|
|
Post by ssaer on Feb 25, 2010 9:39:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 25, 2010 10:17:23 GMT -5
As long as they restrict it to the low producers I have no problem with it. |
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Feb 25, 2010 11:18:08 GMT -5
As long as they restrict it to the low producers I have no problem with it. Well, the problem with that is the rules won't be written that way. They will apply to all ALJs. This sounds, at least at first blush, like an improper intrusion into ALJ independence. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 25, 2010 11:25:00 GMT -5
I don't agree with Valkyrie for that classic "and then they came for me" poem rationale.
This goes back to my question about just what constitutes ALJ independence.
It seems to me that hearings could be scheduled all day long and an ALJ can go in, discuss with the attorney/rep/claimant what additional evidence is needed, being waited for, and adjourn - much like a small claims docket in an associate trial court.
This is NOT what anyone wants at SSA, but it is the logical outcome of forcing the scheduling of hearings. It seems to me that after a bunch of wasted slots, with "hearings held" numbers going in the toilet, the agency would relent. I don't see why they don't see that now.
I was taught in law school very good examples of why you don't seek specific performance from people with whom you have a poor relationship. If you want to punish ALJs, putting more work on their plate that they're still not going to do is fairly short-sighted: it punishes staff, claimant, and the public as a whole, but doesn't affect the ALJ much (if at all).
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Feb 25, 2010 13:45:08 GMT -5
When wil they ever learn, when will they ever learn? Deltajudge- add 3 more shots of 151 in that blender.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 25, 2010 14:41:56 GMT -5
Honey works better than vinegar. Those low producers will just dig in their heels and do what prop suggests.
AALJ should consider a dec action (Complaint for Declaratory Relief) once implemented. USDC will stop that train as they do tend to read the APA and its case law, not to mention the issue of disparate treatment.
I can only shake my head as to how this passed muster with SSA/OGC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 25, 2010 16:56:57 GMT -5
I'm all for standardization of some of SSA's work processes(electronic file, FIT, etc). However, this is a horrible idea. All it's going to do create generic one size fits all hearing schedules with low producers continuing hearings and high producers stuck with lowered productivity. And watch the lawsuits fly if they try to enforce it on some but not all ALJ's. Fun! That's an excellent point about limiting the high producers (which explains why the rule would not be "enforced" for them). When HPI came out, one office I appeared in went from about 30-90 days from request to scheduled hearing date to 15-18 months in the span of a year as suddenly no one knew how to do their jobs and many things were not anyone's jobs. This office did not follow the old rules exactly - they had many local "best practices" that enabled the wheels of justice to turn; but when HPI was enforced, they crumbled. Also, think how hard it will be / would be to train schedulers to ALWAYS follow certain rules no matter what a judge (low producer) says, but to follow completely different rules when other judges ask. And what about trying to adjust when someone enters or leaves the low producer classification? What a morass. |
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 25, 2010 16:57:19 GMT -5
I'm surprised it didn't replace it with morthingy.
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Feb 26, 2010 13:58:09 GMT -5
The low producers have nothing to offer the agency other than increased production. They are already failing to do their jobs, so they really don't have any cards left to play other than legal action. On the other hand, any aljs that are producing certainly have the opportunity to catch the "blue flu" before they have to consider anything drastic.
The agency has nothing to lose by pissing off aljs that don't earn their salaries anyway, but it has a lot to lose by pissing of those that are carrying the load.
|
|
|
|
Post by deminimis on Feb 26, 2010 15:35:34 GMT -5
The agency has nothing to lose by pissing off aljs that don't earn their salaries anyway, but it has a lot to lose by pissing of those that are carrying the load. I agree, which is why this proposed rule is so misguided. |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Feb 26, 2010 17:22:04 GMT -5
I believe this is just the first step toward centralized scheduling by the crystal palace of all cases. I believe that management will schedule all cases with a centralized ME and VE pool. The NHCs are the first step in the process with video hearings of all cases the ultimate goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 26, 2010 23:53:09 GMT -5
8-)decadealj, they will never learn. Those that be sit in their ivory towers and come up with all these great ideas. As I've said before, the Attorneys that come before ALJs practice in other forums, to which ODAR is subservient. That's because they have never been on the street and practiced law. They have been holed up in an office and behind a desk, and don't have a clue. They just gone get a bunch of postponements. Blender is still going.
|
|
|
|
Post by masondixon on Feb 28, 2010 13:17:18 GMT -5
If this ridiculous idea is ever truly adopted and implemented by SSA it will go down as the biggest boondoggle since the disability redesign project of the early 1990s. It is an inefficient nightmare waiting to happen for social security practitioners, ALJs, and claimants. The only thing accomplished will be holding hearings with completely under-developed evidence, leading to delays and more delays in adjudication through post-hearing evidence collection, supplemental hearings, etc. SSA better be ready to hire a whole lot more ALJs because they will need them to hold the additional hearings required. The vast majority of ALJs are already operating at strained maximum capacity. The decision still involve cases with average actuarial values exceeding $400,000. The focus needs to be getting it right the first time. This comes from someone who hasexperienced both sides of the hearing process.
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on May 5, 2010 19:05:56 GMT -5
As has been reported on the AALJ board, Senator Isakson has filed an objection with OPM against the agency's proposed rule. While Senator Isakson may have an "R" after his name, he has always been a strong advocate for equal access to the courts, the necessity of judicial independence and against virtually any form of "tort reform." Hopefully, some other members of Congress in the majority party will also step up to the plate and advocate for the principles most of them claim to adhere to.
|
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on May 7, 2010 18:49:31 GMT -5
8-)Of course, the agency is going to point to this as an emergency solution to getting the cases out, which as we all know will only impede the process. So it is up to the congress to figure it out, God help us.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on May 8, 2010 8:06:18 GMT -5
This is one of those situations that points out the difference between management at ODAR and management at SSA. The current Commish at SSA hates the ALJs and he could not control his contempt even while speaking to my ALJ training class. It was actually quite shocking. My basic take away from his little visit was "don't turn into a-holes like the ALJs we already have." Sorry about the language, but it was actually the severity of his message, IMO.
He does not understand what we do or how the good offices and people do it. He has been filling our management spots with people from other components who have no prior hearing office or legal experience for the past 2-3 years. They are lowering morale while also messing up offices with no prior problems. When you have someone who is used to doing nothing but counting beans, they have trouble adjusting to the idea that what we do is not just move a pile of beans but something more like attaining a delicate balance of ingredients to create a complex final product. We are "fine dining" that they are trying to fit into a "fast food" mold. Clearly their "education" in management at Hamburger University is not serving us well in the hearing offices.
This proposed regulation if adopted will go down as the legacy from yet another political appointee who thought he knew better than the people who have made a career in government. It always annoys me when politicians get on TV and complain about people who make a career of government service as if they are all lazy and stupid and the root of all problems. The reality is that the people who dedicate all or most of their adult life to serving the public have the most expertise within an agency/government. By actually listening to those in the field who do the work daily we could save money and avoid a lot of stupid "initiatives" that have to be scrapped after a short, disruptive run. I know of some well-connected management ALJs who are totally against centralized scheduling because they know it is not going to enhance the hearing operations, but I fear this might end up requiring legal action by the AALJ to avoid disaster.
As ALJs we need to realize that when some of our numbers complain about every little change as an encroachment into our independence that when something truly awful comes along (like the idea of centralized scheduling) our complaints may just fall on deaf ears. This is a time when AFGE and AALJ need to work together on an issue. Both groups should oppose centralized scheduling because the ultimate result will be inefficiency and disruption of the work flow. This is a concept that bean counters actually understand if they can be made to listen. If the ALJs raising their voices in protest would actually talk with the SCTs and understand what they do and how they need to do it, the ALJs would see that we have a common interest in keeping this little genie inside the bottle before it turns into another HPI mess. Instead I see most ALJs looking at things only from their narrow perspective which will make our opposition to this proposed change less effective. I have been told directly by SCTs that overwhelmingly the ALJs don't seem to know or care about how the SCTs keep everything flowing smoothly so long as they get it done. This can make for major problems when an ALJ insists on changes that are incompatible with the rest of the office being able to get their jobs done and this is how the hearing offices are being treated by SSA management with this proposed reg.
When we had a visit from Judge Cristaudo (our Chief ALJ for those not in ODAR), I saw his eyes glaze over when the complaining began about being made to use the computer more as a part of the eBusiness process. However, when some computer issues were phrased in terms of how they have negatively impacted efficiency, he reengaged, leaned forward and asked follow up questions. I think that is an example of how this proposed regulation needs to be addressed in order to get the results desired.
|
|
|
|
Post by Well on May 8, 2010 9:14:45 GMT -5
I don't understand why there have to be time set certain hearings for all matters.
In our state courts we cattle call for some matters where everyone shows up, cases to be settled are entered in the record, simpler trials are heard and complicated ones set for a date certain with adequate time reserved.
At a minimum doing that for unrepresented claimants would seem to be a big boost. Reschedule the ones seeking an attorney. People who have no additional evidence to submit are heard next. Those with more to submit heard as time permits or rescheduled.
Flexibility would seem to carry much greater benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on May 8, 2010 12:12:11 GMT -5
Kinda like a "rocket docket" for example?
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on May 8, 2010 14:34:11 GMT -5
The reason that there is a time certain set for hearings is to hopefully allow the ALJ the opportunity to know which hearings are scheduled so he/she will hopefully review those files and have a clue as to what should and need be addressed at the hearing. There are so many things that need to be addressed to make the overall system function smoothly. I feel the ALJ should be allowed to schedule their own hearing and that they should be responsible for conducting same efficiently but thoroughly. Although not rocket science, it sure ain't widgets either..
|
|
lee
Full Member
Posts: 102
|
Post by lee on May 8, 2010 18:50:06 GMT -5
I am in complete agreement with nonamouse and the others who have expressed concern about this initiative. My office consistently shows high productivity. However, each judge in the office has a slightly--or dramatically--different way of scheduling. Our staff knows our standing orders, and by accommodating our individual approaches, contributes to the high productivity.
In any workplace, there are those who do not carry their own weight, and that is true among aljs also. However, trying to mandate program wide standardized scheduling will not eliminate the few who do not promptly and professionally adjudicate the cases assigned to them.
|
|
