|
My wife's telework agreement required us to buy an adjustable height chair, and required a desk that was at least a certain height. That's in addition to requiring the same dress code as the office.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
I mean, it's literally on OPM guys. It's a locality pay thing. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-administration/fact-sheets/official-worksite-for-location-based-pay-purposes/
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
I didn't realize the OPM served any other purpose than to make my life a nervous wreck with their clearance processes. #themoreyouknow I'm still applying as I can to jobs in the Seattle area. I've seen a few public jobs, hopefully this isn't too offensive but, why do individuals take so much lower salaries for these jobs? Is there some other benefit I'm not seeing to working in the public sector?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
jiffypop45 posted:I'm still applying as I can to jobs in the Seattle area. I've seen a few public jobs, hopefully this isn't too offensive but, why do individuals take so much lower salaries for these jobs? Is there some other benefit I'm not seeing to working in the public sector? I mean, I framed it differently as a child, like I wanted to "work for the good of the world" (when I did not want to be, you know, a wizard or a dragon or something) which later on turned into me realizing I never wanted to work in the private sector if/once I could avoid it. I just do not understand donating what little precious time we really have in this life to the cause of helping rich people get richer when I could be lifting up the downtrodden in some sense instead. Though I would totally work for InXile if they needed an immigration specialist
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
jiffypop45 posted:I didn't realize the OPM served any other purpose than to make my life a nervous wreck with their clearance processes. #themoreyouknow Stability, benefits, work/life balance are the big ones. I've known people to take upfront 50%+ pay cuts to come work for the feds. Also, the pay potential vs. private sector is highly dependent on your industry, background, geographic location, personal connections etc. For a skilled computer programmer with several years of experience working for the government probably would not make much financial sense whereas an accountant who was working 60+ hours a week at a Big 4 accounting firm would probably see their total pay decrease but hourly pay increase or stay the same. Since you mentioned Seattle, the geographic pay differences are also huge and the locality payments don't come close to making up for living in high cost of living areas. Another thing to consider is that most job postings start at the low end and don't reflect what you'd be making after a few years. My boss started as a grade 7 (same as I did) and is now a grade 14 step 10 after about 12 years. That's an increase from about $40,000 to over $130,000 based on RUS pay, which is really good money in most of the country. Edit: An exception to even the 'low pay in high cost areas' thing is that in some fields the unique experience you get at the fed job can't really be replicated outside. This is why lawyers and some other professionals take massive pay cuts to join a fed agency. See for example regulatory and enforcement agencies, prosecutor, special agent etc. When I started at the age of 24 I was dealing directly with partners at high $ firms and getting a completely different type of experience than an entry-level job elsewhere. Dr. Quarex posted:I am surely not the best example, as it is not like high-paying jobs for social science Ph.D.s are falling out of the woodwork, but I have pretty much never wavered since childhood from thinking I hated the profit motive and wanted to avoid it at all costs. It is nice to know that I'm not making anyone else rich off my work heated game moment fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
That makes sense then. I wouldn't call myself "talented" per se but I have a TS clearance (with a SCI that should pop in any day now) and have experience working in defense as a software engineer primarily working on DevOps/SDE and as a systems administrator working on an embedded windows platform primarily used by the USAF. So it's likely that given the high competition for those sort of jobs in Seattle it's unlikely that it would be worth the drop in pay. I saw one system engineer job that starts at 50-ish k which is what I made right out of school in Texas and would about bankrupt me to make the lateral 100k move I need now. When they were doing the last batch of FAA ATC jobs I applied then but was under the impression the pay was given there was a base, then there was locality added onto it so it didn't seem bad. I'd also be hesitant for personal reasons to be in a job that was *too* close to the offices in DC. I've seen the FBI is hiring, and the current DOJ is a trainwreck so that's not something I'm interested in (also makes me curious about why there are so many jobs open in that field, I'd figure the government IC would be overfilled with applications). jiffypop45 fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
Where can I find information on the details of optimizing your application to get past the computerized first step filtering at USAJobs?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
I'm sure I could have my exact same job in the private sector with at least $10k more a year. But I have pretty drat good health insurance, and I never worry about losing my job or working over time that I don't want. I'd literally have to try to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Deeters posted:I'm sure I could have my exact same job in the private sector with at least $10k more a year. But I have pretty drat good health insurance, and I never worry about losing my job or working over time that I don't want. I'd literally have to try to do it. Maybe I'm getting the best of both worlds as a contractor? I guess I should shut up before it comes off as if I'm bragging.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Where can I find information on the details of optimizing your application to get past the computerized first step filtering at USAJobs? The resume and application training info on usajobs is a good first step. https://www.usajobs.gov/Notification/Events/#Free-Virtual-Training-Sessions-For-Job-Seekers
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Hey, are there any National Park Rangers on here who could give me some advice, or do you guys know any goons who is/are one? I'm thinking about (1) volunteering this summer, (2) going through one of the parks law enforcement academy programs, and/or (3) trying for seasonal employment with neither of those. Can someone get employment with only doing one of these, and how difficult is it to get seasonal employment without volunteering or without a law enforcement or environmental background? I have a BA in political science and philosophy and a Master of Public Administration degree, and a few years of work in the nonprofit sector (and government internships). I basically want to switch careers. I have some environmental coursework but nothing close to a major/minor. Thanks to anyone out there.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I don't work NPS, but I do work with public lands. From what I've heard, federal LEO positions are swamped with vets most of the time. Other times they go to people that already have LE experience. For seasonal work, it depends on exactly what you want to do. I know that there are some seasonal LEO positions, but I'm not sure what their requirements are. Temp seasonal work falls under the exempted service, so they can follow an abbreviated hiring process. On the other hand, they still have to hire vets before you even for an exempted position. For this year, I think a lot of hiring has already been done (my district completed seasonal hiring about a month ago), but there still may be a position or two still waiting to be filled. Again, it really depends on what type of seasonal work you want to do, or are you open to anything and just want a fun gig? It also depends on your long term goals. Are you looking for seasonal work as a long term thing going forward, or are you just looking for a foot in the door?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Thanks for the response! I'm aiming to turn whatever short-term gig I get into a long-term one, hopefully ending up a NP Ranger down the line. I could be wrong but I think a lot of ranger positions require LE training even if the position isn't strictly an enforcement one. Is that wrong? I'm also open to other public lands work, even applied for a seasonal forest tech position last year but never heard back. Basically I'm looking to get my foot in the door in any federal or state public land agency that doesn't require another 4-year degree for re-training/education, with park ranger sort of being the most ideal version of that. I interned with the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the DOJ and that's about the closest experience I have, but that's remote from the type of outdoor work I'd like to be doing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
As I understand it (and, again, I'm not NPS), there are a few types of rangers. Law Enforcement rangers are just a portion. I believe only certain positions need FLETC certifications. Some other rangers may have some regulatory duties, but they don't carry a gun or have arrest powers. Essentially some can write tickets for you camping off the trail or violating park regulations, but I do not believe they have to have FLETC certifications, nor are they counted as LEO's for pay and retirement purposes. If you want seasonal work, land management agencies are your best bet. It's also a lot easier to work yourself up if you were a seasonal beforehand. Be advised, though, that there are a lot of people with hard science degrees that want to be rangers and have outdoorsy jobs right now. It may be difficult to bag a full time position if you end up going this route. Also, the areas where non-LEO rangers tend to be will probably face the brunt of any budget cuts coming down. For that matter, programs like education, interpretation, and trails will probably have their budgets for seasonals trimmed first in the forthcoming cuts. Have you considered wildland fire? It's one of the only pure (kind of) meritocracies left in the federal government, where you can go from a GS-3 to a GS-14 with only a generic college degree. It takes decades to get there (and years before you can bag a job with retirement and health benefits), but everyone starts off the same there. It's also almost immune from budget cuts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Atican posted:Hey, are there any National Park Rangers on here who could give me some advice, or do you guys know any goons who is/are one? I'm thinking about (1) volunteering this summer, (2) going through one of the parks law enforcement academy programs, and/or (3) trying for seasonal employment with neither of those. Can someone get employment with only doing one of these, and how difficult is it to get seasonal employment without volunteering or without a law enforcement or environmental background? I have a BA in political science and philosophy and a Master of Public Administration degree, and a few years of work in the nonprofit sector (and government internships). I basically want to switch careers. I have some environmental coursework but nothing close to a major/minor. Thanks to anyone out there. My wife tried unsuccessfully for 3 or 4 years to get on with the NPS and it was completely swamped with vets. If you're already willing to do volunteer work you might consider the peace corps. My understanding is that they have equivalent standing to veterans' preference.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Not quite. Peace Corps get you a year of non competitive eligibility (aka skip USAJobs), but veterans applying for a job would still get bonus points over you if it's a choice between the two.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
In what could be a huge change or could basically end up the same, there is apparently a sudden May 22 deadline for all hiring to stop using the "talk directly to hiring people/human resources and skip USAJobs" technique, and for all USAJobs postings to include questions about non-competitive eligibility. I certainly noticed everything I had applied to lately was diligent in asking about non-competitive qualifications, so that is something. Edit: This might not be for all jobs (either "yet" or "ever"), see my post later on the page for explanation. Dr. Quarex fucked around with this message at 03:57 on May 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
That is not good news. I applied to a bunch of jobs on USAJobs that asked for NCE as well as those that didn't (but still gave the paperwork). Both kinds ended up as "too many Veterans applied." HR apparently completely ignores NCE. The only interviews I received were ones for jobs that were listed on the Peace Corps website, mostly State, USAID, Education and Social Security. I'll bet the benefit gets completely ignored if it goes through USAJobs for everyone, especially with the current hostility to hiring and potentially cut budgets. Non-competitive eligibility was a top 3 reason I joined the Peace Corps and other volunteers I've talked to have said the same. Making it harder to get hired afterward will certainly hurt the program's recruitment.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
You could try to get into an agency that is hiring a lot for LE positions, to get some experience, like customs or border patrol, I think the BOP hires a lot too. But customs and border patrol hiring process sucks, and it seems getting past the polygraph is the hard part.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Thanks for all the info! Had no idea veteran preference impacted the chances so much. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Yikes. Yeah I saw the thing about Veterans' Preference but I guess I thought it meant for certain positions it may still be treated as paramount, but I am surprised I was not more cynical about this myself, and now you have given me reason to be. Hooray! I did not know about this benefit when I thought about joining the Peace Corps, but it certainly would have been upsetting if the magical year benefit had been ignored upon my return. Then again, what better way to kill all non-military-related advantages then by systematically pretending they do not exist? Sigh.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
I know I was skipped over for a few NPS positions due to veterans preference. I'm applying for interp positions and those have been hard to get accepted.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
RabbitMage posted:I know I was skipped over for a few NPS positions due to veterans preference. I'm applying for interp positions and those have been hard to get accepted. Hey there again interp buddy.  I wish I was getting to the point where I could be skipped over due to veteran's preference. I put in an application for a real longshot position, and I keep getting emails from the NPS reminding me I'm ineligible. Meanwhile, an application for a position I'm definitely qualified for seems to be stuck in limbo. It's been a frustrating couple of months.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
If you just want something outdoorsy, also apply for Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, stuff like that. They are usually less competitive I think. But like others have said, there's still a lot of people with more relevant experience than you trying to get permanent ranger gigs. Also don't rule out state park stuff. edit: there's also some postings that have like 100 options for duty stations and are open like January-August...apply for those and check every single location. I've gotten calls for those in like June I think because they have people fall through.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Hey there again interp buddy. Oh yeah, I still have some positions I applied for months ago that are stuck at received status. For what it's worth, a friend of a friend etc told me that you should lie. There are some many people ranking themselves as 5's across the board that actually answering honestly is meaningless, but make sure if pressed about it in an interview you can finesse your answer to justify it. For outdoor jobs, depending on age/experience/education, also check out Student Conservation Association, YMCA, AmeriCorps, and any nature centers that might be around you, and yes, state parks can be another in, though possibly slow moving. I want to be able to apply for interp jobs with CA Fish and Wildlife, so I applied to take an exam two months ago. I took the exam next week. I'll find out if I passed the exam at the end of June. And if I did, that puts me on the eligibility list to be allowed to apply for jobs, which will probably be another 6-8 weeks. I interviewed for an aide position that didn't require an exam--a part time position they needed urgently--back in March. I still haven't heard from them, and I know they didn't hire someone without notifying me. Places I check that might work for outdoor jobs: Texas A&M Job Board, mostly wildlife positions, but some variety: http://wfscjobs.tamu.edu/job-board/ NAAEE, environmental education, some trail crew and camp positions: https://naaee.org/eepro/jobs CAEOE, California Association for Environmental and Outdoor Education. I imagine most states have something similar: https://aeoe.org/jobs/
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Relevant for Slaan and anyone else in a non-competitive scenario: I asked around about the forthcoming "USAJobs only" non-competitive application policy and it could be DHS-only, or could even be more specific than that. Though I cannot imagine why this decision would be made in the first place if it were not part of a larger program. Not sure; guess we will see!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
I hail the gods of bureaucracy every day for allowing me to get a job with my NCE. It would be terrible if they undermined it. Soon I'll be getting my federal "tenure" aka permanent reinstatement eligibility. I've never been clear if this is much of an advantage. NCE was like a golden ticket in, but it seems like with tenure I just get a wider range of USAJobs listings? I'm curious because some life plans involve me leaving the feds for a time and I wonder how hard it would be to get back in with tenure.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
RabbitMage posted:Oh yeah, I still have some positions I applied for months ago that are stuck at received status. For what it's worth, a friend of a friend etc told me that you should lie. There are some many people ranking themselves as 5's across the board that actually answering honestly is meaningless, but make sure if pressed about it in an interview you can finesse your answer to justify it. Thesaurus posted:Soon I'll be getting my federal "tenure" aka permanent reinstatement eligibility. I've never been clear if this is much of an advantage. NCE was like a golden ticket in, but it seems like with tenure I just get a wider range of USAJobs listings? For someone like me who is apparently addicted to moving across the country occasionally to keep things fresh, though, it might be super-helpful! Trip report on coming back in as a career person coming in ~1-3 years.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Hay guyz whats goin on in this thread I can only assume the answer is "no," but is there any way to look for telework/remote jobs with USAJobs? I thought perhaps I could get wild and crazy with things in quotes but putting "remote position" in keywords returned no results, and putting "remote" gives you hundreds of jobs in "remote locations." Not quite as infuriating as searching the word "Telework" and having most of the results specifically say things like "this position is not eligible for telework."
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Hay guyz whats goin on in this thread What do you want to do? As was mentioned earlier in this thread, 100% telework jobs are extremely rare. Most everything you'll find will put you on a probation period for a while with no telework, and then up to 8 telework days in a 2 week pay period. Most jobs won't even allow the full amount, mine for example caps you at two days a week out of office. My previous job capped at once a week out of office.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:What do you want to do? As was mentioned earlier in this thread, 100% telework jobs are extremely rare. But yeah, I found (and applied for) one job recently that specifically said it could be done remotely, coming into the office maybe monthly or quarterly, which would be perfect, and I figured this job's existence might enable me to figure out something unique about its posting and try to search for similar things, but no such luck. (And the answer to "what do I want to do" is basically "something different every 30 minutes." I mean, ideally. I never felt more at home than when working a job where you would almost never finish one task before someone important you did not know told your boss to immediately move you to a different task; it was like working in infinite swirling chaos! Edit: I suppose the broader category there though is "knowledge economy stuff?" I feel like I can easily accomplish any word-related task and a decent amount of number-related tasks though I have zero interest in anything with the word "budget" in the job description) Dr. Quarex fucked around with this message at 03:46 on May 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
So what do people think the odds of Trumps budget cuts going through is? It basically takes the retirement out behind the woodshed. I wonder how many older federal employees will retire because of it? It'll definitely contribute to people leaving federal service, which seems to be the Republican plan. The deal has always been that I drive a Camry while my contractor counterpart drives an M3, but I have more security. What's the average cost for a contractor vs federal employee?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:So what do people think the odds of Trumps budget cuts going through is? It basically takes the retirement out behind the woodshed. It's a bad look for sure. I love the security of working for the government, but I would definitely have to consider going contractor if this becomes a reality. It just boggles the mind; is he really suggesting to just LOSE the COLA all together? I'm still 25 years away from being able to collect on FERS. If they stop adjusting with a COLA, it quickly becomes worthless to me. And I don't understand the increased contributions either. I read an article that claimed they want to increase FERS contributions "by 1 percent per year over 6 years". What does that mean? Does that mean 1 percent of what the contribution currently is, or 1 percent of my overall compensation? If you read it as the latter, then people hired 2014 and later, who currently contribute 4.4% will eventually have to contribute 10.4%. That's sufficiently monstrous it makes me wonder if there's a way to opt out and just put it all into the TSP instead. ...but the good news, to answer your question, is that this budget is almost certainly impossible to pass as is.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
If you're unsure which way it works assume the work. With no COLA, whatever your top 5 average is you'll just get that in perpetuity. For the annuity, currently you contribute 1% of your salary. They want to increase that to 6% or whatever, one percentage point increase per year.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Hackan Slash posted:If you're unsure which way it works assume the work. I was hired in 2013, so no, I don't pay 1%, I pay 3.2% under FERS-RAE. Not as bad as the poor bastards hired in 2014 and after who pay 4.4. There are currently those three tiers: 0.8% (actually), 3.2%, and 4.4%. So maybe they are talking about these becoming 6.8%, 9.2%, and 10.4% respectively? It's a bunch of bull anyways. They make it sound like they just want us to pay more for a pension, but effectively, it's a decrease in compensation: just a straight up pay cut, no matter how they wanna characterize it. And one that's equivalent to losing two step increases at that. To say nothing of the return value being lost in lost COLAs
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
Justus posted:I was hired in 2013, so no, I don't pay 1%, I pay 3.2% under FERS-RAE. Not as bad as the poor bastards hired in 2014 and after who pay 4.4. There are currently those three tiers: 0.8% (actually), 3.2%, and 4.4%. So maybe they are talking about these becoming 6.8%, 9.2%, and 10.4% respectively? It's a bunch of bull anyways. They make it sound like they just want us to pay more for a pension, but effectively, it's a decrease in compensation: just a straight up pay cut, no matter how they wanna characterize it. And one that's equivalent to losing two step increases at that. To say nothing of the return value being lost in lost COLAs Proposal reads: Mick Mulvaney posted:The President's 2018 Budget proposes four potential legislative changes to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) in order to generate Government-wide savings: [...] 4) equalize the employee and employer share of the FERS normal cost rate to a 50/50 split of a regular FERS employee on a phased-in approach spanning over six years. In the same document: Mick Mulvaney posted:Under FERS, the dynamic normal cost rates are as follows: [...] for regular employees hired during 2013 (known as FERS RAE/Revised Annuity Employee), the rate is 15.0 percent of pay (employee's share, 3.1 percent and employer's share, 11.9 percent) [...] Unless you take the generous reading for you that you are not a "regular FERS employee" because you are, in fact, FERS-RAE, that turns out to be a 4.4% paycut phased in over six years. (Although I suspect it's actually at a rate of 1 percent point per year, and that your 4.4% cut would take place over five years.) Czolgosz fucked around with this message at 00:20 on May 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
I'm just gonna cross my fingers and pray the Federal Reserve isn't on FERS, since I think we have our own pension/TSP/everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
Yeah...are the proposed changes only for FERS? I'm under a different federal pension system.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
problematique posted:Yeah...are the proposed changes only for FERS? I'm under a different federal pension system. They're changing CSRS with a cut of 0.5% on the COLA too: https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2017/05/trumps-proposed-retirement-changes-would-have-major-impacts-on-current-feds-and-retirees/
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Does anyone know enough about hiring practices to know whether there are set minimum numbers of interviews required for positions? I was just wondering if perhaps the reason I get interviews all the time and never get a job is because it seems entirely reasonable to be like "O.K. and round out the requisite number of interviews with the unqualified Ph.D. guy and call it a day" (I am not actually bitter or really nearly as cynical as this post appears, I was just contemplating why I had such great success with interviews pre-federal employment but have never had an interview lead to a job since my interviewless DHS hire) Edit: Oh and yes I am aware "maybe you are not good at federal interviews" is an option I am just curious if there is more to it than that)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 03:37
|
|