Hiring for May?

[tater]

Looks like the first 150 will be hired in May and ready to rumble! What say you?

[rodkneekingslayer]

The logisitcs are too much for that many peeps. Woodlawn does not have a training room with more than 50 terminals. The most you would see is 75 new aljs with 2 sections. Also they don't like having that many instructors out at once.

[hod]

I am not so sure. They really want to get these people on as soon as possible. Last time the newbies had several weeks in the office before going to training-so it is possible that all the hires will be done at one time (say May) and the training will be scattered throughout June and July and possibly August (I am with the other poster who said it is unlikely they will have training too close to the end of fiscal year since the craziness requires "all hands on deck").
The new method of bringing people on places a lot of weight on the office "mentor" who tries to provide as much training as possible before formal training begins. Actually this is a good idea-expecially for people outside the SSA process. It gives them a chance to see the job and have an idea of what the training is all about.

[blackswan]

I heard three classes for July, August and September. They are lining up trainers.

[judicature]

There will be approx 150 hires. Count on it.

[sooneratty]

I scored a pretty high score and was on the first register, in January 2008. My name was sent by OPM on Certificates for consideration for 3 different locations, but I was not chosen. I expanded my geographical preferences when the register was re-opened for new candidates in summer 2008. Will I be considered this next time?

[pm]

Feb 16, 2009 22:09:57 GMT -5 sooneratty said:

I scored a pretty high score and was on the first register, in January 2008. My name was sent by OPM on Certificates for consideration for 3 different locations, but I was not chosen. I expanded my geographical preferences when the register was re-opened for new candidates in summer 2008. Will I be considered this next time?

Unless you spit on someone during your interview, of course.

[hod]

If, after getting a score, one decides that this is not a good year to move (parental illness or child needs or whatever), is there a way to place your name in hiatus and wait for the next round of hirings next year?

[alj]

Yes, the protocol used to be through OPM. I believe it used to be done through the good ole US Mail. There may be a different procedure now. If you want to be temporarily de--considered, better let them know now before the certificate goes out to SSA.

[traceb]

That's probably the most depressing downer of a post I have read. So basically what you are saying is that since I'm not an SSA insider I did all this for nothing, participated in a sham that cost me a lot of money, time and effort? That's just downright cruel.

[traceb]

Thank you for Harshing my Buzz!!!

[chinook]

I think the answer to your question whether you wasted your money etc is maybe, but maybe not. I think SSA uses its own interpretation of the regs to select who it wants and exclude who it doesn't want. That is not to say that everybody selected by SSA is an insider who was preselected. I truly believe some were but others were not. To some extent it will depend of what your geographical limitations are. I have accepted that I will likely never be an ALJ (score in the mid-range and limited to the Washington DC area). There are other jobs that are rewarding and a bunch more fun than an ALJ at SSA. Don't let it get you down. There is life outside of ODAR and there are good legal careers outside of ODAR.

To those that are pursuing legal action -- go for it. I hate it when agencies give their own self-serving interpretation of the procedural regs. Remember an agency does not get deference to procedure, only to substance. OPM should be kicking their a**, so in my view OPM is equally at fault.

[blackswan]

I understand and empathize with the blackballing issue, but isn't the fear and loathing of insiders a little overdone when they were only 39% of the hires? What to you, between 0% and 39%, seems a more fair result in a process where most applicants probably were insiders?

[alj]

Feb 17, 2009 17:56:23 GMT -5 blackswan said:

I understand and empathize with the blackballing issue, but isn't the fear and loathing of insiders a little overdone when they were only 39% of the hires? What to you, between 0% and 39%, seems a more fair result in a process where most applicants probably were insiders?

At the risk of getting involved in the "Us vs. Them" debate, let me say that many of the ones who were hired from outside the agency had prior agency experience, either as a government attorney in another agency, as a prior OHA staff attorney, or as a private practitioner with experience in SSA matters.

In fact all of the judges hired in 2008, that I know or have heard about, had some experience with the agency prior to their appointment. I am sure there are many without SSA experience, but I haven't run across them yet.

When one considers the backgrounds of these recent hires, the odds of being appointed without any SSA background goes way down.

[aaa]

There several people in my class last May who had zero ODAR/SSA experience. If I recall correctly, more than half my class had no SSA experience.

[happy]

I'd say about 1/3 of my class in August had no SSA-related experience. I think the ratio was slightly smaller in the other section. However, many of those with no SSA-related experience did have prior government experience, including former state aljs and other federal agencies.

[blackswan]

How is a court going to define an "insider"? An "outsider" can never have had any transaction with ODAR? An "insider" can never have done anything else? I'm not sure these defining and prejudicial categories even exist.

[alj]

You can read my post for what it is: a comment on a very small sample, but I think if you dug a little deeper, you would find that many more than half of the judges hired in 2008 had SSA experience at some point in the past. It may be that your class had a smaller percentage than the others. I don't know because I wasn't there. I know that in one of the years, may have been last year, the agency people were placed in the first class because they were relatively more mobile on short notice than the ones coming in from private practice.

I made these comments because last week I was talking to a judge who often travels to different hearing offices to hear cases. He commented that just about all of the new judges he has met had some SSA experience prior to their appointment. When I thought about it, I realized that his experience mirrored my own. But again, that is a small sample, so take it for what it is.

[southernmiss]

In my office, of the four judges who were hired, not one had worked for SSA, although one had been an outside attorney. I think what may have given SSA attorneys an "in." if there was one, was the fact most of them put that they would go anywhere.

[blackswan]

You may have hit on it. The few former ODAR attorney ALJs I know of have been scattered to the wind, geographically speaking.