FY23 SSA ALJ Hires

[Gaidin]

Jun 26, 2023 21:48:26 GMT -5 garlow said:

Jun 26, 2023 21:36:30 GMT -5 tripper said:

What Gaidan said. You will hold hearings in-person hearings at your HO. You will hold phone/video hearings at any of your HO, ADS or secondary ADS. You need to inform your HOCALJ if you will be working from your secondary ADS.

Ok I see. Also, how many days per week do they set in person hearings and do you have any say in when those days can be, or do managment kind of pick your calendar? Can you try to schedule the in person hearing days so that you can only do in person hearings certain days or back to back, so as to make your long commute less often? for example if you want to sleep in a hotel at your hearing office city for 2 or 3 days a week, that sort of thing? 

Hearing days are determined by hearing room availability, seniority, and to some extent region. In person vs. other modalities is largely a function of your offices claimant community. There are offices where most want an in person hearing and others that are the opposite.
Basically, you can only hold in persons in an available hearing room. Who gets what hearing room on what days is assigned by seniority. I'm really easy going and would do a whole lot to accommodates my colleagues. But I'm not changing hearing days or even rooms to accommodate their schedules.
I believe the judges in the Dallas region do a week of hearings on and a week off. Or at least that is the rumor. Most everyone else does two days of hearings per week. In a two day a week office you might get lucky and whatever days you want are available or you might get stuck with Monday and Friday.

These are questions your new HOCALJ or HOD can you give you much more specific answers too. I don't mind answering them but i can't tell you the actual answer in your specific new office but they can.

[jagvet]

The scheduling of hearings and designating in-person days has changed back and forth several times recently. No need to do the history for an incoming ALJ. As of now, the OHO hearing offices are doing local scheduling, but that could change. ALJs cannot dictate which days are in-person and which can be remote, but again, that could change, too, so don't rely on current practice.

My view is that the best way to work out what you want (as a new judge with no seniority), is to request hearing dates that are best for you, whether they are in-person or remote, and then request, to the extent it is doable, that certain of those dates are in-person. Remember that you can do remote telephone and video hearings from the OHO office, so if you live far away and have, say Tuesday in-person, Wednesday remote and Thursday in-person, you can stay over and do the remotes from your office rather than drive back and forth.

This goes back to what I recommended before: Visit the HOCALJ (and the HOD, and anyone else who is in) as soon as possible. Let them know that you live 100 miles away or whatever, and that you are always ready to handle the hearings, but if they can be scheduled somewhat for your convenience, it would be a big help.

Many judges won't switch an in-person to a remote when a rep or claimant requests. I almost always do. It's really no skin off my nose, and the schedulers, clerks, HOD and HOCALJ will be grateful for your flexibility and will reciprocate when possible. This keeps from having to reschedule those cases and messing up the office's case processing speed.

Finally, tell them you do not care one bit which hearing room they give you, even the "bowling alley" or the "closet."

You will find that they are delighted to help you in return when your flight gets cancelled or your car breaks down

[ARobeByAnyOtherName]

To the judges who applied and interviewed multiple times before getting the call, can you share any advice on what (if anything) you changed between hiring rounds?

I don’t know if the selecting officials are looking at my application and thinking “we love you; you’re great; top marks; keep doing what you’re doing and wait for the stars to align”

Or if the consensus is “you blew it; you’re not what we’re looking for; something’s gotta change.”

And maybe the same application package can lead to different results depending on who’s looking at it.

But I’d love to hear about whether you kept your application relatively the same between hiring rounds (figuring that if it was good enough to get you an interview once, it’ll be good enough again) or if you made major changes and it was those big edits that made all the difference.

(And all of this is asked with the full understanding that we should not try to change who we are and the hiring process is largely out of our control and not a “game” we are trying win, but I don’t think I’d make a great ALJ if I wasn’t willing to learn and improve)

[rmspringfield]

Jun 28, 2023 7:22:09 GMT -5 ARobeByAnyOtherName said:

To the judges who applied and interviewed multiple times before getting the call, can you share any advice on what (if anything) you changed between hiring rounds?

I don’t know if the selecting officials are looking at my application and thinking “we love you; you’re great; top marks; keep doing what you’re doing and wait for the stars to align”

Or if the consensus is “you blew it; you’re not what we’re looking for; something’s gotta change.”

And maybe the same application package can lead to different results depending on who’s looking at it.

But I’d love to hear about whether you kept your application relatively the same between hiring rounds (figuring that if it was good enough to get you an interview once, it’ll be good enough again) or if you made major changes and it was those big edits that made all the difference.

(And all of this is asked with the full understanding that we should not try to change who we are and the hiring process is largely out of our control and not a “game” we are trying win, but I don’t think I’d make a great ALJ if I wasn’t willing to learn and improve)

As much as I wish I knew the answer to help you Robe, I’m afraid I couldn’t put my finger on it if I tried for several reasons.

1. The entire process changed from the registers and OPM controlling the reigns with no input from SSA and all the struggles in application manager. And then to test online and hope for an invite to travel to DC for another test. To then be put on a register and hope for a call someday. Now SSA runs the show and it’s a completely different process.

2. Without divulging our resumes, specifics about the interview (BIG no no.) and comparing references etc trying to do that on this forum would be futile. And in reality without sharing our resumes and a lot of info we swore not to share when we applied (and should not be sharing on a publicly accessible forum)and comparing it line by line we can’t glean any real info. 

3. As much as I wish I knew exactly what I did differently that got me the call vs the previous 2 tries where I got bupkis. The truth is I have no idea. Being a 2023 interviewee I frankly thought this application had died like the previous ones until out of the blue, I get the surprise email asking for forms back in March. Did I make adjustments from application to application? Yes. Revised the wording on my resume. Listened to countless interview strategy books without knowing anything about what the SSA interview would be. But at the same time another factor came in to play. Time. I got more experience as time went on. I had more and more responsibility at my firm and more paragraphs in my job description. Had different references to use as professional connections grew and changed. 10 years applying for the same job is a long time.

I understand your frustration and like a surprise C on an exam you wish you could look at the professors key and wish you could see what you missed. But it’s not possible.



 The only answer I can give is to quote the great philosopher….Rocky Balboa. “Keep punching Apollo. Keep punching.”

[mrmojo]

Jun 28, 2023 7:22:09 GMT -5 ARobeByAnyOtherName said:

To the judges who applied and interviewed multiple times before getting the call, can you share any advice on what (if anything) you changed between hiring rounds?

I don’t know if the selecting officials are looking at my application and thinking “we love you; you’re great; top marks; keep doing what you’re doing and wait for the stars to align”

Or if the consensus is “you blew it; you’re not what we’re looking for; something’s gotta change.”

And maybe the same application package can lead to different results depending on who’s looking at it.

But I’d love to hear about whether you kept your application relatively the same between hiring rounds (figuring that if it was good enough to get you an interview once, it’ll be good enough again) or if you made major changes and it was those big edits that made all the difference.

(And all of this is asked with the full understanding that we should not try to change who we are and the hiring process is largely out of our control and not a “game” we are trying win, but I don’t think I’d make a great ALJ if I wasn’t willing to learn and improve)

I don't think this answer gets into the forbidden zone.

Application-wise, I don't think I changed much of anything other than updating my resume. Be specific in your narratives both in your resume and in the quality ranking factors. Numbers of cases, frequency, and whatever detail you can provide (ethically).

Interview-wise, I was substantially more prepared this time. I had a better idea of the structure of questions just based on having gone through them before and having gone through multiple agency structured interview for other positions since then. That said, I couldn't actually recall any of the questions asked during the last round years before.

I sat down and created a list topics that I thought the interviewers would ask about (I came up with 35ish questions hypothetical questions) and then sat with my resume, QRF responses, and my old case files to go through each topic/hypothetical question and create narrative responses with specific situations from my experience. I then ran through them again, and again, until I felt comfortable that I could pull any of these little narratives out in response to a question. I spend days on this preparation.

I think (I think?) that what they are looking for in your responses isn't a philosophical answer of "well, I guess I'd do this in that situation." I get the impression the interviewers want to hear how you did respond to a similar situation in the past, with specifics. Creating a pool of narrative stories about prior practice definitely helped be prepared for that. It's all just preparation.

I was also a better listener this time around. The remote interview helped. I took notes, since destroyed, of the main points that each question asked. I fought the urge to fill the silence took a little bit of time after each question to formulate a response, and then made sure I checked off each point I thought they were asking as I answered.

[legallysufficient]

I think that many of us that interviewed in 2022 are feeling an ultimate sense of frustration now that we are learning that no one from 2022 received an offer. I mean, had this been known up front, I think of the decreased levels of anxiety and wasted hope for each of us as we waited, ever hopeful, in 2023.

Maybe I just don't understand how so many great candidates in 2022 were brushed aside for a new batch. Even the forum elders noted that it would be silly to think that we were out of the running.

At the end of the day, however, this is the first time that I applied for this position and I got an interview. Perhaps I should be thankful for that and, believe me, I am.

Maybe I am just venting because I share so much frustration by the unknowns in this process. I know that so many of us share that sentiment.

In 2023 some folks that have tried hard at this many times finally got the metaphorical golden ticket. They stood at the buffet for a long time before being told they could finally eat. I admire their grit and perseverance.

Now, moving forward, the critical question for those not selected is if we will continue to stand at the buffet, or find meals elsewhere.

Congrats to the ones that got the call. This is an arduous and mysterious process. Relish in your victory.

When you put on the robe and walk into that hearing room, remember that where you are was up until this past Monday somewhere you only dreamed of being before now. Do not lose your sense of humanity and always make the tough calls to the best of your ability. Every claimant deserves that.

[badger]

Unfortunately, lack of transparency is the way the agency chooses to operate with personnel decisions. There were very valid reasons for this mentioned in another thread when it comes to the ALJ hiring process, but this issue isn't unique to ALJ hiring. The agency doesn't even send rejections for internal postings. If you interview for a promotion, you usually only find out that you didn't get the job when the staff directory updates in the office. It's frustrating, but unlikely to change now.

[neufenland]

Jun 28, 2023 11:11:38 GMT -5 legallysufficient said:

I think that many of us that interviewed in 2022 are feeling an ultimate sense of frustration now that we are learning that no one from 2022 received an offer. I mean, had this been known up front, I think of the decreased levels of anxiety and wasted hope for each of us as we waited, ever hopeful, in 2023.

Maybe I just don't understand how so many great candidates in 2022 were brushed aside for a new batch. Even the forum elders noted that it would be silly to think that we were out of the running.

At the end of the day, however, this is the first time that I applied for this position and I got an interview. Perhaps I should be thankful for that and, believe me, I am.

Maybe I am just venting because I share so much frustration by the unknowns in this process. I know that so many of us share that sentiment.

In 2023 some folks that have tried hard at this many times finally got the metaphorical golden ticket. They stood at the buffet for a long time before being told they could finally eat. I admire their grit and perseverance.

Now, moving forward, the critical question for those not selected is if we will continue to stand at the buffet, or find meals elsewhere.

Congrats to the ones that got the call. This is an arduous and mysterious process. Relish in your victory.

When you put on the robe and walk into that hearing room, remember that where you are was up until this past Monday somewhere you only dreamed of being before now. Do not lose your sense of humanity and always make the tough calls to the best of your ability. Every claimant deserves that.

There are two votes in the poll for 2022 interviewees receiving an offer in 2023, but I find that suspect.  That is a very small number for a group of 65-70 candidates (which is roughly what we estimated the 2022 pool to be).  I noted that in the poll thread.  No one has posted in the main thread that they were interviewed in 2022 and hired in 2023.  Now, it may be accurate that the two represent the only folks hired, and they don't wish to "out" themselves, but I find that unlikely.  I tend to think that the two votes in the poll represent people who interviewed in 2022, were hired in 2022, and misread that the poll was for 2023 hires.  If you just saw "insider, interviewed in 2022 and hired," and that fits you because you were hired in 2022, it's a reasonable "oops" to make.  

I am back to having my reservations that my application was reviewed at all in 2023.  Not that there's anything I can do about it one way or the other.  

[neufenland]

Jun 28, 2023 11:44:58 GMT -5 neufenland said:

Jun 28, 2023 11:11:38 GMT -5 legallysufficient said:

I think that many of us that interviewed in 2022 are feeling an ultimate sense of frustration now that we are learning that no one from 2022 received an offer. I mean, had this been known up front, I think of the decreased levels of anxiety and wasted hope for each of us as we waited, ever hopeful, in 2023.

Maybe I just don't understand how so many great candidates in 2022 were brushed aside for a new batch. Even the forum elders noted that it would be silly to think that we were out of the running.

At the end of the day, however, this is the first time that I applied for this position and I got an interview. Perhaps I should be thankful for that and, believe me, I am.

Maybe I am just venting because I share so much frustration by the unknowns in this process. I know that so many of us share that sentiment.

In 2023 some folks that have tried hard at this many times finally got the metaphorical golden ticket. They stood at the buffet for a long time before being told they could finally eat. I admire their grit and perseverance.

Now, moving forward, the critical question for those not selected is if we will continue to stand at the buffet, or find meals elsewhere.

Congrats to the ones that got the call. This is an arduous and mysterious process. Relish in your victory.

When you put on the robe and walk into that hearing room, remember that where you are was up until this past Monday somewhere you only dreamed of being before now. Do not lose your sense of humanity and always make the tough calls to the best of your ability. Every claimant deserves that.

There are two votes in the poll for 2022 interviewees receiving an offer in 2023, but I find that suspect.  That is a very small number for a group of 65-70 candidates (which is roughly what we estimated the 2022 pool to be).  I noted that in the poll thread.  No one has posted in the main thread that they were interviewed in 2022 and hired in 2023.  Now, it may be accurate that the two represent the only folks hired, and they don't wish to "out" themselves, but I find that unlikely.  I tend to think that the two votes in the poll represent people who interviewed in 2022, were hired in 2022, and misread that the poll was for 2023 hires.  If you just saw "insider, interviewed in 2022 and hired," and that fits you because you were hired in 2022, it's a reasonable "oops" to make.  

I am back to having my reservations that my application was reviewed at all in 2023.  Not that there's anything I can do about it one way or the other.  

I see another vote for a 2022 interviewee, so while that is still not a lot, perhaps it is indicative of a smaller group getting hired from the first round of interviews.  The numbers may continue to rise, so my previous posts could very well be moot.  

In the end, as noted, it doesn't really matter.  Congrats to those who got offers.  

[jf123]

This may have been answered elsewhere, but are new ALJs immediately eligible for telework or is there a waiting period?

[dshawn]

It would make sense that there are fewer 2022 interviewees that were picked up. They would still have to match geo preference with what SSA is looking for and would still be behind any “coveted insiders” at offices that had openings. So many moving parts. I don’t think one can read much into fitness for the job based on having not been picked up. But, then again, what do I know?

Congrats to all who “got the call.” Some great stuff to talk about over the 4th fire. To those that did not—hang in there. It is a marathon. If you want it, keep up the good fight.

To all. Have a safe and enjoyable Fourth of July weekend. I know some see it as silly, but I am incredibly blessed and thankful for having been born in this great nation.

[ssaogc]

Jun 30, 2023 11:12:49 GMT -5 jf123 said:

This may have been answered elsewhere, but are new ALJs immediately eligible for telework or is there a waiting period?

The old CBA had a one year waiting period. New CBA Article 15 has no waiting period although they might want you to do some in person hearings or supervised telephonic, video hearings before they cut you lose to telework without restrictions. 

the hires from 2022 might have more specific information on how they phased into telework

[neufenland]

I assume someone in the know would post info if there was scuttlebutt surrounding a 2024 announcement on USAJOBS, but I recall talking to some folks last year who had floated this spring as a possibility? I mean, it was complete guesswork and not grounded in actual information, but there was some supposition that hires to address attrition from 2023 might be a thing?

Again, I imagine that this would mandate a completely new announcement as the 2022 one is old now and our interviews are stale (maybe not for the fall 2023 batch, but if recent past is precedent, any new hire will be from newly interviewed folks, which I assume in the case of a 2024 hire, will mean from a new posting).

Just floating the question out there for your consideration, guesses, and commentary….

[generalsherman]

My unscientific guess is nothing will happen with that until SSA gets an actual budget for this year.

[dshawn]

Do they still issue “FOAD” letters under the new regime? Did they for the last announcement?

[neufenland]

Jan 31, 2024 15:49:30 GMT -5 dshawn said:

Do they still issue “FOAD” letters under the new regime? Did they for the last announcement?

Not yet. The 2022 announcement is still technically active.  

I would imagine closing it (which results in the FOAD from USAJOBS) will be the first act prior to a new round, but that’s just a guess.  

[fowlfinder]

The only noteworthy thing that I am privy to is that an OHO ALJ wide email went out in the last 2 weeks suggesting upcoming transfers for the purpose of workload readjustment. But it was pretty cryptic without serious specifics about timing or areas of need.

The mentioned transfers seemed to be just for workload reallocation without relation to hires.

[rmspringfield]

Getting any kind of hiring announcement this soon would be really unusual. Given that the last go around of official FOADs went out in 2018 and we didn't get a new announcement until 2022. Prior to that FOADs went out in 2016. Granted the hiring class was larger back then at about 100 plus vs. 33 or so from last time.

I don't get the sense the Agency is any rush currently as lots of hearing offices can't fill all the hearing slots and lots of ALJs are sending in availability for their 50 slots but only getting 35 or so scheduled per month. The class of 2022 has completed their 2nd annual training and the class of 2023 is just now getting up to being out of the learning curve and submitting their required 50 slots for later this year. There's always exceptions and your mileage may vary. Everyone knows theres a big wave of cases coming but no one has any idea when.

As fowlfinder said there was an ALJ wide email suggesting transfers are an option for those interested but as I read it these were for a select few offices out west.

Also with the budget always looming and the feds running on stopgap measures for the foreseeable future I personally don't see it happening this year.

That being said I'll say that and be dead wrong. Keep your alerts on USAJOBS current but don't drive yourself crazy.

[workdrone]

I have heard the same thing rmspringfield noted above. Current case receipts are down and offices are having difficulties filling full dockets for ALJs.

A large number, probably a majority of ALJs are not going to have 500 dispos this FY because of this. So I doubt OHO is in any rush to hire this year.

Of course, I may also be dead wrong. So good luck to everyone!

[ssaogc]

We have a confirmed commissioner but his position is not secure unless the current administration stays in office. He will leave or get the boot if the administration changes hands.

And as mentioned previously no budget but CRs with expiration dates 2-3 months in future.

The lack of cases is a big problem in some offices, many ALJs do not yet have 100 dispositions four months into fiscal year!