I wonder about a couple of things. First, is a process that requires an immediate response a good idea? I know that there are practical reasons for limiting the number of applications but the current process prioritizes those who follow these things closely, often for many years, and most of those are insiders. Second, how many applications would there have been by now if the same job bore the title of "Hearing Examiner"? Is it a good thing if the inclusion of the word "judge" in the job title is the biggest attraction of the job? The word "judge" helps attract qualified applicants and it helps the agency fill positions in areas of the country that aren't generally so attractive to job applicants, but I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea of dangling the word "judge" to attract applicants, even though my experience is that the vast majority of Social Security's ALJs try hard to live up to all the good things that the word "judge" implies.
12 comments:
There's no perfect process. You can't tell me every judge in every location from traffic court, local courts and even up to the Supreme Court are all the best. Every process is flawed. However, your comment answers itself. The only people who know are insiders and those who are extremely active in the practice... in other words... people who are heavily and actively involved in Social Security in some way. Sounds good to me. I don't want Joe Q. Defense Attorney applying or Susie M. Solo who is struggling with a small practice.
Plenty of judges in all forms around the country who aren't the best. But at least with this dry run, it'll be Social Security-centric people.
They got who they wanted. That’s how the government works. They use the postings so they can claim fair hiring but they know what they’re doing. Happens all the time with lots of positions.
@9:50. Exactly. That's exactly how it works. If you see a posting up for a couple days they've already selected someone and now need them to apply. It's not what you know its who you know.
@9:50. If what they want are highly experienced, highly productive, highly accurate attorneys who have excellent references who can attest to their temperament and impartiality when they do the hardest part of the job? Then yes.
It makes zero sense to hire anyone else? Why would you not want to get a young attorney who barely needs any training that can put out 500+ dispos a year with an incredibly low remand rate for the next 30 years?
I often wondered about the logic of the term hearing examiner. Sounds like a job held by the Appeals Council: examining the appropriateness of a hearing, not hold one.
Even many insider candidates were not able to complete this application before it closed, this is a broken process designed to hire marginal candidates.
I am heartbroken that I did not have an opportunity to apply. I have been a decision writer for over a decade with outstanding evaluations and a registered nurse of over 35 years. My productivity is off the chart, as is my agreement rating. I had no idea of the posting. Absolutely absurd.
The agency made sure whoever they wanted to hire got the chance to apply.
You need to confront your chief judge, director, and group supervisors. You're with OHO? They all knew the posting was coming, all of them. Why didn't they tell you??
Yeah, what 8:51 said, but it's not management's job to manage your career aspirations. The ALJ message board has been around for years and years, and internal and external ALJ-hopefuls alike all got the same info there.
Just call them claims adjudicators. Cut down the people applying by 50% and be more accurate.
I was recently told that OPM is preparing to roll out a new ALJ examination. To what extent was SSA's April hiring surge related to that?
I've been trying to find out if OPM is back in the business of screening ALJ applicants. Does anyone here know?
Post a Comment