|
|
Post by wiszman on Apr 28, 2022 9:05:51 GMT -5
LOL. Not to say that I was the best candidate for this job - probably far from it -- but it does seem silly to base hiring on speed. The only folks who could finish the application that quickly were people who have been looking for jobs via USA Jobs for a long time and thus had all their documents, references, etc. ready to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 28, 2022 9:30:40 GMT -5
Glad to have wasted 3 hours last night working on this (with plans to finish this evening), only to find out that it closed in less than 24 hours. Apparently all of the attorney-advisors already working in SSA spent their workday doing their application, while being paid by the agency to do that - ugh! Can't win for trying So if you follow this board you had just as much notice as the insiders. Nobody was allowed to complete it on the clock. Given the way writer performance metrics work I can't imagine many of them tried to complete it on the clock. However, I saw a lot of away from the computer signals from folks yesterday. Several folks have reached out to me over the last month about being a reference. Nobody did yesterday. I'm sorry you didn't get your application in however don't assert skulduggery without some proof. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Apr 28, 2022 9:36:35 GMT -5
Made cert last time but I missed out on this time around. I was sick all day so didn’t see it got posted until after dinner time. So had no opportunity to confirm references. I thought I’d have at least until end of today. They didn’t have to limit the number of applicants or could have just done a 3 day cut off instead they did the random 1000 number. I’d imagine they have a list of people they want for ALJs ready to go and the listing is a mere formality, which is a lot easier to do now that there is no testing. There is a reason why OHO is ranked 389/411 in best places to work in the federal government. They don't have OPM to sort and grade applications anymore. They have a small group of folks who have to go through all 1,000 applications to see if they meet criteria. They had over 1,000 in one day. Now imagine it was open 3 days and how long it would take to sort. I hate that folks got cut out and I wish OPM was still in the mix. But they don't have the resources for 10,000 applications. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Apr 28, 2022 9:42:58 GMT -5
Made cert last time but I missed out on this time around. I was sick all day so didn’t see it got posted until after dinner time. So had no opportunity to confirm references. I thought I’d have at least until end of today. They didn’t have to limit the number of applicants or could have just done a 3 day cut off instead they did the random 1000 number. I’d imagine they have a list of people they want for ALJs ready to go and the listing is a mere formality, which is a lot easier to do now that there is no testing. There is a reason why OHO is ranked 389/411 in best places to work in the federal government. They don't have OPM to sort and grade applications anymore. They have a small group of folks who have to go through all 1,000 applications to see if they meet criteria. They had over 1,000 in one day. Now imagine it was open 3 days and how long it would take to sort. I hate that folks got cut out and I wish OPM was still in the mix. But they don't have the resources for 10,000 applications. They obviously know which cities they plan to hire Judges. So, the first level of triage will be to eliminate all applicants who didn't select a city that is in play for hiring. How much time will be wasted in interviewing applicants who aren't really interested in moving to a city they selected? |
|
|
|
Post by harp on Apr 28, 2022 10:02:38 GMT -5
That may be the case, but they certainly had inside information about when the application would open and what sort of information was necessary to complete. Who can possibly secure a transcript of their undergraduate and law degree that quickly? If it makes you feel better, attorney advisors, at least in my office, knew it was coming “soon.” I was not expecting it yesterday. I had work I had to finish up - Friday is the end of the production month after all. And then I had caregiving responsibilities. My children cannot prepare their own dinners or put themselves to bed, and my husband was already scheduled to work last night. I planned to work on it today and got screwed, too. This is a terrible system. There are a million reasons someone may not have been able to submit their application within 18 hours of the job being posted without advanced warning of precisely when it would post. I understand the reasons for limiting applications, but they should announce ahead of time when the application will go live. |
|
|
|
Post by recoveringalj on Apr 28, 2022 10:04:44 GMT -5
Respectfully, the beauty of a conspiracy theory is that no real proof is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by intothewild on Apr 28, 2022 10:05:31 GMT -5
LOL. Not to say that I was the best candidate for this job - probably far from it -- but it does seem silly to base hiring on speed. The only folks who could finish the application that quickly were people who have been looking for jobs via USA Jobs for a long time and thus had all their documents, references, etc. ready to go. They should have just come out and say “we are looking for the fastest applicants.” |
|
|
|
Post by hoyalawya on Apr 28, 2022 10:11:40 GMT -5
They don't have OPM to sort and grade applications anymore. They have a small group of folks who have to go through all 1,000 applications to see if they meet criteria. They had over 1,000 in one day. Now imagine it was open 3 days and how long it would take to sort. I hate that folks got cut out and I wish OPM was still in the mix. But they don't have the resources for 10,000 applications. They obviously know which cities they plan to hire Judges. So, the first level of triage will be to eliminate all applicants who didn't select a city that is in play for hiring. How much time will be wasted in interviewing applicants who aren't really interested in moving to a city they selected? As someone who missed out by needing one more day to gather reference information and only learning about the USAJobs posting later in the day outside the east coast, one more day would have been very helpful. Given the limited resources, why would SSA not limit the areas to where they know they plan to hire? That could weed out quite a few applicants not interested in the locations the play to hire. Many are only interested in the big cities, where I bet SSA was able to cover with the transfer list. My former HOD told me that my old office is down to 6 ALJs from 12, so they should be receiving a few slots. |
|
|
|
Post by kastelf on Apr 28, 2022 10:14:31 GMT -5
Does anyone know what happens next? For those who did get an application in before it closed, what is the next clue we are still in the running?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssa on Apr 28, 2022 10:15:07 GMT -5
They obviously know which cities they plan to hire Judges. So, the first level of triage will be to eliminate all applicants who didn't select a city that is in play for hiring. How much time will be wasted in interviewing applicants who aren't really interested in moving to a city they selected? As someone who missed out by needing one more day to gather reference information and only learning about the USAJobs posting later in the day outside the east coast, one more day would have been very helpful. Given the limited resources, why would SSA not limit the areas to where they know they plan to hire? That could weed out quite a few applicants not interested in the locations the play to hire. Many are only interested in the big cities, where I bet SSA was able to cover with the transfer list. My former HOD told me that my old office is down to 6 ALJs from 12, so they should be receiving a few slots. The posting said it could be used for future hiring as well. So it’s possible (likely? I don’t know) this posting will be used for the rumored (larger) next hire in FY23. In that case, they had to keep the geographic locations open to account for a future hire and also because it’s probably not clear now where there will be the biggest need in November, December or later. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Apr 28, 2022 10:50:58 GMT -5
They don't have OPM to sort and grade applications anymore. They have a small group of folks who have to go through all 1,000 applications to see if they meet criteria. They had over 1,000 in one day. Now imagine it was open 3 days and how long it would take to sort. I hate that folks got cut out and I wish OPM was still in the mix. But they don't have the resources for 10,000 applications. They obviously know which cities they plan to hire Judges. So, the first level of triage will be to eliminate all applicants who didn't select a city that is in play for hiring. How much time will be wasted in interviewing applicants who aren't really interested in moving to a city they selected? This is a good point. I thought it would be a limited geographical area like some IJ postings have been in the past (although, the last IJ posting listed all locations). |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Apr 28, 2022 11:55:24 GMT -5
As someone who missed out by needing one more day to gather reference information and only learning about the USAJobs posting later in the day outside the east coast, one more day would have been very helpful. Given the limited resources, why would SSA not limit the areas to where they know they plan to hire? That could weed out quite a few applicants not interested in the locations the play to hire. Many are only interested in the big cities, where I bet SSA was able to cover with the transfer list. My former HOD told me that my old office is down to 6 ALJs from 12, so they should be receiving a few slots. The posting said it could be used for future hiring as well. So it’s possible (likely? I don’t know) this posting will be used for the rumored (larger) next hire in FY23. In that case, they had to keep the geographic locations open to account for a future hire and also because it’s probably not clear now where there will be the biggest need in November, December or later. I think it is not only likely, but it is a sure thing that this posting will be used in the future. Does anyone know the approximate number of locations that were listed this time? Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by kastelf on Apr 28, 2022 12:01:43 GMT -5
The posting said it could be used for future hiring as well. So it’s possible (likely? I don’t know) this posting will be used for the rumored (larger) next hire in FY23. In that case, they had to keep the geographic locations open to account for a future hire and also because it’s probably not clear now where there will be the biggest need in November, December or later. I think it is not only likely, but it is a sure thing that this posting will be used in the future. Does anyone know the approximate number of locations that were listed this time? Pixie I think it said 153? |
|
|
|
Post by bp on Apr 28, 2022 12:04:32 GMT -5
I have a suspicion, mostly unfounded, that this hire may be more about getting the rock stars they want, rather than geographic areas.
Most ALJs are still teleworking heavily and doing remote hearings. With those capabilities, an ALJ can really work from anywhere and do hearings for any state.
In the past, the conventional wisdom for some candidates has been to widen their GAL and get the offer, then tell the agency where you are unwilling to go. Virtually every hearing office is on that vacancy announcement. What happens when you interview 90 people and then multiple candidates with wide open GALs get offered and say they are unwilling to go to Mississippi or Arkansas? What if the candidates that are willing to go to those places are ones the agency decides in interviews they do not want?
With the way this VA is structured, either (1) there is going to have to be a geographic cull before interviews, or (2) placement will be flexible and they aren't really hiring for specific offices and will place you where you want if there is office space there.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Apr 28, 2022 12:05:01 GMT -5
The posting said it could be used for future hiring as well. So it’s possible (likely? I don’t know) this posting will be used for the rumored (larger) next hire in FY23. In that case, they had to keep the geographic locations open to account for a future hire and also because it’s probably not clear now where there will be the biggest need in November, December or later. I think it is not only likely, but it is a sure thing that this posting will be used in the future. Does anyone know the approximate number of locations that were listed this time? Pixie From my review and comparison almost all locations were listed. It is easier to ask what locations were not listed: Anchorage, AK Boise, ID Casper, WY (Which I am not sure is still open) Falls Church, VA Sioux Falls, SD Those were the only offices not listed on the notice that I was able to identify. Based on that I think it is very high odds that the 2023 hire will be based on this application. But that speculation is not based on any real information other than the posting language and the geographic scope of the application. Of note, I think all of those offices are satellite offices (other than HQ). I am not sure if that is significant or not. |
|
|
|
Post by bp on Apr 28, 2022 12:05:43 GMT -5
Does anyone know the approximate number of locations that were listed this time? Pixie 150+...all of them |
|
|
|
Post by lawyeredbylaws on Apr 28, 2022 12:45:14 GMT -5
I don’t think it’s completely true that OPM is not involved at all. Whenever I’ve applied to jobs recently, OPM reviews initial applications to make sure you meet the requirements of the job, if you meet those you are found eligible and then referred to the hiring manager. I’d imagine a lot of people are going to be surprised when they are found ineligible due to the 7 years requirement. From my own personal experience writing “full-time” on my application wasn’t clear enough and I was found ineligible the very first time I tried.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Apr 28, 2022 13:02:24 GMT -5
As to the "pop up," with 1000 there's less suspicion of a "pretend" notice where the anointed have been pre-ordained than with those where it's first 50.
However I get the frustration. I've also been frustrated when I busted to get an application in and likely was in the first 20 ....and then it hangs out there for 10 weeks. Really? No one else applied? And then didn't even get the courtesy of an f.o.b. letter.
Even one 8 months late, like IJ apps!
As to the question about undergraduate degrees, any language referencing undergraduate is standard USA Jobs stuff and is qualified by later asking for qualifying degrees--which for an attorney is a JD or llb (haven't seen an LLb around for a long time). So if you got your law school transcript in, I think you'll be fine.
Given my other workload I was tempted to wait. Glad I didn't. Just busted straight on. Proofread which took some time, but if you started at 5 you could get it done by 9. On the references, my judges don't like people who give out emails, so I put that in the response.
I wonder about their asking for judges' emails. Around here that would get you the stare of doom. I try to avoid that.
If they're going to send judges a lengthy obviously-written-by-hr email, I'd be sunk.
On my previous post I mentioned revision. You can no longer do that as the announcement closed. The letter states:
"Changes to your application package may only be completed during the open period of the announcement."
Note: those that got their application in under the wire, the note from OPM states:
"After the vacancy has closed, you will receive an e-mail message notifying you of your application status."
If I hadn't thought "let me look under ALJ" I would have missed the announcement, too. I do that daily check after being told at an interview another opening was on the horizon, and it turned out the horizon was the day the news went out, and I missed it by 10 hours-- it filled that fast.
For what it's worth, it could still be the same grind that other judge processes seem to do without, so if you missed it you may be blessed.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Apr 28, 2022 13:11:21 GMT -5
As to the "pop up," with 1000 there's less suspicion of a "pretend" notice where the anointed have been pre-ordained than with those where it's first 50. However I get the frustration. I've also been frustrated when I busted to get an application in and likely was in the first 20 ....and then it hangs out there for 10 weeks. Really? No one else applied? And then didn't even get the courtesy of an f.o.b. letter. Even one 8 months late, like IJ apps! As to the question about undergraduate degrees, any language referencing undergraduate is standard USA Jobs stuff and is qualified by later asking for qualifying degrees--which for an attorney is a JD or llb (haven't seen an LLb around for a long time). So if you got your law school transcript in, I think you'll be fine. Given my other workload I was tempted to wait. Glad I didn't. Just busted straight on. Proofread which took some time, but if you started at 5 you could get it done by 9. On the references, my judges don't like people who give out emails, so I put that in the response. I wonder about their asking for judges' emails. Around here that would get you the stare of doom. I try to avoid that. If they're going to send judges a lengthy obviously-written-by-hr email, I'd be sunk. If I hadn't thought "let me look under ALJ" I would have missed it too. I do that after being told at an interview another opening was on the horizon, and it turned out the horizon was the day the news went out, and I missed it by 10 hours it filled that fast. For what it's worth, it could still be the same grind that other judge processes seem to do without, so if you missed it you may be blessed. If you clerked for a judge or, more likely, worked as a writer/counsel for an ALJ/VLJ/AJ, you can probably come up with judicial references with little issue. Not helpful for the private practice folks who appear before judges rather than work with/for them. Flip side is that those with solely writing experience won't have opposing counsel references (but they can probably just add a few more judges/supervisory attorneys/senior colleagues to the "other" category. I mean, I don't really know, of course, but that would be my guess if the rumored favoring of "insiders" is correct). I agree with you on the undergrad transcript point. My law school transcript also happens to note that I was awarded a BA from my UG institution, so that's helpful in establishing that, yes, I did go to college, too. |
|
|
|
Post by mvnsouth on Apr 28, 2022 13:37:35 GMT -5
I think it is not only likely, but it is a sure thing that this posting will be used in the future. Does anyone know the approximate number of locations that were listed this time? Pixie I think it said 153? It listed all 153 as possible in post but I didn't get done to see if there were less when asked where you'd be willing to go. |
|
