|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 15, 2008 10:24:02 GMT -5
The unchosen can only speculate as to their lack of invitation to the dance, but we can surmise it was either: a: low score (below 60) b.poor interviewing skills with SSA c.SSA thought they would be either not a producer or they had no frame of reference (sorta like moving to a new town and being asked who do you know). Not necessarily. OPM takes the position that ALL candidates on the registry are qualified. If you have three quality applicants and can choose only one, there does not need to be anything wrong with the two who were not selected. It is a mistake to take the non-selection as a personal affront. This is particularly true if you do not know the details of the candidate who was selected. It will drive you nuts to analyze a process without detailed information. The best choice is to keep plugging. It has much better odds than a lottery. I was thinking of SSA, not OPM, but I appreciate your input, Hooligan. My limited contacts with those who got chosen by SSA indicated that if you knew someone or had SSA "inside" or "outside" experience, you got an offer. Granted, this is much more of an opinion that any fact. And finally, I think this has been a GREAT thread. Folks wanna rant a little, hey, everyone gets more than their share of stress in this process and its a good way to let off some steam. |
|
|
|
Post by notherapp on Dec 15, 2008 11:42:09 GMT -5
An additional two cents:
Hooligan (and please don't take this as a personal attack) wrote two things which I would like to address -
1. It is better than the lottery; and
2. It is difficult to judge resume items such as litigation experience.
Re: the first, although per decision that is true, the three strike rule is like saying you can buy three lottery tickets and then step aside and give someone else (and in this odd/poor analogy, someone less deserving than you) a chance. [BTW, I can anticipate feedback in the form of "How can you affirmatively state that the selected candidate was less deserving?" Well, when I receive private e-mails which represent that someone with a score 20 points less than the unsuccessful candidate was selected, I have some confidence that I can make that statement. If the three part scoring is so imperfect as to confuse candidates by 20 points on essentially a 50 point scale (say 45-95), then those exercises were meaningless).
Re: the second: If the decisions were solely based upon resumes, then that could be a valid point (think the last two AGs). But there is an interview process which allows OPM to ask relevant questions. If OPM asked the wrong questions, then the proper response is to change the questions, not treat the OPM process as a rough cut which can then be manipulated to ignore (and eventually nullify through the three strike rule) the scores.
If "myopic" improperly trained clerks are engaged in scoring for OPM and that results in a wildly erratic and meaningless register, then the system should be changed as not satisfying minimum due process. We are not talking about McDonald's applicants who invest 5 minutes filling out a form and 10 minutes meeting with a 23 year old store manager. This applicant pool has invested significant time in education and the selection process, and it deserves an outcome which is transparent and defensible.
As JH noted, she has received over 100 private inquiries from persons similarly situated. This is not an isolated situation where a good candidate "fell through the cracks" and is now barred from further consideration. This is endemic and epidemic. And now, with a new batch of listees on the Register coming up in the next several months, those high scoring strikeouts have wasted their time. And, in some cases of which I am aware, because of references who are or who knew present employers, their current careers have been negatively impacted.
|
|
|
|
Post by interested on Dec 16, 2008 15:39:30 GMT -5
Seriously, some of these posts are longer than the space provided on the "exam" to describe your greatest achievement.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 16, 2008 16:19:51 GMT -5
....then I'd guess you weren't "interested"....  |
|
|
|
Post by interested on Dec 17, 2008 13:42:20 GMT -5
Not anymore, ha ha  |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 17, 2008 15:06:32 GMT -5
While some may not find this interesting, and some will most assuredly find this to be a ridiculous constraint upon the agency, this is pivotal. Pre-selection and "selective certification" are both prohibited in federal hires. There is every indication that the SSA engaged in both on these last hires. Pre-selection in manipulating the slots so as to reach the individuals that had been preselected for hire and de facto selective certification in the same manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 17, 2008 20:11:47 GMT -5
legalrep--got to their name and send them a private message.
patriotsfan, your post offers a lot to chew on. Imagine having a system where OPM determines that you are qualified and then any agency could hire who they want based upon your many years of expertise and demonstrated excellence before them? You don't have to imagine that that scenario works for one agency and few and perhaps only one, other.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Dec 17, 2008 22:21:24 GMT -5
I have seen no evidence from any source, nor even an allegation from a knowledgeable source, that ODAR engaged in selective certification, nor did they need to. Those who understand how this process works, understand that SC was not needed to achieve ODAR's desired results.
As for preselection, there is a significant line between conscious and deliberate, illegal preselection and the valid ranking of desirable candidates, the latter of which is completely legal. A distinction specifically needs to be made between true preselection, such as targeting someone for hire before their OPM score is even known, and ranking someone highly after the scores are known and agency interviews are complete. I suspect that ODAR will be able to show that they engaged in significant deliberation and discussion of candidates after reviewing all relevant data before ranking those candidates, which takes the selection process outside of the preselection arena.
Whether some candidates may actually have been illegally preselected, I have no idea and I'm sure no one else outside ODAR does either. But there was no need for ODAR to do so to reach their objectives. ODAR could have selected everyone they wanted legally and rejected everyone they chose to, legally. They did not have to use preselection or SC to achieve their objectives.
In conversations I have had in depth on this topic, off this board, those who believe that there was preselection, SC or some other malfeasance, universally do not understand how the selection procedure works. Their basic argument is (a) I don't understand the process, therefore something illegal must have happened and (b) I didn't get selected, therefore something illegal must have happened. I have yet to see a cogent argument, or any evidence at all, supporting ODAR malfeasance.
Personally, if ODAR engaged in deliberate preselection of some candidates, as opposed to ranking them after full deliberation, it doesn't bother me. The result would be exactly the same - a distinction without a difference. If ODAR wanted them and they are reachable on the cert, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by justkeepingup on Dec 17, 2008 23:11:23 GMT -5
OK, I will give my two cents for the thousands I spent to test and interview in what I thought would be a fair process and now know was not. I am a service connected disabled vet. 10 point pref. I was passed over for a supposedly 5 point vet known as a "tentatitive vet" who was appointed ALJ in Mobile Alabama. I have no idea if the person is even truely a vet or has 5 points. I can assure you I do have a campaign badge and 5 points as well as being a service connected vet with a 30% plus service connected disability for the full 10 points. The person that got Mobile had a lower score than mine. I guess the people selecting think I am to sick to work so they refuse to give me a job that I am supposed to "BY LAW" be selected for by preference for if I qualify for on an equal basis. In fact, before I am passed over, by law I am supposed to be notified why I was not selected and given an opportunity to rebut the reason I was passed over. THat never happened in my case. Now, a friend of mine told me to quit putting down that I was disabled with the State of Florida because they were not going to hire me because either they thought I was crazy or that I was to sick to work, regardless of the fact that I was to be preferred "by LAW" to get the job. So I know when a friend tells me to do something he is looking after my best interests, I quit saying I was a disabled vet and just said I was a vet with a campaign medal and after six months of a disabled vet seeking a job without a result, a vet with a campaign medal found a job in one month. Hmmmm, Good for you in Mobile, you are so much better than me, you gave so much miore for your country. Let this be a lesson to the other vets, do not become disabled. Get yor medals, come home, and wear the medals and suffer in silence if you happen to be disabled.. The country does not want to know. You can be a vet, you can be a hero, but you cannot be disabled... You are alrready compensated for that and they do not need to know why you are disabled and that they are afraid of you and they think you cannot do the work. Do not think the laws are for you... MOXT OF ALL DO NOT PUT DOWN THAT YOU ARE DISABLED!!!! YOU WILL NEVER GET A JOB AND IT WILL RUIN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!! I do intend to challenge this....
|
|
|
|
Post by justkeepingup on Dec 17, 2008 23:48:57 GMT -5
Let me make it perfectly clear, as a nondisabled vet with a campaign badge and a 5 point pref I obtained a job within a month after 6 months of not being able to obtain a job as a 10 point disabled service connected vet simple because I quit putting it down and simply because they cannot legally ask that question when hiring.... Funny, once hired, and they find out you are a service connected vet you still get the prefference for being dischargrded and for accommodations if your disability becomes worse again... Man, the emloyer sure has the deer in the head lights look when they realiaze they hired a service connected vet abd that you had no obligation to disclose the disability because you can do the job...
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 18, 2008 7:37:30 GMT -5
I have seen no evidence from any source, nor even an allegation from a knowledgeable source, that ODAR engaged in selective certification, nor did they need to. Those who understand how this process works, understand that SC was not needed to achieve ODAR's desired results. As for preselection, there is a significant line between conscious and deliberate, illegal preselection and the valid ranking of desirable candidates, the latter of which is completely legal. A distinction specifically needs to be made between true preselection, such as targeting someone for hire before their OPM score is even known, and ranking someone highly after the scores are known and agency interviews are complete. I suspect that ODAR will be able to show that they engaged in significant deliberation and discussion of candidates after reviewing all relevant data before ranking those candidates, which takes the selection process outside of the preselection arena. Whether some candidates may actually have been illegally preselected, I have no idea and I'm sure no one else outside ODAR does either. But there was no need for ODAR to do so to reach their objectives. ODAR could have selected everyone they wanted legally and rejected everyone they chose to, legally. They did not have to use preselection or SC to achieve their objectives. In conversations I have had in depth on this topic, off this board, those who believe that there was preselection, SC or some other malfeasance, universally do not understand how the selection procedure works. Their basic argument is (a) I don't understand the process, therefore something illegal must have happened and (b) I didn't get selected, therefore something illegal must have happened. I have yet to see a cogent argument, or any evidence at all, supporting ODAR malfeasance. Personally, if ODAR engaged in deliberate preselection of some candidates, as opposed to ranking them after full deliberation, it doesn't bother me. The result would be exactly the same - a distinction without a difference. If ODAR wanted them and they are reachable on the cert, so be it. Oooooh, Doc Who would tell me just to leave it alone, and would probably do so by quoting “There are none so blind…” PM, neither you nor Valkyrie have investigated how the selections were made; you have made assumptions starting with the premise that everything was on the up-and-up. If you toss that assumption and make a teensy-weensy bit of room for the premise that SSA may well have reverse engineered the selection process to achieve their desired result of having newbie ALJs who had agency-specific experience, you might see that another conclusion is possible. Prior to the closing of the Register, the SSA had been engaged in legal selective certification. The now-infamous litigation closed the Register in – what ? – 1984? And SSA suffered a huge buildup of backlogged cases. Then – boom! – they get to hire 135 ALJs in one fell swoop. It is certainly understandable that they would want as many candidates with SSA experience as possible. But, lo, they could no longer engage in selective certification. Bummer. How then, to get to the individuals they want if those individuals are not high enough on the Cert of Eligibles to be considered under the Rule of Three ? [And note, if you will, that IF the Agency knows and identifies individuals “they want” prior to the selection process, and that DRIVES the selection process itself, then that is, in your words “conscious and deliberate …preselection” of candidates.] If they manage the process in such a way so as to winnow out candidates they do not prefer in order to get down in the cert to the ones they “want,” then they have granted a "preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation” to an “applicant for employment” by “defining the ...manner of competition for the position …for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment” in violation of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 2302(b)(6). I actually DO understand how selections are made in the federal government, and – further – I understand how multiple selections are made, (having defended agencies in many a nonselection case.) The fact that it wouldn’t bother you at all if “ODAR engaged in deliberate preselection of some candidates” undermines the credibility of your fierce defense of the Agency because what you are saying is that the facts just don't matter to you. |
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Dec 18, 2008 8:08:54 GMT -5
While some may not find this interesting, and some will most assuredly find this to be a ridiculous constraint upon the agency, this is pivotal. Pre-selection and "selective certification" are both prohibited in federal hires. There is every indication that the SSA engaged in both on these last hires. Pre-selection in manipulating the slots so as to reach the individuals that had been preselected for hire and de facto selective certification in the same manner. I am just curious. When an Agency has a large cert, how do you (and PF, et al) think the Agency SHOULD handle the large number of names it receives? Are you saying that if the #1 candidate lists all geographic locations, they should be considered for all locations, despite all the rule of three requirement? Are you saying OPM should send three candidates specifically attached to each slot rather than a big list of names? Is the issue that some folks were considered only 3 times and some were considered multiple times? I have a hard time buying that the group selected is totally tainted when (in my limited understanding) about half of the selectees were not connected with SSA. I also know several Agency people still on the list with good scores. From someone outside the process (and admittedly with no facts, so don't hurt me!), I hate to see SSA being accused of deliberate malfeasance, when it seems like it would be in its best interest to select those best suited to the particular job. I also have a hard time buying the proposition that one's work experience and backgound should not be a factor in hiring. I have several friends on the registry who were former Dept of Labor employees. If DoL were hiring, I would totally understand why they would be hired over me. I understand why Medicare would want to hire someone with a medical or insurance background. Not that I could not learn whatever I needed, but someone with experience can hit the ground running. Why should SSA be different? |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Dec 18, 2008 10:06:26 GMT -5
I have seen no evidence from any source, nor even an allegation from a knowledgeable source, that ODAR engaged in selective certification, nor did they need to. Those who understand how this process works, understand that SC was not needed to achieve ODAR's desired results. As for preselection, there is a significant line between conscious and deliberate, illegal preselection and the valid ranking of desirable candidates, the latter of which is completely legal. A distinction specifically needs to be made between true preselection, such as targeting someone for hire before their OPM score is even known, and ranking someone highly after the scores are known and agency interviews are complete. I suspect that ODAR will be able to show that they engaged in significant deliberation and discussion of candidates after reviewing all relevant data before ranking those candidates, which takes the selection process outside of the preselection arena. Whether some candidates may actually have been illegally preselected, I have no idea and I'm sure no one else outside ODAR does either. But there was no need for ODAR to do so to reach their objectives. ODAR could have selected everyone they wanted legally and rejected everyone they chose to, legally. They did not have to use preselection or SC to achieve their objectives. In conversations I have had in depth on this topic, off this board, those who believe that there was preselection, SC or some other malfeasance, universally do not understand how the selection procedure works. Their basic argument is (a) I don't understand the process, therefore something illegal must have happened and (b) I didn't get selected, therefore something illegal must have happened. I have yet to see a cogent argument, or any evidence at all, supporting ODAR malfeasance. Personally, if ODAR engaged in deliberate preselection of some candidates, as opposed to ranking them after full deliberation, it doesn't bother me. The result would be exactly the same - a distinction without a difference. If ODAR wanted them and they are reachable on the cert, so be it. Oooooh, Doc Who would tell me just to leave it alone, and would probably do so by quoting “There are none so blind…” PM, neither you nor Valkyrie have investigated how the selections were made; you have made assumptions starting with the premise that everything was on the up-and-up. If you toss that assumption and make a teensy-weensy bit of room for the premise that SSA may well have reverse engineered the selection process to achieve their desired result of having newbie ALJs who had agency-specific experience, you might see that another conclusion is possible. Prior to the closing of the Register, the SSA had been engaged in legal selective certification. The now-infamous litigation closed the Register in – what ? – 1984? And SSA suffered a huge buildup of backlogged cases. Then – boom! – they get to hire 135 ALJs in one fell swoop. It is certainly understandable that they would want as many candidates with SSA experience as possible. But, lo, they could no longer engage in selective certification. Bummer. How then, to get to the individuals they want if those individuals are not high enough on the Cert of Eligibles to be considered under the Rule of Three ? [And note, if you will, that IF the Agency knows and identifies individuals “they want” prior to the selection process, and that DRIVES the selection process itself, then that is, in your words “conscious and deliberate …preselection” of candidates.] If they manage the process in such a way so as to winnow out candidates they do not prefer in order to get down in the cert to the ones they “want,” then they have granted a "preference or advantage not authorized by law, rule, or regulation” to an “applicant for employment” by “defining the ...manner of competition for the position …for the purpose of improving or injuring the prospects of any particular person for employment” in violation of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, Section 2302(b)(6). I actually DO understand how selections are made in the federal government, and – further – I understand how multiple selections are made, (having defended agencies in many a nonselection case.) The fact that it wouldn’t bother you at all if “ODAR engaged in deliberate preselection of some candidates” undermines the credibility of your fierce defense of the Agency because what you are saying is that the facts just don't matter to you. In the past you have posted comments in which you stated that everyone who made the list was in the top 3 for some city. That is simply wrong and indicates a thorough lack of understanding of the multiple city cert process. Underlying all of your comments is the assumption that ODAR must have violated the rules to achieve the results they reached. That is also simply incorrect. The results can be obtained without any illegalities of any sort. Whether ODAR engaged in any illegalities I do not know. At no point have I defended ODAR. I have tried to explain the process and how it works. ODAR is run by human beings so I assume mistakes were made. But I have seen no evidence of such mistakes. I have seen people who do not understand the selction system assume the existence of mistakes arising from their misunderstanding of the system. In the comments above you ask how ODAR could achieve their desired resukts without SC. That has been explained ad infinitum by many in the last year, including Pixie. At no point did I say that facts don't matter to me. It is a hallmark of your argumentative style that rather than responding to actual arguments you set up straw men and respond to them. I said that there is no substantial distinction in the results that would be obtained if ALJs were picked by preselection versus ranking. If the results are the same, the process doesn't bother me nor for that matter would it affect me. For someone who is more emotionally invested in this issue than intellectually invested in the issue, I can see that it might be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 18, 2008 10:07:27 GMT -5
When an Agency has a large cert, how do you (and PF, et al) think the Agency SHOULD handle the large number of names it receives? I am not outlining some concrete, hard-and-fast rule for how to do multiple fills. There is enough flexibility in the process to achieve the goal of hiring good personnel. ( That is the overall goal, right ? Hiring SSA attorneys is not the overall goal, right ? It’s hiring good and competent individuals who can do the job.) What “et al” are saying is that the Agency has to avoid constructing their mechanism for hire in such a way as to achieve a pre-determined end result. When an amended cert is issued and someone who is an “insider” is on that amended cert is reached through repeated carrying, considering and rejecting of other viable candidates who were on the original cert and were well-qualified for the position, one should begin to question the process. Are you saying that if the #1 candidate lists all geographic locations, they should be considered for all locations, despite all the rule of three requirement? “Despite all the Rule of Three requirement” ? Huh ? You mean the Rule of Three which requires that the top three be considered for the position ? If that’s the Rule that you mean, then – technically – that rule would, indeed, allow for the #1 ranked individual who had indicated availability for all locations to be repeatedly considered for all locations each and every time. I am guessing, however, that you are actually referring to the Three Strike Rule which allows the Agency to cease considering #1 after three considerations. I’m not saying that individual “should” be considered for every single location. I’m saying that the reason the Agency exercises 5 CFR 332.405 should be based on that candidate and not on an exterior reason (to reach another candidate) nor should it be applied to one candidate without regard to their credentials if it is not applied to all candidates without regard to their credentials. Are you saying OPM should send three candidates specifically attached to each slot rather than a big list of names? Nope. Is the issue that some folks were considered only 3 times and some were considered multiple times? It’s AN issue. …I hate to see SSA being accused of deliberate malfeasance, when it seems like it would be in its best interest to select those best suited to the particular job. You’d think that the suggestion that something untoward took place means that somewhere there was some cauldron boiling with names in a backroom with several wizards and witches chanting ODAR incantations over it. No, it is unlikely that the individual making the selections was going, “AHA! Look, there’s Patriot’s Fan with his disgustingly high score! Oooo, I hate PF! I do not want to see PF get an ALJ job with the SSA ! How, oh how can I manage to thwart his heart’s desire ? Hmmmmmm. I KNOW! I will gerrymander the slots in such a way as to ensure that PF, of ALL people, does not get a job. Bwah-hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!” It is the very idea that those with labor law experience would do best with the FLRA and those with medical backgrounds would do best with Medicare and those with patent law degrees might do well with the International Trade Commission and those with Social Security Administration experience would do best with ODAR are reasonable conclusions that makes this subject so volatile. More often than not, all the agency selecting personnel are trying to do is get the best person for the job. There ARE situations where certain supervisors want to hire specific individuals – for whatever reason: either they know them and like them; know their work ethic; need their specific expertise; are responding to a favor request from someone else….it happens. The problem is that it was recognized – by the federal government – that this kind of inbreeding in an agency (as well as the favoritism which is the basis for hiring friends) is not – overall – good for the government. And so there are rules created to try to curb the tendency to see this happen. I also have a hard time buying the proposition that one's work experience and background should not be a factor in hiring. I have several friends on the registry who were former Dept of Labor employees. If DoL were hiring, I would totally understand why they would be hired over me. I understand why Medicare would want to hire someone with a medical or insurance background. Not that I could not learn whatever I needed, but someone with experience can hit the ground running. Why should SSA be different? Because this is not a standard job in the government. That is why it is administered by OPM. |
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Dec 18, 2008 10:10:44 GMT -5
Ah, there you are, PM.
Doc Who would have been correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by jennifer on Dec 18, 2008 15:15:26 GMT -5
No comments from Pixie?
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Dec 18, 2008 16:00:59 GMT -5
"Under selective certification, 'an agency, upon a showing of necessity and with the prior approval of OPM, [would be] permitted to appoint specially certified eligibles without regard to their ranking in relation to other eligibles on the register who lack the special certification.'"
Assuming that there is a specific group of candidates that SSA "specifically certified" under the table, there is still regard for the ranking of certified eligibles on the register who lack "special certification," as long as the rule of three is followed.
"From text later in the announcement, it appears to mean that an agency could 'give priority consideration' to applicants with agency-specific experience that have the same numerical ranking as ALJs without agency-specific experience. Irrespective of the 1984 announcement, agencies must select from 'the highest three eligibles available for appointment on the certificate, taking into consideration veteran preference rules.'"
Again, even if the Agency does give priority consideration, it must be done within the rule of three. The potential for manipulation of the rules is increased with the size of the hire. What if SSA had only hired 10 ALJs off of a certificate of 30? Would it still be such a shock and outrage if #20 was hired and #1 was not? Does #1 have to be hired? For that matter, does #10 have to be hired? Why would it be more of an outrage if #1 was not hired than if #10 was not hired? If it is an outrage to hire #20, isn't it wrong to even include #20-#30 on the list? If we are going to get into this mess, we may as well just hire exclusively by OPM score, which has shown itself to be significantly flawed based upon comparatively equivalent candidate applications receiving markedly different scores, or in some cases, total rejection.
Now, lets go with some hypos. If a non-agency candidate on a certificate showed him/herself to be head and shoulders above the rest of the certificate during the agency interviews, is the agency not allowed to try and reach this candidate within the rule of three?
If the agency does not want a candidate for a non-discriminatory reason, is it not allowed to use the three strikes rule to avoid considering the candidate again?
If 30% of the candidates hired were agency people, and agency people represented 30% of the certificate, would you still consider the process "fixed"?
ODAR staff attorneys, on their own authority, have been issuing favorable decisions on the record of evidence for some time now. This program has met with congressional approval because of the resulting marked improvement in ODAR's efficiency. Does this represent the "undesirable inbreeding" that we are supposed to fear? After all, these are exclusively ODAR attorneys making these decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by whinenomore on Dec 18, 2008 20:10:40 GMT -5
I too have been passed over twice. Perhaps, as qualified as I am (and I am qualified), does not want me. While it is hard to accept that they don't want me as I fancy myself wonderful and entitled to a job because I have a veteran's preference, I know my supervisor did not fancy me to be wonderful for what I have now come to accept as valid reasons that I can improve upon. The agency did pass me over - and I had a high score before my vet's preference was added. They hired better candidates. I am going to work on my flaws. There is a reason we were not hired...posters on this board who continously try to stir up trouble and continously whine and complain about how unfair things are - well, I would not want you to work for me either. So they found a valid reason to pass over you - or maybe not so valid - so file your lawsuit and maybe you can get a job in a few years or be willing to look at why you might not be as wonderful and entitled as you think you are... harsh words, but this thread is sickening...and insulting to the people who got hired - one of the best group of ALJ's hired in a LONG time...
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Dec 18, 2008 20:15:12 GMT -5
When an Agency has a large cert, how do you (and PF, et al) think the Agency SHOULD handle the large number of names it receives? I am not outlining some concrete, hard-and-fast rule for how to do multiple fills. There is enough flexibility in the process to achieve the goal of hiring good personnel. ( That is the overall goal, right ? Hiring SSA attorneys is not the overall goal, right ? It’s hiring good and competent individuals who can do the job.) What “et al” are saying is that the Agency has to avoid constructing their mechanism for hire in such a way as to achieve a pre-determined end result. When an amended cert is issued and someone who is an “insider” is on that amended cert is reached through repeated carrying, considering and rejecting of other viable candidates who were on the original cert and were well-qualified for the position, one should begin to question the process. “Despite all the Rule of Three requirement” ? Huh ? You mean the Rule of Three which requires that the top three be considered for the position ? If that’s the Rule that you mean, then – technically – that rule would, indeed, allow for the #1 ranked individual who had indicated availability for all locations to be repeatedly considered for all locations each and every time. I am guessing, however, that you are actually referring to the Three Strike Rule which allows the Agency to cease considering #1 after three considerations. I’m not saying that individual “should” be considered for every single location. I’m saying that the reason the Agency exercises 5 CFR 332.405 should be based on that candidate and not on an exterior reason (to reach another candidate) nor should it be applied to one candidate without regard to their credentials if it is not applied to all candidates without regard to their credentials. Nope. It’s AN issue. You’d think that the suggestion that something untoward took place means that somewhere there was some cauldron boiling with names in a backroom with several wizards and witches chanting ODAR incantations over it. No, it is unlikely that the individual making the selections was going, “AHA! Look, there’s Patriot’s Fan with his disgustingly high score! Oooo, I hate PF! I do not want to see PF get an ALJ job with the SSA ! How, oh how can I manage to thwart his heart’s desire ? Hmmmmmm. I KNOW! I will gerrymander the slots in such a way as to ensure that PF, of ALL people, does not get a job. Bwah-hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!” It is the very idea that those with labor law experience would do best with the FLRA and those with medical backgrounds would do best with Medicare and those with patent law degrees might do well with the International Trade Commission and those with Social Security Administration experience would do best with ODAR are reasonable conclusions that makes this subject so volatile. More often than not, all the agency selecting personnel are trying to do is get the best person for the job. There ARE situations where certain supervisors want to hire specific individuals – for whatever reason: either they know them and like them; know their work ethic; need their specific expertise; are responding to a favor request from someone else….it happens. The problem is that it was recognized – by the federal government – that this kind of inbreeding in an agency (as well as the favoritism which is the basis for hiring friends) is not – overall – good for the government. And so there are rules created to try to curb the tendency to see this happen. I also have a hard time buying the proposition that one's work experience and background should not be a factor in hiring. I have several friends on the registry who were former Dept of Labor employees. If DoL were hiring, I would totally understand why they would be hired over me. I understand why Medicare would want to hire someone with a medical or insurance background. Not that I could not learn whatever I needed, but someone with experience can hit the ground running. Why should SSA be different? Because this is not a standard job in the government. That is why it is administered by OPM. As usual, jagghagg says it better than I. Because its the 300 lb gorilla in terms of how many ALJs SSA doth make, one could argue that it should not just focus on agency experience, but what they could bring to the ALJ Corps at large. What if you were an expert in SEC matters and the agency really wanted you and couldn't touch you because you only got an 80 score? To paraphrase the bard, how does it feel to be a rolling stone? On the other hand, its hard to blame SSA for wanting experts. But the real point is did SSA violate the Regs by gerrymandering the rule of 3? I for one smell Danish cheese. |
|
tater
Full Member
Posts: 73 
|
Post by tater on Dec 18, 2008 21:14:29 GMT -5
All right. Who cut the Danish Cheese?
|
|
