Working for the USPTO

[openpatent]

Couldn't have said it better. Like you said, I think if a SPE knows you do good work, then they will figure our a way to pass you. Also, a group director can pass you regardless of how you do. I know one person who had high production, so even though he initially failed the program, the group director saw to it he ultimately passed the program anyhow. So I guess the moral is that if you are going to do poor work, do lots of it

I actually got a scanned copy of the review notes from my director after passing full sig and was surprised how much the director defended me against allegations of errors from the spes.

[steelie]

This agrees with hearing "forever 12" from my SPE about a junior.  What a crappy onus to bear!

In AUs with low allowance rates, I think "forever 12s" are the smart ones.

You can have a very comfortable work life, make 100-120k/yr with a little OT, take limited responsibility, not be the "bad person" who never allows, and have much less direct confrontation.

The certification test use to be only available at gs-13 to hotel, or I might of stayed low.

[fewyearsin]

Ex-aminer?

Re: the signatory program

Yeah, your SPE has a lot of control over how you do on the program.  I had SPEs that were really pulling for me to pass, and defended every potential error that the panel brought up.  I also had a friend with the opposite experience, his SPE took the side of the panel almost every time and my friend was stuck defending himself against the panel AND his SPE.  Needless to say, he didn't pass the first two times, finally got a new SPE, and suddenly passed with flying colors.  But to have to take the program 3 times, just because your SPE, frankly sucks and isn't doing his job.

[Toot Aps Esroh]

...  I also had a friend with the opposite experience, his SPE took the side of the panel almost every time and my friend was stuck defending himself against the panel AND his SPE.  Needless to say, he didn't pass the first two times, finally got a new SPE, and suddenly passed with flying colors.  But to have to take the program 3 times, just because your SPE, frankly sucks and isn't doing his job.

Reading this thread's recent comments makes me think there's a significantly higher concentration of truly "horrible bosses" in the PTO than in industry.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Is no one reviewing their work?   In a well-run organization, bosses are managed and rated at least in part on how well they develop their direct reports.  The example fewyears gives above should have reflected as badly on the SPE (if not more) than the individual who failed to complete the program the first two times.

I've only had one truly horrible boss in a fairly long career.  I'm sure his annual 360° reviews reflected his asshattery, but he was a very powerful person in the organization and, having been there over 25 years had irreplaceable institutional knowledge, so he got away with it for a long time.  And despite his overall horribleness, one thing he was not bad at was people development.

[slip sliding away]

I actually got a scanned copy of the review notes from my director after passing full sig and was surprised how much the director tried to defend me against allegations of errors from the spes.

This probably goes to show that there may be some truth in the idea that people who do 105% production (or more) get an edge when it comes to things like promotion and retention. I know that if you continually do 95 percent, over time the group director will likely try to get rid of you, as I saw it happen to people for that reason. I also know someone who did lousy work, but did at least 110% every quarter, and that coconut head is still working there.

[fewyearsin]

SPE's really seem to be a great real world example of the Peter Principle.  The reasons they are made SPE have little to do with their ability to be a good SPE.  Having 130% production as an Examiner in NO WAY prepares you or demonstrates ability to mentor and lead effectively.  I think that the Office is doing better lately, but there are plenty of SPEs from 10 years ago when anyone with a pulse who applied could become SPE, and the only people applying were those who hated examining.  Hating examining is not a great qualification for becoming SPE.

[johnthatcher]

I understand it is probably not common for them to rescind the offer, but I am just curious under what circumstances would they do it if they have to.  Something in the background check, <3.0 GPA in transcript....   

Thanks.

[openpatent]

I actually got a scanned copy of the review notes from my director after passing full sig and was surprised how much the director tried to defend me against allegations of errors from the spes.

This probably goes to show that there may be some truth in the idea that people who do 105% production (or more) get an edge when it comes to things like promotion and retention. I know that if you continually do 95 percent, over time the group director will likely try to get rid of you, as I saw it happen to people for that reason. I also know someone who did lousy work, but did at least 110% every quarter, and that coconut head is still working there.

I don't think that was my case. I'm just very detailed and find good art. I had high productivity (110+) up to GS 12, then kept a few percentage above FS or whatever was needed for PSig or FSig

[ex-aminer?]

I actually got a scanned copy of the review notes from my director after passing full sig and was surprised how much the director tried to defend me against allegations of errors from the spes.

This probably goes to show that there may be some truth in the idea that people who do 105% production (or more) get an edge when it comes to things like promotion and retention. I know that if you continually do 95 percent, over time the group director will likely try to get rid of you, as I saw it happen to people for that reason. I also know someone who did lousy work, but did at least 110% every quarter, and that coconut head is still working there.

This is simply not true IMO.  Any rational examiner knows that the 110% and 120% awards are for fools.  As long as you're above 95%you can max out your OT and make ~$160k.  If you do the simple math, you are barely being paid squat for all the counts it takes to go from 95% to 110% or 120%.

The only sane reason to go for those awards is if you already max OT at 95% and just have a lot of time or a knack to overachieve.  Maybe peoplemhave their eye on a higher position.

Even the executive schedule jobs like tech director barely pay more than a primary maxing OT at 95%.

After making primary, with no more promotions to work toward, I haven't gone over 95% in several years and no SPE has suggested otherwise.

[slip sliding away]

Any rational examiner knows that the 110% and 120% awards are for fools. 

I agree. I remember figuring out I made more with the OT, so I tried to decline promotions, but my SPE would come in my office and say
"congratulations on your promotion" and laugh.

I am just saying that before the program, if you are doing 105%, the group director may look more favorably on you if you are sitting on the fence. And the long-timers told me that doing a little over 100% helped in their retention, but I would not know.

As for the comment about never getting to primary, that is just plain nuts.

[steelie]

two issues I am hearing about:

1. Many AUs are running out of cases

2. Large exodus of examiners in business methods (likely due to "Alice")

"Alice" means many "abstract art" examiners have a 0-5% yearly allowance rate. That makes it hard to make production. I'm hearing
that QAS is looking critically at allowances for "Alice" 101 errors, and if an error is found, then the counts are immediately reversed.

[fewyearsin]

two issues I am hearing about:

1. Many AUs are running out of cases

2. Large exodus of examiners in business methods (likely due to "Alice")

"Alice" means many "abstract art" examiners have a 0-5% yearly allowance rate. That makes it hard to make production. I'm hearing
that QAS is looking critically at allowances for "Alice" 101 errors, and if an error is found, then the counts are immediately reversed.

Re: 1 - I've seen this.  It has become a fairly regular topic at our AU meetings.  Our AU has plenty of cases, and is actually sending cases to other AUs.  Which is a bit frustrating because (a) I want to keep those cases for better job security, and (b) my SPE has given out my name as someone who can help, and I am getting more frequent calls from people who do entirely different technologies about the basics of my art.  Which I'm fine helping, but sometimes I spend a couple hours getting some other examiner up to speed, and think to myself "I could probably finish this case now in another couple hours and have great efficiency," but instead I'll get to claim an hour or two for training, which won't even go towards my efficiency.  But my SPE has made it clear that the future of the Office appears to be examiners who are "flexible" in their technology area.

Re: 2 - I have heard nothing of an exodus of examiners.  Please to share more if you can.

[steelie]

two issues I am hearing about:

1. Many AUs are running out of cases

2. Large exodus of examiners in business methods (likely due to "Alice")

"Alice" means many "abstract art" examiners have a 0-5% yearly allowance rate. That makes it hard to make production. I'm hearing
that QAS is looking critically at allowances for "Alice" 101 errors, and if an error is found, then the counts are immediately reversed.

Re: 1 - I've seen this.  It has become a fairly regular topic at our AU meetings.  Our AU has plenty of cases, and is actually sending cases to other AUs.  Which is a bit frustrating because (a) I want to keep those cases for better job security, and (b) my SPE has given out my name as someone who can help, and I am getting more frequent calls from people who do entirely different technologies about the basics of my art.  Which I'm fine helping, but sometimes I spend a couple hours getting some other examiner up to speed, and think to myself "I could probably finish this case now in another couple hours and have great efficiency," but instead I'll get to claim an hour or two for training, which won't even go towards my efficiency.  But my SPE has made it clear that the future of the Office appears to be examiners who are "flexible" in their technology area.

Re: 2 - I have heard nothing of an exodus of examiners.  Please to share more if you can.

I'm a long time hoteler, so, all I know is what I hear in AU meetings, and from other examiners.

My AU is in the "abstract arts" like "business methods". So, we hear relevant gossip about them.

The recent gossip from my SPE was "business method examiners are leaving in droves". I spoke with a few examiners and they echoed this.

No other time has been given for "Alice" work. No compensation has been given for a significant decline in allowances.

[snapshot]

SPE's really seem to be a great real world example of the Peter Principle.  The reasons they are made SPE have little to do with their ability to be a good SPE.  Having 130% production as an Examiner in NO WAY prepares you or demonstrates ability to mentor and lead effectively.  I think that the Office is doing better lately, but there are plenty of SPEs from 10 years ago when anyone with a pulse who applied could become SPE, and the only people applying were those who hated examining.  Hating examining is not a great qualification for becoming SPE.

"Hating examining" is still a big reason why some people apply to be SPE, but I think they're doing a good job, at least in my TC, weeding those types out from even getting an in person interview.

However, there are a whole lot more people applying for SPE these days - it's been over 100 in my TC the past couple of times positions have been available.  I think details regularly get that many applicants, too.

But my SPE has made it clear that the future of the Office appears to be examiners who are "flexible" in their technology area.

Your SPE has that right.  The Office has been shifting that way since the really big "let's hire our way out of our backlog" spree began.  Then again, this caused its own set of problems related to areas running out of cases; I genuinely wonder if they saw that coming.

[slip sliding away]

I am getting more frequent calls from people who do entirely different technologies about the basics of my art.  Which I'm fine helping, but sometimes I spend a couple hours getting some other examiner up to speed

I used to keep my door open to help other examiners. When I quit after getting a bad SPE, I had a wry smile on my face walking out the door, thinking about how right the senior examiners were when they had told me they were "too busy" to answer my questions when I had first came to the office.