|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Jun 27, 2023 14:24:25 GMT -5
More questions than answers as the smoke clears from this latest round of hiring.
Will there be hiring in FY 24? If so, when?
Will the candidates be off of the most recent April 2022 USAJOBS posting? Or will there be a new posting?
Are candidates who’ve already interviewed either in summer 2022 or spring 2023 out of consideration? If so, why?
If still in the running, will summer 2022 candidates need to have their references recontacted?
Is there a super-secret elite ALJ task force being created that needs recruits?
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jun 27, 2023 15:11:28 GMT -5
It seems to be pretty confirmed at this point that those who interviewed in 2022 weren’t considered at all this time. Which is extremely nonsensical.
|
|
mbd
Full Member
Posts: 36
|
Post by mbd on Jun 27, 2023 15:21:28 GMT -5
It seems to be pretty confirmed at this point that those who interviewed in 2022 weren’t considered at all this time. Which is extremely nonsensical. I’m not sure I will ever understand the lack of transparency on a subject like this. If the 2022 interviewee pool was out of the running, why not inform them? Send a thank you for applying letter? Be done AND respectful AND professionally courteous all at the same time? |
|
|
|
Post by attyadv on Jun 27, 2023 15:47:57 GMT -5
Another question is why even interview folks if you’re not hiring in any of the cities they listed? Why waste agency resources and time? Especially if not using interviewees for future rounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmspringfield on Jun 27, 2023 19:10:14 GMT -5
According to the poll ( as of June 27 at 7 pm central) at least 2 of the 2022 interviewees were picked up. One insider and one outsider. As usual who knows why more weren’t. Geo availability? Maybe they were looking for some other qualifications/experience in picking the 2023 class vs the 2022? We’ll never know for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jun 27, 2023 19:24:15 GMT -5
According to the poll ( as of June 27 at 7 pm central) at least 2 of the 2022 interviewees were picked up. One insider and one outsider. As usual who knows why more weren’t. Geo availability? Maybe they were looking for some other qualifications/experience in picking the 2023 class vs the 2022? We’ll never know for sure. It's good news that 2022 folks got a look. It makes me less gutted. I deleted my earlier comment given this development. Moving on. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 27, 2023 19:33:35 GMT -5
It seems to be pretty confirmed at this point that those who interviewed in 2022 weren’t considered at all this time. Which is extremely nonsensical. I’m not sure I will ever understand the lack of transparency on a subject like this. If the 2022 interviewee pool was out of the running, why not inform them? Send a thank you for applying letter? Be done AND respectful AND professionally courteous all at the same time? Because they aren't sure. I know this sucks I went through it so many times before getting hired but you need to understand that they don't know what they don't know. They interview people and then decide between interviewing folks and hiring that it makes more sense to hire in city B than A. They don't eliminate people because they may decide in a later round to hire them. You are justified in looking at this process from your position but you aren't justified in expecting the agency to look at it from your perspective. SSA is an absolutely gargantuan bureaucracy with dozens of internal stakeholders who impact these decisions. They are going to do what makes the most sense for SSA. You aren't applying for a job at a private law firm or even a typical state or federal agency. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jun 27, 2023 20:44:26 GMT -5
Similar to what Gaidin said, they are not totally out of the running yet. Odds are low at least for now but are not non existent |
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Jun 29, 2023 9:00:30 GMT -5
Remember, folks, this is an entirety new hiring process. Previously appicants were weeded out: 1) after they failed to get a high enough score on the online exam; and most impotantly 2) when they failed to get a qualifying score on either the OPM interview or the OPM writing test in D.C.
Now, SSA sees only an application and interviews off of that alone. Once they interview, they are getting MANY interviewees who couldn't have even passed the OPM interview from the past. So, my guess is there are a huge chunk of interviewees who are just not really ALJ-worthy. SSA is likely to have a big pile of yes, a pile of maybe, and a pretty big pile of no (with maybe even a fourth category of hell no).
HOWEVER, SSA is a federal agency, and like all other federal agencies, they'll spend money if Congress tells them to spend it. So, if Congress suddenly out of the blue said "hey here's money to hire 300 new ALJs," you can take it to the bank that SSA would hire someone off the maybe pile or possibly even the no pile before they'd ever simply turn down the money. So they're never going to send a FOAD letter until they're completely finished with this application and have moved on to a new one.
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Jun 29, 2023 9:19:54 GMT -5
Remember, folks, this is an entirety new hiring process. Previously appicants were weeded out: 1) after they failed to get a high enough score on the online exam; and most impotantly 2) when they failed to get a qualifying score on either the OPM interview or the OPM writing test in D.C. Now, SSA sees only an application and interviews off of that alone. Once they interview, t hey are getting MANY interviewees who couldn't have even passed the OPM interview from the past. So, my guess is there are a huge chunk of interviewees who are just not really ALJ-worthy. SSA is likely to have a big pile of yes, a pile of maybe, and a pretty big pile of no (with maybe even a fourth category of hell no). HOWEVER, SSA is a federal agency, and like all other federal agencies, they'll spend money if Congress tells them to spend it. So, if Congress suddenly out of the blue said "hey here's money to hire 300 new ALJs," you can take it to the bank that SSA would hire someone off the maybe pile or possibly even the no pile before they'd ever simply turn down the money. So they're never going to send a FOAD letter until they're completely finished with this application and have moved on to a new one. I had an NOR score in the 80s under the OPM system and am a vet. I tested in 2018 and had the rug pulled out from under me after it was done. GAL of over 40 locations. If they were using the "old" system, I'd likely be an ALJ now. They aren't, and I'm not, but it's not because I'm not "worthy." I doubt I'm that much of an exception to your premise. |
|
td37
Full Member
Posts: 43 
|
Post by td37 on Jun 29, 2023 16:54:09 GMT -5
Really hope they do a new posting, some of us were unable to submit an application within the minuscule window you had to be sitting at the computer hitting refresh.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmspringfield on Jun 29, 2023 22:02:34 GMT -5
Remember, folks, this is an entirety new hiring process. Previously appicants were weeded out: 1) after they failed to get a high enough score on the online exam; and most impotantly 2) when they failed to get a qualifying score on either the OPM interview or the OPM writing test in D.C. Now, SSA sees only an application and interviews off of that alone. Once they interview, they are getting MANY interviewees who couldn't have even passed the OPM interview from the past. So, my guess is there are a huge chunk of interviewees who are just not really ALJ-worthy. SSA is likely to have a big pile of yes, a pile of maybe, and a pretty big pile of no (with maybe even a fourth category of hell no). HOWEVER, SSA is a federal agency, and like all other federal agencies, they'll spend money if Congress tells them to spend it. So, if Congress suddenly out of the blue said "hey here's money to hire 300 new ALJs," you can take it to the bank that SSA would hire someone off the maybe pile or possibly even the no pile before they'd ever simply turn down the money. So they're never going to send a FOAD letter until they're completely finished with this application and have moved on to a new one. I was one of those MANY interviewees that couldn't have even passed the previous obstacle course. I am an outsider. More specifically a claimant's rep. I was a member of one of the largest SSIDI firms in my region. We're talking high volume case loads. Many days it was me and an ALJ for 6 hearings a day, at least 3 days a week. 48 weeks out of the year. SSIDI practice has been my sole practice area for 15 years. I handled thousands of claimant's cases. My SSIDI docket numbers matched or exceeded just about every ALJ's docket in 3 states for 11 years running. And as the rep I'm responsible for preparing the case for hearing, marshaling the evidence, getting the records and doing all the hand holding and comforting the clients for 2 years before they sit before an ALJ. I supervised a team of 20 some odd paralegals and clerks in gathering evidence and preparing the files for hearing. I gave CLE lectures to the local bar association. And across the bar and bench was I considered an expert in the practice. I was happy with my firm. But one day one of my ALJs strongly suggested that I consider coming to the other side of the bench. They said I'd be an ideal addition to the OHO. And then another. And then another. Soon multiple ALJs in 3 different OHOs had put the word in my ear that I should consider that my next career move. I had 2 HOCALJs from 2 different OHOs asking if I would ever consider donning the robe. So I started to think about it. I could make so much more money sticking with private practice. Maybe move on from my firm and start another with my name as top billing. I had the reputation. I had the know how. But the wheels started turning. Something inside of me really wanted the robe. So the next announcement came and after my docket one of my ALJs told me the announcement was open and to go for it. And I did. And 2 months later got the FOAD because OPM didn't think I had the necessary experience... So then the next announcement came. I reworked my resume and answers in AM. Got to the online testing portion. Got the FOAD. 2 of my ALJs asked when I would be going to DC to test. I explained I was FOADed and wouldn't be going. The look of confusion on their faces was plain. One suggested I appeal the FOAD and gave me pointers on how to do that. I did. FOAD affirmed. Then the announcement came open again. And I wasn't going to bother. But this time OPM was out of the picture. This time SSA was doing the selecting. This time it would be ALJs checking the references, etc. This time the Skills and Abilities questions didn't ask generic aptitude questions, but rather asked me to demonstrate how I could do the actual JOB. So I tried again. This time if I didn't make it something was definitely wrong. 2022 came and went. I didn't get an interview but I didn't get a FOAD either. This time it was likely none of my arrows were shot at the right GAL. Then in 2023 I got the email asking for forms out of the blue. I did the interview. And now I've got an offer. So all that being said I have to respectfully dissent from your implicit assertion that the previous OPM labyrinth added any value whatsoever to the quality of the selectees. Those online assessments and writing tests may have tested various aptitudes and personality traits that might have been ancillary to the work of an ALJ actually hearing SSIDI cases. But they also likely weeded out a lot of highly qualified candidates who would have made stellar ALJs but never got the chance to even interview. Nothing in these comments should be construed to denigrate the professionalism and competence of those ALJs that had to endure that previous byzantine gauntlet to don the robe. I've practiced before many learned ALJs from the class of 2012 and 2016 that proved to be fine ALJs. And to those that got that disappointing news in years past or, in this case, have had to assume the worst. Keep in mind not getting the robe is in no way a reflection of who you are as an attorney, what you've accomplished, or what you will accomplish. You really can have everything about your experience be dead on point to the actual day in day out duties of the actual job. You can be literally ready from day one to walk into the hearing room and preside and handle the actual required quota of cases. But can still get passed over and no one can explain why. |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jun 30, 2023 10:33:52 GMT -5
Remember, folks, this is an entirety new hiring process. Previously appicants were weeded out: 1) after they failed to get a high enough score on the online exam; and most impotantly 2) when they failed to get a qualifying score on either the OPM interview or the OPM writing test in D.C. Now, SSA sees only an application and interviews off of that alone. Once they interview, they are getting MANY interviewees who couldn't have even passed the OPM interview from the past. So, my guess is there are a huge chunk of interviewees who are just not really ALJ-worthy. SSA is likely to have a big pile of yes, a pile of maybe, and a pretty big pile of no (with maybe even a fourth category of hell no). HOWEVER, SSA is a federal agency, and like all other federal agencies, they'll spend money if Congress tells them to spend it. So, if Congress suddenly out of the blue said "hey here's money to hire 300 new ALJs," you can take it to the bank that SSA would hire someone off the maybe pile or possibly even the no pile before they'd ever simply turn down the money. So they're never going to send a FOAD letter until they're completely finished with this application and have moved on to a new one. For historical context, SSA has never liked the old OPM ALJ hiring process. Rule of 3 made it very difficult for OHO to reach many candidates it liked, and the speculation back then was that OCALJ was doing a ton of work to bump high scoring vets off against one another to reach the candidates it wanted under the old OPM system. Odds are there were dances of joy in Falls Church when the old OPM ALJ testing process was abolished by the 2018 executive order. OHO knows exactly the type of candidates it wants for their ALJ positions. They can easily discard the applications they don't like to only interview the few they want. So it's unlikely they have too many interviewees as they already pre-screened all the applications and are only interviewing the promising ones based on a pre-existing ratio of interviewees to openings. In sum, the new ALJ hiring process is what SSA always wanted and it's probably here to stay for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 3, 2023 19:54:04 GMT -5
From a board member:
"Hi! I’m case you haven’t seen and would like to post, there were 33 hires. 17 outside , 16 inside. (technically 18 are currently outside but I’m counting 1 as inside given she just left ssa)"
|
|
|
|
Post by trp888 on Jul 5, 2023 6:58:09 GMT -5
From a board member: "Hi! I’m case you haven’t seen and would like to post, there were 33 hires. 17 outside , 16 inside. (technically 18 are currently outside but I’m counting 1 as inside given she just left ssa)" Any insight on why 33 vs the larger number of hires expected ? |
|
|
|
Post by sweetnlow on Jul 5, 2023 8:39:39 GMT -5
Wow. 18 out of 33 outside hires. If you’ve ever wondered how top brass feels about its employees look no further!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 5, 2023 15:09:11 GMT -5
Wow. 18 out of 33 outside hires. If you’ve ever wondered how top brass feels about its employees look no further! Last year they were all internal hires. |
|
|
|
Post by ramspiderstrikesback on Jul 6, 2023 6:49:18 GMT -5
Wow. 18 out of 33 outside hires. If you’ve ever wondered how top brass feels about its employees look no further! Last year they were all internal hires. They probably plucked most of the insiders with litigation experience last year.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 6, 2023 7:49:44 GMT -5
Last year they were all internal hires. They probably plucked most of the insiders with litigation experience last year. View Attachment I really don't think litigation experience is high on their list of desirable attributes. Pixie |
|
rip
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rip on Jul 11, 2023 17:26:10 GMT -5
Last year they were all internal hires. They probably plucked most of the insiders with litigation experience last year. View Attachment They didn’t. There is no magic background. I have litigation background, claimant rep background, decision-writing background, and GS background. Didn’t help, lol. I mean, I did get an interview, so I’m grateful I was in the game at all, but don’t worry if you are missing something particular in your resume. It will happen when it happens. |
|
