|
|
Post by pm on Mar 7, 2009 13:03:38 GMT -5
I think people attach too much importance to where a job is. I grew up in a military family and we lived in some places I'd never choose willingly, but I always enjoyed making new friends and going to new schools, which I know is a negative for a lot of people. Going to work someplace where you have a position lined up for an organization that you'll stay with is a lot different that choosing someplace cold and then moving there and trying to make it. Five years is really not that long a time in the grand scheme of your career. It might be helpful to get some perspective from some attys who've moved for their job either with the military or the govt or even a private corp and from some ALJs who've moved for the job. Everyone is different. It's an advantage for you and others who aren't that concerned with where you live, but there are many who are very concerned about where they live. Some have difficulty dealing with the humidity in Houston, or the cloudiness and rain in the Pacific Northwest. SAD is much higher in the northwest than in more southern areas. People who have always lived in more moderate climates have to decide if they want to deal with 6 months of winter weather in some parts of the country. That's a huge change. Are people from smaller towns really going to be happy in New York, Philadelphia, Houston, Chicago, Los Angeles or Las Vegas? If you have always enjoyed big cities, would you really be happy in McAlester, OK or Middleboro, KY? Do you really want to deal with 120 degree days in Las Vegas, continual heat over 100 degrees for months on end, nights where the low is 100 degrees and the almost perpetual absence of rain or clouds? There are also some more practical considerations. If you wind up in LA, do you really want to spend 2-4 hours each day commuting? If you wind up in San Francisco, do you and your family really want to live in a two bedroom apartment in a bad part of town, because your income as an ALJ is not going to pay for much more. Everyone has to make this decision for themselves. They shouldn't let others push them into accepting a job where they really do not want to live. 2-5 years of daily unhappiness is not worth any job. |
|
|
|
Post by justfoundthisboard on Mar 7, 2009 13:29:26 GMT -5
I was in the military, and one big difference is that you know you will leave after a few years. Moving for an ALJ position may be permanent, or at least for a longer period. We are planning to stay with our new location for awhile. It's a good place - good schools for our 12 year old, bought a home for half the price of our last home, and my husband got a job for more money than he made in our home state. But it is still an adjustment to a new city, and one that should not be taken lightly. I agree with PM that 2-5 years (or more) of daily unhappiness may not be worth any job.
If I could change one thing in the selection process, it would be to allow ALJ candidates to prioritize where they want to go. Even the military let me fill out a "dream sheet."
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 7, 2009 14:22:35 GMT -5
If I could change one thing in the selection process, it would be to allow ALJ candidates to prioritize where they want to go. Even the military let me fill out a "dream sheet." Or they could pencil people into locations, but be flexible. I wonder how much money the government could save if they allowed ALJs to swap cities during training. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 7, 2009 14:59:29 GMT -5
If I could change one thing in the selection process, it would be to allow ALJ candidates to prioritize where they want to go. Even the military let me fill out a "dream sheet." Or they could pencil people into locations, but be flexible. I wonder how much money the government could save if they allowed ALJs to swap cities during training. How would the government save money? |
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Mar 7, 2009 15:10:26 GMT -5
I said it many times last round. The more places you select the greater the chance of being selected. BUT, please do not put on your final list any site you will not move to or in which you will detest living. If the only place you will be happy is a popular destination then you will be stuck for years in a place you hate. This is bad for you and, frankly, bad for the staff and other judges at the site in which you will be working. No one will want to hear any complaints; you listed the site after all and the agency took you at your word.
I was an Army brat and learned most places in the US are fine. It is perfectly acceptable to not list any site for any reason. But consider carefully all sites you plan to leave on the list. You do not want to be miserable.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 7, 2009 15:18:37 GMT -5
I was in the military, and one big difference is that you know you will leave after a few years. Moving for an ALJ position may be permanent, or at least for a longer period. We are planning to stay with our new location for awhile. It's a good place - good schools for our 12 year old, bought a home for half the price of our last home, and my husband got a job for more money than he made in our home state. But it is still an adjustment to a new city, and one that should not be taken lightly. I agree with PM that 2-5 years (or more) of daily unhappiness may not be worth any job. If I could change one thing in the selection process, it would be to allow ALJ candidates to prioritize where they want to go. Even the military let me fill out a "dream sheet." It would be great if they allowed some flexibility but here are the two big problems I see. When you are hired, you are hired to fill a specific position in a certain location. Then once hired, you are subject to the transfer rules. The transfer rules would have to be revised to allow newbies to transfer immediately. The other problem is that if somehow the rules were changed and switches were allowed, some people would work out a switch and others would not. I guarantee you that some people would sue who did not get to switch positions. They woud say "I have a high score" or "I'm a veteran" and then they would sue. They would claim that the rule of 3 had been violated and on and on..... |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Mar 7, 2009 15:38:29 GMT -5
. . . Last year, generally speaking, we discovered that the higher the score, the fewer the number of cities candidates tended to list, and the lower the score, the greater the number of cities that were listed. The rationale behind this is that the highest scores went to older applicants who were very experienced and thus often much pickier about where they wanted to work, while younger applicants were much more willing to go anywhere. . . . Point of clarification: last year there was no consensus as to the ages of applicants with various scores. No poll was taken trying to correlate age with scores. PM, this may be your rationale, but my experience last year was that a number of people in their 50s were willing to relocate for an ALJ position. For one thing, many no longer had young children/aged parents to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 7, 2009 16:22:38 GMT -5
I think almost everyone was willing to relocate. The issue was as to how many cities they were willing to relocate. We had many candidates last year with high scores who listed very few cities. JH and Patriotsfan jump to mind.
If you went through all the posts last year there tended to be a correlation between youth, low scores, and wide geographic availability on the one hand, and age, high scores and fewer geographic choices on the other hand. Were there many people among the hundreds of candidates who did not fit these trends? Absolutely. Some older people simply had stronger geographic preferences regardless as to kids or scores. Many younger candidates seemed eager for the job no matter where it might be.
But most of this theorizing is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that people in the middle are not competing with every high score above them, which is a fact. There are many high scorers who have lmited geographic availability. Those who are worried about getting picked should remember that. There may be 50 with scores above you, but not everyone of those 50 is competing with you on every city.
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 7, 2009 20:45:02 GMT -5
Or they could pencil people into locations, but be flexible. I wonder how much money the government could save if they allowed ALJs to swap cities during training. How would the government save money? Moving a government employee is an expensive proposition. From the househunting trip, to the temporary housing allowance, to the actual packing of the household goods, to all the other excellent services Prudential provides, the government is making quite an investment in getting people to particular locations. Most folks in ODAR could cite multiple examples of folks who said they would go any where, but would have preferred to stay right where they are. Look at all the questions about transfer lists or becoming a HOCALJ to get where someone wants to be. How many people do you know that have moved to their office but left family behind just to get their foot in the door with an eye to return home as soon as possible? I have personally worked with at least four I can name offhand. I realize the major flaw in the system is candidates failure to take the geo. pref. step of the process as serously as they should. I see the argument, "well, if the person said they would go anywhere, SSA should be free to send them anywhere." The reality of the situation is not that simple. |
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Mar 8, 2009 20:40:51 GMT -5
Sorry, but I still think travel helps, regardless. Children and a spouse with a career is a deal breaker as are parents and family who need attention for many, but each of us knows about that. Lucky for me, I'm spread all over the west coast and some of the midwest. My only criteria is an airport and to be withing 1000 interstate miles of where I want to be. If you've ever gone through one of those really busy times in your career where you had to be in two places at once, and did it, you realize the phone and e-mail keep you in touch with those close to you and you can still make it home on the weekends. I just spent a hellish week in trial in which I got about 12 hours sleep for the week and that was at home. I had no family time. We've all been to law school and we're all high-achievers, you can do it, if you want to and if it's important to you. If that is not your priority on the other hand, well then limit your geo choices to where your are now or where you want to be. The key is not to be afraid but to look at it as a new opportunity to meet new people, and maybe hear a new accent.
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 8, 2009 21:42:54 GMT -5
Sorry, but I still think travel helps, regardless. Children and a spouse with a career is a deal breaker as are parents and family who need attention for many, but each of us knows about that. Lucky for me, I'm spread all over the west coast and some of the midwest. My only criteria is an airport and to be withing 1000 interstate miles of where I want to be. If you've ever gone through one of those really busy times in your career where you had to be in two places at once, and did it, you realize the phone and e-mail keep you in touch with those close to you and you can still make it home on the weekends. I just spent a hellish week in trial in which I got about 12 hours sleep for the week and that was at home. I had no family time. We've all been to law school and we're all high-achievers, you can do it, if you want to and if it's important to you. If that is not your priority on the other hand, well then limit your geo choices to where your are now or where you want to be. The key is not to be afraid but to look at it as a new opportunity to meet new people, and maybe hear a new accent. And that works for you. It absolutely does not work for other people. Everyone is not like you. |
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 8, 2009 21:43:44 GMT -5
How would the government save money? Moving a government employee is an expensive proposition. From the househunting trip, to the temporary housing allowance, to the actual packing of the household goods, to all the other excellent services Prudential provides, the government is making quite an investment in getting people to particular locations. Most folks in ODAR could cite multiple examples of folks who said they would go any where, but would have preferred to stay right where they are. Look at all the questions about transfer lists or becoming a HOCALJ to get where someone wants to be. How many people do you know that have moved to their office but left family behind just to get their foot in the door with an eye to return home as soon as possible? I have personally worked with at least four I can name offhand. I realize the major flaw in the system is candidates failure to take the geo. pref. step of the process as serously as they should. I see the argument, "well, if the person said they would go anywhere, SSA should be free to send them anywhere." The reality of the situation is not that simple. Thanks. I wonder how many people they had to move last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 9, 2009 7:57:27 GMT -5
Then they should allow us to give a 'priority list' on our geographic preferences. Just because I said I would go to Miami or Oklahoma does not mean that I would majorly prefer to go there, as opposed to Atlanta, Macon, Kingsport and Roanoke which are my real desires.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Mar 9, 2009 9:36:16 GMT -5
"Then they should allow us to give a 'priority list' on our geographic preferences."
Why should they do that when they have plenty of other people perfectly happy to go anywhere regardless of preference as long as they get the job. Don't forget, the Federal ALJ job market is TOTALLY an employer's market.
One other thing. This whole process has changed in many ways since it has reopened. I'm sure the ALJ members of the Board will agree that the ALJ transfer process can be as opaque and frustrating as the hiring process. Last year was a huge hiring by historical standards, as this year will be, and the following year. Last year's hires will not be eligible for regular transfers for another year. Not until that time will we know how the transfer process will be treated with so many new ALJs in the mix. Who knows? It could be easier, or harder. I just think it is one more reason to consider one's geographic preferences very carefully. It would be a splash of icy cold water if you were to accept a position in Fargo in May, thinking, "how bad could it be for two years," and then a year later we see a few dozen transfer requests from the 08' class of ALJs, with a 0% success rate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagghagg on Mar 9, 2009 9:46:31 GMT -5
Then they should allow us to give a 'priority list' on our geographic preferences. Just because I said I would go to Miami or Oklahoma does not mean that I would majorly prefer to go there, as opposed to Atlanta, Macon, Kingsport and Roanoke which are my real desires. Gawd, Beagles are SO CUTE!!!!! Ya just wanna pat 'em on the head!!! ;D Yes, wasn't UNO the best ?! |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 9, 2009 9:49:42 GMT -5
Just like Uno from Westminster last year!!
|
|
|
|
Post by pm on Mar 9, 2009 19:58:33 GMT -5
Then they should allow us to give a 'priority list' on our geographic preferences. Just because I said I would go to Miami or Oklahoma does not mean that I would majorly prefer to go there, as opposed to Atlanta, Macon, Kingsport and Roanoke which are my real desires. That makes it much more complicated and could even wind up hurting you. How do they evaluate your lukewarm positive response to a city versus someone else's strong preference? What if they were considering hiring you for St Louis and St Louis was only your 6th choice, but the person they ranked slightly below you picked St Louis as number 1? They might hire the person below you because they wanted STL more. And then you don't compete so well on other cities and never get an offer.... |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 10, 2009 11:44:35 GMT -5
Is anyone here going to significantly cut down their Geo Preference list?
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Mar 10, 2009 11:54:22 GMT -5
Does 90 to approx 60 count as "significantly cut down"? My wife and I had a spirited discussion last night!
If you knew us you'd understand why....two type A's make an A+.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 10, 2009 11:58:13 GMT -5
Does 90 to approx 60 count as "significantly cut down"?
Yes - I am leaning the same way myself.
|
|
