Podcasts about USAJobs

Friday, August 22nd, 2025Today, the California Assembly has passed the redistricting resolutions and will have a special election this November for voters to approve the new maps; an appeals court has thrown out the $450M civil fraud fine against Trump; the Supreme Court says the NIH grants case must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims; a federal judge  just has ruled that Alina Habba's appointment as US Attorney in New Jersey is unlawful; an Eric Adams campaign advisor has been fired after slipping a potato chip bag full of cash to a reporter; an appeals court has cleared the way for the administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Hondurans Nepalis and Nicaraguans; anti LGBTQ bigot and child beating advocate James Dobson is dead; the Trump administration has banned gender affirming care coverage for federal workers while mandating conversion therapy coverage; the Trump administration has said it is reviewing all 55M here on visas for any violations; a Texas judge has denied Elon Musk's bid to dismiss the $1M election lottery lawsuit against him; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Guest: John FugelsangTell Me Everything - John Fugelsang, The John Fugelsang PodcastJohn Fugelsang - Substack@johnfugelsang.bsky.social - Bluesky, @JohnFugelsang -TwitterSeparation of Church and Hate by John Fugelsang - Pre-order You Can Nominate Dana Goldberg for this year's Out100!2025 Out100 Readers'     ChoiceNPHC & FBF stand united w/ CDC, NIH, & other HHS agencies in formal dissent of HHS Sec Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & his political rhetoric that led to the Aug 8 attack on CDC & his response. Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.orghttps://bsky.app/profile/firedbutfighting.bsky.social/post/3lwtfq56klc2gStoriesFormer Trump lawyer Alina Habba's appointment as U.S. attorney for New Jersey was 'unlawful,' judge rules | NBC NewsNewsom signs bills for redrawing voting maps as parties fight for control | The Washington PostNY appeals court voids the nearly $500 million civil fraud penalty against Trump | CNN PoliticsAppeals court panel clears way for Trump admin to end TPS for Hondurans, Nepalis and Nicaraguans | POLITICOMusk must face lawsuit brought by voters he convinced to sign petition in $1 million-a-day election giveaway, judge says | The IndependentTrump Admin Bans Coverage For Trans Govt Employees, Mandates Conversion Therapy Coverage | Erin In The MorningTrump administration is reviewing all 55 million foreigners with US visas for any violations | AP NewsTrump bought more than $100 million in bonds since January, filings show | NBC NewsEric Adams adviser who gave reporter potato chip bag stuffed with cash is suspended from campaign | NBC News Good Trouble The DoD has authorized DoD employees to apply to be “detailed” out to support ICE and CBP at the southern border. There's now an announcement on USAJOBS.gov, BUT the announcement includes an email address: fema-volunteerforce@fema.dhs.gov(Proton Mail: Get a free email account with privacy and encryption)From The Good NewsNew texts allegedly show Ohio Lt. Gov. Jon Husted leading FirstEnergy's push for House Bill 6Fruitful Fundraising Co.Heather Cox RichardsonReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

In this episode of the VET S.O.S. podcast, hosts Shawn Welsh and Keith Cassant talk with Katie Helbling, content creator at ClearanceJobs and host of the Security Clearance Careers podcast. Katie brings her trademark humor and honesty as she discusses how veterans can successfully navigate the security clearance job search after leaving the military.Katie offers a behind-the-scenes look at the ClearanceJobs platform and explains how it differs from other job boards like USAJobs and LinkedIn. Learn why creating your profile early—before your out date—is crucial, how to maintain your clearance status under the new two-year policy, and what recruiters are really looking for when hiring cleared professionals.Topics include:Building a strategic job search timelineTranslating military skills for civilian hiring managersBusting myths about “automatic” job placement for senior leadersThe power of niche platforms in federal and defense employmentKatie's sassiest memes and why humor is a powerful transition toolWe also explore ClearanceJobs' ecosystem: job groups, newsletters, virtual bootcamps, and new initiatives like FedWork.net and ClearanceJobsBlog.com.Whether you're six months out or just getting started, this episode will give you real tools and advice to succeed in your post-military career journey.

This episode is for JMOs who are ready to transition and don't want to take a step back in their next business career. In it, we: Define who this is for: JMOs aiming to lead and take on greater responsibility in a Business Leadership Career. Explain the "Traditional Career Search": Glassdoor, LinkedIn, Indeed, USAJOBS, etc. Define the "Non-Traditional Career Search." Explore why JMOs often default to the traditional approach. Share key takeaways and closing thoughts. JMOs are traditional candidates for defense-sector roles, but in the private sector, they are seen as non-traditional candidates. That is why Transition Rule #3 is: Throw Out the Traditional Career Search if you are aiming for upward mobility in business leadership. What is the "Traditional Career Search"? Searching based on past experience: “I have this experience in this industry,” or “I have this degree.” This focuses on what you have done, not your potential for leadership growth. Narrowing your options by what you know: Location or Career Field, or both. “I am a Logistics Officer, and my home of record is Dallas, TX, so I will pursue Logistics in Dallas.” Applying through job boards and online platforms: Glassdoor, LinkedIn, Indeed, USAJOBS. “Networking” that often feels vague or produces unclear outcomes. Important: The traditional search can work well for JMOs staying in defense, where their functional experience directly matches role requirements. But if you are making a hard pivot into business leadership, you need a different approach. The Reality of Online Applications in 2025 Job postings on LinkedIn attract 150 or more applicants. Popular roles see 300 or more. Indeed and Glassdoor listings often draw 200 to 500 candidates for a single role. Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) filter out 75% to 90% of résumés before they reach a human. The result? A success rate of only 2% to 5% for landing an interview via online applications. What is the "Non-Traditional Career Search"? A non-traditional search takes a different approach. It focuses on: Highlighting your leadership experience, potential, and ambition as your key value. Embracing a Growth and Investment Mindset. Expanding and comparing multiple opportunities. This does not mean applying to 200 companies but making quality attempts. Consider this: Of the 168 million people in the U.S. workforce, only 1.3 million are active-duty service members. Of those, about 200,000 to 234,000 are officers. JMOs (typically O-1 to O-3, with some O-4s) make up about 100,000 to 140,000. That is less than 0.1% of the total U.S. workforce. JMOs are a specialized leadership talent pool. Their skills are highly valuable but often overlooked by traditional hiring methods. The key is getting in front of companies that recognize your unique potential. The Big Question If you are a JMO pivoting to business, ask yourself: Do you know anyone who has lined up 10 to 12 quality interviews over two days? Interviews with hiring managers and decision-makers that bypass online filters, for roles that match or exceed their current pay and responsibility, and align with their separation timeline? This is what a targeted, quality-driven search looks like. A broad search gives you the power of comparison, helps you gather facts and real data, and puts you in a strong position when it is time to choose between offers. Facing Transition Challenges We know transition is tough. It is full of uncertainty, and it is natural to lean toward a traditional search. Well-meaning advice from family and friends can sometimes miss the mark if they lack expertise. There is also the temptation to choose what is familiar, like a job close to home or with a recognizable title. But those options might not deliver the long-term growth you deserve.

Hey Strangers, #ai #government #workers Grab 20% off Selected items and subscriptions using my Link: https://livezesty.com/CODINGWITHSTRAN... or use my code at checkout: CODINGWITHSTRANGERS Mere hours after being sworn in as the 47th president of the United States on Monday, returning President Donald Trump got to work signing dozens — and counting — of executive orders, which range from commands for the US to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization to ordering an end to birthright citizenship and renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America." But while the executive actions range in scope, legal experts have called attention to some curious common threads: bizarre typos, formatting errors and oddities, and stilted language — familiar artifacts that have led to speculation that those who penned them might have turned to AI for help. ======================================= I had to Make a playlist for this lol https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPn9z2zi8y0ZDNRGzJtPin2V-Ad2K_3bl ************************************************** My other podcast https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpvBEElSl1dD72Y5gtepkw ************************************************** article links: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admin-accused-using-ai-191117579.html https://archive.fo/zOCuM https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-01-27/la-wildfires-trump-doesn-t-understand-california-water-fish-or-blazes https://apnews.com/article/trump-ai-artificial-intelligence-executive-order-eef1e5b9bec861eaf9b36217d547929c https://www.npr.org/2024/03/29/1241281892/biden-government-ai https://www.statista.com/chart/23464/estimated-number-of-times-president-trump-played-golf/ https://github.com/Autonomy-Data-Unit/project-2025-index/tree/main ====================================== Discord https://discord.gg/MYvNgYYFxq TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@strangestcoder Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ?sub_confirmation=1 Twitch https://www.twitch.tv/CodingWithStrangers Twitter https://twitter.com/strangestcoder merch Support CodingWithStrangers IRL by purchasing some merch. All merch purchases include an alert: https://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/merch Github Follow my works of chaos https://github.com/codingwithstrangers Tips https://streamlabs.com/codingwithstrangers/tip Patreon https://www.patreon.com/TheStrangers Webull https://act.webull.com/vi/c8V9LvpDDs6J/uyq/inviteUs/ Join this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe9xwdRW2D7RYwlp6pRGOvQ/join Timeline 00:00 open 02:50 What Talking We Talking About 03:26 article 18:00 Final thoughts 20:00 Outro anything else? Take Care --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/coding-with-strangers/message

FSA Programs for Producers and TAPS Banquet Corn and Soybean Schools Feeding Steers Whole or Cracked Corn   00:01:05 – FSA Programs for Producers and TAPS Banquet: Beginning today's show is Allison Womack, agricultural program specialist with the Kansas Farm Service Agency, as she shares what programs and deadlines are taking place and recognizes their State Executive Director leaving. Renee Tuttle with TAPS also joins to let listeners know about an upcoming banquet. Farmers.gov USAJobs.gov K-State.edu/TAPS TAPS Banquet RSVP   00:12:05 – Corn and Soybean Schools: K-State's Kathy Gehl, Kansas Corn's Emily Koop and Kansas Soybean's Jancey Hall continue the show, previewing the 2025 Kansas Corn and Soybean Schools. KSCorn.com/schools   00:23:05 – Feeding Steers Whole or Cracked Corn: Part of the Beef Cattle Institute's Cattle Chat podcast ends today's show as Brad White, Phillip Lancaster and Bob Larson converse about the use of whole and cracked corn.   KSUbci.org BCI Cattle Chat Podcast Bovine Science with BCI Podcast Email BCI at bci@ksu.edu     Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) supports 27 DoD organizations including the Pentagon, shares Michelle Eveleigh, Talent Acquisition and Outreach Lead. Learn about the requirements for federal resumes, the role of WHS, and the merit system principles guiding federal hiring. Plus hear insights into navigating the application process, including the importance of using the USAJOBS resume builder.4:47 Recruiting for anthropologists, budget analysts, intel analysts, foreign affairs specialists, financial management, HR specialists, bomb techs, police officers, and more. 11:05 Government benefits still include a pension and child-care subsidy. Looking at a total compensation package they are often competitive with the private sector.13:54 Four things are required in a federal resume: 1) Dates of employment 2) Hours per week 3) Salary 4) Addressing every requirement of the job that you are applying for.Find complete show notes at: https://clearedjobs.net/washington-headquarters-services-dod-federal-jobs-podcast/_ This show is brought to you by ClearedJobs.Net. Have feedback or questions for us? Email us at rriggins@clearedjobs.net. Sign up for our cleared job seeker newsletter. Create a cleared job seeker profile on ClearedJobs.Net. Engage with us on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X, or YouTube. _

Navigating the Federal Cyber Job Market with Love Rutledge In this special edition of 'Breaking into Cyber Security', host Renee Small, the Cybersecurity Super Recruiter, collaborates with Love Rutledge, a senior executive in the Department of Defense, to provide comprehensive guidance on securing federal cyber jobs. Love shares her expertise in federal employment, detailing the intricacies of the USAJOBS site, federal resume building, networking strategies, and the clearance process. She offers essential tips for both experienced professionals and newcomers aiming to break into the federal cyber job market. Additionally, Love shares insights about professional organizations, accepted service positions, and resources for crafting successful federal resumes. This episode is a must-watch for anyone looking to navigate the complexities of federal cybersecurity job applications. 00:00 Introduction and Special Event Announcement 01:49 Meet Love Rutledge: Federal Cybersecurity Expert 03:44 Networking Tips for Federal Job Seekers 07:16 Understanding USAJobs and Federal Job Codes 09:38 Crafting a Federal Resume 14:59 Navigating the Federal Hiring Process 18:21 Security Clearances and Drug Use Policies 18:59 Q&A: Tips and Final Thoughts 27:08 Conclusion and Upcoming Events Sponsored by CPF Coaching LLC - http://cpf-coaching.com The Breaking into Cybersecurity: It's a conversation about what they did before, why did they pivot into cyber, what the process was they went through Breaking Into Cybersecurity, how they keep up, and advice/tips/tricks along the way. The Breaking into Cybersecurity Leadership Series is an additional series focused on cybersecurity leadership and hearing directly from different leaders in cybersecurity (high and low) on what it takes to be a successful leader. We focus on the skills and competencies associated with cybersecurity leadership and tips/tricks/advice from cybersecurity leaders. Check out our books: Develop Your Cybersecurity Career Path: How to Break into Cybersecurity at Any Level https://amzn.to/3443AUI Hack the Cybersecurity Interview: Navigate Cybersecurity Interviews with Confidence, from Entry-level to Expert roles https://www.amazon.com/Hack-Cybersecurity-Interview-Interviews-Entry-level/dp/1835461298/ Hacker Inc.: Mindset For Your Career https://www.amazon.com/Hacker-Inc-Mindset-Your-Career/dp/B0DKTK1R93/ _________________________________________ About the hosts: Renee Small is the CEO of Cyber Human Capital, one of the leading human resources business partners in the field of cybersecurity, and author of the Amazon #1 best-selling book, Magnetic Hiring: Your Company's Secret Weapon to Attracting Top Cyber Security Talent. She is committed to helping leaders close the cybersecurity talent gap by hiring from within and helping more people get into the lucrative cybersecurity profession. https://www.linkedin.com/in/reneebrownsmall/ Download a free copy of her book at magnetichiring.com/book Christophe Foulon focuses on helping to secure people and processes with a solid understanding of the technology involved. He has over ten years of experience as an experienced Information Security Manager and Cybersecurity Strategist with a passion for customer service, process improvement, and information security. He has significant experience in optimizing the use of technology while balancing the implications to people, processes, and information security by using a consultative approach. https://www.linkedin.com/in/christophefoulon/ Find out more about CPF-Coaching at https://www.cpf-coaching.com - Website: https://www.cyberhubpodcast.com/breakingintocybersecurity - Podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/breaking-into-cybersecuri - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/BreakingIntoCybersecurity - Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/breaking-into-cybersecurity/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/BreakintoCyber - Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/breakingintocybersecurity

On today's episode of The Executive Appeal Podcast join Alex D. Tremble (CEO of GPS Leadership Solutions & KeynoteSpeaker) and Peter Bonner (President and Founder of Bonner Enterprises) as they discuss essential strategies for building strong work relationships in virtual spaces, integrating new team members, and fostering a collaborative culture. Learn how to enhance communication skills and bring teams together remotely!Guest BIO:Peter Bonner is a public, non-profit, and private sector innovator, working at the crossroads between these sectors in the areas of human capital, workforce development, leadership effectiveness, and operational excellence. He recently led the federal agencies tasked with hiring the technical, management, and staff talent to implement the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. from his role as the Associate Director, HR Solutions at Office of Personnel Management. This resulted in hiring, in less than two years, more than 6,000 engineers, program managers, contracting and grants management specialists, to help build the roads, bridges, cell towers, water treatment facilities, and semiconductor plants that will improve the quality of life for Americans for generations to come. As OPM's HR Solutions team executive, Peter led customer experience and innovation for USAJOBS, USA Staffing, USA Performance, USA Hire and other shared services that help federal agencies recruit, hire, train, and manage the performance of the federal workforce. Peter's particular expertise is in interagency and inter-sector initiatives that meld the sometimes disparate missions and outcomes of federal agencies, NGOs, and the private sector. He has demonstrated this through work on OPM's interagency hiring surge innovations, federal Energy Star programs, Veterans employment initiatives, evidence-based decision making, the OMB/USDS DITAP Program, and OPM shared services. Peter has led consulting organization functions in senior executive roles at ICF and ASI Government that focus on strategic planning, leadership development, learning, and organizational development. Peter supports federal agencies s they chart new courses and direction in times of great volatility and change. His familiarity with federal consulting, contracting, HR, and workforce management helps agencies efficiently and effectively create and align objectives and goals in response to diverse stakeholder needs and requirements. Mr. Bonner's experience demonstrates his ability to get results and make agencies even more effective.Peter can be reached at peter@bonnerenterprises.com

In this episode of Star Warsologies, we talk space travel with a NASA project support specialist! At San Diego Comic-Con, James struck up a conversation with Johnathan Brendle at the NASA exhibit booth and he agreed to come on the podcast! We cover tons of space travel questions, including: What are hyperspace tunnels (purgill holes maybe?)? Do you need headlights in space? Is the Death Star basically a microwave? Show Links: Follow Johnny on TikTok and Instagram! Learn more about NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and some of the projects Johnny mentioned, like the Solar Dynamics Observatory, Solar System Exploration. If you're interested in working at NASA, check out their internship and fellowship programs, or search USA Jobs for positions at NASA. You can pre-order James's crossword puzzle book now! For a free puzzle, download the activity kit from Star Wars Reads! Subscribe to never miss an episode of Star Warsologies on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. Did you miss an earlier episode? Catch up here! Follow us on Twitter, Instagram, or join our Facebook fan group! Star Warsologies is a podcast about science in a galaxy far, far away. Hosts James Floyd and Melissa Miller combine their love of storytelling in the franchise with their keen interest in all things academic.

The federal government is the United States' biggest employer, with more than 2.1 million Service members and over 2 million civilian employees. Behind those millions of professionals, federal human capital leaders provide resources, benefits, programs, and growth opportunities to uplift our civil servants, so they can uplift our country. In this episode, we get a behind-the-scenes look at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the U.S. House of Representatives to learn how these institutions approach public service recruitment, initiatives to ensure federal employees grow and succeed, and more.Traci DiMartini is the Chief Human Capital Officer at the IRS. She has previously served as the Chief Human Capital Officer of the General Services Administration, Peace Corps, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.John Salamone has served as the Chief Human Resources Officer at the U.S. House of Representatives for the last 8 years. He has previously consulted in human capital, was executive director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management's Chief Human Capital Officers Council and served as a staff member of the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.More Links and Information Check out more Fors Marsh Media Connect or partner with Fors Marsh Search for career opportunities on USAJOBS 

Math, science and technology are all critical skills for any student looking to study and get a job at the National Weather Service. This week on the Carolina Weather Group, Frank Strait talks with Clay Chaney, a meteorologist with the NWS office in Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina. Frank and Clay briefly worked together at Accuweather before getting jobs in the public sector. Now at NWS GSP, Clay is the forecast office's Social Media focal point and tropical weather focal point. Frank and Clay discussed education, skillsets and the job application process while attending the Schiele Museum of Natural History's Weather Proof event in Gastonia, North Carolina on July 20. Jobs with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service can be found on USAJOBS at https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?a=CM54&p=1&k=national%20weather%20service. #jobs #career #weather #northcarolina #southcarolina #ncwx #scwx #podcast

The Corps is in the house! We are back in the studio for this episode of "Surveyor Says! The NSPS Podcast" with a special guest, Natalie Martinez-Vega, Surveyor/Training Specialist from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Army Geospatial Center. Natalie recently stopped at the NSPS headquarters to sit down with Tim Burch to share her "life in surveying" story. She also shared her introduction to surveying at the University of Puerto Rico, opportunities within the USACE, and how training and mentoring is key to helping practitioners become successful surveyors. A truly inspiring conversation, and and features our first ever "words of wisdom" message in Spanish! For more information about a career in surveying with the USACE, visit USAjobs.gov.

This week, Pat McGrath reminds us of the important role our significant others play in our transition to a post-military career. In his case, it came from his wife who would spend time looking at jobs on USAJOBS. We also talk about the things that he found helpful during his journey and life working at the Federal Communications Commission. Pat's LinkedIn profile is at https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-m-mcgrath --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

Shoot us a Text.We're ripping into the last weekend in Q2 as we talk about more CDK stores coming back online. We also cover Tesla's slipping quality ranking from JD Power, as well as the consistent overall drop in consumer experience. Show Notes with links:CDK Global is gradually restoring dealerships and a public retailer after the recent cyberattacks, with Group 1 now back online.CDK Global brought a second small set of dealer customers back online on June 27, including one large public dealership group.The company is continuing a phased restoration approach, focusing first on the core Dealer Management System (DMS).Group 1, confirmed by Automotive News, is the large public dealer now live on the core DMS.CDK is working to bring other applications, such as CRM, One Eighty, and CDK Service, back online and expects customer care channels to be active by June 28.Meanwhile, major publications like the WSJ are warning consumers to bring a pen and patience if they are going car shopping this weekend adding to the mounting losses for DealershipsTesla's edge in EV quality is fading as repair issues persist, according to J.D. Power's latest study as the 2024 U.S. Initial Quality Study reports Tesla's now match legacy automakers in quality, with 266 problems per 100 vehicles.Last year, Tesla outperformed traditional EVs with 257 problems per 100 vehicles compared to 265 for legacy automakers. However, customer dissatisfaction is growing due to Tesla removing traditional feature controls like turn signals and wiper stalks.This year, Tesla is level with other automakers at 266 per 100 vehiclesThe broader industry shows EVs, including BEVs and PHEVs, have more issues than gas-powered vehicles, averaging 266 vs. 180 problems per 100 vehicles.J.D. Power's Frank Hanley notes EV owners visit dealerships three times more often than gas vehicle owners due to severe problems and said, "It is not surprising that the introduction of new technology has challenged manufacturers to maintain vehicle quality." Customer experience in the U.S. has declined for the third consecutive year, with an average rating hitting a new low due to inflation and ineffective customer-service chatbots, according to Forrester's latest reportForrester's study shows an average customer experience score of 69.3 out of 100, the lowest since 2016.Scores have fallen from a peak of 72.0 in 2021.Consumers are frustrated by higher costs without perceived benefits and ineffective AI chatbots.Chewy, Tesla, Navy Federal Credit Union, and USAA ranked highest, while the IRS and USAJOBS.gov scored lowest.Hosts: Paul J Daly and Kyle MountsierGet the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/ Read our most recent email at: https://www.asotu.com/media/push-back-email

Keeping our military spouses happy is obviously important on many levels, but making sure that they have access to meaningful employment also plays a critical role in Army readiness and retention. On this week's all new SFL Podcast, COL Jarrett Thomas got the chance to sit down with LTG Kevin Vereen, the U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-9, to talk about the many ways the Department of Defense and the Army are working to help improve the quality of life of our military families and, more specifically, the employment opportunities for our military spouses. Resources mentioned during the podcast: ✅ Army Quality of Life Spouse Employment Resources - https://www.army.mil/qualityoflife/spouses.html ✅ Army Spouse Employment Toolkit - https://www.armyresilience.army.mil/ard/spouse-employment-toolkit.html ✅ Military Spouse Career Accelerator Pilot - https://myseco.militaryonesource.mil/portal/article/military-spouse-career-accelerator-pilot ✅ Military Spouse Employment Partnership - https://myseco.militaryonesource.mil/portal/article/military-spouse-employment-partnership ✅ Military OneSource Spouse Education and Employment Guides - https://www.militaryonesource.mil/resources/millife-guides/spouse-jobs-education ✅ USAJOBS - https://www.usajobs.gov

Are you wondering how you can make a global impact while still leveraging your clinical skills? Join us in this fascinating conversation with Dr. Nick Agathis as he shares insights into his role at the CDC as a medical officer specializing in pediatric TB, HIV, and advanced HIV disease. Dr. Agathis highlights the diverse opportunities available at the CDC for physicians, ranging from data analysis and epidemiology to consulting and service delivery. He shares his own journey from clinical medicine to public health, emphasizing the rewarding impact and fulfillment he finds in his current role. You can find the show notes for this episode and more information by clicking here: www.doctorscrossing.com/episode172 In this episode we're talking about: Dr. Nick Agathis' journey from clinical medicine to public health, emphasizing the rewarding impact and fulfillment he finds in his current role. Exploring the impactful work Dr. Agathis does for pediatric TB, HIV, and advanced HIV disease, including his role in reducing pediatric mortality. Discovering the diverse range of opportunities available at the CDC, regardless of specialty The skills that you can leverage to start a career at the CDC or in public health The structure and flexibility of working at the CDC What the EIS fellowship is and who is eligible Learning about how you can contribute to global health initiatives. Links for this episode: USAJOBS.gov  LinkedIn for Physicians Course - Would you rather clean out your garage or attic than “put yourself out there” and network? No worries! My LinkedIn course is geared to make networking doable and fun. I will show you how to connect with people who can be helpful for your career, what to put in your messages, and how to apply strategically for the job you really want. You can learn more about this course and get a sneak peek inside right HERE.  

FSA Programs Opening and Closing Japanese Encephalitis Virus and Rommey Farms Replacement Heifer Vaccination Protocol   00:01:05 – FSA Programs Opening and Closing: Director of the Kansas Farm Service Agency Dennis McKinney begins today's show with information on a variety of programs for producers as many have deadlines soon. Farmers.gov USAjobs.gov   00:12:05 – Japanese Encephalitis Virus and Rommey Farms: Keeping the show rolling is Dana Vanlandingham from K-State's college of veterinary medicine to discuss Japanese Encephalitis Virus. We are also joined by Ron Wilson, Director of the Huck Boyd National Institute, with a Kansas Profile on Rommey Farms. Kansas Profile   00:23:05 – Replacement Heifer Vaccination Protocol: The show concludes today with K-State's Brad White, Bob Larson and Brian Lubbers on another part of the Beef Cattle Institute's Cattle Chat podcast as they discuss constructing a plan to prevent disease outbreak with your replacement heifer pen. BCI Cattle Chat Podcast Bovine Science with BCI Podcast Email BCI at bci@ksu.edu     Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

What do park rangers actually do? And how can you get involved? Tune in as we – Yellowstone park rangers Jake, Brett, Miles, and Ashton – introduce the park's brand-new podcast, "What We Do." A tip for our listeners: If you want to work for the National Park Service, start by creating an account on USAjobs.gov, building your resume, and searching for open positions within the NPS. Visit go.nps.gov/WhatWeDoPodcast for more info. Stay tuned for more episodes featuring park employees beginning March 20!

In this episode, Vanessa talks about anxiety – how to spot it and how to deal with it.  She also shares a hack to save time and make planning easier, and finally on the job-hunting segment, she gives a brief overview of USAJobs and some of the pros and cons for working for a government.USAJobs WebsiteUSAjobs page explaining grades and pay levelA link to our Facebook Page! Join us!History of the Alcan Highway and learn how important African Americans were in its construction.And remember to send your comments, stories, and random thoughts to me at TeachersinTransitionCoaching@gmail.com!  I look forward to reading them.The transcript of this podcast can be found on the podcasts' homepage at Buzzsprout. 

What's it like playing with the big dogs of the Department of Defense (DoD) / Intelligence Community (IC) as a small business? Tasha Jones, president and owner of Twenty39 joins the podcast to discuss all things national security, from her time serving in the military to the transition, getting a federal job as a govvie, working as a contractor and now being her own girl boss running her company and doing some side hustles along the way. Many ClearanceJobs job seekers run into issues after the military like experiencing failed USAJobs applications, but she decided to take destiny into your own hands as an entrepreneur. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

During this episode of My First Foot Beat, Sgt. Tech. Natasha Rowles talks to Off. Joeniqua Colebrook. They discuss Officer Colebrook's journey to the Secret Service, from the Bahamas to the US Army, and how her Army Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) influenced her decision to apply for our Airspace Operations Branch as a Uniformed Division officer. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “Secret Service Uniformed Division.”

In this episode of My First Foot Beat, Sgt. Tech. Natasha Rowles sits down with her long-time friend and Law Enforcement Instructor Christina Werries. Their friendship goes back more than 20 years and, like all good friendships, they have numerous memories and many experiences together, including an unthinkable life-changing event: Christina's stage 4 ovarian cancer diagnosis. Christina discusses how her diagnosis has changed her life, the steps she has taken to recover, her support networks and treatment, including how she is involved in two studies to better provide care for other women with this diagnosis. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.”

In the latest episode of My First Foot Beat Sgt. Tech. Natasha Rowles talks to Off. Tech. Paige Tully about some of the unique roles she's had in the Secret Service, from working midnights at the White House to taking photos as a crime scene technician, and even working as an ambassador for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.”

The United States is a diverse nation, and the federal government needs to reflect the faces and minds of the country to deliver its best services. In part one of this month's Empathy Affect, we dive into the broad strokes the federal government is taking to integrate principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) across its workforce. Our guest in this episode, Office of Personnel and Management's (OPM) Office of DEIA Director Dr. Janice Underwood, walks us through these efforts and the White House's executive order to strengthen the federal workforce with DEIA.Dr. Janice Underwood is the director of OPM's Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility. She was formerly the first chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer for the Commonwealth of Virginia.Links and Information:Check out more Fors Marsh MediaConnect or partner with Fors MarshMore information about the Chief Diversity Officers Executive CouncilRead up on the Executive Order on DEIA in the Federal WorkforceCheck out USAJOBS

In the latest episode of My First Foot Beat, Sergeant Technician Natasha Rowles sits down with Officer Sean Cherney to discuss his journey to the Secret Service. Their discussion covers a wide range of topics, from how his upbringing set him up with the values needed to be worthy of trust and confidence to Secret Service training and living in the DC area. Additionally, Cherney's broad experience in Secret Service teams really highlights the number of opportunities available in the agency and the scope of responsibilities that our personnel are trained for. This is a great episode for anyone who wants to explore new opportunities and challenge themselves. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.”

Geopolitics has always played a role in prosecuting hackers. But it's getting a lot more complicated, as Kurt Sanger reports. Responding to a U.S. request, a Russian cybersecurity executive has been arrested in Kazakhstan, accused of having hacked Dropbox and Linkedin more than ten years ago. The executive, Nikita Kislitsin, has been hammered by geopolitics in that time. The firm he joined after the alleged hacking, Group IB, has seen its CEO arrested by Russia for treason—probably for getting too close to U.S. investigators. Group IB sold off all its Russian assets and moved to Singapore, while Kislitsin stayed behind, but showed up in Kazakhstan recently, perhaps as a result of the Ukraine war. Now both Russia and the U.S. have dueling extradition requests before the Kazakh authorities; Paul Stephan points out that Kazakhstan's tenuous independence from Russia will be tested by the tug of war.  In more hacker geopolitics, Kurt and Justin Sherman examine the hacking of a Russian satellite communication system that served military and civilian users. It's reminiscent of the Viasat hack that complicated Ukrainian communications, and a bunch of unrelated commercial services, when Russia invaded. Kurt explores the law of war issues raised by an attack with multiple impacts. Justin and I consider the claim that the Wagner group carried it out as part of their aborted protest march on Moscow. We end up thinking that this makes more sense as the Ukrainians serving up revenge for Viasat at a time when it might complicate Russian's response to the Wagner group.  But when it's hacking and geopolitics, who really knows? Paul outlines the legal theory—and antitrust nostalgia—behind the  FTC's planned lawsuit targeting Amazon's exploitation of its sales platform.   We also ask whether the FTC will file the case in court or before the FTC's own administrative law judge. The latter may smooth the lawsuit's early steps, but it will also bring to the fore arguments that Lina Khan should recuse herself because she's already expressed a view on the issues to be raised by the lawsuit. I'm not Chairman Khan's biggest fan, but I don't see why her policy views should lead to recusal; they are, after all, why she was appointed in the first place. Justin and I cover the latest Chinese law raising the risk of doing business in that country by adopting a vague and sweeping view of espionage.  Paul and I try to straighten out the EU's apparently endless series of laws governing data, from General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act to the Data Act (not to be confused with the Data Governance Act). This week, Paul summarizes the Data Act, which sets the terms for access and control over nonpersonal data. It's based on a plausible idea—that government can unleash the value of data by clarifying and making fair the rules for who can use data in new businesses. Of course, the EU is unable to resist imposing its own views of fairness, thus upsetting existing commercial arrangements without really providing any certainty about what will replace them. The outcome is likely to reduce, not improve, the certainty that new data businesses want.  Speaking of which, that's the critique of the AI Act now being offered by dozens of European business executives, whose open letter slams the way the AI Act kludged the regulation of generative AI into a framework where it didn't really fit. They accuse the European Parliament of “wanting to anchor the regulation of generative AI in law and proceeding with a rigid compliance logic [that] is as bureaucratic …  as it is ineffective in fulfilling its purpose.” And you thought I was the EU-basher.  Justin recaps an Indian court's rejection of Twitter's lawsuit challenging the Indian government's orders to block users who've earned the government's ire. Kurt covers a matching story about whether Facebook should suspend Hun Sen's Facebook account for threatening users with violence. I take us to Nigeria and question why social media thinks governments can be punished for threatening violence. Finally, in two updates, I note that Google has joined Facebook in calling Canada's bluff by refusing to link to Canadian news media in order to avoid the Canadian link tax.  And I do a victory lap for the Cyberlaw Podcast's Amber Alert feature. One week after we nominated the Commerce Department's IT supply chain security program for an Amber Alert, the Department answered the call by posting the supply chain czar position in USAJOBS. Download 466th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.  

Today, we're talking about the role that job boards should play in your job search, as well as the most used/best job sites. As I have said repeatedly on this podcast, 1) job boards should NEVER be the only strategy you are using in your job search, and 2) the amount of time you should spend on job boards depends on the of the position you are seeking. As a reminder: -Just out of college: 25% active, 75% job boards and other passive activities -Mid-career: 50%/50% -Senior/executive level: No more than 25% job boards (if any) I've also frequently talked about my “+1” approach, meaning you should do one more thing in addition to just applying online. Here's why: When you apply online, you are going to the most crowded place possible and trying to get noticed. The analogy I use is you are in a large auditorium that is completely full, and you are trying to get the attention of the people on stage. It's very difficult to be seen. The +1 approach involves finding someone in your network who can advocate for you, reaching out to someone connected to the job and/or the company to let them know you've applied, or making direct contact with the hiring manager. I covered the +1 approach in episode #132: https://exclusivecareercoaching.com/posts/2022-02-02-212-the-1-approach-to-job-boards  As we talk about how to use job boards, keep in mind that there are general boards, niche job boards, and industry-specific job boards. Here are my favorite sites: General Job Boards IndeedLinkedIn JobsGlassdoorCareerBuilderMonsterZip Recruiter  Niche Job Boards:Behance.net (for creatives, by Adobe)Idealist (for non-profits and social impact)CrunchBoard (for startups and tech companies)FlexJobs (for remote and flexible work)USAJobs (for federal government jobs)Dice (for IT professionals)  Industry-Specific Job Boards: eFinancial Careers (finance and banking)Mediabistro (media and publishing)Oilandgasjobsearch (energy industry)JournalismJobs (media and journalism)  To bottom-line it for you: Unless you are just out of college, your job search SHOULD NOT depend primarily on job boards, but rather a robust combination of active and passive strategies that are specifically chosen to achieve your career goals.  DIY vs. DFY DIY: For those of you who are managing your job search on your own, here is my #1 tip: Map out a strategy. Decide which job search tactics you will engage in – you shouldn't have just one tactic, nor should you be trying so many things that you're not doing any of them well. Once you've decided on the tactics you want to take, next map out your specific action steps and calendar them in. I talked about this in episode #258:http://exclusivecareercoaching.com/posts/2023-01-25-258-how-to-organize-your-job-search-time-to-optimize-your-results I talked about active vs. passive job search strategies in episode #30: https://www.exclusivecareercoaching.com/posts/2019-01-16-030-active-vs-passive-job-search-strategies  DFY: If you would like help in planning and executing a targeted, proactive job search strategy that is customized to your career goals, timeline, and strengths, you can schedule a 1-hour coaching session with me. You'll leave with a master plan for your job search that will get results! The Job Search Strategy Hour is $450; email me at lesa@exclusivecareercoaching.com to schedule!   

Geopolitics has always played a role in prosecuting hackers. But it's getting a lot more complicated, as Kurt Sanger reports. Responding to a U.S. request, a Russian cybersecurity executive has been arrested in Kazakhstan, accused of having hacked Dropbox and Linkedin more than ten years ago. The executive, Nikita Kislitsin, has been hammered by geopolitics in that time. The firm he joined after the alleged hacking, Group IB, has seen its CEO arrested by Russia for treason—probably for getting too close to U.S. investigators. Group IB sold off all its Russian assets and moved to Singapore, while Kislitsin stayed behind, but showed up in Kazakhstan recently, perhaps as a result of the Ukraine war. Now both Russia and the U.S. have dueling extradition requests before the Kazakh authorities; Paul Stephan points out that Kazakhstan's tenuous independence from Russia will be tested by the tug of war.  In more hacker geopolitics, Kurt and Justin Sherman examine the hacking of a Russian satellite communication system that served military and civilian users. It's reminiscent of the Viasat hack that complicated Ukrainian communications, and a bunch of unrelated commercial services, when Russia invaded. Kurt explores the law of war issues raised by an attack with multiple impacts. Justin and I consider the claim that the Wagner group carried it out as part of their aborted protest march on Moscow. We end up thinking that this makes more sense as the Ukrainians serving up revenge for Viasat at a time when it might complicate Russian's response to the Wagner group.  But when it's hacking and geopolitics, who really knows? Paul outlines the legal theory—and antitrust nostalgia—behind the  FTC's planned lawsuit targeting Amazon's exploitation of its sales platform.   We also ask whether the FTC will file the case in court or before the FTC's own administrative law judge. The latter may smooth the lawsuit's early steps, but it will also bring to the fore arguments that Lina Khan should recuse herself because she's already expressed a view on the issues to be raised by the lawsuit. I'm not Chairman Khan's biggest fan, but I don't see why her policy views should lead to recusal; they are, after all, why she was appointed in the first place. Justin and I cover the latest Chinese law raising the risk of doing business in that country by adopting a vague and sweeping view of espionage.  Paul and I try to straighten out the EU's apparently endless series of laws governing data, from General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the AI Act to the Data Act (not to be confused with the Data Governance Act). This week, Paul summarizes the Data Act, which sets the terms for access and control over nonpersonal data. It's based on a plausible idea—that government can unleash the value of data by clarifying and making fair the rules for who can use data in new businesses. Of course, the EU is unable to resist imposing its own views of fairness, thus upsetting existing commercial arrangements without really providing any certainty about what will replace them. The outcome is likely to reduce, not improve, the certainty that new data businesses want.  Speaking of which, that's the critique of the AI Act now being offered by dozens of European business executives, whose open letter slams the way the AI Act kludged the regulation of generative AI into a framework where it didn't really fit. They accuse the European Parliament of “wanting to anchor the regulation of generative AI in law and proceeding with a rigid compliance logic [that] is as bureaucratic …  as it is ineffective in fulfilling its purpose.” And you thought I was the EU-basher.  Justin recaps an Indian court's rejection of Twitter's lawsuit challenging the Indian government's orders to block users who've earned the government's ire. Kurt covers a matching story about whether Facebook should suspend Hun Sen's Facebook account for threatening users with violence. I take us to Nigeria and question why social media thinks governments can be punished for threatening violence. Finally, in two updates, I note that Google has joined Facebook in calling Canada's bluff by refusing to link to Canadian news media in order to avoid the Canadian link tax.  And I do a victory lap for the Cyberlaw Podcast's Amber Alert feature. One week after we nominated the Commerce Department's IT supply chain security program for an Amber Alert, the Department answered the call by posting the supply chain czar position in USAJOBS. Download 466th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@gmail.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.  

Joining Shaun on The Scuttlebutt is Army Veteran, career coach, and entrepreneur Ahmad Burse. Following in the footsteps of his parents Ahmad served in the Military (Army). During his service, he learned many things about himself while becoming a skilled communicator. These skills were crucial as he made his transition to civilian life. Ahmad worked in HR with the Army Corps of Engineers and it was here that he found his new passion for assisting Engineers and veterans with career coaching.   Passionate about empowering veterans transitioning from military service to rewarding civilian careers, Ahmad brings a wealth of expertise in the corporate and federal sectors to his role as a Veterans Corporate & Federal Career Coach. With a deep understanding of the unique challenges veterans face and a commitment to turning these into opportunities, he helps his clients chart their career paths, align their skills with their interests, and achieve their professional goals.   He provides personalized coaching that includes personal branding, resume and interview preparation, job search strategies, and networking assistance. Additionally, he helps his clients navigate the unique aspects of the federal job application process USAJOBS, a service that sets him apart from traditional career coaches.   As a seasoned professional with a proven track record of success, his mission is to equip veterans with the tools and confidence they need to advance in their current roles in the corporate or federal sectors.   Specializing in one-on-one coaching and group workshops, Ahmad provides personalized guidance and robust support systems to navigate the job market, identify opportunities, and achieve career advancement.   Ahmad Burse LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/burseconsulting/   Connect with Ahmad – ahmad@burseconsulting.com or 301-659-7899   Veteran Success Story: Ahmad Burse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJgInyNLBTQ   Support this podcast:   Thank you to our sponsor: Tobacco Free Adagio Health: https://tobaccofree.adagiohealth.org/   The Scuttlebutt is now on Wreaths Across America Radio. You listen in any time with this live link:  https://www.wreathsacrossamerica.org/radio   To find out more information about the Veterans Breakfast Club and view our upcoming schedule of online and in-person events, visit our website at: http://www.veteransbreakfastclub.org/   #podcast #zoom #scuttlebutt #thescuttlebutt #humor #storytelling #headlines #news #oralhistory #militaryhistory #roundtable #navy #army #airforce #marinecorps #marines #military #coastguard #veteran #veterans #veteransbreakfastclub #vbc #nonprofit #501c3 #veterans #veteran #vet #militaryhistory #usarmy #army #vietnam #usnavy #navy #pilot #airforce #veteranowned #coastguard #aviators #militaryveterans #Iraq #vietnamveterans #veteransstories #veteranshistory #veteranshistoryproject #veteranstravel #veteranstrips #veteranshistoricaltours #veteransoralhistory #militaryretirees #armyretirees #navyretirees #warstories #airforce #vietnamwar #veteraninterview

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: US Policy Career Resources, published by US Policy Careers on June 7, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum. Background This post contains a collection of resources for aspiring policy professionals in the US, including articles, books, newsletters, podcasts, and more. It focuses on resources most relevant to people seeking to work in US federal-level technology or security policy, such as AI policy or biosecurity policy. The post is split into two parts: the first consists of career-specific resources, providing both strategic advice on high-level career decisions and tactical advice on applying for particular opportunities. The second consists of topic-specific resources to help readers learn about particular policy areas relating to emerging technology and security policy, including AI policy, biosecurity policy, and nuclear security policy. This collection consists of resources that different DC professionals have recommended. It does not aim to be comprehensive, and we haven't vetted all these resources individually. The collection is also a work-in-progress, and we appreciate any feedback (e.g., resources we missed, better ways to structure this post) via this form or in the comments. I. Career-specific policy resources General US policy career resources US Policy Careers account on the EA Forum Government and policy in an area relevant to a top problem, 80,000 Hours Advice for Undergraduates Interested in US Policy Takeaways on US Policy Careers (Part 1): Paths to Impact and Personal Fit Takeaways on US Policy Careers (Part 2): Career Advice Books: The Great Courses: Understanding the US Government (Audible) (2020) Hack Your Bureaucracy: Get Things Done No Matter What Your Role on Any Team (2022) Podcasts: Transition Lab, Partnership for Public Service Stories from the Backchannel, Center for a New American Security Other policy resource lists GoGovernment Resources, Partnership for Public Service Resources Overview, Network on Emerging Threats Resources, United States of Technology Relevant EA Forum tags: US policy, Policy, Career choice, Job profile, Governance of artificial intelligence Policy work opportunities Policy job boards USAJobs.gov, the government's job board for federal agencies (see USAJobs guide) Employment Bulletins for the House, Senate, and Senate Internships Resume Banks for the House and Senate Paid: Traverse Jobs, focus on Congress and advocacy Tom Manatos Jobs, focus on DC policy (e.g., Congress, federal agencies) Daybook, focus on political, policy, and non-profit jobs List of progressive job boards 80,000 Hours Job Board, includes some policy jobs and internships EA Opportunity Board, includes some policy internships Early-Career Opportunities in Governance and Policy Policy internships Consider "Semester in DC" Programs, if You're a US Student Interested in Policy Congressional Internships: Why and How to Apply Virtual Student Federal Service: remote government internships for US students Think tank internships section from Working at a (DC) policy think tank USAjobs.gov internships for students and recent graduates (see also list here and USAjobs guide here) Policy fellowships Database of EA-relevant US policy fellowships (+ these databases) Horizon Fellowship (previously Open Philanthropy Technology Policy Fellowship) TechCongress Fellowship Presidential Management Fellowship (+ PMF application tips) STPI Science Policy Fellowship Scoville Fellowship Policy graduate school US policy master's degrees: Why and When? (Part 1) Top Programs, Applications, & Funding (Part 2) US policy master's database Law school: Why and When? (Part 1) Admissions and Financial Advice (Part 2) PhD: How To PhD How to apply for a PhD Career review: Economics PhD, 80,000 Hours Policy institutions Legislative branch (Congress) Working in Congress (Part 1): Bac...

In this episode, Christa interviews Matt Russell, State Executive Director of the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Iowa. Tune in as they talk about the USDA FSA, the importance of having a relationship with your local FSA, and what opportunities they offer.   Episode Links:  • USDA Website: https://www.usda.gov/  • USA Jobs: https://www.usajobs.gov/ 

Chris Cockburn, cybersecurity advisor for CISA, discusses how to get into cyber with federal jobs. He explains how to match knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA's) on your resume for USAjobs.gov. Networking with those in roles you want to be in is vital. Ask reqruiters plenty of questions to determine what you want to do and explore strategic partner universities to potentially get internship opportunities. Most importantly find a mentor.

(4/11/23) - In today's Federal Newscast: Alabama's Fort Rucker sheds its Confederate moniker with a name change. USA Jobs is back online. And snail mail just got more expensive, again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

(4/11/23) - In today's Federal Newscast: Alabama's Fort Rucker sheds its Confederate moniker with a name change. USA Jobs is back online. And snail mail just got more expensive, again. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode Immigration Judges Megan Jackler and Jennifer Peyton give an overview of life as Administrative Law Judges for Immigration matters, including the process for becoming one. Hint: if interested, a new posting on USAJOBS is only days away. Judge Jackler serves in the Navy Reserves, while Judge Peyton was in private practice before going to the bench. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tom-welsh/support

In the latest episode of My First Foot Beat, Officer Technician Natasha Rowles sits down with the Edmunds brothers – Dezmon and Freddie – to discuss their paths to the Secret Service, a little sibling rivalry and some of the perks of the job. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.” #MFFB #USSS #SecretService #StandingPost #USSSPodcasts #UD #UniformedDivision

Denice Ross is the Chief Data Scientist in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In our discussion, she shared a behind-the-scenes look into how data can be used to measure equitable investments and their outcomes with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. “What makes me really excited about this infrastructure law is not just how much money it is, or the drumbeat of all these great funding opportunities coming online, but that these investments are being rolled out with equity as a top priority. And that's ensuring that underserved communities have fair access to these resources.” This episode first aired on September 29, 2022, as part of Microsoft's Public Sector Future podcast USAjobs.gov Grist.org Denice Ross | LinkedIn Jeremy Goldberg | LinkedIn | Twitter Microsoft Public Sector Center of Expertise Discover and follow other Microsoft podcasts at aka.ms/microsoft/podcasts

(2/17/23) - In today's Federal Newscast: The Justice and Commerce Departments join forces to target cyber crime. The backlog of retirement claims at OPM ballooned last month. The State Department gets serious about cybersecurity. And there's a new portal on USAJobs.gov for prospective interns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

(2/17/23) - In today's Federal Newscast: The Justice and Commerce Departments join forces to target cyber crime. The backlog of retirement claims at OPM ballooned last month. The State Department gets serious about cybersecurity. And there's a new portal on USAJobs.gov for prospective interns. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In the newest episode of My First Foot Beat, Sergeant Technician Natasha Rowles talks with Officer Amita Claytor about her path to the Secret Service, which included a four-year break in training. In addition to this unique circumstance, the two also talk about Claytor's decision to return to Secret Service training after a career as an Akron, Ohio, police officer; her background; what life as a Uniformed Division Officer in DC is like; and her future in the Secret Service. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.”

INTRODUCTION: Spencer Bishins has a master's degree from the London School of Economics, and a law degree from Florida State University. Working for SSA for more than 10 years, he drafted or reviewed thousands of disability decisions. After leaving SSA, he wanted to help demystify the complicated disability system. His first book, Social Security Disability Revealed: Why it's so hard to access benefits and what you can do about it, explores the obstacles that disability claimants face as they try to access benefits. INCLUDED IN THIS EPISODE (But not limited to): ·      SSA System Demystified ·      Veteran's Concerns ·      The Impact On The LGBTQIA+ Community·      Are Drugs & Alcohol A Factor?·      SSI Vs. SSDI·      Medicaid & State Level Implications·      Acceptable Income Levels·      The Way Claims Are Handled ·      Treatment Record Hassles·      HIV Rules ·      How Approvals & Denials Are Decided·      The Impact Of Politics·      Interesting Info On The Kinds Of Judges That Decide Cases CONNECT WITH SPENCER: Website: https://www.bishinspublishing.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/BishinsPublishingInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/bishinspublishing/Twitter: https://twitter.com/bishinspub  CONNECT WITH DE'VANNON: Website: https://www.SexDrugsAndJesus.comWebsite: https://www.DownUnderApparel.comYouTube: https://bit.ly/3daTqCMFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/SexDrugsAndJesus/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sexdrugsandjesuspodcast/Twitter: https://twitter.com/TabooTopixLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/devannonPinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/SexDrugsAndJesus/_saved/Email: DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com  DE'VANNON'S RECOMMENDATIONS: ·      Pray Away Documentary (NETFLIX)o  https://www.netflix.com/title/81040370o  TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_CqGVfxEs ·      OverviewBible (Jeffrey Kranz)o  https://overviewbible.como  https://www.youtube.com/c/OverviewBible ·      Hillsong: A Megachurch Exposed (Documentary)o  https://press.discoveryplus.com/lifestyle/discovery-announces-key-participants-featured-in-upcoming-expose-of-the-hillsong-church-controversy-hillsong-a-megachurch-exposed/ ·      Leaving Hillsong Podcast With Tanya Levino  https://leavinghillsong.podbean.com  ·      Upwork: https://www.upwork.com·      FreeUp: https://freeup.net VETERAN'S SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS ·      Disabled American Veterans (DAV): https://www.dav.org·      American Legion: https://www.legion.org ·      What The World Needs Now (Dionne Warwick): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHAs9cdTqg  INTERESTED IN PODCASTING OR BEING A GUEST?: ·      PodMatch is awesome! This application streamlines the process of finding guests for your show and also helps you find shows to be a guest on. The PodMatch Community is a part of this and that is where you can ask questions and get help from an entire network of people so that you save both money and time on your podcasting journey.https://podmatch.com/signup/devannon  TRANSCRIPT:Spencer Bishins[00:00:00]You're listening to the sex drugs and Jesus podcast, where we discuss whatever the fuck we want to! And yes, we can put sex and drugs and Jesus all in the same bed and still be all right at the end of the day. My name is De'Vannon and I'll be interviewing guests from every corner of this world as we dig into topics that are too risqué for the morning show, as we strive to help you understand what's really going on in your life.There is nothing off the table and we've got a lot to talk about. So let's dive right into this episode.De'Vannon: Spencer Bishins is the author of the Eyeopening book Social Security Disability Revealed why it's so hard to access benefits and what you can do about it baby. Now in this episode, we're peeling back the pages to give you an inside look at what really goes on inside the Social Security Administration.And as you can guess, it's lots of Tom Foolery lies honey scandals in every [00:01:00] imaginary type of deception. Listen close, learn some new shit. Share this with a bitch, you know, and reach out to me and let me know what bothered you the most about what you found out about the Social Security Administration.Hello, are you beautiful and special people out there? And welcome back to the Sex Drugs in Jesus podcast. My name is Hubert and I'm your house. And I have with me the mentally stimulating, mind opening, feeling spilling. Spencer Bishops and he is an author and he has come to help us out a lot today.Spencer, how are. Spencer: I'm good. How are you? I am De'Vannon: fan fucking, Spencer: and I, I, I have to say that is the most unique intro I've had so far. No one has given me that exact same intro yet, , [00:02:00]De'Vannon: god damn it. And they never fucking will unless they steal my shit. So, I mean, that's bowing to happen. So so Spencer, he, he wrote a book, it's called Social Security Disability Revealed.Oh, there it is. Beautiful. Why it's so hard to access then to fits and what you can do about it. So, Spencer Bishop, he has a master's degree from the London School of Economics and a law degree from Florida State University. Go FSU now. He worked for the Social Security Administration for more than 10 years.Then he pieced out from them motherfuckers because he wanted to demystify the complicated disability system. This book here, Gonna help you overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of you getting your damn money. Especially after we work, they take all goddamn damn money outta our check and then when we want it, they don't wanna give it back.Ain't that some shit? [00:03:00] Fucking Spencer: bitches. You don't even need me. That's just summarize the whole book right there, . Yeah. So. De'Vannon: I'm gonna pull up the table of contents and read just a few of the chapters and then, I mean, read, read a few of the chapter titles just cause I found them to be interesting. And then, and then right after that, I'm gonna let you tell people why you wrote it and who you are, in your own words.But I thought, I just thought the, the table of contents would like, kind of spill some of the t. So some of the chapter titles from this book are called like after the hearing the Appeals Process, permanent Mental Health Conditions, drug Abuse and Alcoholism, child claimants, deceased Claimants and Widow Claimants Firing Your Representative, and fraud, waste and Abuse.You know, this, this book has 34 chapters in it. So during this podcast show here, and I don't know, we might have to have you back on for a second [00:04:00] time, but be it once or twice, we won't be able to cover all this. So, Y'all wanna get your money, gonna have to get this booked here. So we're thankful that you, after having worked there, gave us this testimony.Now tell us why you did this in your own words and who you are.Spencer: Before I do that, I just wanna say, I promise what's in those chapters is far more interesting than the titles themselves. I wanted to do some more like catchy chapter titles and my editor suggested, no, just tell people what's in the chapters.Don't get too fancy with the chapter titles themselves, but the actual content is far more interesting. So I worked for Social Security for 11 years. During the first four years, I reviewed thousands of cases on appeal decisions that had already been written. And then I went before, as you say, before I pieced out.I spent another seven years at the hearing level actually writing decisions for [00:05:00] administrative law judges. So, and I wrote almost 2000 decisions. So with a sample size that large, as you can imagine, I learned a lot about who gets paid, who doesn't, how judges make the decisions that they make, what techniques they use to deny cases, even when there's really good evidence suggesting someone is disabled.And as you said in the intro, everyone who has paid into the system, that's your. If you work, if you've paid the social security tax, whether you're an employee or have been an employee, or are, or have been self-employed, either way you've paid the social security tax. Mm-hmm. , and that's why it's called an entitlement because you are entitled to get money if you qualify.But I learned a lot of the ways that Social Security and its judges look at people and medical records that should qualify for benefits and figure out ways to deny those [00:06:00] claims. And so I wanted to present the information that I had learned about what the Social Security disability process is. Cause it, it, you know, it's the government and it's, it's social security.It's like two things that if you are not sleeping well, you know, just think about those right. And it'll be your cure for insomnia. And so most Americans don't want to think about boring things like the government or social security or government benefits until you actually need them. If you get hurt, injured, have some sort of chronic condition or something, all of a sudden it ain't so boring anymore, right?Then you realize, wow, this is something that I actually need. I really need to know how to work this system. I need to know how to play the government game, and so that I can give myself a decent chance of actually getting these benefits that I've paid for. Mm-hmm. , De'Vannon: show us the [00:07:00] money. We need our money. So how many people do you think are on disability right about now, and about how many applications do you think come in a year?Spencer: So it wasn't long ago that it was like 2 million applications a year. I think now it's somewhere between around 1 million applications a year. I don't know if we're still above that number or not. And somewhere around nine or 10 million Americans are on are receiving disability benefits. And for social security overall, I think it's like 40 million.It's a lot because that baby boomer generation is in the retirement zone and in like another 10 years as they've died out. I mean it sounds heartless, but that's just statistics and math and reality. Right. At the point where they've died out, the number of overall recipients will probably come down, but the number of disability recipients probably hold pretty steady over time.Okay, De'Vannon: [00:08:00] so, so somebody, it's a, it is a state benefit as I understand it, or is it federal? Spencer: No, it's a federal benefit. When you apply, the first place your application goes is to your state agency and someone at the State Department of Health is responsible for making that initial decision. But if you're approved, it comes out of the federal pot of money, either the Social Security Trust fund for Social Security Disability Insurance, or for supplemental security income, which is a different program.It just comes right out of that plot of general revenues in federal income tax that we all pay. But, but it's federal both ways. So at the initial level and at the reconsideration level, which is the second, second step of the process, it's a state employee making the decision, but still as to whether or not you can get federal money.Okay. So, but, but as I [00:09:00] talk about in the book, Their decisions can impact the state budget too, which is why they're not neutral decision makers. They're not disinterested parties. There's a conflict of interest because if they approve you at the, if that state employee approves you for ssi, you can then get the Medicaid.And Medicaid is a federal state partnership, right? So it's a state employee deciding whether or not you should be approved for ssi, but knowing if they approve you, it's gonna cost the state money from their Medicaid program. So what would you do if you were that state employee and you could potentially cost the state lots of money and your boss has told you, stop costing our state.It's a conflict of interest, isn't De'Vannon: it? Yeah. They do shit like that. That's why I don't work for anyone anymore because bosses are bitches. So you mentioned ssdi. I, so what is the difference between SS I versus [00:10:00]S S D Spencer: I? Yeah, so, and I, and I cover this more in depth in part one of the book. But SSDI is, so I think it, you used to work for someone then, right?Were you ever an employee, W2 employee and you got a pay stub? Yeah. Most of us have done that at some point. Right? On that pay stub, you see three federal taxes coming outta your paycheck every two weeks. Federal income tax. But then there's also the social security and Medicare tax, that social security.Goes to pay for the Social Security Trust fund. And normally we think of that as retirement. I got something I get when I'm an old bart. Right? Don't have to worry about that now. But that also pays for the disability program, which think of that like as your retirement benefits, but sooner if you become disabled and unable to work.So that tax pays for both of those programs, which are kind of really the same [00:11:00] program. That's ssdi Social Security Disability Insurance, that tax you pay. Think of that like an insurance premium that you're paying. And then you have this insurance coverage and you have to have that insurance coverage in order to file an insurance claim.So it operates like an insurance company in that regard. Separate from that is supplemental security income. And that program is really for people who either, who don't have that. Insurance that I just talked about, because they haven't paid enough into the social security system to earn enough credits.So that could be stay at home parents, it could be young workers who haven't paid in long enough. It could be recent immigrants, it could be older people who are retired and haven't worked in the last five years, and so their insurance ran out. So for whatever reason, maybe you just can't get that S S D I insurance.Well, you can go file a claim for [00:12:00] ssi and as I said, that comes out of just regular income taxes. But because that's not an earned benefit, you didn't pay that insurance premium. It's a lot more unstable of a program. First, there's asset and income limitations, so if you have even a little bit of money or you're earning even a little bit of money, you're not gonna qualify.And even if you get approved, it's like 800 bucks a month. And if you work part-time, they'll offset that 800 bucks a month. And as I talk in the book, they'll even offset it for other things. Like let's say you're homeless, so you're crashing on someone's couch. Social Security will say, well, you're getting air quotes pre-read, and they'll deduct whatever they think the value of that is from your ssi.So that SSI program, it's there. And for some people it's all they can get, but it's really not a very good or very useful program. [00:13:00] So the SS D I program is much better. It's an earned benefit. And with that you can get Medicare coverage if you're disabled, which helps with healthcare. If you're not working, you don't have private health insurance.Right. And the other great thing about the S S D I program, the insurance program is that you can actually work. And still get paid benefits at the same time. And that's totally allowed. And the reason Social Security allows that is they want people to try and go back to work. So they let you collect your benefits while you're getting back into the workforce and making sure you can do it.Oh, De'Vannon: that's so sweet of them. I Spencer: know, right? Yeah. But people get confused cuz they're like, my neighbor's disabled and I saw him out pushing a lawnmower and they think like people are gaming the system by working while collecting disability. But that's just a misunderstanding of the system. System actually wants you to go out and try and work [00:14:00] to see if you can do it.And then if you do that long enough, then you graduate from the S S D I program. And they stop your benefits and you return to the workforce. So it's actually a good thing that we let people collect benefits and work because otherwise nobody would go back to work. Right. And that's what we want. We want people who can go back to work.To go back to work if possible. De'Vannon: So if somebody's working in collecting those benefits, is there like a maximum amount of income they can work? I mean can bring in in order for that to Spencer: happen? You read the book didn't you? ? I can tell. Cause that's an excellent question. And you know the answer is yes, there isSo there's a maximum amount of money that you can be earning per month when you're an applicant and a separate number. That's a maximum that you can earn after you're already receiving S S D I benefits. And that amount is lower. And the thing is, if you work and [00:15:00] earn under that amount, You can just keep working indefinitely as long as Social Security keeps paying you your benefits.If you exceed that amount, that's fine, but you only get to exceed that amount for nine months. At the point where you've exceeded that amount for nine months, social Security decides that's what, how they decide that you can go back to work. And so that amount changes every year. But I believe it's $970 this year in 2022.So if you are getting benefits, you're allowed to work. But if you exceed $970 per month, it actually isn't a lot to think about it, right? Like if you're making 50 bucks an hour, it's 20 hours a month or five hours a week. So it doesn't take a lot to show that you can go back to work, but that's what social Security wants to see.They don't need to see that you're working 60 hours a week. They just need to see enough to know that they can cut you loose. [00:16:00] And that you'll be okay on your own. Mm-hmm. and, and that number is a little higher when you're an applicant. It's $1,350 per month that you can work and earn and still claim, Ben still file an application for benefits because that amount indicates that even though you can work, you're probably not doing full-time work.If you exceed that amount, social Security decides that's, that means you can probably show that you can do full-time work and you're not disabled. Mm-hmm. . De'Vannon: So why thank you for that breakdown. Why, why or so many people not at the beginning of the process? Well, we talked about Spencer: one reason already, right?Which is that when you go to the state agency, you, when you first file your application, someone at your state government, usually it's the State Department of Health. Some like $40,000 a year bureaucrat is gonna look at your disability claim and basically like, Make a decision on your life. They'll look [00:17:00] at your medical records and your work history and they'll make a decision as to whether you're disabled.But as I talked about a few minutes ago, they're a state employee and they work for people who wanna keep the state Medicare costs down. So one reason is there's a conflict of interest and they just wanna save the state money. But another reason is, I mean, just think about your own medical records, like they're probably, you probably, if you went to try and get all your medical records for the last couple of years today, you'd have a hard time doing it.And if you have physical impairments, that mean you can't leave your home. So when your doctor says, just come pick 'em up at our office, maybe that's hard to do. Or if you have mental health impairments, Agoraphobia or anxiety, depression, you can't deal with other people. It might be hard to talk to people in, in your doctor's offices.I, not too long ago, a doctor literally told me, we'll [00:18:00] fax you the records. What's your fax number? Like it was 1987. So it's often just really hard for people to get their medical records, to get them organized, to make sure they're complete, to get records from all the different places they've been getting treatment.So I guess they even back up from that. The first thing is sometimes it's hard for people to just get medical treatment. In the United States, 80% of people get their health insurance from work. So if you can't work, cause that's why you're filing a disability claim, right? You can't work, you lose your health insurance, well then you can't go get medical treatment.So the first obstacle is, I can't even get treatment. So how am I supposed to get records? Even if you can get treatment, it's sometimes hard to literally get the actual pieces of paper from your doctor. And then you've gotta get it all organized and give us a social security. You've also gotta fill out their application, their other endless paperwork, like functional reports rely on them probably losing [00:19:00] something along the way and making you fill it out again.Or like, oh, sorry, we lost some of your medical records. Can you like go get those a second time for us? Thank you. It's just barrier after barrier after barrier. The social security puts in your way, a lot of it with very specific intent to keep you from getting through the process and getting a favorable decision on your claim.They know it's hard for Americans without a job and insurance to get treatment. They know it's hard for Americans to gather medical records. Our medical record keeping system in the United States is. In France, everyone has a card. It's kinda like your driver's license and it's like it's got a barcode on it and that card you can take to any medical facility in the entire country and they scan it and they can immediately pull up your entire medical history.In the UK they have something similar with their National health Service and [00:20:00] during the pandemic, within one week, they knew every single British citizen who was a high risk for Covid and they were able to deliver food boxes to those people's homes because they knew where they lived and they did it within one week because they had that information.It was well organized. They knew exactly where to find it, and they knew how to keep people safe. And in the United States, we still have doctors saying, we'll fax you your records. It's ridiculous. But Social Security knows that this is happening. So they know that the records that they're gonna get when you first file your application are gonna be kind of a mess.So is it any surprise that they're denying over 70% of people at that initial application? Somewhere along the line, someone gets tripped up. They don't fill out a form, right? They don't get certain medical records in they can complete, they miss a meeting with someone with the Social Security Office.They can't [00:21:00] go see. Social Security will send you to see this doctor that they basically pay to give you an opinion that you're not disabled. They literally tell you you have to go see a doctor. And we're paying that doctor, and those doctors know to send Social Security and opinion saying that you can work.Otherwise they're not gonna keep getting referrals. And so if you cooperate, you'll probably get an opinion saying you can work. And if you don't cooperate, social says, security says you're not cooperating. So like at some point, one of everything that I've just said will trip up most people and that's why most claims get denied at the initial level.I do know someone who got approved at the initial level, but he was like, he was in the hospital for several months and like, you know, you can imagine how many thousands of pages of medical records that was and they all came from one source. That's the kind of case that social security probably [00:22:00] approves at the initial level, but that's a very rare situ.De'Vannon: Mm. Well y'all of, y'all wanna find out how to circumnavigate that sort of issue. You better grab a copy of this book now. Talk to me about any kind of implications related to, hum. Human immuno efficiency virus, hiv. Spencer: Yeah, so Social Security has a listing for, I it's in the immune disorders section and let's see if I can get it right.I think it's listing 14.08. I haven't been with Social Security in a year, so we'll see if how close I came to that. But the thing is, the social Security listing requirements, they're really strict. And so while every. I was wrong. It's 1407, so I was close though. And [00:23:00] the requirements are super strict for every impairment listing and HIV is no exception.So if you meet the requirements, you can be found disabled without social security considering your work history or whether you could work. That's to talk about in section two of the book, how that's just a medical determination. But you have to have not only the infection diagnosed, but you have to have something else that is either resistant to treatment or requires hospitalization.And that has to happen three or more times in a 12 month period. And there's a list of what these other diagnoses have to be, or you have to have something else for a full 12 month period. Or you have to have repeated manifest manifestations of your disorder. At least two. So there's so many requirements is my point.And that's the case with all the social security [00:24:00] listings. It's not just like an HIV diagnosis. It'll say, you know, an HIV diagnosis with this, this, this, this, and this. And the last thing will have like three elements under that. And that's only like the most severe case is end up meeting these listings.And so for most people, the way that they're found disabled is based on their functioning. So if you don't meet this very specific list of requirements, what social security does is they say, okay, you didn't, you're not disabled medically, but how does your impairment now impact your functioning? What are your functional limitations?And is there a job you can do in the national economy? And so I think with I probably a lot of it is fatigue. And, and there and there may also be difficulty standing and walking or lifting because of fatigue. Do I have that right? As far as like, those are kind of typical functional [00:25:00] limitations someone might have.De'Vannon: I don't really feel like there's like a limit to limitations with someone with HIV man because hiv. Lowers, you know, the immune system and it depends on that person's body. Spencer: That's a great point. Yeah. So you could have gastrointestinal issues, you could have breathing issues, and then of course, it's really common when people have any kind of physical impairments.It's really, really, really common to then have mental health impairments as well. Actually, I, I would say most cases that I saw that had anxiety, depression, PTSD, listed as impairments, they were secondary to some sort of physical condition, be it musculoskeletal or respiratory or an immune system disorder, like hiv.And so, yeah, when you take into account all of this person's impairments and all the ways that it impacts the mind and body, what happens is social security [00:26:00] comes up with a list of functional limitations and then they go to a, a vocational expert, a jobs expert, and they say, Here's a hypothetical person with a bunch of limitations.Are there any jobs in the national economy that person can do? And as I talk about in the book, the thing is when they ask that question, when the judge asks that question, they already know the answer. And here's, I'll give you an example. If I say, I have a hypothetical person who can only work six hours of an eight hour workday, are there any full time eight hour jobs that person can do?We already know the answer is no. Right? Cause the person can only work six hours out of an eight hour workday. So there are certain limitations that SSA judges and attorneys, there are certain limitations that they know will result in a finding of disability. And certain limitations that they know will not result in a finding of disability because there are jobs out there that someone can do with [00:27:00] those limitations.So that's where it becomes a really. Personalized review of your situation where the judge and the attorney looking at the case, have to look at your very specific medical records. Look at what you're telling doctors, look at your overall functioning, look at your attempts at work and see if you couldn't work, why you couldn't work, and try and figure out for this one specific person what that specific person's individualized limitations are based on their personal medical situation.Because as you said, something like HIV and other impairments as well impact people on such an individualized basis at that point. It really, it is about getting into the fine details of that person's medical record to understand what it is that person can or could not do on a 40 hour per week basis.[00:28:00]I'm De'Vannon: gonna get a little bit ahead of myself here since you're, since we're talking about the individualization of it all. Before we had, before, before this recording here, we had talked about a remand rate, a remanding, and you were telling me how not necessarily each and every last review is individualized.Yeah. So can you talk to us about that? Cause I don't want people thinking that they're necessarily going to get special attention, . Spencer: Well, it's, the thing is, it's kind of a mix because the judge who's deciding the case and the attorney who's their staff attorney, who's actually writing the decision, and that was my job, to write the actual decisions for the judges.They do look at every individual's medical records and they do conduct an individualized review of every case at the same time. You are both an individual person but also a statistic because while you're being looked at as an individual case, [00:29:00] that judge has 50 cases that they're doing every month, which means they're doing about 600 case, five to 600 cases a year.And then that hearing office is doing a few thousand cases a year. And then your region is doing 10,000 cases a year or 20,000 cases a year. And then that means nationally it's, you know, over a hundred thousand cases a year. And at each level of the process, you have people looking at the big picture.What is our pay rate? How many cases are we paying? How many are we denying? Is that pay rate too high? Are we getting too much pressure for members of Congress? Cause we're paying too many cases. Maybe we need to bring down the number of cases we're paying. And then if that happens, that filters all the way down to your individual judge who starts thinking.Maybe I'm paying too many cases, maybe out of my 600 cases this year, instead of paying 200, maybe I should pay 1 75 or one 50. And so now they're thinking about which cases [00:30:00] that they may have paid. Now they're gonna deny instead. And that's where you become both the statistic at an individualized person.Because yeah, they're looking at your individualized situation, but they're sitting there thinking, headquarters is telling us to pay fewer cases this year. Maybe this is one that I should be denying. Maybe a week ago I would've paid it. And maybe today, after getting that email from headquarters, maybe today, I think about denying this case.And so it's both and every case is both. You're constantly being evaluated as an individual and a statistic. And that can be really hard on the person writing the decision because. My job was to write the decision the judge wanted. So I don't actually get to decide whether the person's disabled or not.I just have to justify whatever their decision is. And so I would often see cases that I thought there was [00:31:00] really good evidence to approve the person, solid evidence, showing their diagnoses. Say it's something like hiv. I saw a lot of HIV cases. I see their diagnosis. I see their, their test results with cdr CD four, sorry, CD four levels over 200.And I see white count levels that were, were low. And I see other limitations. Difficulty walking long distances. Or someone would say, you know, I tried to go back to work and I just got too tired and I had to quit that job after a week. And the judge would be telling me, we're denying this case. I'd be like, why this?This is really good evidence for I making an individualized analysis saying, I think this is good evidence. I think we should approve this. But then that judge has these external factors that they're thinking about that [00:32:00] in addition to looking at you as an individual, they're also thinking about this case as a statistic.And sometimes when those things, you know, come into conflict, sometimes I then have to write a decision that I don't wanna write or that I don't think the evidence. De'Vannon: Well, I'm so happy you have a soul. You know, I, I know not everybody in the Social Security Administration does, but and you have filled that soul out onto these pages, so I appreciate the, the love that I feel reverberating from you, man.Now there is this book, cuz this little book called The dsm and y'all, that stands with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. And I think now we're on like the DSM five, it's gone through a few changes over the years. Yeah. So there's a word in there called gender dysphoria. Spencer, and I don't care for that word, dysphoria.However, [00:33:00] that is what is in that book. And so talk to me about what that means and then what it means for dis for the, for these disability claims. Spencer: Yeah. It doesn't mean much. Well, we'll just boil it down to that. So, after the revisions to the DSM happened in 2013 We did start to see diagnoses of gender dysphoria.Andhere's the thing, I'm not a doctor, I'm not a medical professional. The medical training that the lawyers at Social Security who make the legal decisions, the medical training they're given isn't how to look at a person and make a decision. It's really more how to read medical records. Cause that's what we need to do.We need to read medical records and know how to find, know how that evidence translates into the legal aspects of disability. Right? And so if I'm reading a psychologist or psychiatrist's [00:34:00]report and I see a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, I'm not making a decision on whether or not that's accurate. Cause I don't have medical training.All I know is, okay, this one individual medical. Offered that diagnosis. And so what happens then is if the judge, the, the, the definition of a medical impairment for social security is any medical condition that causes even the most minimal impact on any kind of functioning. And so if you were diagnosed with gender, if a person is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and there's even like the slightest amount of a lack of functioning in some kind of area, so like a lack of concentration or I have difficulty getting along with other people because they don't understand my, my choices or my body or what's happening with me, [00:35:00] that's enough.And so the good thing is judges are, they're not rejecting that completely. The judges will di will take that diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And they'll put it in the decision and they'll call that a medically determinable impairment. The problem is having a medical impairment isn't enough because what we talked about is you ha then have to have work related limitations in order to find someone disabled.And there, I, I just, I had my experience from working with the agency and through mid 2021 judges, in my experience, were just not able to find much in the way of specific work related limitations due to that diagnosis. And maybe that's actually a good thing. Maybe that's kind of progressive in saying like, we don't, we, we understand that this diagnosis is there, but like whatever gender you identify with doesn't impact your ability to [00:36:00] do a job.So on the one hand, if it's, if someone's really struggling with that and they're having anxiety or depression, Or PTSD or personality disorder or suicidal ideations, that could be a separate diagnosis alongside gender dysphoria and that could have work related limitations. But my experience is the gender dysphoria itself doesn't really result in, in and of itself work related limitations.And so that's really not gonna be a basis for finding someone disabled and unable to work. De'Vannon: I hope. I hope not. And because people should be able to identify sexually as they want, be non-binary, whatever the case may be, without any sort of negative implications. Spencer: Yeah. And can I say, can I say one other thing?I also saw a lot of medical reports where the person [00:37:00] identified as a member of the LGBTQ community and there was no diagnosis of gender dysphoria. And that was probably a more. Maybe a younger doctor or more progressive doctor who is like, I I the pa, there's nothing wrong with the patient. They're telling me they're lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual.It's not a diagnosis. And so I'm just gonna focus on their anxiety or depression or these other things they're telling me about. I don't need to focus on how they identify. That's not a diagnosis. In the same way that if someone is a cis I'm not gonna diagnose them with something either. So I saw a lot of medical reports where the medical professional, it just, it didn't matter.It wasn't a thing. It wasn't important. It wasn't, they were what they were focusing on in their medical evaluation. And then other doctors who I could tell just by the [00:38:00] language that they were using were probably baby boomer generation, and maybe they just didn't understand that 25 year old who was coming in and, and talking to them.De'Vannon: Right. And then, and then you, you mentioned that you wrote the decision. The judge, judge did not write the decision, so I wanna be sure that, that, that we're super clear on on that. So the judges don't actually write the decisions. What, what was your exact job title again? Tell us so that we can know. Sure.Spencer: So my job title is Attorney Advisor, and here's the way it works. Social Security is a massive system with over a million applications a year. Several hundred thousand cases are going to the hearing level. There's about a thousand judges Nation. Several thousand other support staff and they're seeing several hundred thousand cases.The numbers are absolutely massive and that means you really need an assembly line in order to keep things moving efficiently. [00:39:00] Cause as it is, people have to wait like a year to get a hearing with a judge. So if you're waiting that long and you're thinking like, why is it taking so long? That's ridiculous.It's just because of the enormous scope of the system. So the judges are doing about 50 hearings per month, so that's about 12 hearings per week. So in a 40 hour week, they're doing about 12 cases. So that's like three to four hours per case. And during that three to four hours, they're doing a, a pre-hearing review of all your records so that when you come into your hearing, they know what's going on with you.They have some idea of your medical history and your work history before they even see you. Then they're doing about a one hour hearing, and then they may have to look at some evidence again after your hearing. And then they write this list of instructions and agency shorthand and I talk about this process in the book, they write this list of instructions and they give it to an attorney, [00:40:00] staff, attorney like me, and then the attorney takes 4, 8, 10, 12 hours to actually write the decision.That's where we're looking at every single one of your medical reports, looking at all the doctors you saw, any medical opinions that are in there from your medical sources, thoroughly, completely evaluating all of that in complete sentences so that, you know, we looked at everything and then that decision gets handed back to the judge, and most of them honestly just sign it.They don't even read it, they don't edit it. They just. They've already spent three and a half hours on the case. They don't have time to do anything else, so they just sign it. Other judges will read through it, make some changes here and there, and tinker with it, and then sign it. But they're really spending very little time in the actual decision.Their job is to just big picture, like approve it or deny it. That's my decision. [00:41:00] My, my staff goes and, and breaks that decision down and, and does the full analysis, and then the judge signs it. So when you get it, it looks like Judge John Smith wrote the decision, you know, wrote this comprehensive 15 page decision.But in reality, they're just taking credit for someone else's work. De'Vannon: Okay, now let's talk about drugs, man. Drugs. Let's talk Spencer: about drugs. . De'Vannon: This is the sex drugs and Jesus podcast. So, you know, the marriage Iana is like super useful and shit. And so like, and, and then we have all these hallucinogenics starting to come up, you know, lsd, celly, masculine and all of that.What are the implications of that? Can since somebody having like medical treatment like that hurt their chances to get approved? Spencer: Yes and no. I was a government attorney, so I'm gonna give you the government answer. So there is a chapter in the book that com [00:42:00] thoroughly discusses how drugs and alcohol work.It. Chapter 26, it's called Drug Abuse and Alcoholism. I don't like those terms, by the way. Those terms come directly from a law passed by Congress in 1996, and that's the law that social security still uses. To decide if drugs or alcohol should be a factor in your case. And there's guidance from 2013 as to about how they apply that.But here's the basics. If you're using any kind of drugs or alcohol, and that's the what causes you to be disabled and unable to work. Social Security can deny you benefits, but if it's secondary, in other words, if they remove the drugs and alcohol from consideration and consider everything else, if you would still be found disabled, then they still find you disabled.So it really has to be the drugs or alcohol use that tips you over the line, right? That that puts you [00:43:00] from, maybe you had limitations, but you could still work full-time and you were not disabled. And then if you're using drugs or alcohol and now you're disabled, that's the point where Social Security says We're applying that law.We're finding that Congress says, if that's the reason that you can't work and you're disabled, then we're gonna find you not disabled. But it has some interesting implications because a lot of people do use drugs for, or alcohol, I guess not alcohol, but a lot of people use different substances for treatment.Right. And there's a lot of states where it's legal. I worked in the state of Washington where cannabis has been legal and you could walk into a store and buy it for eight years now, and the stores are everywhere. Anyone who's been to Washington or Colorado, I think they've got a lot now in California, knows that you just go into cannabis or you show your id, they scan your id and you can buy things to [00:44:00] smoke, chew.They have drinks, they have gummies they have like bath salts. Not bad baths, just like fizzies that you put in a bath to soak in for mu to like help your muscles relax. And so a lot of people use these to help reduce their symptoms so that they can try and go back to work. Luckily the judges do understand this and you have different judges, right?You have some judges that are on one end of the political spectrum and other judges that are more conservative and more hard, harder to deal with when it comes to drugs or alcohol. But even those judges understand that in certain states, cannabis is illegal and people can just go to sore and buy it, and that a lot of people are using it in order to try and improve their medical situation, not to make it worse.So my experience, the judges are actually really good at doing that analysis and [00:45:00] not just looking at what you're using, but why you're using it and how it impacts you. And some of it is self. People ask me like, well, how do they know you're using substances? Some of it is self-declared because they're gonna make you fill out function reports and that's all under penalty of perjury and they're gonna ask you if you are using any drugs or alcohol.And so if you lie, that's really, that's a bad thing. So most people will just declare it, and as I talk about in the book, it really is best to just be honest with Social security and just tell them if you've been using something and why? Because it's not that difficult for a qualified, knowledgeable social security representative to explain to the judge why you were using that substance and why that's not the reason you're disabled, that there's some other reason that you're disabled.That use of that substance was in some way a brand of [00:46:00] self-treatment. And in a lot of cases it is. . And then there are some cases where it's not, and you can tell that the person has a substance addiction and maybe that's their only impairment or their other impairments only surface when they're using substances.And and, and so that's, that's what that analysis is. It's trying to figure out what the core reason is for you being unable to work full time. De'Vannon: Okay. Thank you for that. And I wanna lean more into exactly what type of people these judges are. When we were, before getting ready for this interview, you were telling me, you know, these bitches make like 180 k a year.I don't remember if there's bonuses and stuff like that, but what, what was Spencer: the Probably, I don't know. I'm not a judge, but they probably have some kind of bonus. De'Vannon: But what was important to you? You told me that you said a lot of them were JAG officers and [00:47:00] and that stands for Judge Advocate General.These are people who were in the military, military officers. And so talk to me about the incompatibility, the incongruence the incongruency that you found in between how the health level and the age level of these judges versus the people who they're Spencer: judging. Yeah, so it's not everybody, but a lot of new newly hired judges, a lot of them are from the military because the whole federal government gives a, a preference, a hiring preference to veterans.I think it's the only group where when you're filling out an application for a federal job, your federal employment from the USA Jobs website, it's the only identified group that gets a hiring preference. And that's across the whole federal government. And so, of course, a job with social security, it's a federal agency, is no different.So there tend to be a lot of people who [00:48:00] were lawyers in the military or their lawyers and then maybe they were separately in the military and maybe they had another job in the military. But there are a lot of lawyers who have military service, either past service where they're veterans or maybe past plus current service where they're still in the reserves.And those people will apply to be ALJs, administrative law judges and social security. They'll hire people in their fifties, but they'd rather hire people in their forties so that they can train those people and then have those people working for them for 20 years instead of 10. So I noticed when I was working for Social Security, a lot of judges in their early to mid forties, a lot of judges with military service and if whatever branch of the military they're in, that means they're probably.Going to be fairly physically fit, probably they're not gonna have substantial health conditions because substantial health conditions usually keep you [00:49:00] out of the military. And so you get these young fit judges who like to get up at 5:00 AM who have multiple jobs because they might be judges, but they're also in the reserves and maybe they like, you know, go volunteer somewhere and they go to the gym for two hours a day.So they're physically fit, they're mentally fit, they're really active people. And then they have people coming in front of them who don't have a college degree, who have been working a really hard job where, you know, like construction work, working in a warehouse or nurses' assistants. Or like delivery people.I mean, sometimes we're at a gas station and we see like the pre, the people unloading drinks into the cooler and we don't think about how much they have to lift on a daily basis. Cause they're constantly lifting these [00:50:00] cases of beverages onto these carts. Mm-hmm. and people who have jobs like this, you know, where you're doing that 50 hours a week after 5, 10, 15 years, at some point you're either gonna have some kind of acute injury or your body's just gonna totally break down over time.And people come in and they're, they're in pain. Maybe that means they're on narcotic medications so they're not able to fully concentrate. They maybe have mental health impairments as well cause they can't work. So they're anxious and depressed. And these like, you know, super, the fittest people on the planet are standing up there.Sitting up there cuz they also have a sedentary sit down air conditioned job. Right. And they're literally passing judgment. Over people who have had a life that is totally different from theirs as far as education, upbringing, where they live, what kind of childhood they had, what kind of job training they've had, what kind of job opportunities they've [00:51:00] had, what kind of medical situations they're in, their lack of ability to get treatment.They have no health insurance. The judges have federal employee health plans. And so you get people, these judges who they're just, they're looking at people who they, a lot of times they can't identify with at all. And they're saying things like, well, I can work. Why can't that guy, I can't tell you how many times I heard that.When I would go and let's say the judge says it's the denial. And I look through the medical records and I go to the judge and I try and convince them that they should change that to an approval. Cause I can do that. The person writing the decision talks to the judge all the time. Talk through the evidence, talk about what they're seeing.Hey, maybe we should change this decision until it's signed. It's changeable. And I would go to talk to the judges all the time about like, look, there's this medical evidence and I, I think this guy has these opinions and I think that maybe we should consider paying this case. [00:52:00] And I would hear things like, well, I can work.Why can't he? Or, you know, I, I, I come to work, I, I I commute an hour a day each way that guy could do it. He's fine. And these aine statements that are detached from reality. And that's where I think the, the personalities and the upbringing and the medical situation of the judges comes into play. And I have observed that as judges get older, as they themselves experience certain medical conditions that come with age, like.Oh my, I threw out my back. I need to have back surgery. Or, you know, maybe now I, I, I hit 50, now I need glasses and I didn't use to before. Or something happens medically in their lives as they age. And you do, I, I would see that the judges start to get more sympathetic over time. They start to understand [00:53:00] pain, frustration, lack of mental acuity and they start to be able to sympathize more with the stories that they're being told and to say, yeah, you know, actually now I do believe this person, this person is 55 and, and they worked in a warehouse for 25 years and they threw their back out.And I can see on an MRI that their back is totally destroyed, and they're telling me they're in too much pain to work. I now have back pain myself. So now I get what they're saying. And so that does cause this disconnect between these like young fit judges who kind of come in swinging with denials and older, more seasoned judges who I think tend to be more sympathetic to people and have higher pay rates raise.Their pay rate tends to go up over time. De'Vannon: Okay. Okay. I'm gonna [00:54:00] ask you Spencer: So can I, can I just say one thing? Who your judge is, is something that you can't choose. You as I talk about in the book, there's certain things you can control and certain things you can't control and you can't control who your judge is.And the reason that's important is I wrote the book because I want people to understand. How to get through this process, regardless of who your judge is, regardless of how much of you know, how, how mu, how much difficulty the agency is gonna put you through everything that I've talked about so far.Let's assume you get every single one of these barriers put in your way. I want you to know what all of these barriers are so that you can navigate them. Even a low paying judge, that young fit military judge, maybe they're a 20% payer, but if they're paying 20% of their cases and they have five hearings today, that means statistically they're still gonna approve one of those five people today, right?And so I want you to [00:55:00] know how you can gather the right medical records and present the right case and h and have the right representative sitting with you and work together so that you can present to that judge a situation, a story. Where even the most hardcore, low paying fit military judge says, yeah, that's a pretty good presentation.I think we'll approve that one. I'll use my discretion to deny the next floor, but I don't feel like I have any discretion here. And that's what you wanna do, is you wanna take away that discretion. You wanna make those judges feel like There's nothing I can do about this. This is a solid case. I'm gonna approve this one, and I wanna give you the tools to be able to do that.And that's why I wrote the book. De'Vannon: So, so you mentioned it um, a 20% or so. Talk to us then about the like the approval rates and kind of like how these [00:56:00] judges are rated. And then I want you to tell that story about that one judge who they you know, I think they took like her telework away and they gave her like extra training or whatever.Spencer: Yeah, so the, there is, as we talked about earlier, you're not only a person, you're also a statistic, right? And so headquarters, cuz they're getting pressure for members of Congress and to testify, testify in front of congressional committees. And then that pressure just makes its way down the system to the individual judges.And so if the agency wants to pay fewer cases, if they're getting pressure, Hey, we're paying too many cases, let's pay fewer cases. And that pressure makes its way down to the judges. They're also pressured to pay fewer cases and they're, the judge will tell you, I'm an independent decision maker and I can make whatever decision I want and I'm not bound by any prior denials.And all of that is true and every judge has the authority to [00:57:00] approve any specific case. But they also are looking at the 50 cases for that month and thinking about how many. Do I wanna approve this month? Because I know if I approve too many, I might get hassled. And I knew a judge and I worked for a judge that had a fairly high pay rate and he kept getting hassled by, by his superiors, by the, the higher ups within the agency who basic, they didn't tell him you're paying too many cases because like they don't want that on the front page in the New York Times, right?But they would say things like, we think maybe you need extra training. Maybe you don't fully understand how our agency works. Maybe you don't fully understand the definition of disability, so we're gonna give you extra training. And they would like make him sit through hours and hours and hours of extra training that he didn't wanna do.That's annoying. And that's a pressure point, right? That's a way of [00:58:00] saying like, you know, we're gonna make you an offer. You can't refuse. You, you start denying more cases or there's gonna be consequences, but they don't use the word consequences. And yeah, as you said, I wrote for another judge and they took away her telework.People like working at home, we found that during the pandemic, right, and the judges can work from home, especially during the pandemic, when all the hearings, with telephone hearings, there's no reason why they can't work from home. And that my job, just writing and reviewing your medical records, which are all on the computer, we can all work from home.And so the pressure point for that judge, they knew she liked working from home. So that pressure point was, you do what we need you to do, where we're gonna take away your telework. And so while the judge tells you they're an independent decision maker, you have to understand that they're looking at your specific records, but they're also thinking about themselves.The judges are human. They're thinking about their, [00:59:00] their salary, their health insurance benefits. They don't wanna get fired. They also don't wanna get transferred. They don't wanna be hassled. And so, you know, they're public servants, but of course, even public servants are thinking about their own wellbeing and their own job and their own families.And so when that pressure comes down on them from above, they're gonna, they're gonna react to it and and a fairly reasonable way and in the way that the management wants them to. So that does also happen. I wrote a lot of favorable decisions when I worked for Social Security. I, I just wanna make sure as we get near the end here, and as we conclude, I want people to understand I did write a lot of favorable decisions.But I noticed certain things about those cases. I noticed how well those medical records were put together, how those medical opinions were worded, how those representatives that represented those people presented that case. And so I know with this large [01:00:00] sample size of cases, I have some idea of the things that work, even with low paying judges, the things that can work to get an approval and the things that don't work or the things that people don't do that they should do when they're presenting their case.And so, and that's, that's what really made me say, I need to write a book. I need to get all this knowledge that I have on paper and out to the general public. Because some of this isn't necessarily publicly known information, but it's not necessarily trade secrets either. Right? The law is a certain way and the law defines disability a certain way.And a lot of this is just education that social security doesn't provide you. They're not telling you how to present your disability case, but over time, I've seen the things that work. And so I wanted to present this educational guide to let people know, here are the things that you can do to [01:01:00] present your case in a way to give yourself the best possible chance of success.De'Vannon: And I think you've done quite well, you know, a very good job at doing that. Talk a little bit about like, especially for veterans, you know, since I'm a veteran, just to kind of like talk about that a little bit, you know.Spencer: So just we can cover that real quick. The, the way the VA decides if someone's disabled is different from Social Security because the VA is not only looking at whether your medical conditions are connected to your service, whereas social security doesn't care why your impairments occurred. They are.But the VA also then asks about whether what your fitness is to return to some kind of military duty. And so there are a lot of veterans that will get a hundred percent service connected rating because their impairments are connected to their service and they're found to not be able to return to whatever their military duty was.Asks, can you [01:02:00] do any job in the national economy? And so there are a lot of judges who will see a hundred percent service connected disability for a veteran and just say, okay, that's enough for me. I'm gonna find them disabled. But I wrote a lot of denials for people who at 80, 90, a hundred percent service connected ratings.And it's because even though they couldn't do military duty, they could do other work in the national economy like being a cashier and. There is somewhat of a disconnect between the definitions and the two systems, and that's why it's really important for veterans or military families to also understand how social securities rules operate.Because you can't assume that just because you're a veteran and that maybe your judge is a veteran, you can't assume that's gonna help you out. Actually, again, I wrote decisions for judges who are veterans who looked at a veteran claimant with a hundred percent rating and said, well, I'm a veteran and I can work, so why can't he [01:03:00] and denied those claims.So you have to know the system, you have to know the rules, and you have to know how things work within the Social Security disability system. You can't just assume because you're a veteran or because you have a hundred percent rating that things are gonna work out well for you when you get in front of the social security.De'Vannon: Okay, well there you have it. Y'all's website is visions publishing.com. The social medias of Facebook, Twitter, , Instagram. Of course, all of this is going to go in the show notes, as it always does. So as always with my guests, I'd like to let you have the last word. I thank you so much for your time today, Spencer.Are there any final closing remarks you'd like to say? Spencer: I just wanna say we, we've gone over like the first part of the subtitle today, right? A lot of why it's so hard to access benefits. But I just wanna conclude on a more positive note with the second half of the subtitle, which is what you can do about it.There are specific strategies, there are ways you can get around things. At the [01:04:00] beginning I talked about how Social security will send you to see this doctor who's being paid to say you're not disabled. Well, there are strategies that you can use to counter. That you have to go to that exam. But there are ways that you can get evidence to counteract that medical opinion that do work.There are things that you can present in your medical record or ways that you can testify at the hearing. There are strategies that you can use to try and convince even the lower paying judges that you're not disabled, that you can't work full-time, but they're not things that you would necessarily think.For example, people think like, oh, if I try and work part-time, that might hurt my disability claim. It actually helps your disability claim. So if someone's a disability claimant and you see them working, they might be working because they're representative has told them, this will help your disability claim.And I explain why that is in the book. So don't make assumptions and don't take anything. Social [01:05:00] Security tells you at face value. They're not there to help you. They're not on your side, they're not on your team. They're. They're really there. The Social Security disability system is trying to keep people out and trying to deny as many people as they can so that they can have those benefits for people who are collecting retirement later on.So be your own advocate. Get your own information, educate yourself, hire a good representative, and use the strategies that I'm teaching you about and they will. I can't guarantee you'll be approved, but I can say that these strategies are what you need to give yourself the best possible chance of being approved, even if you get a lower paying judge.De'Vannon: All right, there y'all have it. The name of the book is Social Security Disability Revealed, why it's so Hard to Access Benefits and What You Can Do about It. Thank you [01:06:00] so much, Spencer. Spencer: Thank you for having me.De'Vannon: Thank you all so much for taking time to listen to the Sex Drugs and Jesus podcast. It really means everything to me. Look, if you love the show, you can find more information and resources at SexDrugsAndJesus.com or wherever you listen to your podcast. Feel free to reach out to me directly at DeVannon@SexDrugsAndJesus.com and on Twitter and Facebook as well.My name is De'Vannon, and it's been wonderful being your host today. And just remember that everything is gonna be all right.  

In the sixth episode of My First Foot Beat, Sergeant Technician Natasha Rowles talks to Officer Technician Jorge Martinez, a Houston native and former Texas Southern University track and field athlete, about his path to the Secret Service. Martinez, who holds the Secret Service academy record for fastest 1.5-mile run, discusses what being in the Secret Service is like, traveling as part of the job, some unexpected perks - like meeting the World Series-winning teams - and the best place to get Tex Mex in DC. Are you interested in becoming an officer in the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division? Apply on USAJobs.gov, just search for “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.” #MFFB #USSS #SecretService #StandingPost #USSSPodcasts #UD #UniformedDivision

In today's podcast, I talk to Jordan Walerstein, who leveraged his time as a member of the U.S. Army JAG Corps to working in the area of technology and security after a brief stint with the Department of Justice. Jordan is a wealth of knowledge, and provides his perspectives on the value of continued military service in the Army Reserves, USAJobs, the challenges associated with immediately going into an in-house counsel office, Amazon's hiring process, what it was like to work there, and even the quality of coffee served there! He has since moved on, but Jordan packed a lot into our 30 minutes. Jordan's profile is available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/walerstein/.

Denice Ross is the Chief Data Scientist in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In our discussion, she shared a behind-the-scenes look into how data can be used to measure equitable investments and their outcomes with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. “What makes me really excited about this infrastructure law is not just how much money it is, or the drumbeat of all these great funding opportunities coming online, but that these investments are being rolled out with equity as a top priority. And that's ensuring that underserved communities have fair access to these resources," Denice Ross. USAjobs.gov Grist.org Denice Ross | LinkedIn Jeremy Goldberg | LinkedIn | Twitter Microsoft Public Sector Center of Expertise Discover and follow other Microsoft podcasts at aka.ms/microsoft/podcasts

How do you become a Cyber Security Expert? Hello and welcome to another episode of CISO Tradecraft, the podcast that provides you with the information, knowledge, and wisdom to be a more effective cybersecurity leader.  My name is G. Mark Hardy, and today we're going to talk about how to provide advice and mentoring to help people understand how to become a cybersecurity expert.  As always, please follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to our podcasts. As a security leader, part of your role is to develop your people.  That may not be written anywhere in your job description and will probably never be on a formal interview or evaluation, but after years of being entrusted with leadership positions, I have learned what differentiates true leaders from those who just accomplish a great deal is the making of the effort to develop your people. Now, you may have heard the phrase, "take care of your people," but I'll take issue with that.  I take care of my dog.  I take care of a family member who is sick, injured, or incapacitated.  Why?  Because they are not capable of performing all of life's requirements on their own.  For the most part, your people can do this.  If you are constantly doing things for people who could have otherwise done it themselves, you run the risk of creating learned helplessness syndrome.  People, and even animals, can become conditioned to not do what they otherwise could do out of a belief that someone else will do it for them.  I am NOT going to get political here, so don't worry about that.  Rather, I want to point out that effective leaders develop their people so that they may become independent actors and eventually become effective leaders themselves.  In my opinion, you should measure your success by the promotion rate of the people entrusted to you, not by your own personal career advancement or financial success. That brings me to the subject of today's podcast -- how do you counsel and mentor others on how to become a cyber security expert?  If you are listening to this podcast, there's a very good chance that you already are an expert in our field, but if not, keep listening and imagine that you are mentoring yourself, because these lessons can apply to you without having seek out a mentor.  Some people figure it out, and when asked their secret, they're like Bill Murray in the movie Stripes, "We trained ourselves, sir!"  But most of the time, career mastery involves learning from a number of others. Today on CISO Tradecraft we are going to analyze the question, " How do you become a Cyber Security Expert?"  I'm going to address this topic as if I were addressing someone in search of an answer.  Don't tune out early because you feel you've already accomplished this.  Keep listening so you can get a sense of what more you could be doing for your direct reports and any proteges you may have. Let's start at the beginning.  Imagine being a high school kid with absolutely zero work experience (other than maybe a paper route -- do kids still do that?)  You see someone that tells you they have a cool job where they get paid to ethically hack into computers.  Later on, you meet a second person that says they make really good money stopping bad actors from breaking into banks.  Somehow these ideas stick into your brain, and you start to say to yourself, you know both of those jobs sound pretty cool.  You begin to see yourself having a career in Cyber Security.  You definitely prefer it to jobs that require a lot of manual labor and start at a low pay.  So, you start thinking, "how I can gain the skills necessary to land a dream job in cyber security that also pays well?" At CISO Tradecraft we believe that there are really four building blocks that create subject matter experts in most jobs.  The four building blocks are: Getting an education Getting certifications Getting relevant job experience, and Building your personal brand So, let's explore these in detail. Number 1:  Getting an education.  When most people think about getting an education after high school, they usually talk about getting an associate's or a bachelor's degree.  If you were to look at most Chief Information Security Officers, you will see the majority of them earn a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, an Information Systems or Technology degree from a college of business such as a BS in Management of Information Systems (MIS) or Computer Information Systems, or more recently a related discipline such as a degree in Cyber Security. An associate degree is a great start for many, particularly if you don't have the money to pay for a four-year university degree right out of high school.  Tuition and debt can rack up pretty quickly, leaving some students deeply in debt, and for some, that huge bill is a non-starter.  Fortunately, community colleges offer quality educational opportunities at very competitive rates relative to four-year degree institutions.  For example, Baltimore County Community College charges $122 per credit hour for in-county residents.  A couple of miles away, Johns Hopkins University charges $2,016 per credit hour.  Now, that's a HUGE difference -- over 16 times if you do the math.  Now, Hopkins does have some wonderful facilities and excellent faculty, but when it comes to first- and second-year undergraduate studies, is the quality and content of the education THAT different?  Well, that's up to you to decide. The important take-away is, no one should decide NOT to pursue a cybersecurity education because of lack of money.  You can get started at any age on an associate degree, and that may give you enough to go on to get your first job.  However, if you want to continue on to bachelor's degree, don't give up.  Later I'll explain about a program that has been around since 2000 and has provided over 3,300 students with scholarships AND job placement after graduation. Back to those going directly for a bachelor's degree.  Now, the good news is that your chosen profession is likely to pay quite well, so not only are you likely to be able to pay off the investment you make in your education, but it will return dividends many times that which you paid, for the rest of your career.  Think of financing a degree like financing a house.  In exchange for your monthly mortgage payment, you get to enjoy a roof over your head and anything else you do with your home.  As a cybersecurity professional, in exchange for your monthly student loan payment, you get to earn well-above average incomes relative to your non-security peers, and hopefully enjoy a rewarding career.  And, like the right house, the value of your career should increase over time making your investment in your own education one of your best performing assets. Does this mean that you 100% need a bachelor's degree to get a job in cyber?  No, it does not.  There are plenty of cyber professionals that speak at Blackhat and DEF CON who have never obtained a college degree.  However, if ten applicants are going for an extremely competitive job and only seven of the ten applicants have a college degree in IT or Cyber, you shouldn't be surprised when HR shortens the list of qualified applicants to only the top five applicants all having college degrees.  It may not be fair, but it's common.  Plus, a U.S. Census Bureau study showed that folks who have a bachelor's degree make half a million dollars more over a career than those with an associate degree, and 1.6 times what a high school diploma holder may earn over a lifetime.  So, if you want more career opportunities and want to monetize your future, get past that HR checkbox that looks for a 4-year degree. Now, some people (usually those who don't want to do academic work) will say that a formal education isn't necessary for success.  After all, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg were college dropouts, and they're both worth billions.  True, but that's a false argument that there's a cause-and-effect relationship there.  Both were undergraduates at Harvard University when they developed their business ideas.  So, if someone wants to assert a degree isn't necessary, counter with you'll agree once they are accepted into Harvard, and they produce a viable business plan as a teenager while attending classes. You see, completing four years of education in a field of study proves a few things.  I've interviewed candidates that said they took all of the computer science and cybersecurity courses they wanted and didn't feel a need to "waste time" with fuzzy studies such as history and English composition.  Okay, I'll accept that that person had a more focused education.  But consider the precedent here.  When a course looked uninteresting or difficult, that candidate just passed on the opportunity.  In the world of jobs and careers, there are going to be tasks that are uninteresting or difficult, and no one wants to do them, but they have to get done.  As a boss, do you want someone who has shown the pe  d completed it with an A (or maybe even a B), or do you want someone who passed when the going got a little rough?  The business world isn't academia where you're free to pick and choose whether to complete requirements.  Stuff has to get done, and someone who has a modified form of learned helplessness will most likely not follow through when that boring task comes due.   Remember I said I was going to tell you how to deal with the unfortunate situation where a prospective student doesn't have enough money to pay for college?  There are a couple of ways to meet that challenge.  It's time to talk to your rich uncle about paying for college.  That uncle is Uncle Sam.  Uncle Sam can easily finance your college so you can earn your degrees in Cyber Security.  However, Uncle Sam will want you to work for the government in return for paying for your education.  Two example scholarships that you could look into are the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and Scholarship for Service (SFS).  ROTC is an officer accession program offered at more than 1,700 colleges and universities   across the United States to prepare young adults to become officers in the U.S. Military.  For scholarship students, ROTC pays 100% of tuition, fees, books, and a modest stipend for living expenses.  A successful degree program can qualify an Army second lieutenant for a Military Occupation Specialty (or MOS) such as a 17A Cyber Operations Officer, a 17B Cyber and Electronic Warfare Officer, or a 17D Cyber Capabilities Development Officer, a great start to a cybersecurity career. For the Navy, a graduating Ensign may commission as an 1810 Cryptologic Warfare Officer, 1820 Information Professional Officer, 1830 Intelligence Officer, or an 1840 Cyber Warfare Engineer.  The Navy uses designators rather than MOS's to delineate career patterns.  These designators have changed significantly over the last dozen years and may continue to evolve.  The Marine Corps has a 1702 cyberspace officer MOS.  Note that the Navy and the Marine Corps share a commissioning source in NROTC (Navy ROTC), and unlike the Army that has over 1,000 schools that participate in AROTC and the Air Force that has 1,100 associated universities in 145 detachments, there are only 63 Navy ROTC units or consortiums, although cross-town affiliates include nearly one hundred more colleges and universities. There are a lot of details that pertain to ROTC, and if you're serious about entering upon a military officer career, it's well worth the time and effort to do your research.  Not all ROTC students receive a scholarship; some receive military instruction throughout their four years and are offered a commission upon graduation.  Three- and four-year scholarship students incur a military obligation at the beginning of sophomore year, two-year scholarship students at the beginning of junior year, and one-year scholarship students at the start of senior year.  The military obligation today is eight years, usually the first four of which are on active duty; the rest may be completed in the reserves.  If you flunk out of school, you are rewarded with an enlistment rather than a commission.  These numbers were different when I was in ROTC, and they may have changed since this podcast was recorded, so make sure you get the latest information to make an informed decision. What if you want to serve your country but you're not inclined to serve in the military, or have some medical condition that may keep you from vigorous physical activity, or had engaged in recreational chemical use or other youthful indiscretions that may have disqualified you from further ROTC consideration?  There is another program worth investigating.   The National Science Foundation provides educational grants through the Scholarship For Service program or SFS for short.  SFS is a government scholarship that will pay up to 3 years of costs for undergraduate and even graduate (MS or PhD) educational degree programs.  It's understood that government agencies do not have the flexibility to match private sector salaries in cyber security.  However, by offering scholarships up front, qualified professionals may choose to stay in government service; hence SFS continues as a sourcing engine for Federal employees.  Unlike ROTC, a participant in SFS will incur an obligation to work in a non-DoD branch of the Federal government for a duration equal to the number of years of scholarship provided. In addition to tuition and education-related fees, undergraduate scholarship recipients receive $25,000 in annual academic stipends, while graduate students receive $34,000 per year.  In addition, an additional $6,000 is provided for certifications, and even travel to the SFS Job Fair in Washington DC. That job fair is an interesting affair.  I was honored to be the keynote speaker at the SFS job fair back in 2008.  I saw entities and agencies of the Federal government that I didn't even know existed, but they all had a cybersecurity requirement, and they all were actively hiring.  SFS students qualify for "excepted service" appointments, which means they can be hired through an expedited process.  These have been virtual the last couple of years due to COVID-19 but expect in-person events to resume in the future. I wrote a recommendation for a young lady whom I've known since she was born (her mom is a childhood friend of mine), and as an electrical engineering student in her sophomore year, she was selected for a two-year SFS scholarship.  A good way to make mom and dad happy knowing they're not going to be working until 80 to pay off their kid's education bills. In exchange for a two-year scholarship, SFS will usually require a student to complete a summer internship between the first and second years of school and then work two years in a government agency after graduation.  The biggest benefit to the Scholarship for Service is you can work at a variety of places.  So, if your dream is to be a nation state hacker for the NSA, CIA, or the FBI then this offers a great chance of getting in.  These three-letter agencies heavily recruit from these programs.  As I mentioned, there are a lot of other agencies as well.  You could find work at the State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve Board, and I think I remember the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).  Federal executive agencies, Congress, interstate agencies, and even state, local, or tribal governments can satisfy the service requirement.  So, you can get paid to go to college and have a rewarding job in the government that builds a nice background for your career. How would you put all this together?  I spent nine years as an advisor to the National CyberWatch Center.  Founded as CyberWatch I in 2005, it started as a Washington D.C. and Mid-Atlantic regional effort to increase the quantity and quality of the information assurance workforce.  In 2009, we received a National Science Foundation award and grants that allowed the program to go nationwide.  Today, over 370 colleges and universities are in the program.  So why the history lesson? What we did was align curriculum between two-year colleges and four-year universities, such that a student who took the designated courses in an associate degree program would have 100% of those credits transfer to the four-year university.  That is HUGE.  Without getting into the boring details, schools would certify to the Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) (formerly known as the National Security Telecommunications and Information Systems Security Committee or NSTISSC) national training standard for INFOSEC professionals known as NSTISSI 4011.  Now with the help of an SFS scholarship, a student with little to no financial resources can earn an associate degree locally, proceed to a bachelor's degree from a respected university, have a guaranteed job coming out of school, and HAVE NO STUDENT DEBT.  Parents, are you listening carefully?  Successfully following that advice can save $100,000 and place your child on course for success. OK, so let's fast forward 3 years and say that you are getting closer to finishing a degree in Cyber Security or Computer Science.  Is there anything else that you can do while performing a summer internship?    That brings us to our second building block.  Getting certifications.   Number Two:  Getting a Certification  Earning certifications are another key step to demonstrate that you have technical skills in cyber security.  Usually, technology changes rapidly.  That means that universities typically don't provide specialized training in Windows 11, Oracle Databases, Amazon Web Services, or the latest programming language.  Thus, while you may come out of a computer science degree with knowledge on how to write C++ and JavaScript, there are a lot of skills that you often lack to be quite knowledgeable in the workforce.  Additionally, most colleges teach only the free version of software.  In class you don't expect to learn how to deploy Antivirus software to thousands of endpoints from a vendor that would be in a Gartner Magic quadrant, yet that is exactly what you might encounter in the workplace.  So, let's look at some certifications that can help you establish your expertise as a cyber professional.  We usually recommend entry level certifications from CompTIA as a great starting point.  CompTIA has some good certifications that can teach you the basics in technology.  For example: CompTIA A+ can teach you how to work an IT Help Desk.  CompTIA Network+ can teach you about troubleshooting, configuring, and managing networks CompTIA Linux+ can help you learn how to perform as a system administrator supporting Linux Systems CompTIA Server+ ensures you have the skills to work in data centers as well as on-premises or hybrid environments. Remember it's really hard to protect a technology that you know nothing about so these are easy ways to get great experience in a technology.  If you want a certification such as these from CompTIA, we recommend going to a bookstore such as Amazon, buying the official study guidebook, and setting a goal to read every day.  Once you have read the official study guide go and buy a set of practice exam questions from a site like Whiz Labs or Udemy.  Note this usually retails for about $10.  So far this represents a total cost of about $50 ($40 dollars to buy a book and $10 to buy practice exams.)  For that small investment, you can gain the knowledge base to pass a certification.  You just need to pay for the exam and meet eligibility requirements. Now after you get a good grasp of important technologies such as Servers, Networks, and Operating Systems, we recommend adding several types of certifications to your resume.  The first is a certification in the Cloud.  One notable example of that is AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Associate.  Note you can find solution architect certifications from Azure and GCP, but AWS is the most popular cloud provider, so we recommend starting there.  Learning how the cloud works is extremely important.  Chances are you will be asked to defend it and you need to understand what an EC-2 server is, types of storage to make backups, and how to provide proper access control.  So, spend the time and get certified.  One course author who provides a great course is Adrian Cantrill.  You can find his course link for AWS Solutions Architect in our show notes or by visiting learn.cantrill.io.  The course costs $40 and has some of the best diagrams you will ever see in IT.  Once again go through a course like this and supplement with practice exam questions before going for the official certification. The last type of certifications we will mention is an entry cyber security certification.  We usually see college students pick up a Security+ or Certified Ethical Hacker as a foundation to establish their knowledge in cyber security.  Now the one thing that you really gain out of Security+ is a list of technical terms and concepts in cyber security.  You need to be able to understand the difference between Access Control, Authentication, and Authorization if you are to consult with a developer on what is needed before allowing access to a site.  These types of certifications will help you to speak fluently as a cyber professional.  That means you get more job offers, better opportunities, and interesting work.  It's next to impossible to establish yourself as a cyber expert if you don't even understand the technical jargon correctly. Number Three:  Getting Relevant Job Experience OK, so you have a college degree and an IT certification or two. What's next?  At this point in time, you are eligible for most entry level jobs.  So, let's find interesting work in Cyber Security.  If you are looking for jobs in cyber security, there are two places we recommend.  The first is LinkedIn.  Almost all companies post there and there's a wealth of opportunities.  Build out an interesting profile and look professional.  Then apply, apply, apply.  It will take a while to find the role you want.  Also post that you are looking for opportunities and need help finding your first role.  You will be surprised at how helpful the cyber community is.  Here's a pro tip:  add some hashtags with your post to increase its visibility. Another interesting place to consider is your local government.  The government spends a lot of time investing in their employees.  So go there, work a few years, and gain valuable experience.  You can start by going to your local government webpage such as USAJobs.Gov  and search for the Career Codes that map to cyber security.  For example, search using the keyword “2210” to find the job family of Information Technology Management where most cyber security opportunities can be found.  If you find that you get one of these government jobs, be sure to look into college repayment programs.  Most government jobs will help you pay off student loans, finance master's degrees in Cyber Security, or pay for your certifications.  It's a great win-win to learn the trade. Once you get into an organization and begin working your first job out of college, you then generally get one big opportunity to set the direction of your career.  What type of cyber professional do you want to be?  Usually, we see most Cyber Careerists fall into one of three basic paths.   Offensive Security Defensive Security Security Auditing The reason these three are the most common is they have the largest amount of job opportunities.  So, from a pure numbers game it's likely where you are to spend the bulk of your career.  Although we do recommend cross training.  Mike Miller who is the vCISO for Appalachia Technologies put out a great LinkedIn post on this where he goes into more detail.  Note we have a link to it in our show notes.  Here's some of our own thoughts on these three common cyber pathways: Offensive Security is for those that like to find vulnerabilities in things before the bad guys do.  It's fun to learn how to hack and take jobs in penetration testing and the red team.  Usually if you choose this career, you will spend time learning offensive tools like Nmap, Kali Linux, Metasploit, Burp Suite, and others.  You need to know how technology works, common flaws such as the OWASP Top Ten web application security risks, and how to find those vulnerabilities in technology.  Once you do, there's a lot of interesting work awaiting.  Note if these roles interest you then try to obtain the Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP) certification to gain relevant skill sets that you can use at work. Defensive Security is for the protectors.  These are the people who work in the Security Operations Center (SOC) or Incident Response Teams.  They look for anomalies, intrusions, and signals across the whole IT network.  If something is wrong, they need to find it and identify how to fix it.  Similar to Offensive Security professionals they need to understand technology, but they differ in the types of tools they need to look at.  You can find a defender looking at logs.  Logs can come from an Intrusion Detection System, a Firewall, a SIEM, Antivirus, Data Loss Prevention Tools, an EDR, and many other sources.  Defenders will become an expert in one of these tools that needs to be constantly monitored.  Note if you are interested in these types of opportunities look for cyber certifications such as the MITRE ATT&CK Defender (MAD) or SANS GIAC Certified Incident Handler GCIH to gain relevant expertise. Security Auditing is a third common discipline.  Usually reporting to the Governance, Risk, and Compliance organization, this role is usually the least technical.  This discipline is about understanding a relevant standard or regulation and making sure the organization follows the intent of the standard/regulation.  You will spend a lot of time learning the standards, policies, and best practices of an industry.  You will perform risk assessments and third-party reviews to understand how we certify as an industry.  If you would like to learn about the information systems auditing process, governance and management of IT systems, business processes such as Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Management, and compliance activities, then we recommend obtaining the Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) certification from ISACA.   Ok, so you have a degree, you have certifications, you are in a promising job role, WHAT's Next?  If you want to really become an expert, we recommend you focus on… Number Four: Building your personal brand.   Essentially find a way to give back to the industry by blogging, writing open-source software, creating a podcast, building cybersecurity tutorials, creating YouTube videos, or presenting a lecture topic to your local OWASP chapter on cyber security.  Every time you do you will get smarter on a subject.  Imagine spending three hours a week reading books in cyber security.  If you did that for ten years, think of how many books you could read and how much smarter you would become.  Now as you share that knowledge with others two things happen:   People begin to recognize you as an industry expert.  You will get invited to opportunities to connect with other smart people which allows you to become even smarter.  If you spend your time listening to smart people and reading their works, it rubs off.  You will absorb knowledge from them that will spark new ideas and increase your understanding The second thing is when you present your ideas to others you often get feedback.  Sometimes you learn that you are actually misunderstanding something.  Other times you get different viewpoints.  Yes, this works in the financial sector, but it doesn't work in the government sector or in the university setting.  This feedback also helps you become smarter as you understand more angles of approaching a problem. Trust us, the greatest minds in cyber spend a lot of time researching, learning, and teaching others.  They all know G Mark's law, which I wrote nearly twenty years ago:  "Half of what you know about security will be obsolete in eighteen months." OK so let's recap a bit.  If you want to become an expert in something, then you should do four things. 1) Get a college education so that you have the greatest amount of opportunities open to you, 2) get certifications to build up your technical knowledge base, 3) find relevant job experiences that allow you to grow your skill sets, and 4) finally share what you know and build your personal brand.  All of these make you smarter and will help you become a cyber expert.   Thanks again for listening to us at CISO Tradecraft.  We wish you the best on your journey as you Learn to Earn.  If you enjoyed the show, tell one person about it this week.  It could be your child, a friend looking to get into cyber security, or even a coworker.  We would love to help more people and we need your help to reach a larger audience.  This is your host, G. Mark Hardy, and thanks again for listening and stay safe out there. References: https://www.todaysmilitary.com/education-training/rotc-programs  www.sfs.opm.gov  https://www.comptia.org/home  https://www.whizlabs.com/ https://www.udemy.com/ https://learn.cantrill.io/p/aws-certified-solutions-architect-associate-saa-c03  https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6965305453987737600/ https://www.offensive-security.com/pwk-oscp/  https://mitre-engenuity.org/cybersecurity/mad/ https://www.giac.org/certifications/certified-incident-handler-gcih/  https://www.ccbcmd.edu/Costs-and-Paying-for-College/Tuition-and-fees/In-County-tuition-and-fees.aspx https://www.educationcorner.com/value-of-a-college-degree.html  https://www.collegexpress.com/lists/list/us-colleges-with-army-rotc/2580/  https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104478/air-force-reserve-officer-training-corps/ https://www.netc.navy.mil/Commands/Naval-Service-Training-Command/NROTC https://armypubs.army.mil/pub/eforms/DR_a/NOCASE-DA_FORM_597-3-000-EFILE-2.pdf https://niccs.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SFS%20Flyer%20FINAL.pdf https://www.nationalcyberwatch.org/  

This week's episode of “Surveyor Says!” The NSPS Podcast finds us having a conversation with the US Forest Service discussing how vital surveyors are to their overall mission as stewards of public lands. Joining Tim Burch for the podcast is Gino San Paolo and Forrest Decker, both surveyors with the Forest Service heading up operations in California and Georgia, respectively. They discussed what a typical day as a Forest Service surveyor is like, how boundary retracement is a key aspect of their duties, and why each day brings its own set of challenges and rewards. Gino and Forrest shared what the agency is looking for in hiring surveyors and technicians and how opportunities are abound with coming on board the US Forest Service.  For more information on job openings within the Forest service, visit USAJOBS.gov for more information. Thanks for listening to “Surveyor Says!” The NSPS Podcast and subscribe wherever you listen to your audio selections.    

Most young people do not understand the full breadth of government jobs available—or that there are public service careers for nearly every academic major and course of study. In this episode, Partnership for Public Service President and CEO Max Stier moderates a conversation at the 2022 SXSW EDU conference on the federal government's talent ecosystem and how to recruit and retain the next generation of public servants. Listeners will hear from three incredible speakers working in the federal government and career services about how young people can find their entry point into the public sector and how federal leaders can reduce barriers to working in public service, particularly for underrepresented groups including those with disabilities. Episode speakers include: Kiran Ahuja, the director of the Office of Personnel Management Director who leads recruitment and talent management for the federal government and its more than 2 million employees. Tara Duprey, a career and professional development leader at George Washington University's Center for Career Services. Callie Higgins, a materials research engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Higgins is a winner of the 2021 Samuel J. Heyman Service to America Medals'® Emerging Leader award, given to young federal employees who make important contributions early in their federal careers. A complete transcript of this episode can be found here. Additional Resources: Refer to the Partnership's Go Government site to learn more about applying to opportunities to work in the federal government, how to use USA Jobs and more! Learn more about The Pathways Program which offers federal internship and employment opportunities for current students, recent graduates and those with an advanced degree.

So, I applied for a SES job. Got through two rounds of interviews. Didn't get the job. Here's what I learned: 1. Ask for feedback on your interview from the folks on the panel. They'll give it to you. 2. Don't expect the status of ANYTHING to change in USAJOBS during the process. 3. Thank everyone involved, including the people who helped you schedule. 4. I had several people cheering me on, which was really cool. 5. i didn't die when I didn't get the job. Seriously, not a big deal. So put yourself out there and apply!

JOIN THE FAMILY@ https://qaraahfilms.com