|
|
Post by ladyatlaw on Jul 21, 2010 15:50:54 GMT -5
CBA??
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 21, 2010 15:51:33 GMT -5
Phoenix is the same situation as Atlanta, they call the new office "Phoenix North" and the existing midtown office just "Phoenix" on the GAL listings. They are a bit more than 5-7 miles apart (more like about 10).
|
|
|
|
Post by southeastalj on Jul 21, 2010 15:52:15 GMT -5
the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Agency and the AALJ, the union that represents the SSA ALJ Corps. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 21, 2010 18:29:51 GMT -5
On top of the two current Atlanta offices, they are opening a third one in Covington that is just east of Atlanta..
|
|
|
|
Post by Well on Jul 21, 2010 18:59:15 GMT -5
On top of the two current Atlanta offices, they are opening a third one in Covington that is just east of Atlanta.. Atlanta for locality pay purposes but about 50 miles from downtown. |
|
|
|
Post by gopack927 on Jul 21, 2010 19:20:24 GMT -5
The Atlanta North office is located on 3105 Clairmont Road in Atlanta.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jul 21, 2010 19:55:02 GMT -5
Covington is only about 35 miles from downtown Atlanta..
|
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 21, 2010 20:01:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the answers about Atlanta North On top of the two current Atlanta offices, they are opening a third one in Covington that is just east of Atlanta.. Someone told me today that the Covington office is fully staffed already but I don't know if that includes ALJs. Has the Covington office been staffed with ALJ transfers? |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jul 22, 2010 8:02:51 GMT -5
There have been a number of transfers to Covington, but I don't know if all spots have been filled.
|
|
|
|
Post by fanning on Jul 22, 2010 11:13:47 GMT -5
Along these lines, does anyone know anything about slots left in the new offices in Valparaiso, Mt. Pleasant, and/or Toledo?
|
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 22, 2010 13:31:53 GMT -5
7 transfers to covington. It will be a 9 judge office. I'd expect that two new ALJ's will be assigned there out of the upcoming hire but also know that there are still judges on the transfer list for that location. So does that mean SSA would have to keep those last two positions open for the transfers to fill them? |
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Jul 22, 2010 15:46:49 GMT -5
I believe SSA only has to offer the first position for transfer and after that they can do what they want. It doesn't work too well to staff a new office entirely with new judges, so they tend to open up at least half of the positions in a new office to transfers. So to answer your question, no those two remaining positions do not have to be held open for transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Jul 22, 2010 17:10:02 GMT -5
I would not count on those 2 spots in Covington just yet. If they didn't get a HOCALJ from the earlier solicitation then they will need one more current ALJ for that ALJ office (which is not the same as an office for a line judge.) Has anyone here heard if someone from another Hot-lanta office or elsewhere has accepted the HOCALJ position for the new office?
|
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 22, 2010 18:26:40 GMT -5
Another thing to keep in mind for potential new hires. ALJ positions in the national hearing centers are non-bargaining positions. I believe this means judges there would not be eligible for the union transfer list. That would mean the only "way out" would be to apply for a HOCALJ position somewhere when one opens up. Something to keep in mind since there will likely be several hires made for the St Louis NHC from this cert. The idea that the non-union ALJ's would not be eligible for transfers is probably not going to happen. Although technically true, SSA has always tried to keep the unions and non-bargaining on a similar status whenever possible. Management is non-bargaining, yet they generally get the same deals the union bargains with the notable exception being work at home. Plus, the last time the agency made the nonbargaining ALJ's mad they went out and unionized. So I am pretty sure that with issues such as transfers, everyone will be on an even playing field. As for hardship transfers-if one truly can show a hardship, they generally try to work with the employee. However, since the transfer option is more open and available now, I expect that the agency may take a cynical view at what constitutes a "hardship." I know of an ALJ who tried to get a hardship transfer about thirty seconds after walking in the door. The agency position was that he knew about his "hardship" before completing his GAL. (It was a long term situation). They fought for a while and he eventually won-but I would not count on that. this helped answer my question on another thread about union v. non-union |
|
|
|
Post by civilserpent on Jul 26, 2010 14:26:59 GMT -5
Nonamouse's advice should be heeded. The agency doesn't always accommodate hardship transfers. I am aware of one judge who requested a hardship after his wife had a stroke and her father became too frail to live alone. The ALJ wanted to consolidate households near his father-in-law, because other family was nearby. Although there was an opening in two of three offices in the general geographic location, the agency refused to honor the transfer as a hardship. The ALJ was "stuck" at his assigned location for seven years.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jul 26, 2010 15:00:35 GMT -5
Nonamouse's advice should be heeded. The agency doesn't always accommodate hardship transfers. I am aware of one judge who requested a hardship after his wife had a stroke and her father became too frail to live alone. The ALJ wanted to consolidate households near his father-in-law, because other family was nearby. Although there was an opening in two of three offices in the general geographic location, the agency refused to honor the transfer as a hardship. The ALJ was "stuck" at his assigned location for seven years. You are right. Looks like a true hardship to me. Love the handle, BTW  |
|
|
|
Post by iapplied on Jul 26, 2010 15:43:27 GMT -5
Civilserpent, that's aweful! And yes, that sounds like a hardship to me too. Are decisions not to transfer an ALJ subject to some sort of dispute resolution? Is the dispute resolution only available to union ALJs? I thought I read HOD's earlier post to say another ALJ fought to get a transfer (though knowing about the hardship situation before joining the agency) and was successful. I don't know the time it took to win in that case. But I gather from both posts that "winning" will involve years of "losing" until you win the transfer battle.
|
|
