|
|
Post by dshawn on Sept 30, 2022 16:25:57 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see if TPTB allow for adjustment of the “GAL” (or whatever we call that now) prior to any new effort of the “cert / register list” (or whatever we call that now).
As to the insider / outsider debate, I think going with a known commodity make perfect sense. From what I know of a number of the selectees, they got some high quality, exceedingly accomplished folks. Granted, my sample is small at three. Yet, IMHO those though can 100%, no doubt, do the job.
Have an awesome new fiscal all!
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Sept 30, 2022 16:28:17 GMT -5
God I wish this system allowed for editing. I swear it adds and takes away words. Oh well. You get my paint. … pert… parrot…point!
|
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Sept 30, 2022 17:45:41 GMT -5
At 3:30 pm EDT this afternoon, the Commissioner sent an email to all agency employees titled "Budget Update." In pertinent part, the Commissioner stated that the additional funding during the CR period "allows us to continue our hiring efforts and provide the same levels of overtime we were able to provide in FY 2022."
I took it as a good sign that "hiring efforts" was one of the two things that the Commissioner highlighted as benefiting from the additional funding.
While I would be (pleasantly) surprised to see additional ALJ hiring before the end of the calendar year, I am hopeful that there will be a new class in the new year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 1, 2022 7:00:50 GMT -5
God I wish this system allowed for editing. I swear it adds and takes away words. Oh well. You get my paint. … pert… parrot…point! There should be an Edit button at the top right/center of your screen. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Oct 1, 2022 8:10:02 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see if TPTB allow for adjustment of the “GAL” (or whatever we call that now) prior to any new effort of the “cert / register list” (or whatever we call that now). As to the insider / outsider debate, I think going with a known commodity make perfect sense. From what I know of a number of the selectees, they got some high quality, exceedingly accomplished folks. Granted, my sample is small at three. Yet, IMHO those though can 100%, no doubt, do the job. Have an awesome new fiscal all! They did pick up some very fine internal candidates that I know well from my region, but they also picked up one...I'll be kind and just say not stellar (and very obviously so by pretty much any metric, review, or seeing them in action...) internal candidate. The good picks they make always make sense, but the not rare terrible internal picks they make always baffle. Did they talk to anyone? Look at their historic DWPIs (I'm not saying you have to be over 100 but picking people who struggled to get 85% consistently???)? One just wonders what the heck their rubrics consist of. |
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Oct 1, 2022 16:30:19 GMT -5
God I wish this system allowed for editing. I swear it adds and takes away words. Oh well. You get my paint. … pert… parrot…point! There should be an Edit button at the top right/center of your screen. Pixie Is that true on a phone? I haven’t got time for that. Ha, ha. Why you always picking on me?! I’m telling someone. Who, I don’t know yet. But I’m spelling … dwelling … telling on you. [Dang this screen is small] |
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Oct 1, 2022 16:31:41 GMT -5
I see it now. Thanks. I guess that is why you have a trillion stars and I only have five. No button tho. You have to go into the gear sub menu on my phone.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 1, 2022 20:32:19 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see if TPTB allow for adjustment of the “GAL” (or whatever we call that now) prior to any new effort of the “cert / register list” (or whatever we call that now). As to the insider / outsider debate, I think going with a known commodity make perfect sense. From what I know of a number of the selectees, they got some high quality, exceedingly accomplished folks. Granted, my sample is small at three. Yet, IMHO those though can 100%, no doubt, do the job. Have an awesome new fiscal all! They did pick up some very fine internal candidates that I know well from my region, but they also picked up one...I'll be kind and just say not stellar (and very obviously so by pretty much any metric, review, or seeing them in action...) internal candidate. The good picks they make always make sense, but the not rare terrible internal picks they make always baffle. Did they talk to anyone? Look at their historic DWPIs (I'm not saying you have to be over 100 but picking people who struggled to get 85% consistently???)? One just wonders what the heck their rubrics consist of. The most important metric is who you know. I worked with a judge that had terrible metrics as a DW but knew the right people and went on to become a terrible ALJ. Conversely, if you get on the wrong person’s bad side, you’ll never get hired no matter how good your credentials might be. It’s all very awesome and merit-based. |
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Oct 1, 2022 20:46:18 GMT -5
They did pick up some very fine internal candidates that I know well from my region, but they also picked up one...I'll be kind and just say not stellar (and very obviously so by pretty much any metric, review, or seeing them in action...) internal candidate. The good picks they make always make sense, but the not rare terrible internal picks they make always baffle. Did they talk to anyone? Look at their historic DWPIs (I'm not saying you have to be over 100 but picking people who struggled to get 85% consistently???)? One just wonders what the heck their rubrics consist of. The most important metric is who you know. I worked with a judge that had terrible metrics as a DW but knew the right people and went on to become a terrible ALJ. Conversely, if you get on the wrong person’s bad side, you’ll never get hired no matter how good your credentials might be. It’s all very awesome and merit-based. It used to be awesome and merit-based.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 2, 2022 7:46:20 GMT -5
I see it now. Thanks. I guess that is why you have a trillion stars and I only have five. No button tho. You have to go into the gear sub menu on my phone. Don't use your phone; use a real laptop–they work much better. Do you want fewer stars? I can make that happen too. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Oct 2, 2022 8:08:01 GMT -5
How many ALJs are there at SSA? 1,500?! You isolate one bad judge based on one bad experience you are aware of and from that we are to conclude the hiring process is flawed or fixed?
In any event, I was merely noting SSA got three good ones, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Oct 2, 2022 8:09:47 GMT -5
Pixie No. I’m good. Could you add a couple smiley faces tho? That would be nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Oct 2, 2022 8:25:44 GMT -5
How many ALJs are there at SSA? 1,500?! You isolate one bad judge based on one bad experience you are aware of and from that we are to conclude the hiring process is flawed or fixed? In any event, I was merely noting SSA got three good ones, IMHO. Well I was only talking about four total people just then--three very good hires and one very bad of people I knew well from my region. I was a regional mgr who handled bias complaints for the region and can tell you there are loads more than one very bad ALJ out of the 1200 or so there are. Nobody on this board is going to want to hear this, but if you made me put a percentage on the whole group, it wouldn't be too far off from the 25% illustrated by the four new hires I've talked about. Definitely more than 10%. And I mean abysmal, in terms of both knowledge of the rules and their application and personal behavior. At least 10%. Sorry not sorry if this offends! One other thing I'll mention that many people who've been privy to wider ALJ exposure whisper about a lot is that SSA better hope and pray that racial data of claimants is never compiled and studied in a big way, because I'd bet dollars to donuts the data would show some interesting and statistically significant things about a not-insignificant number of ALJs (sips tea). |
|
|
|
Post by dshawn on Oct 2, 2022 10:06:52 GMT -5
stevenq I’ll defer. Hopefully the 4 will start a shift. ‘Twas just a guess on ALJ number. Again, I’ll defer. I will say, in my experience, not true of my current agency. But, then again, what I do I know. I see only a small sliver. Be well.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Oct 2, 2022 12:05:55 GMT -5
How many ALJs are there at SSA? 1,500?! You isolate one bad judge based on one bad experience you are aware of and from that we are to conclude the hiring process is flawed or fixed? In any event, I was merely noting SSA got three good ones, IMHO. Well I was only talking about four total people just then--three very good hires and one very bad of people I knew well from my region. I was a regional mgr who handled bias complaints for the region and can tell you there are loads more than one very bad ALJ out of the 1200 or so there are. Nobody on this board is going to want to hear this, but if you made me put a percentage on the whole group, it wouldn't be too far off from the 25% illustrated by the four new hires I've talked about. Definitely more than 10%. And I mean abysmal, in terms of both knowledge of the rules and their application and personal behavior. At least 10%. Sorry not sorry if this offends! One other thing I'll mention that many people who've been privy to wider ALJ exposure whisper about a lot is that SSA better hope and pray that racial data of claimants is never compiled and studied in a big way, because I'd bet dollars to donuts the data would show some interesting and statistically significant things about a not-insignificant number of ALJs (sips tea). i have worked in multiple offices and I think this is accurate |
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Oct 2, 2022 13:00:42 GMT -5
Well I was only talking about four total people just then--three very good hires and one very bad of people I knew well from my region. I was a regional mgr who handled bias complaints for the region and can tell you there are loads more than one very bad ALJ out of the 1200 or so there are. Nobody on this board is going to want to hear this, but if you made me put a percentage on the whole group, it wouldn't be too far off from the 25% illustrated by the four new hires I've talked about. Definitely more than 10%. And I mean abysmal, in terms of both knowledge of the rules and their application and personal behavior. At least 10%. Sorry not sorry if this offends! One other thing I'll mention that many people who've been privy to wider ALJ exposure whisper about a lot is that SSA better hope and pray that racial data of claimants is never compiled and studied in a big way, because I'd bet dollars to donuts the data would show some interesting and statistically significant things about a not-insignificant number of ALJs (sips tea). i have worked in multiple offices and I think this is accurate I think any DW who has worked in a regional or national writing center would agree. But I think you need to seperate policy compliance from personality issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 2, 2022 13:45:03 GMT -5
Pixie No. I’m good. Could you add a couple smiley faces tho? That would be nice. Done. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Oct 2, 2022 23:20:17 GMT -5
That's frustrating for those that represent claimants and appear in front of SSA already. Good to know though. The good claimant reps who are prepared for hearings and ensure due process have the potential to be extraordinary ALJs. They are uniquely equipped with knowledge and experience to be effective and fair ALJs. I think we will see some selected in 2023. |
|
|
|
Post by badger on Oct 13, 2022 10:55:16 GMT -5
Any intel on when interview requests would need to go out if they are hiring under the CR? I assume the window is almost closed for expanding the "register" during the CR.
|
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Oct 14, 2022 11:54:42 GMT -5
Any intel on future ALJ hiring would be much appreciated. I don't expect them to hire more ALJs under the CR, but I hope I'm wrong.
I think of the "register" as the list of all people who applied April and who were cleared by OPM. In other words, the people who got the NOR email back in July(?), as the agency could still interview/hire any of these people. But it is not really a register, so your definition is as good as mine.
|
|
