|
shitposting to say this is the 5000th post itt and that poo poo is crazy good job folks
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
The Mantis posted:shitposting to say this is the 5000th post itt and that poo poo is crazy I haven't been back here since I got a kafka-esque letter confirming I had never been signed up for Selective Service due to living overseas but that there was no directly official way to have that not taken as a derogatory mark on my job applications. Then Trump got elected. Maybe Ill start applying again tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
My experience with every USG employee I've ever met is that they hate Trump as much as the next person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
jiffypop45 posted:My experience with every USG employee I've ever met is that they hate Trump as much as the next person. Given the state of America and where you are in the country, that's pretty much around a 50/50 chance or hate/love
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
jiffypop45 posted:My experience with every USG employee I've ever met is that they hate Trump as much as the next person. Most the ones I know of (that aren't working in departments that he's trying to kill) are just disappointed/relieved/surprised at the lack of action. Most of the appointees aren't in place, there are few if any initiatives, agenda items, or priorities and for the most part it's just really obvious that they aren't capable of governing in a way that extends beyond DC (and barely that).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
USAJobs needs to have a search by number of vacancies I would just search the entire country for jobs until the vacancy number dropped below, like, 25, and stop, hoping to just get out of my current job without an interview due to someone somewhere being overwhelmed by the prospect of interviewing hundreds of people
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Hello everyone. I am in need of some advice as to which route to take. Background: I'm a Marine Corps veteran (5 years in service) with an honorable discharge. I finished my Bachelors in Economics from UC Davis in June 2017 with a cumulative GPA 3.33. After an internship with Morgan Stanley, multiple interviews, and probably a thousand applications, I come to understand I have no interest working in the private sector. I want my career to be in government service. Here is my current situation. I am currently in the long application process to become an Army Officer (this is my last resort option right now.) However, I won't have my board until March 2018. I am also in federal agency application pipeline (this is my number one option). My next interview is early 2018. Assuming I pass that and whatever is next, I would have an offer by mid-2018. My decision right now: Until I have an offer from the Army or the federal agency, I have two choices right now for employment. 1. Student Pathways position within the Dept of State at the Passport Agency in San Francisco. This is a GS-5 position, with max promotion to GS-7. After 640 hours, I will be converted to full-time employment. PROS The benefits of this position is it is within the Department of State, which I assume means I can move to a different position much easier. Since the Dept of State has way more positions than option 2, this seems like my best choice. CONS The drawback is it is located in San Francisco, which is a 40 minute commute in the morning, and an ungodly commute in the evening. I would probably try to use public transportation. All in all, the commute time would be almost unbearable. I may buy a nice road bike and attempt to commute via bike a few days out of the week. This would be about 80 miles in total per commute. 2. I also have a position available within the Veterans Affair as a Time Clerk. PROS The benefit of this position is it is much closer than the Dept of State position in SF. I could commute via road bike to this job as it is located in Palo Alto - a location I absolutely love. CONS This is a full time GS-5 position with no promotion capabilities. Compared to the Dept of State, the VA has fewer positions I am interested in, or have seen available on USAjobs. I appreciate any advice. Thank you. mad_Thick fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
I work in Passport Services. It's a good job with good people. PROS: 1. Lots of overtime 2. People (mostly) aren't dicks 3. Lots of training opportunities, higher positions/grades open up regularly 4. Decent ability to transfer around to major cities 5. Moving into law enforcement, fraud, intelligence, etc is fairly easy. The job teaches most of these basic skills Cons: 1. So much overtime (20+ mandatory in some agencies during peak season in summer) 2. Hiring Freeze ATM. Not sure if your student program would bypass that. Check with your HR manager 3. We are pretty silo'd off from most of State. We get tons of training options and advancement opportunities within Passport Services, and half my agency are lifers that came in after military service and plan to stay after going from GS-5 to GS-11/12. But if you want to get into the rest of State you need a Masters/PhD/JD, a foreign language and/or a unique subskill Slaan fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
This economist posting with the CFPB wants a sample paper but the document upload page doesn't have an option for "paper" or even "other", but it does include 2 transcript spots so I guess my only option is to upload the paper under one of them? Ugh, get it together noobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Is applying for a term position a really bad idea? My agency has an opening for a position I might be qualied for that would get me a GS14. However, it is only a term position (NTE 2 years). My understanding is that if there are budget issues, a term employee can be cut at any time and has none of the rights that you would have as a regular career employee. And since the government seems likely to be under constant budget pressure for at least the next three (hundred) years, this is not an unrealistic scenario. More money and better experience would be awesome. But my current job security and effort to paycheck ratio is great and I would hate to find myself in a really uncertain position. And no I do not trust my HR department to give me an accurate answer on this. They literally have no idea how anything in government works. They tried to tell me I was on probationary status for a year when I was already a career employee (and my SF50 stated so). Any other question I ask, even about HR matters that should be their core function, results in them asking if they can get back to me about it, or they give me someone else to call and ask. Who then asks why my agency HR department didn't just answer the question for me. I think I'm mostly leaning towards the yes it's a bad idea, but it would technically be a better position and I want to make sure I'm not being stupid about it. Kase Im Licht fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Maybe this can simplify my job search: Who in the whole constellation of federal health/science policy entities isn't under an official or unofficial hiring freeze? I can have enjoyable conversations with midlevel agency executives until I'm blue in the face, it doesn't do me any good if every single group they point me to is either 1. not hiring anyone for anything, 2. posting positions only to fulfill requirements for an internal promotion cycle, or 3. doesn't exist anymore because Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Uhm the VA maybe? Not sure exactly what you are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Maybe this can simplify my job search: DHS
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Sorry, that morphed into a rant halfway. I've repeatedly had meetings or conversations with decently well-placed people in federal government who want to hire me or find positions for me in research or health policy analysis and development, but who are subject to a hiring freeze, and who suggest organizations (USADA, several NIH offices, etc etc) that are either a) also frozen, b) are hiring the bare minimum of frontline science personnel to keep the lights on, or c) are just posting positions because they have to in order to perform internal promotions. Opening doors that reveal a brick wall is getting really frustrating. I've just gotten my applications far enough into the FDA that human beings are looking at some of them, but that process could take months with no guaranteed positive outcome. Meanwhile, I'm about to get my degree and start growing a time gap on my resume. My question is this, I suppose: which federal entities that do pretty much anything with science or health aren't subject to either an official hiring freeze, or a soft hiring freeze where they're only running internal promotions? (I'm now looking at the VA portal, don't know why that hadn't occurred to me, thanks) Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Sorry, that morphed into a rant halfway. I've repeatedly had meetings or conversations with decently well-placed people in federal government who want to hire me or find positions for me in research or health policy analysis and development, but who are subject to a hiring freeze, and who suggest organizations (USADA, several NIH offices, etc etc) that are either a) also frozen, b) are hiring the bare minimum of frontline science personnel to keep the lights on, or c) are just posting positions because they have to in order to perform internal promotions. Opening doors that reveal a brick wall is getting really frustrating. I've just gotten my applications far enough into the FDA that human beings are looking at some of them, but that process could take months with no guaranteed positive outcome. Meanwhile, I'm about to get my degree and start growing a time gap on my resume. There's always DOD. We don't seem to have any hiring freeze issues in the Department of the Navy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
I dunno if the marking myself down as an expert in everything is really working or not because I am getting denied even for basic stuff that just needs a High School degree.  Edit: or get a couple of referrals that then promptly go nowhere. Artificer fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
we have an agricultural commodity grader (poultry) job opening up in the Denver area tomorrow under the pathways program. should be listed as a 5/7/8 job, starting at 7 if you brained hard enough for a 3.0 gpa in school. we are fee funded and graders are essential employees, so you don’t really have to worry about furloughs/cuts. prefer to answer questions over PM if anyone is interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Just started at CBP this week and so far am impressed with the quality of the co-workers and actual job. Night and day difference between my last agency. My main gripe is how long the hiring took (8months) even though I was already in gov and cleared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Terror Ninja posted:Just started at CBP this week and so far am impressed with the quality of the co-workers and actual job. Night and day difference between my last agency. Did you come from bureau of prisons?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Network42 posted:Did you come from bureau of prisons? Nope, was a foreign service officer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Artificer posted:I dunno if the marking myself down as an expert in everything is really working or not because I am getting denied even for basic stuff that just needs a High School degree. That is why I almost exclusively apply for "few/many/"a number higher than 1"-vacancy postings. And I still have only ever had one successful job search even with hundreds of applications over the past five years (though I admit many of those were shots in the daa-aaa-a-aaaark). ixo posted:we have an agricultural commodity grader (poultry) job opening up in the Denver area tomorrow under the pathways program. should be listed as a 5/7/8 job, starting at 7 if you brained hard enough for a 3.0 gpa in school. we are fee funded and graders are essential employees, so you don’t really have to worry about furloughs/cuts. prefer to answer questions over PM if anyone is interested. I should probably be telling people every time an ISO-1 posting opens up at a USCIS Service Center given how hard it is to complain about these jobs but to be fair I never know when they do because they are not in any of my GS-10/11-only searches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Had a 2nd round interview with the FDA that was basically a 20 minute presentation of a former research project, after which they said they wanted to move forward with the hiring process.  They're just waiting on my 2nd reference to fill out a recommendation.I find it interesting they requested recommendations at all. My friends working at DOT and EPA weren't asked, and it's not like I'm applying for a tenure-track faculty position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Does anyone know how hiring works in relation to the "lowest grade you would accept" thing? Do they look at people with different standards depending on their selection? I am just curious because I have the amazing good fortune to be in a 5/7/9 job that used to get promoted to an 11/12 but now gets promoted to a 9/11/12, and I have never said I would accept a """promotion""" to a 9 and some people theorize I am being penalized for being aggro and demanding my entirely-reasonable 11. Others say it has literally no bearing and you will be promoted if you are in the best-qualified group regardless of the number you request, as long as you do qualify for it. MODS???Josh Lyman posted:I find it interesting they requested recommendations at all. My friends working at DOT and EPA weren't asked, and it's not like I'm applying for a tenure-track faculty position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Agreed that is surprising, literally the only job I have seen on USAJobs that required recommendations was, in fact, a faculty position at West Point. Certainly a good way to keep down casual applications, since I was like "ughgh there is no way I am going to interrupt my dissertation chair's holiday to ask for a letter for a job I sincerely doubt I would get anyway"
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Dr. Quarex posted:Does anyone know how hiring works in relation to the "lowest grade you would accept" thing? Do they look at people with different standards depending on their selection? I am just curious because I have the amazing good fortune to be in a 5/7/9 job that used to get promoted to an 11/12 but now gets promoted to a 9/11/12, and I have never said I would accept a """promotion""" to a 9 and some people theorize I am being penalized for being aggro and demanding my entirely-reasonable 11. Others say it has literally no bearing and you will be promoted if you are in the best-qualified group regardless of the number you request, as long as you do qualify for it. MODS??? In my agency, we've heard from quite a few good candidates who were automatically filtered out before even reaching the hiring manager because they'd ruled out the lowest grade on USAJOBS. For whatever reason, our system aggressively filters out candidates it thinks don't actually qualify for whatever grade they're asking for. If you interview, and are selected for the position, you can always negotiate with HR to try and get whatever grade/step you think is appropriate. Although, that might be trickier if you're already working for the Government at a particular grade, since they're less likely to bump you up above your current grade based on OPM's guidance. Still, it doesn't hurt to interview.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Anyone gotten a TS background check done in the last year or so? I'm just wondering how long they're averaging these days. I saw that for 2015-2016 it was about 203 days. I don't have a lot of things they'd have to look into, though I have been out of the country for the better part of 5 years. All of that was government related work though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
I'm in the process of getting one right now. Its been just over a year since I got confirmation that they started the investigation, and about 16 months since I submitted my SF86. I hope my HR contact doesn't mind me checking in every month to let them know I'm still alive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
TS is around a year. SCI depending on the compartments is probably another 6 months then if you have to get a poly it's 6 more months after that. Based on what I've seen at my company with our sponsor. I came in with a TS/SCI so I'm just on the list for the poly. This is heavily sponsor dependent and even program dependent. When my program first started they were fast tracking TS/SCI with poly in 6 months. Though for established I think the original numbers are more typical.
jiffypop45 fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Jesus, that’s quite a wait. I started graduate school right when I was doing my first interviews for the background check and was thinking “I hope I can get through at least a year of school before anything moves forward”. Now I’m wondering if I’ll have to start looking for another job after I get my masters before all this finishes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Well poo poo, and just as the FDA is starting the hiring process with me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.36a43a6e4d32
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Well poo poo, and just as the FDA is starting the hiring process with me: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.36a43a6e4d32 “These policies would boost federal employees’ productivity by increasing the number of days they work,” Greszler and Sherk wrote, “and thus could reduce the number of federal employees needed to carry out government functions.” Every loving dod employee would walk across the street to whatever contracter they currently are most familiar with. gently caress these assholes for constantly bitching about the federal workforce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
PneumonicBook posted:Every loving dod employee would walk across the street to whatever contracter they currently are most familiar with. You say that like it's not the desired outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
pmchem posted:You say that like it's not the desired outcome. Isn't there a law about this? I remember it being brought up repeatedly in training (I work on a program funded by usg contracts).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
FDA said last week they'll be moving forward with the hiring process but there won't be much movement on that until after the New Year. HOWEVER, I've been referred for a position at Treasury that's a better fit and starts/tops out 1 grade higher. If they end up talking to me, is there anything I can do to try to move things along before abandoning that process to accept FDA?
Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
If I'm locked into a grade (say 11) am I prevented from applying for a 13 at a different agency? I often see language in postings that says a person needs 1 year at the grade below.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:If I'm locked into a grade (say 11) am I prevented from applying for a 13 at a different agency? I wouldn’t say prevented, but it’s highly likely that it’ll get kicked back by HR. The way to get through is to personally know the hiring manager or someone in the organization, and be able to fudge your resume/question responses so that you get past the HR experience filter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
I mean, I do think the federal pay and hiring system is a big mess. Government managers are faced with big barriers in shaping their workforces, with very cumbersome processes for hiring and firing and few ways to reward high performing employees over lower performing employees. While the image of the lazy and overpaid government worker is massively overblown in my experience--e.g., my department is filled with PhD engineers and scientists who generally make about 2/3rds of what they would in industry, the majority of which end up donating unused use-of-lose leave each year, and a large portion of which are workaholics that routinely work unpaid overtime hours just because they're so self-motivated to their jobs well--it's still true that there are some who skate by doing very little because it's too cumbersome to get rid of them and in a "shrink through attrition" environment, they won't be replaced by someone competent even if they were pushed out. So I'm totally in favor of reforming the Federal workforce; the problem is that every reform proposal that gets floated is really just a convoluted across-the-board pay cut. And if your chief concern is that Federal employees are lazy and incompetent, cutting pay and benefits is the last thing that makes sense. Proponents of these proposals often claim that government should operate more like a business, but you don't see successful businesses--especially those that rely on high skill labor--cutting pay because they can't get employees that are good enough. Instead, the Googles and Facebooks of the work are in a competition to hire the more desirable employees by increasing compensation. Reducing benefits under the current Federal system is especially bad, because you're incentivizing your best workers--those employable elsewhere--to leave, while still being stuck with those employees who primarily want a job so secure that they can coast in it. Unfortunately, we're stuck between the likes of the Heritage Foundation, who just want to cut cut cut and regard a loss of government competency as a benefit, and the Federal employees unions, which just want the system to stay exactly the way it is. There's no serious movement for a modernized Federal workforce that might better attract and retain the kinds of high skill workers that are increasingly needed Government-wide today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Kolodny posted:I wouldn’t say prevented, but it’s highly likely that it’ll get kicked back by HR. I'm applying to gs 13s as an 11. Most ladder positions tend to skip 2 gs ranks below gs-14, so the "next lowest" level means two levels below fairly often. For instance, my current position was 7/9/11, and I've seen a bunch of 11/13 and 12/13, too. So your gs-11 experience is likely to be useful for a gs-13 application. Worst case, you wasted fifteen minutes applying on USAJobs. I just got referred to a gs-13's hiring manager on a long shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:words this is a good post i definitely wonder about how things could ever be fixed at my agency, where lots of people who do shoddy/little work face no consequences and are overpaid, and those who go far above and beyond and end up in GS-12 analyst positions are still massively underpaid for the work that they do. i do feel like if they increased pay for the more advanced positions, they would be able to attract and keep a lot more of the people who truly excel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:52 |
|
|
I completely understand why the unions behave the way they do, because it is not like compromising is going to get them anywhere. They have known how Republicans behave for many decades--ask for some negotiating concessions, give virtually nothing in return, and repeat the process every time you get bored. It is hardly a secret that federal agencies keep people on who bring very little to the table because 30 years ago they got in when the hiring standards were rock-bottom, but when the proposal to fix that is "fire all of them and cut pensions and freeze wages for even great employees and also gently caress you," it is easy to see why unions try to keep things exactly as they are. What was the article that showed that like 9 out of 10 labor studies suggested federal employees are underpaid by like 10-33% compared to the private sector and then the other one was Heritage or whatever saying FEDERAL EMPLOYEES EARN DOUBLE WHAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR GETS! because they add up every possible social program you could sign up for as though that is 1) the same as higher pay and 2) something that more than a tiny fraction of the workforce actually even CAN take advantage of (elder care, child care, therapy, what have you) let alone does take advantage of. Maybe if they just passed something saying if you have GS-5s doing the same work as GS-12s at your agency then everyone should be promoted to GS-12 then that would be fine, thanks OK
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 04:12
|
|