|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 28, 2022 13:34:51 GMT -5
I found this interesting: Candidates who are invited to interview must be available during the timeframe that has been designated for interviews. Candidates who are not available will receive no further consideration. Once an interview has been scheduled, candidates will not have the option to re-schedule. Interviews will be conducted using video teleconferencing. Well as someone who is currently a Federal Employee that serves as both a trial attorney and a Hearing Officer, I cannot simply file a motion to postpone a trial or cancel a scheduled hearing if there is a conflict (assuming I were to even make it to the interview round). The inclusion of these provisions leads me to believe they are looking to hire decision writers that won’t have these conflicts. However, i’m guessing that interviewees will be given several dates/times to choose from to interview and it’s possible they are referring to being available during the designated time slots. There is nothing new about these restrictions. When OPM ran the first part it was just as dictatorial. They will give you a day and a time. You might be able to get a different day or time depending on availability. They may or may not do them by video now that everyone is a little more familiar with using video for meetings. The process isn't designed like this to benefit agency employees. It is designed to make it easier for the people who are doing the interviews. There are people (and I was one of them) who will do what they have to do to make it work. It is just brutal obstacle course of a process and when you make it over a wall the cargo net is just ahead. Just be glad you don't have to pay to take all those tests just to be denied an opportunity to interview at all. |
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Apr 28, 2022 13:45:24 GMT -5
Now that we know what they're asking for, there's really no excuse from anyone on this forum not be prepared, except for actually knowing the posting is up if you are an insider. I have a saved search in USAjobs for all the search times I could imagine that would ding when an ALJ posting is up. I also compulsively check three times a day ever since the rumors came out on this forum. If you're actively following this forum, you have better info than most insiders.
If it's indeed true that this posting was trolling for productive insiders, it will be interesting to see how this jives with the 10 GS jobs and 5 SAA jobs they posted in the last three weeks.
I hope the fact that we got in early means we won't get sent to remote offices and will have our pick of the litter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maria C. on Apr 28, 2022 13:45:36 GMT -5
Very true about the travel- I'd much prefer to interview by Zoom / Microsoft Teams etc. And yes, like I stated, i'm sure interviewees will be given several dates/times to choose from.
|
|
|
|
Post by banks on Apr 28, 2022 13:45:54 GMT -5
Good luck to all that were able to apply and condolences to those who missed the deadline. I have not followed this list in a long time, but received an email about new postings so I logged in out of curiosity. I went through the application for ALJ, tested in D.C. and was willing to move anywhere.
I took a job as a decision writer in 2018 and it was an eye opening experience. I did not last long. I'm glad I did not move to take the job. I'm sure that the toxic office environment contributed, but I quickly learned that I was not cut out for SSA and for this type of work.
It happily led me to my current job, which is the best of my career. I am able to use my 34 years of litigation and trial experience to strategize and litigate complex cases and I am always learning and challenged. Management respects me and leaves me alone. I'm even working primarily from home and using technology for witness meetings and preps, court appearances, and depositions. And I stayed in the city I love.
So it all worked out.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Apr 28, 2022 15:32:43 GMT -5
Strategic advice from someone who (pre-pandemic) used to interview and hire attorneys and others:
If you are given the choice between video and in-person, go in-person. Spend the time and money and don't complain about it. It shows that you are really interested. Also, the face-to-face helps the interviewers note how nice you are!
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Apr 28, 2022 15:38:04 GMT -5
Well as someone who is currently a Federal Employee that serves as both a trial attorney and a Hearing Officer, I cannot simply file a motion to postpone a trial or cancel a scheduled hearing if there is a conflict (assuming I were to even make it to the interview round). The inclusion of these provisions leads me to believe they are looking to hire decision writers that won’t have these conflicts. However, i’m guessing that interviewees will be given several dates/times to choose from to interview and it’s possible they are referring to being available during the designated time slots. There is nothing new about these restrictions. When OPM ran the first part it was just as dictatorial. They will give you a day and a time. You might be able to get a different day or time depending on availability. They may or may not do them by video now that everyone is a little more familiar with using video for meetings. The process isn't designed like this to benefit agency employees. It is designed to make it easier for the people who are doing the interviews. There are people (and I was one of them) who will do what they have to do to make it work. It is just brutal obstacle course of a process and when you make it over a wall the cargo net is just ahead. Just be glad you don't have to pay to take all those tests just to be denied an opportunity to interview at all. The fact that it's going to be by teleconference makes this a lot less onerous. I remember having to convince a judge to let me out of a trial date because I'd been summoned. I told him I had an interview for a job I'd been applying for a decade to get. He asked was I up for Secretary of State, because otherwise it made no sense that it was taking that long. But, he let me out. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Apr 28, 2022 16:20:59 GMT -5
Another piece of advice:
Try to rehearse looking right into your videocam and not staring off to the side or looking at notes. You all know from zoom and MS Teams that it happens, but you want the interviewer to think you really care about what he or she says. A poorly positioned camera can destroy an interview. Even if they aren't looking at you. Tape an outline or put it on screen right near the camera. Rehearse, rehearse, rehearse, until someone on the other side of the screen would think that you are actually there.
DO NOT EAT OR DRINK DURING THE INTERVIEW!!!! I can't stress this enough. It seems that some reps and claimants feel the need to swallow gallons of water or coffee in hearings. Not only is it distracting, it sometimes appears to be used as a stall tactic. Either use a backdrop or sit in a nice, non-distracting place (without your cat or Farah Fawcett poster visible).
Go get 'em tigers. I want everyone on this board to get an offer!
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Apr 28, 2022 17:02:27 GMT -5
I got my app in before 4PM. I got the notice it was up at 12:30ish from another insider. I'm an insider who was not eligible during the last round. I already had my references typed up and ready to go thanks to a hint from this forum. For the narrative responses, I had most of it ready to go from various cover letters and statements of interest over the years. Thanks to this forum, I had an inkling they are looking for highly productive decision writers, or at least that I would stand out if that was the case. Fortunately, I am highly productive decision writer with a really high agree rate. (DWPI over 115% and agree for the past twelve month is 94%). I also volunteer for presentations and whatnot several times a year etc. So, I made to emphasize that. IMHO, I am the ideal candidate. I am a decision writing machine. I don't complain. I take on extra projects all the time. I volunteer for complex cases, and I don't think there is a single case-type I haven't handled, including non-disability. My PACS have been all fives for the past 5 years. My GS loves me and makes sure they know it when called for references (his words not mine). All of my past GSs also said they are giving me excellent recommendations. I have never done any litigation. So I didn't have opposing council. Outside of ALJs with whom I've interacted, I only had one judicial reference and that person is a family friend. Consistent with the suggestions in this forum, I checked the boxes for all the locations, but where it asked for one location I put my home office. I'm willing to live in the boonies for a bit to get this gig. I'm not saying all this to brag or make anyone else feel self-conscious. I know many other attorneys with the same or better qualifications who probably applied. My point is why would the Agency NOT hire me? As I'm sure others who got their apps will do, I will post regular updates as things progress. Good luck to you my friend. My numbers aren't as high as yours but a ping pong ball with my name on it is also currently bouncing around in the lottery machine waiting to be pulled. I suspect there's 50 apps from OGC attorneys that have litigated these cases in actual court for 10 plus years that would laugh at your decision writing experience and another 50 plus apps from GS, SAA, and HODs that were you before they got promoted and there's prob 1 of you in each of the 150 plus hearing offices. All this for 25 slots. Just because I like chaos I'm hoping SCOTUS overturns Chevron deference in American Hospital Association v. Becerra so us veterans can challenge OPM's "positive factor" regulation. I think it's administratively feasible to hire every qualified veteran. DC circuit has already said agencies have to follow veterans preference as far as administratively feasible for excepted service but gave OPM Chevron deference in determining that considering preference as a positive factor was as far as administratively feasible. Blacks law dictionary defines feasible as something that is capable of being accomplished. Certainly hiring qualified veterans, even minimally qualified veterans, is capable of being accomplished. Come on Gorsuch you know you want to stick it to the administrative state. Rally the troops! |
|
|
|
Post by theadjudicator on Apr 28, 2022 17:04:54 GMT -5
Anyone arguing this posting was geared towards "insiders" obviously does not work on the inside... cool ur jets......especially u, "dwesq"...
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Apr 28, 2022 17:19:01 GMT -5
Anyone arguing this posting was geared towards "insiders" obviously does not work on the inside... cool ur jets......especially u, "dwesq"... I know of two insiders who missed the deadline, even taking leave to work on it. Both were great candidates. I don't think it was geared to insiders; just expediency. |
|
|
|
Post by jlawj on Apr 28, 2022 17:32:45 GMT -5
So insiders... the thinking is a class of 25 out of 1000 applications. That seems on par with prior hiring class of between 20-30 hires give or take a little.
However, the real question is this... will there be a register, and if so, how many on it.
There used to be about 450. So in 2016 there were about 2500 applicants if I recall correctly, expecting to be on a register. Then the 2018 applicants numbered around 5,000. I think everyone was expecting a register to top out at around 1200?
I'm wondering if they'll reinstitute the register with a couple of hundred of yesterday's applicants and then have a second round of applications like they did in 2018 to add to the first round.
Any insider feel like shooting me down or confirming any of this malarky?
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Apr 28, 2022 17:40:37 GMT -5
My understanding is that there won't be a register because unlike previous application periods, there is no score. If an HR person determines that you're minimally qualified and have submitted the proper documentation your application will be passed on to be reviewed by someone and someone will determine if they want to interview you. The narrative responses are not scored per se. Everything is different now because the job changed from competitive to excepted service.
Additional hiring in subsequent fiscal years will likely come from another job announcement but I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Apr 28, 2022 17:43:23 GMT -5
SSA may call it a "register" or it may not. I doubt that it will.
I doubt additional applications will be taken anytime soon. With 150+ locations on this announcement, no reason to do so. They can feed out of this round of applicants for a long time to come. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Apr 28, 2022 17:50:52 GMT -5
So you suspect applicants not hired this go around will not get FOAD letters? Will they just be held in limbo indefinitely?
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Apr 28, 2022 17:54:43 GMT -5
On a related note, I have some info on how the ALJs selected will be placed. Everyone will be put in a room. A moderator will read out the list of available offices one at a time. First one to shout "Me!" will be placed in that office. Conversely, if no one shouts "Me!", then the last one to shout "Not it!!" will be placed in the office. All ties will be broken using a bake off with ingredients that will only be announced as the competition begins. However, unlike a traditional bakeoff, the determining factor will not be the quality of your baked goods, but rather you will be rated on the speed at which you completed baking and the volume of baked goods you created. All pretty standard HR practices. I heard you have to use a crockpot, and the centerpiece has to involve a basket of kittens. YES! This. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Apr 28, 2022 18:20:44 GMT -5
I got my app in before 4PM. I got the notice it was up at 12:30ish from another insider. I'm an insider who was not eligible during the last round. I already had my references typed up and ready to go thanks to a hint from this forum. For the narrative responses, I had most of it ready to go from various cover letters and statements of interest over the years. Thanks to this forum, I had an inkling they are looking for highly productive decision writers, or at least that I would stand out if that was the case. Fortunately, I am highly productive decision writer with a really high agree rate. (DWPI over 115% and agree for the past twelve month is 94%). I also volunteer for presentations and whatnot several times a year etc. So, I made to emphasize that. IMHO, I am the ideal candidate. I am a decision writing machine. I don't complain. I take on extra projects all the time. I volunteer for complex cases, and I don't think there is a single case-type I haven't handled, including non-disability. My PACS have been all fives for the past 5 years. My GS loves me and makes sure they know it when called for references (his words not mine). All of my past GSs also said they are giving me excellent recommendations. I have never done any litigation. So I didn't have opposing council. Outside of ALJs with whom I've interacted, I only had one judicial reference and that person is a family friend. Consistent with the suggestions in this forum, I checked the boxes for all the locations, but where it asked for one location I put my home office. I'm willing to live in the boonies for a bit to get this gig. I'm not saying all this to brag or make anyone else feel self-conscious. I know many other attorneys with the same or better qualifications who probably applied. My point is why would the Agency NOT hire me? As I'm sure others who got their apps will do, I will post regular updates as things progress. Good luck to you my friend. My numbers aren't as high as yours but a ping pong ball with my name on it is also currently bouncing around in the lottery machine waiting to be pulled. I suspect there's 50 apps from OGC attorneys that have litigated these cases in actual court for 10 plus years that would laugh at your decision writing experience and another 50 plus apps from GS, SAA, and HODs that were you before they got promoted and there's prob 1 of you in each of the 150 plus hearing offices. All this for 25 slots. Just because I like chaos I'm hoping SCOTUS overturns Chevron deference in American Hospital Association v. Becerra so us veterans can challenge OPM's "positive factor" regulation. I think it's administratively feasible to hire every qualified veteran. DC circuit has already said agencies have to follow veterans preference as far as administratively feasible for excepted service but gave OPM Chevron deference in determining that considering preference as a positive factor was as far as administratively feasible. Blacks law dictionary defines feasible as something that is capable of being accomplished. Certainly hiring qualified veterans, even minimally qualified veterans, is capable of being accomplished. Come on Gorsuch you know you want to stick it to the administrative state. Rally the troops! Okay, I am looking at SCOTUSBLOG American Hospital Assoc v Becerra, and I am not seeing the tie.
How would overturning Chevron deference allow us veterans to challenge the "positive factor" regulation? |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Apr 28, 2022 18:44:23 GMT -5
I'm not saying the party would prevail but if Chevron did not exist a court may reconsider the question caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1260223.htmlIn addition, Mr. Patterson's proposed interpretation-that is, his contention that agencies could numerically rate and rank attorney applicants without subjecting them to an “examination”-is, at best, simply another possible interpretation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 3309 and 3320. It is well settled law, however, that where Chevron deference is due, our role is not to substitute the agency's interpretation with what we think might be a better interpretation. Rather, our role is limited to assessing whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (“ court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.”). In this case, we hold that 5 C.F.R. § 302.101(c)(9) represents a reasonable interpretation of how 5 U.S.C. §§ 3309 and 3320 apply to attorney positions within the excepted service.
Make the arguments Patterson made, see if anything sticks.
Oh and by the way court this isn't even an attorney position (905) this is an ALJ position (935) so the OPM reg for applying vet pref to attorney positions doesn't apply and we know the government is capable of testing and rating ALJs with a score, they did it for decades so the government can't say they can't rate ALJs like they said they can't rate attorneys as an excuse for not providing preference and pass over protection to attorneys. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Apr 28, 2022 18:57:29 GMT -5
I'm not saying the party would prevail but if Chevron did not exist a court may reconsider the question caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1260223.htmlIn addition, Mr. Patterson's proposed interpretation-that is, his contention that agencies could numerically rate and rank attorney applicants without subjecting them to an “examination”-is, at best, simply another possible interpretation of 5 U.S.C. §§ 3309 and 3320. It is well settled law, however, that where Chevron deference is due, our role is not to substitute the agency's interpretation with what we think might be a better interpretation. Rather, our role is limited to assessing whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (“ court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency.”). In this case, we hold that 5 C.F.R. § 302.101(c)(9) represents a reasonable interpretation of how 5 U.S.C. §§ 3309 and 3320 apply to attorney positions within the excepted service.
Make the arguments Patterson made, see if anything sticks. Thanks for the additional explanation |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Apr 28, 2022 23:02:39 GMT -5
I can think of a few things to improve the hiring process and help winnow applicant pool. And none of my ideas are radical. 1. Increase minimum practice from 7 to 10 years. (Already the case for many other agencies.) 2. List real available offices. Include explanation that transfers do not happen easily or quickly so be sure you will go to xyz and stay there! 3. Open and close for a defined time period. At least then applicants have a fair shot instead of having no idea of how many people applied already. Time period can be short - say 48 hours. 4. Reduce number of references- 9 is a lot and unnecessary. It also creates a lot of work for recruiters. 5. Lay out telework policy including probation policy and clarify if there is or isn’t remote work- clarify on number of in person hearings are expected. For folks expecting or hoping for a full remote slot this is not the agency to do it. I realize insiders have this information but it is not readily known to outside applicants. 2 and 5 are not practicable at the moment. Transfers are not necessarily few and far between with functional hiring because an office must solicit transfers before they hire for it. As for telework, the agency can’t lay out a policy they, for all practical purposes, don’t have at the moment. The agency is at maximum telework for OHO and is presently in negotiations on what the policy will be in the future AND has an extremely telework heavy MOU on reentry. In person hearing numbers are also limited in some offices by space constraints during the period of the MOU. There’s just too many moving parts to put this in a USAJobs posting. |
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Apr 29, 2022 7:31:21 GMT -5
I got my app in before 4PM. I got the notice it was up at 12:30ish from another insider. I'm an insider who was not eligible during the last round. I already had my references typed up and ready to go thanks to a hint from this forum. For the narrative responses, I had most of it ready to go from various cover letters and statements of interest over the years. Thanks to this forum, I had an inkling they are looking for highly productive decision writers, or at least that I would stand out if that was the case. Fortunately, I am highly productive decision writer with a really high agree rate. (DWPI over 115% and agree for the past twelve month is 94%). I also volunteer for presentations and whatnot several times a year etc. So, I made to emphasize that. IMHO, I am the ideal candidate. I am a decision writing machine. I don't complain. I take on extra projects all the time. I volunteer for complex cases, and I don't think there is a single case-type I haven't handled, including non-disability. My PACS have been all fives for the past 5 years. My GS loves me and makes sure they know it when called for references (his words not mine). All of my past GSs also said they are giving me excellent recommendations. I have never done any litigation. So I didn't have opposing council. Outside of ALJs with whom I've interacted, I only had one judicial reference and that person is a family friend. Consistent with the suggestions in this forum, I checked the boxes for all the locations, but where it asked for one location I put my home office. I'm willing to live in the boonies for a bit to get this gig. I'm not saying all this to brag or make anyone else feel self-conscious. I know many other attorneys with the same or better qualifications who probably applied. My point is why would the Agency NOT hire me? As I'm sure others who got their apps will do, I will post regular updates as things progress. Good luck to you my friend. My numbers aren't as high as yours but a ping pong ball with my name on it is also currently bouncing around in the lottery machine waiting to be pulled. I suspect there's 50 apps from OGC attorneys that have litigated these cases in actual court for 10 plus years that would laugh at your decision writing experience and another 50 plus apps from GS, SAA, and HODs that were you before they got promoted and there's prob 1 of you in each of the 150 plus hearing offices. All this for 25 slots. Just because I like chaos I'm hoping SCOTUS overturns Chevron deference in American Hospital Association v. Becerra so us veterans can challenge OPM's "positive factor" regulation. I think it's administratively feasible to hire every qualified veteran. DC circuit has already said agencies have to follow veterans preference as far as administratively feasible for excepted service but gave OPM Chevron deference in determining that considering preference as a positive factor was as far as administratively feasible. Blacks law dictionary defines feasible as something that is capable of being accomplished. Certainly hiring qualified veterans, even minimally qualified veterans, is capable of being accomplished. Come on Gorsuch you know you want to stick it to the administrative state. Rally the troops! Solid points all. Once again, DWs are the bottom of the pecking order. I was thinking more in terms of us vs outside hires. |
|
