|
Post by privateatty on May 29, 2009 18:35:59 GMT -5
odarite and johnthornton have illuminated a fascinating idea: robes with logos. But it is another thread...
First, I have to ask, is the DCALJ serious about having ALJs wear robes with a SSA logo? I guess the answer is, of course. Courier, Gothic or just plain Arial? Regional sub-titles?
Frankly, I think johnthornton is really on to something. Get the Union behind it as a way to make money for their political/legal fund; the possibilities are endless. I'll bet West Publishing would line up first.
And of course those not in the Union would have their avatars tastefully air-brushed on their robe. jagghagg would strike terror in the hearts of counsel, flannery would fool them into thinking she's just a wabbit...
|
|
|
Post by flannery on May 29, 2009 18:40:34 GMT -5
As Curly Joe and the long line of Curly's after him (including Shemp) would say: Hey, I resemble that remark!
|
|
|
Post by alj on May 29, 2009 19:05:16 GMT -5
Robes with logos; what a great idea. I spend several minutes each hearing distancing myself from the agency. I want the claimant to know that am not influenced in the least by the prior agency decisions, and that I will give them an impartial decision. I take down the SSA logos the agency seems to be so fond of putting on the hearing room walls. And now the agency wants me to advertise my allegiance by wearing a robe with its logo on it?
I see a distant analogy to a district court judge wearing a robe with the logo of the US Attorney's office on it.
Perhaps I spent too much time in the real world and just don't fully understand agency thinking in many of these areas? Maybe I never will.
|
|
|
Post by wallace on May 29, 2009 19:10:40 GMT -5
[modified] I don't distance myself from the agency; rather I tell people I'm not bound by any prior decision and that I was appointed by the Commissioner to make sure that a full and fair review is performed.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on May 29, 2009 22:06:50 GMT -5
You all are thinking small; to raise money, SSA is going to sell corporate sponsorship space on the robes so we will look like NASCAR judges.
|
|
|
Post by vacuum on May 29, 2009 23:00:22 GMT -5
"This sticker is dangerous and inconvenient, but I do love Fig Newtons." - Ricky Bobby
|
|
|
Post by odarite on May 30, 2009 10:06:09 GMT -5
I know one of those NASCAR judges, a retired State court judge. Never thought to ask him what he wears on the job, though!
|
|
|
Post by duncan7 on Jun 1, 2009 7:43:59 GMT -5
We could always go for the Nike swoosh. They seem to put that everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by tigerfan on Jun 1, 2009 8:47:54 GMT -5
I think the females will have pink robes and the males will have blue and the logo will be positioned over your heart. The HOCALJs will obviously have pure white. Just kidding of course. If you don't want the robe you are offered, simply hand it back and say no thank you or put it away as a keepsake of your career or wear it with pride.
|
|
|
Post by duncan7 on Jun 1, 2009 9:11:03 GMT -5
I thought you had to buy your own robe.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jun 1, 2009 9:25:13 GMT -5
You did- in fact I just replaced mine after 15 years. What this is all referring is that Mr. Foster, the Deputy Commissioner for disability, mentioned in an e-mail that he was going to discuss a proposal to provide robes with the logo with the union. Actually, considering the distrust most ALJs have of anything "management", andf SSA's traditional distaste for robes or anything judge speak, it is a pretty significant objective manifestation of holding out an olive branch, until the SSA logo kicker. For many years I refused to hold a hearing in the same building as the DO and DDS (it had a separate door you know) because I believed it suggested SSA control of the hearing process but I lost that battle too long ago. The ultimate insult was changing our name from the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) to Office of Disability Adjudication Review to emphasize we are not judges but adjudicators. It doesn't even pass the smell test.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Jun 1, 2009 9:43:50 GMT -5
And all of the money wasted changing the letterhead, signs, etc., etc. Your tax dollars at work!
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Jun 2, 2009 22:54:00 GMT -5
I understand from prior threads that some offices are more robe-y than others, and that we'll probably get a sense of this in our 2-week pre-training stint.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Jun 2, 2009 23:12:10 GMT -5
The Department of Labor has an Office of Hearings and Appeals that pre-dates ours. We used to be the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals. The change was made in the name of efficiency and clarity and we did not have seniority.
|
|
|
Post by zarco522 on Jun 3, 2009 8:14:46 GMT -5
NW -- up until now I had my doubts, but your picture of the robes is very reassuring!
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 3, 2009 12:37:48 GMT -5
Maybe you could start a whole new Boston ODAR fashion trend, nw.
Don't forget the North End Italian restaurants...yum!
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Jun 3, 2009 23:11:54 GMT -5
If anyone wants to buy his/her own robe, to suit one's own style without a logo, pm me for the name/address of a very nice couple who have a robe store near Baltimore. I have dealt with them twice, with excellent results. (No, I'm not getting any kickbacks, just am impressed with them.)
I wear a robe for several reasons, none of which have to do with my ego. 1) It means I don't have to worry about what to wear on hearing days, because the robe is all the claimant/rep will see. I have lots of other things on my mind, so one less thing is great!
2) It provides a measure of anonymity, believe it or not, because the claimants are less likely to focus on my features (so if/when they see me elsewhere, there's less likelihood of recognition). These days, that can be a security/safety issue. (On my first day of hearings, I met a person in the hall who asked directions to the ODAR office. It turned out to be one of my claimants; I disclosed the contact on the record and that nothing of any substance was said; the claimant said (s)he didn't recognize me, anyway.)
3) Last but not least, it is a symbol, easily recognizable to all claimants.
|
|