|
Hello friends- I am a trans person who recently got on at the US Postal Service- I was hired still identifying as a female, but I will be starting to transition soon and I'm wondering how hosed I am (or hopefully, aren't.) What is the best way to cover my rear end?
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:I mean one of the basically stated goals of the current administration is to do away with the federal government through attrition, so I guess you work for one of the agencies where they put someone in charge to go about doing that. I thought it was mostly Department of State but maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Sociopastry posted:Hello friends- I am a trans person who recently got on at the US Postal Service- I was hired still identifying as a female, but I will be starting to transition soon and I'm wondering how hosed I am (or hopefully, aren't.) What is the best way to cover my rear end? I don't understand. I don't think the USG gives a poo poo unless you have a clearance and have to report psychological counselling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Well, the main thing is I've heard a ton of horror stories regarding trans people being fired for reasons that are mainly just covers so the employer in question can't get hit with a discrimination charge. I live in a fairly conservative state and I'm wondering what's the best way to cover my rear end just in case the worst happens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Evil SpongeBob posted:I don't understand. I don't think the USG gives a poo poo unless you have a clearance and have to report psychological counselling. As a trans goon with a TS/SCI I can confirm that even then they don't care as long as you list it on your SF86. They'll just have to do extra legwork to get your therapist to say they trust you to keep classified information. I used to live in a red state suburb so on the whole I'd say the intelligence community doesn't care if you have to get a clearance but in terms of the USPS I can't speak intelligently about. jiffypop45 fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
I emailed a contact listed on a job announcement a question regarding a cover letter and the only response was that the job listing did not require a cover letter. The announcement did, in fact, not require a cover letter. So is it one of those things that is optional but "recommended" or will people not even read them at all?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I emailed a contact listed on a job announcement a question regarding a cover letter and the only response was that the job listing did not require a cover letter. The announcement did, in fact, not require a cover letter. So is it one of those things that is optional but "recommended" or will people not even read them at all? I don't think I've ever heard of including a cover letter for a federal job. Generally if a piece of paperwork is not required then it's strongly discouraged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I don't think I've ever heard of including a cover letter for a federal job. Generally if a piece of paperwork is not required then it's strongly discouraged. Actively discouraged? Oh. Uh oh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Hahahah  If it makes you feel better, there are definitely agencies that require cover letters, but from my memory of application it was like the FBI and DIA. I have only ever seen a handful of jobs on USAJobs that even mention cover letters being accepted, though. Which is good because seriously cover letters are the worst thing ever Sorry for your loss
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Well at least that will make it easier to apply to other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
USA jobs application #5 in the tank (1 out of 4 success rate thus far...and that ain't bad!) My favorite is the ones which require you to fill out a USAjobs formatted application which will then invariably dump itself, in all of it's horribly formatted glory, into whatever nominally compatible system the agency you are actually applying for is using.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:I don't think I've ever heard of including a cover letter for a federal job. Generally if a piece of paperwork is not required then it's strongly discouraged. Why is this the case? Too many applications for them to possibly want to bother with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Anyone get an email asking for volunteers to go work for FEMA for a few weeks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Yes, I think it's pretty neat! We're sending about 100 people. I'd have considered it, but have some experiments running over the next month or so, so I can't leave. New guidance from yesterday was basically, "we'll let you go, but only if you're not very important."
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
sullat posted:Anyone get an email asking for volunteers to go work for FEMA for a few weeks? My agency just sent it out yesterday. My husband works at FEMA full-time and can't be deployed since he's in OCHCO so they're swamped with personnel issues. I'd volunteer if I could since he was saying how they really need pretty much anyone they can get, but we also have two really young kids at home that makes it hard to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
My supervisor has been helping out with the DHS contingent for weeks. I think we had a bunch go help.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Why is this the case? Too many applications for them to possibly want to bother with it? Government hiring takes things like ADA and equal treatment of minorities very seriously. A cover letter creates an opportunity to discriminate against protected classes in subtle ways. It's very easy to signal that you are in the boys club with an open ended document like that. Government hiring leans more towards the quizzes and resumes because they are more fact based and less personal. In theory, they try to filter all information getting to the hiring authority in a way to make the process as fair and fact based as possible. The effectiveness of this process is obviously up for debate but that's the rational behind it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
We got the hurricane thing a few weeks ago, and a helpful link to a google form where you can register your skills. I really wanted to go, but evidently im "important". Which is completely incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
The idea of destroying the cover letter is an incredibly noble one in theory, as it forces hiring people to actually do their jobs and look at all the documents instead of zeroing in on the ones that say the right codewords in the opening paragraph. That said, nepotism and other insider old-boyz'-club tricks will always slip through. But I see no harm in a genuine effort to level the playing field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Yeah, apparently you have to already have a government credit card to do it, and they're not going to issue one so you can do it. Which is weird, because the only people in our office that have them are managers, so that excludes like 90% of the office from volunteering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:Government hiring takes things like ADA and equal treatment of minorities very seriously. A cover letter creates an opportunity to discriminate against protected classes in subtle ways. It's very easy to signal that you are in the boys club with an open ended document like that. Government hiring leans more towards the quizzes and resumes because they are more fact based and less personal. In theory, they try to filter all information getting to the hiring authority in a way to make the process as fair and fact based as possible. The effectiveness of this process is obviously up for debate but that's the rational behind it. I feel like I'm blowing the tests and assessments really hard. There's some obviously bad answers, and other answers that I feel might have screwed me over, like saying "yeah sometimes the stress gets to me."
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, apparently you have to already have a government credit card to do it, and they're not going to issue one so you can do it. Which is weird, because the only people in our office that have them are managers, so that excludes like 90% of the office from volunteering. Yep. I would volunteer but no travel card 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, apparently you have to already have a government credit card to do it, and they're not going to issue one so you can do it. Which is weird, because the only people in our office that have them are managers, so that excludes like 90% of the office from volunteering. I doubt anyone where I work will get asked (law enforcement), but would be pretty cool to do for a bit, and I already have a travel card.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
We were told that we are approved by OPM to make donations on our own outside of the regularly scheduled CFC donation period. How noble!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Man, it is likely that I'm just legitimately not in the most qualified category of applicants for these jobs, but I can't help wonder if I choked hard on the assessments for these job applications. Either way I'm getting poo poo on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Artificer posted:Man, it is likely that I'm just legitimately not in the most qualified category of applicants for these jobs, but I can't help wonder if I choked hard on the assessments for these job applications. Either way I'm getting poo poo on. Related, if you are ever clicking any radio button other than "I am considered an expert in" then you have already failed to qualify for the position, because those questions are utterly useless except in ensuring that honest people do not make the cut (except those who are already overqualified for the position, ironically).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
I wish they would just give me a 13 and let me push cases. Why would I want to be an ISO3 when all they do is conduct training?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Are you ever getting numerical representations of your scores after the fact in the notice of results messages? Is that really the case? I guess I'll answer those questions differently next time I apply and just try and weasel something out if asked
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Beerdeer posted:I wish they would just give me a 13 and let me push cases. Why would I want to be an ISO3 when all they do is conduct training? My favorite was my first supervisor grooming me to move into our training division, and then as soon as my probationary year was up they changed the training division so it was GS-13 and up only. Cool, in order to get to what I am best-suited to do I now have to get promoted twice when I cannot get promoted once, Aces! (No, no, it is fine; take one of the only people in your entire 1,000-person office who both loves being in front of classes and has the experience and capability to do well training others and have him adjudicate forever instead [not bitter {not bitter+1}]) Xelkelvos posted:Is that really the case? I guess I'll answer those questions differently next time I apply and just try and weasel something out if asked O.K., let me explain poorly. Most jobs that have those huge questionnaires have cutoff scores where they do not consider anyone below whatever result (possibly top 10% of applicants?), and guess what, you can fairly reliably count on 10% of applicants to just select "I am an expert" on every question. Back when I was not SUPREMELY OVERQUALIFIED I would be honest to the best of my ability and even scores in the mid-90s (out of 100, or 105/110 with military disability pluses, which is where part of the issue arises) would not be enough to make the cutoff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Are you ever getting numerical representations of your scores after the fact in the notice of results messages? 1. No, why? 2. What the gently caress?! I should have known better than to trust the repeated warnings to not lie, I guess? Artificer fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Artificer posted:1. No, why? Artificer posted:2. What the gently caress?! "1. I have experience in [Doing Precisely What Dr. Quarex Has Like Five-Ten Years Experience Doing] while interviewing applicants for immigration benefits/in a chain of military command." No, USAJobs, as I have never worked in a military context or done immigrant interviews, obviously I have no experience doing this thing, even though I WOULD UNIRONICALLY CALL MYSELF AN EXPERT IN IT WITHOUT THAT LAST LARGELY UNIMPORTANT PIECE OF CONTEXT yes I am sure people here will tell me it is hugely different working in the military, and O.K., but I would still be a civilian, do they really want zero perma-civilians working on the civilian side? Well, maybe. So it is basically a constant game of wondering whether you can possibly tell someone with a straight face that you are an expert. Contorting the truth into a blasphemous shape and riding it like a wild stallion. And I bet there are some people who literally just click "I am considered an expert" on every single question and assume (probably correctly) that there will never be any repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Well, unless I am mistaken, not all jobs actually have overt scores. Or at least not all jobs actually tell you the scores, as you have noticed. Certainly the jobs where the only questions are "I qualify for this job and I am a citizen" cannot possibly have scores. I'm sure this has no negative ramifications for the quality of individuals working in these positions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I'm sure this has no negative ramifications for the quality of individuals working in these positions. Never let anyone tell you that you actually know how to do a job to get the job. I worked as a contractor in a position equivalent to a 13 and it still took me about three years to make a BQ list for a 9 because I didn't put expert for every question. Meanwhile my government supervisor told me that the person at the top of the BQ list came in for the interview and his answer to the first question was "I don't know why I am here. I am not qualified for this position." My first paycheck for my 11 will be for this pay period. God bless America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
So I've shot myself in the foot for all of those applications because I didn't think it was appropriate to stretch my answers that hard? What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Artificer posted:So I've shot myself in the foot for all of those applications because I didn't think it was appropriate to stretch my answers that hard? It sounds like politics: The people who can BS the hardest can climb the highest. And even you are caught being totally unqualified, everyone who admitted and supported you will cover for it unless there's a way to not take any blame for said failure of admission.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:I'm sure this has no negative ramifications for the quality of individuals working in these positions. Artificer posted:So I've shot myself in the foot for all of those applications because I didn't think it was appropriate to stretch my answers that hard? Government hiring does not even necessarily make any sense even after taking this into account, though; my supervisor told me the only person on his team (me notwithstanding, as I had just joined) he could not get promoted was the best officer on his team. Actual qualifications sometimes seem to disappear in the process. Or, perhaps more accurately, unexpected words and phrases in someone's job history might be particularly overvalued. I am still vaguely convinced that I got my current job, considering everyone else in my office seemingly was a previous fed, military, Peace Corps, or lawyer, only because my educational and occupational history coincidentally contained all the words of the job title, because they sure do not seem to value education for advancement now that I am on the inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Man all that blows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Treasury posted 6 listings for a financial economist, 3 in a lower band and 3 in a higher band. The listings were essentially identical but would've slotted you into different groups: retail credit, commercial credit, more general research. I applied to all 6 listings because I figured the different listings could be processed by different recruiters. But I also kinda feel bad for what is effectively spamming their system. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
I can walk around my office and point out who lied on the application. One of the issues is that the hiring managers make no attempt to verify the applicant's answers, either out of laziness or lack of knowledge. I was honest on my app for IT and got lucky. I'll have to lie through my teeth when it's time to apply for 13s next year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Do government job interviews have as much hand waving as their contractor counterpart? My current company is a unique contractor and was absolutely not that way but prior employers already seemed to know who they were going to hire based on resume and connections alone before the interview started.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:40
|
|