New York State Civil Service Exams Pushed Back?

[v85 212]

Does anyone know why NYS Civil Service keeps pushing back the date for their exams

The titles of Communications Technician (SP Dispatcher), Disaster Preparedness Program Representative, Criminal Justice Program Representative and Criminal Justice Policy Analyst were originally scheduled to be announced in December, then it changed to January, and today it changed again to February.

I know it says tentative examination schedule but still, If the state doesn't want to give the exams, they should just cancel them.

[ex-commish 490]

Does anyone know why NYS Civil Service keeps pushing back the date for their exams

The titles of Communications Technician (SP Dispatcher), Disaster Preparedness Program Representative, Criminal Justice Program Representative and Criminal Justice Policy Analyst were originally scheduled to be announced in December, then it changed to January, and today it changed again to February.

I know it says tentative examination schedule but still, If the state doesn't want to give the exams, they should just cancel them.

This is just a guess...I believe there is legislation to create a Tier-6 which is more restrictive than Tier-5...again...just a guess.

[v85 212]

If that is the reason, the State seems to be opening themselves up for liability, no? If it can be proven that the pushed the exams back with the sole intention of putting those people into Tier 6?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

If that is the reason, the State seems to be opening themselves up for liability, no? If it can be proven that the pushed the exams back with the sole intention of putting those people into Tier 6?

Lawsuit based on what grounds? Try proving that is the reason why...we both know how that will go.

[helicopper 1,050]

And you need to have standing and prove damages to have a claim.

[v85 212]

The damages would be the difference in the pension from Tier 5 to Tier 6.

But your right that it would be extremely difficult to prove intent on the states part, and that you may not have standing until you are ready to collect the pension, and also that any legal protections may only apply to people who are already on an eligible list that got inactivated until Tier 6 was passed (under some kind of detrimental reliance/bait-and-switch action if it can be proven they would have taken another job somewhere else but for the Tier 5 retirement).

[Bnechis 3,961]

The damages would be the difference in the pension from Tier 5 to Tier 6.

But your right that it would be extremely difficult to prove intent on the states part, and that you may not have standing until you are ready to collect the pension, and also that any legal protections may only apply to people who are already on an eligible list that got inactivated until Tier 6 was passed (under some kind of detrimental reliance/bait-and-switch action if it can be proven they would have taken another job somewhere else but for the Tier 5 retirement).

LOL...good luck.

Since when does the state owe a potential furture employee (particularly of a none state agency) anything?

The states best defence is no one is forcing you to take the deal and the primary reason that everything from the state has been delayed lately.......they have reduced staffing in all agencies due to retirement incentives.

[helicopper 1,050]

The damages would be the difference in the pension from Tier 5 to Tier 6.

But your right that it would be extremely difficult to prove intent on the states part, and that you may not have standing until you are ready to collect the pension, and also that any legal protections may only apply to people who are already on an eligible list that got inactivated until Tier 6 was passed (under some kind of detrimental reliance/bait-and-switch action if it can be proven they would have taken another job somewhere else but for the Tier 5 retirement).

You have no standing if you're not already an employee with a claim to the pension. You're a prospective state employee with no standing and no damages, as far as I see it. Perhaps site counsel can weigh in???

[JetPhoto 626]

The state is broke, no money to give the exam...damned if I know where all the fees go.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

The damages would be the difference in the pension from Tier 5 to Tier 6.

But your right that it would be extremely difficult to prove intent on the states part, and that you may not have standing until you are ready to collect the pension, and also that any legal protections may only apply to people who are already on an eligible list that got inactivated until Tier 6 was passed (under some kind of detrimental reliance/bait-and-switch action if it can be proven they would have taken another job somewhere else but for the Tier 5 retirement).

How would going into Tier 6 instead of Tier 5 be a damage if you don't have a job and were never in Tier 5 to begin with? That's like saying the 2 guys that got hired where I worked could sue because their positions weren't filled prior to the onset of Tier 5 despite being vacant and them on the list when Tier 2 was the standard. No offense but your argument is weak and without merit. Although because of their prior enrollment in the retirement system allowed them to qualify for Tier 2.

[ny10570 745]

People have sued and won lost compensation after eventually being hired. But you have to prove some kind of impropriety. If the state isn't holding the exam because they cannot fund the position right now, there's no malicious action.

ALS if the state refused to fill required vacancies before the new tier for no other reason than to avoid the more generous pensions there are grounds for litigation. No different than communities hiring provisional employees and withholding civil service exams.

[Guest alsfirefighter]

People have sued and won lost compensation after eventually being hired. But you have to prove some kind of impropriety. If the state isn't holding the exam because they cannot fund the position right now, there's no malicious action.

ALS if the state refused to fill required vacancies before the new tier for no other reason than to avoid the more generous pensions there are grounds for litigation. No different than communities hiring provisional employees and withholding civil service exams.

You'd still have to prove that is the reason why they did which would be extremely difficult. That's like saying there could be grounds for litigation not filling them based on economic hardship. Communities can hire provisional as long as they do so in compliance with civil service law as such.

[INIT915 1,119]

ALS if the state refused to fill required vacancies before the new tier for no other reason than to avoid the more generous pensions there are grounds for litigation.

I'm curious what the grounds are that you are referring to?

[helicopper 1,050]

Latest rumors I've heard are that the exams will be posted in the next few weeks and testing will be in April.

There's speculation that there will be several openings for Disaster Preparedness Program Representatives (DPPR) during the life of the list so if you want a job with incredible responsibilities, meager pay, and no thanks, it may be the test for you.