FY23 SSA ALJ Hires

[ARobeByAnyOtherName]

I feel like those of us with pending applications are in a relay race and we’ve just seen our teammates (the newly-hired FY22 class of ALJs) sprint off the starting blocks.

And now the rest of us move into position, get on our marks, and start watching behind us for when the baton will land in our hands and we’ll get a chance to run. (Or maybe the better metaphor is that the new hires already HAVE handed off their batons, since they’re out of the race, and can take their well-deserved victory lap).

I have no insider info when it comes to FY23 hiring. I *think* that the plan earlier in the year was to replace ALJs as they left due to attrition, and that the estimated attrition would be 75-90.

But I don’t know if that’s still the plan, or if the extra 32 that were added to the FY22 25 came out of the FY23 number.

I am guessing that all hiring will be put on hold if Congress doesn’t authorize the additional $800 million requested as part of the CR.

And I don’t know if FY23 hiring will start under the CR at all, or if it’ll be on hold until an official FY23 budget is in place.

Annnnnnd I don’t know if there will be another round of interviews, or a list of cities where they are planning to hire, or if there will be a new selection committee, or if the next group of names is already selected and approved and it’s a timing thing.

Or maybe, going back to the track and field metaphor, there’ll be a whole new set of tryouts (a new USAJOBS posting) and we’ll all have to earn a new place on the team.

Any knowledge that can be shared is appreciated, and WAGs are, as always, welcome.

[badger]

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

[ARobeByAnyOtherName]

Sept 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT -5 badger said:

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

Excluding myself from this, but of the candidates that I know that interviewed in this last group and haven't yet received an offer, it would be bonkers to not snap them up at the first opportunity. Making them wait until the next round because they were 58-125th out of a pool of 1300 doesn't make sense to me.

Any WAGs on if there'll be a GAL confirmation/refresh?  I know it was pretty static under the OPM process, but those rules don't apply.

[neufenland]

Sept 12, 2022 8:00:42 GMT -5 ARobeByAnyOtherName said:

Sept 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT -5 badger said:

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

Excluding myself from this, but of the candidates that I know that interviewed in this last group and haven't yet received an offer, it would be bonkers to not snap them up at the first opportunity. Making them wait until the next round because they were 58-125th out of a pool of 1300 doesn't make sense to me.

Any WAGs on if there'll be a GAL confirmation/refresh?  I know it was pretty static under the OPM process, but those rules don't apply.

I was intrigued by the fact that many (perhaps most?) of the selectees were NOT given their #1 locale (I know several were, but from the Board, at least, that didn't look like the standard practice).  

There really was no way to rank-order the locations after the first choice.  

[roymcavoy]

I tracked my gal cities via CPMS numbers and was astonished that I was selected to interview based on lost ALJs and the discrepancy between apps and dispositions. Because of that, I thought I was some sort of attractive candidate due to 2019. Turns out there was one of my cities that was hired into. I think this at least started as a GAL-based hire. It’s possible / likely that 30+ more impressed the brass enough to get hired. Good for them.

Its also possible that all that Robe said scared SSA into getting all they could while they could. I’m not disparaging any of the hirees, clearly well-qualified and impressed the brass, but if I was SSA, a CR going into a potentially other party/split Congress would not make me optimistic about the likelihood of hiring additional ALJs in FY2023. That is my bet on the push for additional hires at this time. The caveat to budget issues being, of course, that a completely virtual interview and training process would seem to reduce the cost of hiring down to salary and relocation expenses.

While I hope they do allow for altering GALs, I think given the outstanding applicants waiting to be interviewed that may be premature.

[hillsarealive]

Sept 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT -5 badger said:

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

Could be.  I can think of several candidates who seemed really strong but who were not selected.  But it could be that the competition was just really fierce this round.  Or my idea of a really strong candidate doesn't match what TPTB are actually looking for at this point.  Or it could have something to do with locations--perhaps they interviewed people for certain locations and then ended up hiring elsewhere when they ran final numbers.  There's just a lot of uncertainty, and while it seems plausible to me that SSA got all the people it wanted from this set, it also seems plausible that they could hire another 50-100 ALJs from this pool. 

[neufenland]

Sept 12, 2022 9:12:58 GMT -5 hillsarealive said:

Sept 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT -5 badger said:

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

Could be.  I can think of several candidates who seemed really strong but who were not selected.  But it could be that the competition was just really fierce this round.  Or my idea of a really strong candidate doesn't match what TPTB are actually looking for at this point.  Or it could have something to do with locations--perhaps they interviewed people for certain locations and then ended up hiring elsewhere when they ran final numbers.  There's just a lot of uncertainty, and while it seems plausible to me that SSA got all the people it wanted from this set, it also seems plausible that they could hire another 50-100 ALJs from this pool. 

What's potentially interesting is how close it is to the FY turning.  "Next FY" could mean a year from now, yes, but it can also mean in three weeks.  So, if there's hiring to be done in excess of this last batch, it's pretty much "game on" in terms of alertness (the rest of September excluded).  

It's not going to preoccupy my thoughts like it has over the last couple of weeks, though.  Of course, it'd be nice to see extra hiring, but who knows what will actually come of it? 

[george1]

My thoughts on all of this are mixed and raise many questions. There are two more weeks left in this fiscal year and who knows, call may go out again. Another item that perplexing me is the question on preference. Why ask it if not to place the candidate there. I had limited cities and interviewed twice: 2019 and 2022. Why did I get these interviews and not get hired? Will they allow us to expand our geographical preference now? Will there be another hire in 2023? 2024? Questions that I do not know but hopefully time will give the answers..

[Deleted]

Sept 12, 2022 8:00:42 GMT -5 ARobeByAnyOtherName said:

Sept 12, 2022 7:53:14 GMT -5 badger said:

Part of me thinks that they found the money to hire everyone they wanted from this pool of interviewees. I hope I am wrong because otherwise it'll be a long time before another chance comes along. They have 1000 other applicants ready for interviews.

Excluding myself from this, but of the candidates that I know that interviewed in this last group and haven't yet received an offer, it would be bonkers to not snap them up at the first opportunity. Making them wait until the next round because they were 58-125th out of a pool of 1300 doesn't make sense to me.

Any WAGs on if there'll be a GAL confirmation/refresh?  I know it was pretty static under the OPM process, but those rules don't apply.

We don’t know that they were 58-125 out of 1300. They could have only interviewed (and maybe graded) for specific locales.

The lack of transparency in this new process is frustrating.

[badger]

Sept 12, 2022 12:44:10 GMT -5 @ramspider said:

Sept 12, 2022 8:00:42 GMT -5 ARobeByAnyOtherName said:

Excluding myself from this, but of the candidates that I know that interviewed in this last group and haven't yet received an offer, it would be bonkers to not snap them up at the first opportunity. Making them wait until the next round because they were 58-125th out of a pool of 1300 doesn't make sense to me.

Any WAGs on if there'll be a GAL confirmation/refresh?  I know it was pretty static under the OPM process, but those rules don't apply.

We don’t know that they were 58-125 out of 1300. They could have only interviewed (and maybe graded) for specific locales.

The lack of transparency in this new process is frustrating.

Exactly. Ideally those already interviewed and "graded" will be considered along with new interviewees for any location that has an opening on their GAL.

[rightspeech]

Any veterans request the reason they were not selected under 5 CFR 302.101(c)?

[hank863]

So, like many others, I did not make it within the first "1,000" applications. Regardless, I have been avidly watching this board for information on hiring numbers, locations, and future prognoses for hiring.

Am I correct that the overwhelming, expert opinion is that for any hiring in the foreseeable future, SSA will pull from those first 1,300 applications?

I'm wondering if I should realistically let go of any anticipation for a new USAJOBS posting this next year.

[fowlfinder]

Sept 12, 2022 14:13:11 GMT -5 hank863 said:

So, like many others, I did not make it within the first "1,000" applications. Regardless, I have been avidly watching this board for information on hiring numbers, locations, and future prognoses for hiring.

Am I correct that the overwhelming, expert opinion is that for any hiring in the foreseeable future, SSA will pull from those first 1,300 applications?

I'm wondering if I should realistically let go of any anticipation for a new USAJOBS posting this next year.

I don't think anyone really knows what they will do with the other 1,000+ applicants. 

But I would not count on another USAJobs posting this calendar year. 

[Prrple]

Sept 12, 2022 13:46:43 GMT -5 rightspeech said:

Any veterans request the reason they were not selected under 5 CFR 302.101(c)?

Maybe I am cynical but this seems like the kind of move that would give you an asterisk as THAT PERSON, thereby making sure you did not get selected in future rounds

[Pixie]

Sept 12, 2022 14:13:11 GMT -5 hank863 said:

So, like many others, I did not make it within the first "1,000" applications. Regardless, I have been avidly watching this board for information on hiring numbers, locations, and future prognoses for hiring.

Am I correct that the overwhelming, expert opinion is that for any hiring in the foreseeable future, SSA will pull from those first 1,300 applications?

I'm wondering if I should realistically let go of any anticipation for a new USAJOBS posting this next year.

Yes.

Yes.

Pixie

[legallysufficient]

How realistic is it to think there may be more hiring in 2022 calendar year? Is hiring in the beginning of the new fiscal even a remote possibility? Perhaps October or November? Seems like this is all an unknown at this point.

Those of us in the 125 interviewed, but not selected, have no way of knowing if we are still in the running for future consideration.  Very frustrating!

[aa7]

Sept 12, 2022 15:30:48 GMT -5 legallysufficient said:

How realistic is it to think there may be more hiring in 2022 calendar year? Is hiring in the beginning of the new fiscal even a remote possibility? Perhaps October or November? Seems like this is all an unknown at this point.

Those of us in the 125 interviewed, but not selected, have no way of knowing if we are still in the running for future consideration.  Very frustrating!

I cannot imagine another round of hiring this calendar year.  Training will barely be completed before the holidays start.  Almost certain they will get this class through training before hiring again.  Also, we may be under CR in the new FY, so lots of moving parts re authority/ability to hire, etc.

But you can never count on anything with SSA, so why not keep your hopes up?!

[roymcavoy]

Sept 12, 2022 16:05:37 GMT -5 aa7 said:

Sept 12, 2022 15:30:48 GMT -5 legallysufficient said:

How realistic is it to think there may be more hiring in 2022 calendar year? Is hiring in the beginning of the new fiscal even a remote possibility? Perhaps October or November? Seems like this is all an unknown at this point.

Those of us in the 125 interviewed, but not selected, have no way of knowing if we are still in the running for future consideration.  Very frustrating!

I cannot imagine another round of hiring this calendar year.  Training will barely be completed before the holidays start.  Almost certain they will get this class through training before hiring again.  Also, we may be under CR in the new FY, so lots of moving parts re authority/ability to hire, etc.

But you can never count on anything with SSA, so why not keep your hopes up?!

I think the worst words in English apply here: “it depends.”

If the CR includes no extra money, certainly no hiring.
If the CR includes extra money to preclude a buildup, they may make offers asap because…….. if apps increase and Election Day flips one or both sides of Congress I’d say they push a hire through to beat the new Congress (say Dec offers for a Jan start).

[operationalj]

Am I the only one who was told SSA still plans on hiring ALJs in 2023? Someone shared this with me after the recent round of hires. I mean this person isn’t on the ALJ hiring committee but a trustworthy source. I guess anything could change between now and then but the plan has always been to hire in 2022 and 2023.

[gazoo]

Sept 16, 2022 8:35:01 GMT -5 operationalj said:

Am I the only one who was told SSA still plans on hiring ALJs in 2023? Someone shared this with me after the recent round of hires. I mean this person isn’t on the ALJ hiring committee but a trustworthy source. I guess anything could change between now and then but the plan has always been to hire in 2022 and 2023.

I heard the same.