|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 4, 2022 9:00:10 GMT -5
It's too bad we don't know what the future is going to look like in terms of video/phone hearings from home and the two hour rule. If, for example, ALJs were only expected to be in the office 4 days a month and there were no 2 hour rule I bet the transfer list might look quite a bit different. I was told to give availability for 50 hearings a month beginning in August. Which is an increase of 10 and inconsistent with me doing in person hearings as I understand the MOU. I'm not even sure if my office has enough hearings to give 50. This feels like TPTB wanting to hold onto that magic 50 number more than anything. However, it does make me wonder if they would rather give more telephone hearings to keep 50. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Apr 4, 2022 17:16:45 GMT -5
It's too bad we don't know what the future is going to look like in terms of video/phone hearings from home and the two hour rule. If, for example, ALJs were only expected to be in the office 4 days a month and there were no 2 hour rule I bet the transfer list might look quite a bit different. I was told to give availability for 50 hearings a month beginning in August. Which is an increase of 10 and inconsistent with me doing in person hearings as I understand the MOU. I'm not even sure if my office has enough hearings to give 50. This feels like TPTB wanting to hold onto that magic 50 number more than anything. However, it does make me wonder if they would rather give more telephone hearings to keep 50. I don't think there is any question that TPTB want that 50. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Apr 4, 2022 19:10:10 GMT -5
I was told to give availability for 50 hearings a month beginning in August. Which is an increase of 10 and inconsistent with me doing in person hearings as I understand the MOU. I'm not even sure if my office has enough hearings to give 50. This feels like TPTB wanting to hold onto that magic 50 number more than anything. However, it does make me wonder if they would rather give more telephone hearings to keep 50. I reiterate what I said when they fired Andrew Saul. Don't expect major changes from the new Commish. It's not the politicians--it's the senior career people who control most federal agency policy. We'll soon be back at 50, and they will try to roll back other pandemic "privileges." |
|
|
|
Post by ok1956 on Apr 5, 2022 7:50:18 GMT -5
I was told to give availability for 50 hearings a month beginning in August. Which is an increase of 10 and inconsistent with me doing in person hearings as I understand the MOU. I'm not even sure if my office has enough hearings to give 50. This feels like TPTB wanting to hold onto that magic 50 number more than anything. However, it does make me wonder if they would rather give more telephone hearings to keep 50. I reiterate what I said when they fired Andrew Saul. Don't expect major changes from the new Commish. It's not the politicians--it's the senior career people who control most federal agency policy. We'll soon be back at 50, and they will try to roll back other pandemic "privileges." According to the “expectations” we receive from our HOCALJ each month (at least for our office) the 500 per year and 50 per month have never changed. Those daily numbers have remained constant even as we are told we can only get 30-35 scheduled each month. All that to say I agree that nothing has changed or will change. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Apr 6, 2022 6:02:06 GMT -5
I commend the ALJs who dutifully provide availability for 50 hearing slots per month. However, when CSU receives the ALJ availability calendars each month, they automatically set aside 20 hearing times right off the top that they will not schedule because they say they do not have enough cases in RTS to fill them all. CSU's justification for doing so includes that they have to schedule hearings in such a way as to ensure no ALJs unjustly holds more hearings than another. They also claim this is necessary to allow internal hearing office schedulers to backfill RTS-aged cases. Unless this is something new, this is not accurate nationally. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Apr 6, 2022 12:09:47 GMT -5
I commend the ALJs who dutifully provide availability for 50 hearing slots per month. However, when CSU receives the ALJ availability calendars each month, they automatically set aside 20 hearing times right off the top that they will not schedule because they say they do not have enough cases in RTS to fill them all. CSU's justification for doing so includes that they have to schedule hearings in such a way as to ensure no ALJs unjustly holds more hearings than another. They also claim this is necessary to allow internal hearing office schedulers to backfill RTS-aged cases. Unless this is something new, this is not accurate nationally. I agree with nylawyer Until this month I was being scheduled close to if not 50+ hearings a month. After mid month, I don’t have any day with more than three hearings. It seems as if something recently changed. |
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Apr 6, 2022 12:39:37 GMT -5
My office is still fully scheduled. I mean, every slot filled every month, for real. Offices that are not fully scheduled generally have lack of staffing (not Judges) and/or receipt issues. But there are still a good % of offices operating at max capacity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 6, 2022 14:06:19 GMT -5
I commend the ALJs who dutifully provide availability for 50 hearing slots per month. However, when CSU receives the ALJ availability calendars each month, they automatically set aside 20 hearing times right off the top that they will not schedule because they say they do not have enough cases in RTS to fill them all. CSU's justification for doing so includes that they have to schedule hearings in such a way as to ensure no ALJs unjustly holds more hearings than another. They also claim this is necessary to allow internal hearing office schedulers to backfill RTS-aged cases. Unless this is something new, this is not accurate nationally. I agree. It is apparent from reading here that different regions and different offices within regions are handling all of this very differently. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Apr 6, 2022 17:32:17 GMT -5
Circling back to ALJ hiring… Just a reminder for those of you who plan to throw your hat in the ring as soon as the announcement is posted: now is the time to update your résumé.
Now is the time to research the actual month, day and year you graduated from law school. Know the actual month, day and year you were admitted to practice in each jurisdiction in which you are licensed. Start making a list of your references with names, addresses, email addresses, and best contact phone numbers.
I don’t know what the process will look like compared to the OPM process. But i seem to recall I had to have references from supervisors, from judges, from opposing counsel, and personal references. You don’t want to scramble for your reference contact information when time is of the essence.
Once the job announcement is posted, remember to carefully compare the job announcement to your résumé. Try to mirror your qualities and experiences with the knowledge, skills, and abilities
contained in the job announcement. For example if the job announcement says requires “analytical skills” and “communication abilities”, I would suggest you figure out a way to add “analytical skills” and “communication abilities” to your résumé.
Will this new process for hiring ALJs require submission of a writing sample? I don’t know. But it would be nice to have an updated, reviewed and easy to access brief writing sample saved on the computer. And for heaven sake’s, I do not mean a Social Security decision draft! Print it and ask a friend or relative you trust to proofread it for you. I find grammatical, spacing, spelling, and typographical errors easier to find on the printed page.
Just some off-the-cuff thoughts while we are waiting for that announcement to post. Good luck to all those who intend to apply. ☘️
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Apr 6, 2022 17:50:19 GMT -5
Circling back to ALJ hiring… Just a reminder for those of you who plan to throw your hat in the ring as soon as the announcement is posted: now is the time to update your résumé. Now is the time to research the actual month, day and year you graduated from law school. Know the actual month, day and year you were admitted to practice in each jurisdiction in which you are licensed. And your bar number. Probably not as big of an issue now, since you can likely find it online, but way back when I first applied circa 2005 as I recall that was what jammed up a bunch of people. |
|
|
|
Post by spacemonkey on Apr 6, 2022 18:48:21 GMT -5
Is the general consensus among those of you in the know that there will still be a small ALJ hire this FY and a larger one next FY? I was beginning to think that the powers that be were just going to bring back a few Senior ALJ's and forego hiring for now. I tested onto the register just before it was done away with. I then interviewed during the round when they decided to hire no one at all. In spite of that I might just try to kick that football one more time. Maybe I should change my avatar to Charlie Brown.  |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Apr 6, 2022 20:33:05 GMT -5
Is the general consensus among those of you in the know that there will still be a small ALJ hire this FY and a larger one next FY? ) I wish I had a magic eight ball that would give me an accurate answer to share with you. I happen to believe that there will be a small ALJ hire this fiscal year. This is not based on any inside information or credible Intel. Just my gut. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Apr 6, 2022 21:08:51 GMT -5
Based on the fact the agency was soliciting for staff to assist in the hiring process, I would still guess that hiring is more likely than not.
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Apr 6, 2022 21:25:47 GMT -5
Circling back to ALJ hiring… Just a reminder for those of you who plan to throw your hat in the ring as soon as the announcement is posted: now is the time to update your résumé. Now is the time to research the actual month, day and year you graduated from law school. Know the actual month, day and year you were admitted to practice in each jurisdiction in which you are licensed. Start making a list of your references with names, addresses, email addresses, and best contact phone numbers. I don’t know what the process will look like compared to the OPM process. But i seem to recall I had to have references from supervisors, from judges, from opposing counsel, and personal references. You don’t want to scramble for your reference contact information when time is of the essence. Once the job announcement is posted, remember to carefully compare the job announcement to your résumé. Try to mirror your qualities and experiences with the knowledge, skills, and abilities contained in the job announcement. For example if the job announcement says requires “analytical skills” and “communication abilities”, I would suggest you figure out a way to add “analytical skills” and “communication abilities” to your résumé. Will this new process for hiring ALJs require submission of a writing sample? I don’t know. But it would be nice to have an updated, reviewed and easy to access brief writing sample saved on the computer. And for heaven sake’s, I do not mean a Social Security decision draft! Print it and ask a friend or relative you trust to proofread it for you. I find grammatical, spacing, spelling, and typographical errors easier to find on the printed page. Just some off-the-cuff thoughts while we are waiting for that announcement to post. Good luck to all those who intend to apply. ☘️ Just out of curiosity, for SSA insiders, what do you suggest they should use as an updated writing sample? |
|
|
|
Post by noah on Apr 7, 2022 1:53:56 GMT -5
Last time, they limited applicants to those on the Register. Will they do that this time?
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Apr 7, 2022 4:50:57 GMT -5
Last time, they limited applicants to those on the Register. Will they do that this time? Unless congressional funding specifically indicates that as a requirement, I doubt they will include that limitation again. |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Apr 7, 2022 6:53:39 GMT -5
Last time, they limited applicants to those on the Register. Will they do that this time? There is no current register |
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Apr 7, 2022 7:13:28 GMT -5
Last time, they limited applicants to those on the Register. Will they do that this time? There is no current register Speaking of "there is no current register," as soon as they start trying to hire in a new way, won't some of the people from the previous register who had high scores and went to SSA interviews sue. If I spent all of that time and money only to have the register ended and then wasn't selected under the new process, I probably wouldn't sue, but I know some people who would. And how long would said lawsuit gum up the works. |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Apr 7, 2022 8:59:09 GMT -5
There is no current register Speaking of "there is no current register," as soon as they start trying to hire in a new way, won't some of the people from the previous register who had high scores and went to SSA interviews sue. If I spent all of that time and money only to have the register ended and then wasn't selected under the new process, I probably wouldn't sue, but I know some people who would. And how long would said lawsuit gum up the works. Under what grounds? It’s not like this is the 1st time a register was closed |
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Apr 7, 2022 10:15:16 GMT -5
Speaking of "there is no current register," as soon as they start trying to hire in a new way, won't some of the people from the previous register who had high scores and went to SSA interviews sue. If I spent all of that time and money only to have the register ended and then wasn't selected under the new process, I probably wouldn't sue, but I know some people who would. And how long would said lawsuit gum up the works. Under what grounds? It’s not like this is the 1st time a register was closed Under what grounds?  ? They brought applicants to DC, gave them a score, brought them actually to DC again for SSA interview and then ... NEVER HIRED A SINGLE PERSON. Sorry, but that person has a lot better argument that they were ripped off than some Veteran's Preference litigant...that argument gummed up the system for what??? 10 years? |
|
? They brought applicants to DC, gave them a score, brought them actually to DC again for SSA interview and then ... NEVER HIRED A SINGLE PERSON. Sorry, but that person has a lot better argument that they were ripped off than some Veteran's Preference litigant...that argument gummed up the system for what??? 10 years?