Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

New Federal Employee

Are you thinking of becoming a federal employee? Or, perhaps you have recently joined the federal workplace. Here is a forum to share experience and ask for insight for those already a member of the largest employer in the USA.

To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

5 Pages<12345>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Preference Vet  
#41 Posted : Wednesday, December 14, 2011 7:05:04 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

New14 wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:
 
When you can match my three favorable decisions before the MSPB and my one win before the federal circuit with just one, I might respect your opinion.


If you provide the citation #'s I'll share your wins with the rest of the readers here.
 
Adopting the wiseacre attitude, they are all published for the public to review for themselves.
 
Maybe you would like to answer a question for me.  Why am I not allowed to have an opposing opinion?  Does someone feel threatened that they may actually be wrong?
New14  
#42 Posted : Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:24:55 PM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/21/2008(UTC)
Posts: 117

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)

Preference Vet wrote:
New14 wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:
 
When you can match my three favorable decisions before the MSPB and my one win before the federal circuit with just one, I might respect your opinion.


If you provide the citation #'s I'll share your wins with the rest of the readers here.
 
Adopting the wiseacre attitude, they are all published for the public to review for themselves.
 
Maybe you would like to answer a question for me.  Why am I not allowed to have an opposing opinion?  Does someone feel threatened that they may actually be wrong?


I am not being a wise acre.  The bottom line is these type of arguments
are pointless.  Does either side really believe they are going to change
the position of the other.?  I asked for your case cites because it
appears that you pointed to them as proof that your position was more valid than someone who never won a case.
Preference Vet  
#43 Posted : Wednesday, December 14, 2011 10:38:23 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

New14 wrote:
I am not being a wise acre.  The bottom line is these type of arguments are pointless.  Does either side really believe they are going to change the position of the other.?  I asked for your case cites because it appears that you pointed to them as proof that your position was more valid than someone who never won a case.
 
I agree with you to one extent, that despite the fact that the law is clear, my opposition won't listen to reason.
 
I pointed to the cases I have won, where I have also lost a few, as evidence that I some expertise.  None of my cases have had this issue or a similar one, so giving you the citations or my name won't help.  I will likely receive some criticism, but I have my reasons for maintaining my anonymity.  I will admit that the MSPB, and sometimes the Federal Circuit, are biased towards the government or frankly put little though into their decisions.
 
Lastly, when you just "quip" that I should give you the citations for the cases I have one, you come across as being a wiseacre.
Preference Vet2011-12-15 06:49:00
hustonj  
#44 Posted : Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:00:27 PM(UTC)
hustonj

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/17/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,270

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 328 time(s) in 264 post(s)
Yeah, beacuase asking you for proof of your claims of expertise HAS to be something other than "and why should I believe you, again?"
 
Do you go to someone for specialized advice (medical, electrical, plumbing, architectural, etc.) without having evidence that they are qualified to provide it?  Why do you expect the people here to accept your claims of expertise without evidence of that expertise?
Preference Vet  
#45 Posted : Wednesday, December 14, 2011 11:31:11 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

hustonj wrote:
Yeah, beacuase asking you for proof of your claims of expertise HAS to be something other than "and why should I believe you, again?"
 
Do you go to someone for specialized advice (medical, electrical, plumbing, architectural, etc.) without having evidence that they are qualified to provide it?  Why do you expect the people here to accept your claims of expertise without evidence of that expertise?
 
Ever notice that a coin has two sides?  Here is were you offer your expertise and discredit mine.  Offering none, your opinion is no better than mine, except that you would rather troll and be argumentative and not allow me to have mine
Preference Vet2011-12-15 07:53:16
hustonj  
#46 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:11:55 AM(UTC)
hustonj

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/17/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,270

Thanks: 8 times
Was thanked: 328 time(s) in 264 post(s)
Did I claim expertise on this topic?  Did I start throwing insults at people asking for evidence of expertise to demonstrate that my advice was relevant?
 
I tried to help explain to you why the request was not inherently exceptional or insulting, and you responded with personal insults and attacks.
Shaudius  
#47 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:18:18 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Preference Vet wrote:
 
I agree with you to one extent, that despite the fact that the law is clear, my opposition won't listen to reason.
 
Obviously the fact that no one here has supported your position besides yourself means that none of us believe that the law is as clear as you say it is. If no one agrees with your position that the law is clear on its face, doesn't that fact also make you think that maybe the law isn't as clear as you think it is? Because if the law was so clear wouldn't we all be able to see it, its obvious that not everyone else who weighs in on a topic is trolling, so I think thats pretty compelling evidence that the law is in fact unclear.
Shaudius2011-12-15 08:24:51
Preference Vet  
#48 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:32:56 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

hustonj wrote:
Did I claim expertise on this topic?  Did I start throwing insults at people asking for evidence of expertise to demonstrate that my advice was relevant?
 
I tried to help explain to you why the request was not inherently exceptional or insulting, and you responded with personal insults and attacks.
 
When you join a group of argumentaive trolls, you can expect to be treate4d as such.
Preference Vet  
#49 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:34:24 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Shaudius wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:
 
I agree with you to one extent, that despite the fact that the law is clear, my opposition won't listen to reason.
 
Obviously the fact that no one here has supported your position besides yourself means that none of us believe that the law is as clear as you say it is. If no one agrees with your position that the law is clear on its face, doesn't that fact also make you think that maybe the law isn't as clear as you think it is? Because if the law was so clear wouldn't we all be able to see it, its obvious that not everyone else who weighs in on a topic is trolling, so I think thats pretty compelling evidence that the law is in fact unclear.
 
You assume pure motives, which isn't the case here as evidenced by the fact that I am not allowed to have an opposing opinion.
Shaudius  
#50 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:37:30 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Preference Vet wrote:
You assume pure motives, which isn't the case here as evidenced by the fact that I am not allowed to have an opposing opinion.

 

Of course you're allowed to have an opposing opinion, but the fact that no one who has chimed in agrees with your opinion coupled with the fact that you have not provided any citations to any authorities(court, congressional testimony surrounding the passage of the law, etc.) that validate your opinion, tends to indicate to all rational observers that there is a high likelihood that your opinion is, in fact, wrong.

 

I don't necessarily want to get into a high level debate about canons of construction and statutory interpretation, but it seems like you're trying to apply a plain meaning approach to a statute that uses inherently vague language, "fair" and "open" are far from unequivocally clear terms and thats why you're not getting much support when you try to claim that the statute is clear on its face, at least from me. I'm not sure if others have the same type of training I do in statutory interpretation(I took an entire class on it in law school).

Shaudius2011-12-15 13:44:49
Preference Vet  
#51 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:02:36 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Shaudius wrote:

Preference Vet wrote:
You assume pure motives, which isn't the case here as evidenced by the fact that I am not allowed to have an opposing opinion.

 

Of course you're allowed to have an opposing opinion, but the fact that no one who has chimed in agrees with your opinion coupled with the fact that you have not provided any citations to any authorities(court, congressional testimony surrounding the passage of the law, etc.) that validate your opinion, tends to indicate to all rational observers that there is a high likelihood that your opinion is, in fact, wrong.

 

I don't necessarily want to get into a high level debate about cannons of construction and statutory interpretation, but it seems like you're trying to apply a plain meaning approach to a statute that uses inherently vague language, "fair" and "open" are far from unequivocally clear terms and thats why you're not getting much support when you try to claim that the statute is clear on its face, at least from me. I'm not sure if others have the same type of training I do in statutory interpretation(I took an entire class on it in law school).

 
There is actually a difference between people disagreeing and allowing someone to have an opposing opinion.  In recent days, the MSPB published two decisions where the Vice Chairman issued dissenting opinions.  And the Federal Circuit does occasionally reverse an MSPB decision, so the fact that other non-legal types disagree with me doesn't mean that I am wrong.  The fact that I am not allowed to have an opposing opinion does mean something.
 
Ever notice that most favorable VEOA decisions started with a no merit determination by DOL/VETS, where both of David Dean's precedential decisions had no merit according to DOL/VETS?
 
I suspect you know what the acronym "assume" stands for, because you "assume" that I have no legal education, and you would be wrong; I neither have a legal degree nor am I lawyer!  The fact that I have several favorable decisions says something about me, but you are certainly within your rights to doubt that claim because these wins are unsubstantiated. But, the fact is that your legal "expertise" leads you to misinterpret the statute:
 
Shaudius wrote:
I don't necessarily want to get into a high level debate about cannons of construction and statutory interpretation, but it seems like you're trying to apply a plain meaning approach to a statute that uses inherently vague language, "fair" and "open" are far from unequivocally clear terms and thats why you're not getting much support when you try to claim that the statute is clear on its face, at least from me.
 
What  you call "vague", the law calls "broad".  So Congress intended "broad" protections.
Preference Vet2011-12-15 11:09:32
Knight  
#52 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:19:03 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/2/2009(UTC)
Posts: 7,337
Man

Thanks: 242 times
Was thanked: 487 time(s) in 401 post(s)

Quote:
despite the fact that the law is clear

 

If that was true there would not be a need for courts.

 

Quote:
your opinion is no better than mine

 

I stand with you on that. I oppose you when you try to claim your opinion is unshakable fact and why don't we all see that ...

 

Quote:
So Congress intended "broad" protections.

 

And Congress put the details in the hands of the President. I notice that Congress is not suing anyone. You would think that if their wishes were being subverted they would be the ones taking action not you.

 

Random thought: If I was under oath I could honestly say that I have never seen any hiring violations, any discrimination, or nepotism. Others say they see it everywhere.

Shaudius  
#53 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:47:37 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Preference Vet wrote:
What  you call "vague", the law calls "broad".  So Congress intended "broad" protections.
 
When you say the law are you referring to the acutal law because the law doesn't say anything about intending "broad" protections, "broad"ness is a distinct legal term from "vague"ness.
 
Either way the statute is ambiguous on its face about what open and fair actually mean, and therefore with regard to specific issues the courts will give deferrence to agencies in their interpretation of the statute.
 
Even if you take what you say at face value and agree that Congress intended, "broad" protections you still fail to state how this particular rule regarding when KSAs can be assessed is violative of this "broad" protection. You have not provided evidence as to how this is un"fair" to the process or even how it violates the principles of "open"ness or that all have not being given the opportunity to compete.
 
I would argue the contrary, it is fundamentally fair because at each stage of the process every candidate who has made it to that stage is given equal opportunity to present their case as to why they are the best candidates. At the first stage this is gone generally by an assessment without essays which gives more people the chance to compete quicker(not having to fill out essays) at the second stage this is done through an interview as well as potentially essay style questions(the essay style questions are basically interview questions).
 
The fact remains, none of us are judges(probably), none of us are legislators(probably), so what we think doesn't exactly matter, only what Congress deems to do with an agency's decision, what the courts deem to do with it, etc. All the normative discourse in the world doesn't change the fact that if you don't think its fair and you're subject to it you have many recourses, none of which are on this forum.
Preference Vet  
#54 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:57:43 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Knight wrote:

Quote:
despite the fact that the law is clear

 

If that was true there would not be a need for courts.

 
You assume that if the law is clear that everyone will follow it...
 
Knight wrote:
 

Quote:
your opinion is no better than mine

 

I stand with you on that. I oppose you when you try to claim your opinion is unshakable fact and why don't we all see that ...

 
So then I should oppose your opinion as "unshakable fact".
 

Knight wrote:

Quote:
So Congress intended "broad" protections.

 

And Congress put the details in the hands of the President. I notice that Congress is not suing anyone. You would think that if their wishes were being subverted they would be the ones taking action not you.

 
And those "details" cannot violate statute.  Congress is not injured by a violation of the law, but it does (slowly) change the law in response to misinterpretations by courts.

 

Knight wrote:
Random thought: If I was under oath I could honestly say that I have never seen any hiring violations, any discrimination, or nepotism. Others say they see it everywhere.

 
I, on the other hand, have proven it several times to the satisfaction of the MSPB. 
Preference Vet  
#55 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:30:04 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Shaudius wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:
What  you call "vague", the law calls "broad".  So Congress intended "broad" protections.

 

When you say the law are you referring to the acutal law because the law doesn't say anything about intending "broad" protections, "broad"ness is a distinct legal term from "vague"ness.

 

Either way the statute is ambiguous on its face about what open and fair actually mean, and therefore with regard to specific issues the courts will give deferrence to agencies in their interpretation of the statute.

 

Even if you take what you say at face value and agree that Congress intended, "broad" protections you still fail to state how this particular rule regarding when KSAs can be assessed is violative of this "broad" protection. You have not provided evidence as to how this is un"fair" to the process or even how it violates the principles of "open"ness or that all have not being given the opportunity to compete.

 

I would argue the contrary, it is fundamentally fair because at each stage of the process every candidate who has made it to that stage is given equal opportunity to present their case as to why they are the best candidates. At the first stage this is gone generally by an assessment without essays which gives more people the chance to compete quicker(not having to fill out essays) at the second stage this is done through an interview as well as potentially essay style questions(the essay style questions are basically interview questions).

 

The fact remains, none of us are judges(probably), none of us are legislators(probably), so what we think doesn't exactly matter, only what Congress deems to do with an agency's decision, what the courts deem to do with it, etc. All the normative discourse in the world doesn't change the fact that if you don't think its fair and you're subject to it you have many recourses, none of which are on this forum.

 

Apparently you are incapable of intellectual honesty or you just intend to be argumentative because merit systems principles don't provide for a fair and open competition that provides for equal opportunity at EACH STAGE, it UNCONDITIONALLY provides for a fair and open competition in which ALL receive equal opportunity at all stages:

 

5 USC Section 2301(b)(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

 

After that, your posting is nothing but nonesense, but you do have a right to your opinion, right or wrong.

 

Shaudius  
#56 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:41:58 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Preference Vet wrote:

Apparently you are incapable of intellectual honesty or you just intend to be argumentative because merit systems principles don't provide for a fair and open competition that provides for equal opportunity at EACH STAGE, it UNCONDITIONALLY provides for a fair and open competition in which ALL receive equal opportunity at all stages:

 

5 USC Section 2301(b)(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

 

After that, your posting is nothing but nonesense, but you do have a right to your opinion, right or wrong.

 


Thats the thing though, you're first statement about unconditionality is your interpretation of the statute, not what the statute says on its face. You are, like it or not, interpreting a statute, the fact that you have to interpret it to the situation means inherently that it is not clear and unambiguous, anything you argue is meaningless because you are engaging in interpretation and not plain meaning. 
Shaudius  
#57 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 10:46:17 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/10/2011(UTC)
Posts: 422

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Preference Vet wrote:
You assume that if the law is clear that everyone will follow it....
 
The ultimate issue with this is that if the law is clear than the courts will have no choice than to interpret it one way, the way that it clearly is, if they interpret it any other way congress can come back and say, no courts you're wrong, agency implement it this way, the fact that neither the courts have attempted to strike down this particular behavior nor the congress has come back and condemned this behavior that is clearly going on, while not dispositive, is pretty compelling evidence that the behavior does not run contrary to the statute. 

The fact that, again, you're the only person who holds this view that the law is clear in this thread would seem to indicate that in fact the law is not clear like you seem to think it is. 
Preference Vet  
#58 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:00:49 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Shaudius wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:
You assume that if the law is clear that everyone will follow it....
 
The ultimate issue with this is that if the law is clear than the courts will have no choice than to interpret it one way, the way that it clearly is, if they interpret it any other way congress can come back and say, no courts you're wrong, agency implement it this way, the fact that neither the courts have attempted to strike down this particular behavior nor the congress has come back and condemned this behavior that is clearly going on, while not dispositive, is pretty compelling evidence that the behavior does not run contrary to the statute. 

The fact that, again, you're the only person who holds this view that the law is clear in this thread would seem to indicate that in fact the law is not clear like you seem to think it is. 
 
The fact that this hasn't been going on very long, and if others like you believe that it is ok, means that it may be a while before the MSPB rules on this issue.
 
Again, being the only person holding a particular position doesn't make me wrong.  But it is significant that I can find major defects in your position that you ignore.
Preference Vet2011-12-15 20:01:38
Preference Vet  
#59 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 12:01:31 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/15/2011(UTC)
Posts: 670

Shaudius wrote:
Preference Vet wrote:

Apparently you are incapable of intellectual honesty or you just intend to be argumentative because merit systems principles don't provide for a fair and open competition that provides for equal opportunity at EACH STAGE, it UNCONDITIONALLY provides for a fair and open competition in which ALL receive equal opportunity at all stages:

 

5 USC Section 2301(b)(1) Recruitment should be from qualified individuals from appropriate sources in an endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society, and selection and advancement should be determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills, after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal opportunity.

 

After that, your posting is nothing but nonesense, but you do have a right to your opinion, right or wrong.

 


Thats the thing though, you're first statement about unconditionality is your interpretation of the statute, not what the statute says on its face. You are, like it or not, interpreting a statute, the fact that you have to interpret it to the situation means inherently that it is not clear and unambiguous, anything you argue is meaningless because you are engaging in interpretation and not plain meaning. 
 
So much for that law course, you should get your money back!!!  It is "unconditional" because there are no conditions placed into the statute. 
Scott Dickins&#111;n  
#60 Posted : Thursday, December 15, 2011 7:56:41 PM(UTC)
computerscott2

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/24/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,941

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 33 post(s)
So when the NFL playoffs start every team should get the chance to play every other team at each round so that they all can claim to have been given a fair and open chance to compete? No. Job hiring is like the playoffs, only the best teams proceed to the next rounds. You play the regular season to determine playoff standings. Each round you remove more of the unqualified applicants until you get to your "Final Four". You then bring them in and let them battle it out in the interview.
It would be assinine to continue to ask for KSA's from people who have already been eliminated from the process. It would be a waste of time on both ends. So the process the OP was asking about is not a sneaky way to get around KSA's, it is a smart move so that those who have been eliminated from the process do not get strung along believing that there is a position for them when there isn't. And HR specialists don't have to read thousands of pages of KSA's from unqualified applicants. If the applicants don't have the skills to make it past the first round then they are eliminated, as it should be.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages<12345>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.1 | YAF © 2003-2022, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.585 seconds.