previous thread. The worse that can happen is OPM throwing it in the discard pile. Regards, Drone
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 6, 2007 20:59:58 GMT -5
Let's look at the possible time frames. Good projection, but you forgot to factor in that they have to offer transfer opportunities to sitting judges on the transfer list before they can determine where the open slots for new judges will be. They need to do that before they ask for a certificate from OPM. They MAY start it before the registry is ready, but my guess is they will want to see the registry before they decide how many they want to hire and by extension, where. I also forgot to factor in the FBI investigation of candidates and contacting verifiers and references. I'm not sure however that verifiers or references are even going to be contacted.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 6, 2007 21:06:33 GMT -5
Very interesting. Houston starts higher than everyone except San Francisco/San Jose. I never thought of Houston as having a higher cost of living than Boston, NY, DC, Chicago and LA. Chris, you are suffering under a common misconception. The locality pay is not based on cost of living, but rather wage competition. Thus Boston, a wildly expensive city,does not have as high a locality pay as Houston because with over 60,000 newly minted grads every year there is a deep talent pool in Boston. There's a lot more to be said about this (and more accurately), but basically just don't look at is cost of living. Interesting, Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 7, 2007 15:25:13 GMT -5
Chris states:
"4. Unless some of that 27 years was either as a judge or as a high pay grade federal employee, it's not likely to have any impact on your starting salary."
I believe Pixi confirmed this too. The new Code of Federal Regulations are contrary to this:
5 C.F.R. §§930.205(f)(1), 930.205(f)(2)(i), (ii) state as follows:
"(f) Upon appointment to a position at AL–3, an administrative law judge may be paid at the minimum rate A, unless the administrative law judge is eligible for the higher rate B, C, D, E, or F because of prior service or superior qualifications, as provided in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section.
(1) An agency may offer an administrative law judge applicant with prior Federal service a higher than minimum rate up to the lowest rate of basic pay that equals or exceeds the applicant's highest previous Federal rate of basic pay, not to exceed the maximum rate F.
(2) With prior OPM approval, an agency may pay the rate of pay that is next above the applicant's existing pay or earnings up to the maximum rate F. The agency may offer a higher than minimum rate to:
(i) An administrative law judge applicant with superior qualifications (as defined in §930.202) who is within reach for appointment from an administrative law judge certificate of eligibles; or
(ii) A former administrative law judge with superior qualifications who is eligible for reinstatement."
5 C.F.R. §§930.20 states in pertinent part as follows:
"Superior qualifications means an appointment made at a rate above the minimum rate based on such qualifications as experience practicing law before the hiring agency; experience practicing before another forum in a field of law relevant to the hiring agency; or an outstanding reputation among others in a field of law relevant to the hiring agency."
Wouldn't this apply to any new ALJ with an extensive knowledge and practical experience (i.e. a lot of trials) of that Agency's law?
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 7, 2007 15:45:30 GMT -5
Wouldn't this apply to any new ALJ with an extensive knowledge and practical experience (i.e. a lot of trials) of that Agency's law? Theoretically yes, but I haven't seen it in practice in real life when dealing with ODAR. People I know who got promoted from SA/AA ranks and a friend who was a claimant's attorney that became an ALJ all started from the bottom of the pay scale. So while such an option may exist at the discretion of the agency, I haven't seen it exercised.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 7, 2007 15:56:51 GMT -5
My experience as well. May be there on paper, but not much application in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 7, 2007 16:04:07 GMT -5
How about state judicial experience and pay level - do they try to account for this? A state judge, without experience before the hiring agency, or in the field relevant to the hiring agency, doesn't qualify under the statute cited above. Of course there may be those limited situations where a state judge has experience in a field that is relevant to the agency. I haven't seen it, and can't think of any examples off of the top of my head. Pix.
|
|