|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 4, 2013 7:04:16 GMT -5
Agree, thanks for the updates. the possible increase in retirements is good news for us wannabes, though anytime a group is scurrying to leave a ship it should make those waiting to board look more carefully at the situation.
The change from duty time to admin time for training the alj chooses to attend at initial glance doesn't seem huge (other than the workers comp issue bart mentioned) but there may be other worries. since I've been with odar, cle courses to meet state bar reqs have been admin time. I was told it was once duty time an unquestioned. my first yearsit was no problem. but with admin time they have a lot of discretion. my state requires 12 hours. last year management announced we would only get 12 hours admin a year to meet the req. as anyone knows, it takes a full day of actual class to get 6 hours so 2 full days to get 12. with union rep involvement our management caved and gave 16 admin hours. that's fine except for those with multiple state licenses that may have to do more than 12 cle hours total.
They may have been able to pull the same crap with duty time. not sure, but if not watch out.
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Oct 4, 2013 7:08:04 GMT -5
A little more Union news. The new contract will place the National Hearing Judges into the transfer list along with everyone else, no more advantage for them. Judges will be allowed to work at home 8 days a month, possibly more with management permission. This clause had some troublesome language that was confusing about recalls and eligibility to work at home. Some management may interpret it one way and others may interpret differently. Some training in the future will not be duty time anymore, it will be administrative leave. Difference? If you go to the AALJ Conference and break a leg, no workers compensation coverage. The AALJ website discussion forum is being upgraded to make it more user friendly in hopes every member will use it frequently. MCB and I will be happy to see that. There was a fairly intensive review of Agency-Union legal battles over various things since the late 70's, some regarding numerical goals-quotas and even Agency review of Judge decision for correctness (Belmon review). Historically the Union/members have prevailed consistently, but management continues to ignore history and attempts to do as management wants, ie, Quality Review, wherein, Agency attorneys will be hired to review 100 cases of each Judge for correctness. How a non-judge can review a judicial decision is problematic to say the least and verging on our judicial independence. The Union is very concerned about this. The new bias complaint reviews are also problematic as they are really like AC Appeals, one does not have to really have any grounds per se to file. The perceived demeanor of the Judge after the Rep turns in 500 pages of evidence at the hearing may be enough. Claimants receiving favorable decisions are also filing bias complaints, one being because the Judge asked if the claimant was planning on having more children and what form of birth control she was utilizing. Probably could have been worded differently, but not always an improper question. (I believe this Judge was counseled, but I may be wrong). As one can see, goals-quotas are not our only problem. The Union represents all non-management Judges and invites any that are not members and all new Judges to please join so your voice and concerns can be heard. I will review my notes later to see if I missed anything of importance. I hope I haven't totally hi-jacked this thread. I appreciate all the information bartleby. I do have some concerns like you on some of the issues. Hopefully, the Union will attempt to step in to prevent any wrongful actions.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 4, 2013 8:51:42 GMT -5
Agree, thanks for the updates. the possible increase in retirements is good news for us wannabes, though anytime a group is scurrying to leave a ship it should make those waiting to board look more carefully at the situation. The change from duty time to admin time for training the alj chooses to attend at initial glance doesn't seem huge (other than the workers comp issue bart mentioned) but there may be other worries. since I've been with odar, cle courses to meet state bar reqs have been admin time. I was told it was once duty time an unquestioned. my first yearsit was no problem. but with admin time they have a lot of discretion. my state requires 12 hours. last year management announced we would only get 12 hours admin a year to meet the req. as anyone knows, it takes a full day of actual class to get 6 hours so 2 full days to get 12. with union rep involvement our management caved and gave 16 admin hours. that's fine except for those with multiple state licenses that may have to do more than 12 cle hours total. They may have been able to pull the same crap with duty time. not sure, but if not watch out. Thanks for the updates Bart. I certainly appreciate not only the interesting news about retirements but also the contract negotiation info. Funky 12 hours wouldn't cover my state's requirement. So even if you could get it all in 12 work hours (something that is nigh impossible as you point out) I would need another 3 just to stay licensed.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 4, 2013 9:25:01 GMT -5
funky, I hope your next job is on wall street.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 4, 2013 9:49:42 GMT -5
Dumb question - Does SSA pay for required CLE that costs $$ to attend?
I ask this because my agency pays for CLE throughout the year. Due to sequestration, travel was cut and therefore some CLE was cancelled (we cobbled together some free CLE for folks that was actually approved by some states).
I have a friend in another agency who recently transfered to another agency and was shocked to discover that the new agency didn't pay for CLE. However, they were granted Administrative Leave to attend any CLE they wanted to attend on their own dime.
As a matter of fact, every agency that I have worked for (3) has provided Admin Leave for training/conferences, etc that were not specifically paid for or otherwise sponsored by that agency. I could borass you with specific instances, but it's not germain to my question, but I bring it up as part of the discussion on admin leave verses duty time that Bartleby brought up.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 4, 2013 10:49:14 GMT -5
Dumb question - Does SSA pay for required CLE that costs $$ to attend? They've never paid for any of my CLE. My state bar, however, if you request it, gives ALJ and SSA attorneys CLE credit for ALJ training and inhouse and/or VOD training.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 4, 2013 10:49:30 GMT -5
funky, I hope your next job is on wall street. I'm afraid that would be a pox on everyone's house . Sealaw, ssa does not pay the cost of the cle. most you can get is paid time (admin or duty, apparently now all admin) to attend.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 4, 2013 10:54:44 GMT -5
Dumb question - Does SSA pay for required CLE that costs $$ to attend? They've never paid for any of my CLE. My state bar, however, if you request it, gives ALJ and SSA attorneys CLE credit for ALJ training and inhouse and/or VOD training. That's my experience too. and oddly, while my state cle board will approve almost any ssa in house training I receive and submit to them for cle credit, they rarely give full credit. ie if I submit some writer training that was 6 hours they may approve 4 hours cle credit. That usually means i end up some small odd number of hour short and since most courses are offered in 6 credit hour implements, I usually end up buying more than I need. though short online courses and cle by the hour have helped that a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Oct 4, 2013 11:04:30 GMT -5
My state makes you pay an "approval fee" when you try to get training or conferences approved. If the provider didn't request training in advance.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 4, 2013 12:43:34 GMT -5
funky, I hope your next job is on wall street. I'm afraid that would be a pox on everyone's house . Sealaw, ssa does not pay the cost of the cle. most you can get is paid time (admin or duty, apparently now all admin) to attend. funky, I was following the thread where you remarked that 60 minutes seems to do an investigative piece soon after you go to work in a specific practice area -- and that this has lead to "reforms" that impacted your practice. If a Wall Street job would result in some sort of pox, are you suggesting that you might go there and help create some new junk bond market or pyramid scheme that would ultimately not pan out (here I'm being mindful of your mathematical prowess); that your working there would be bad for the stock market in general; or is there something I'm missing? Because I am one of those who feels that Wall Street reforms are sorely needed. The Securities and Exchange Commission is beefing up with new hires, but what we really need is to bring back the old Glass-Steagall(sp?) to keep our bank deposits from being invested in the stock market, futures, derivatives, etc.
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Oct 4, 2013 13:21:09 GMT -5
They've never paid for any of my CLE. My state bar, however, if you request it, gives ALJ and SSA attorneys CLE credit for ALJ training and inhouse and/or VOD training. That's my experience too. and oddly, while my state cle board will approve almost any ssa in house training I receive and submit to them for cle credit, they rarely give full credit. ie if I submit some writer training that was 6 hours they may approve 4 hours cle credit. That usually means i end up some small odd number of hour short and since most courses are offered in 6 credit hour implements, I usually end up buying more than I need. though short online courses and cle by the hour have helped that a lot. thanks guys!
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Oct 4, 2013 13:23:56 GMT -5
From the 10/02/2013 AALJ Newsletter:
AALJ AND THE TV NEWS SHOW “60 MINUTES
This Sunday evening, October 6, the television news show “60 minutes” will air a story regarding the SSA disability adjudication system. AALJ Vice-President, Marilyn Zahm and I [AALJ President, Randy Frye] were interviewed for over 2 ½ hours by Steve Kroft of “60 minutes”. The interview covered many of the problems judges have experienced with the disability adjudication system at SSA. Some of the subjects discussed include the need for government representation, procedural rules, closing the record and quotas. Senator Tom Coburn was also interviewed for the program.
We believe the segment will run for approximately 15 minutes but could be longer. Hopefully, this type of exposure will benefit our continuous efforts to improve our system of justice.
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Oct 4, 2013 13:51:02 GMT -5
Hopefully, this will give SSA management some support when they go up on the Hill with hat in hand to back-fill 700 ALJ positions and perhaps add a few hundred more over the next 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Oct 4, 2013 21:51:03 GMT -5
Hopefully, this will give SSA management some support when they go up on the Hill with hat in hand to back-fill 700 ALJ positions and perhaps add a few hundred more over the next 3 years. Since they were also in Huntington WV interviewing people there, it could do the exact opposite. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Oct 5, 2013 7:24:33 GMT -5
Hopefully, this will give SSA management some support when they go up on the Hill with hat in hand to back-fill 700 ALJ positions and perhaps add a few hundred more over the next 3 years. Since they were also in Huntington WV interviewing people there, it could do the exact opposite. We'll see. That story is tailored for a "60 Minutes" segment. However, I fail to see how one or two bad eggs should then result in hundreds of thousands of claimants waiting another 100 days for a hearing. Because you know Steve Kroft has got to mention how long folks wait to get one.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Oct 5, 2013 13:32:08 GMT -5
I know I posted it before, but I just gotta do it again.
Eyre44, this one is for you: Sgt. Oddball: "Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?"
Joking of course. I am scared crapless as to what might come out of the 60 minutes show. Everytime I have been interviewed or involved with reporters and the news it has been a hatchet job. They misquote, add and edit whether it is true or not. Usually the truth is not sensational enough to be interesting. So, we can only hope and pray that this will be favorable.
|
|