Tracking Changes in the New Position Description

[Deleted]

Pardon for the lengthy post:

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, informed discussion on the new PD really requires a look at the changes that have been made. Surprisingly, some cosider them minimal and no big deal. Take a look at this page on the AALJ website which tracks those changes line by line.

www.aalj.org/system/files/documents/pd_track_changes.pdf


Note: For assistance with translation, the words Adminstrative Procedure Act have been scrubbed completely from the document, and been replaced with "Act" which refers to the Social Security Act. Also note, the words "Administrative Law Judge" now only exist on form SSA-801. In the remainder of the PD it has been replaced with the term "incumbent."

Old PD read:

Page 1, II. Functions:
Under the direct delegation from the Commissioner of SSA, and in the manner prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act, the Administrative Law Judge holds hearings and makes and issues decisions on appeals…

New PD reads:
Under a direct delegation from the Commissioner of SSA, and pursuant to agency regulations implementing the Social Security Act, as amended (Act), the incumbent has authority to hold hearings and make decisions on appeals…




Old PD read:

Page 4, III. Duties and Responsibilities:
(17) make findings of fact on each issue, giving the reasons therefore, and render conclusions of law; as sole Trier of fact and law,

New PD reads:
(17) make findings of fact in accordance with the Act, the agency’s regulations, rulings, and policy on each issue, giving the reasons therefore, and render conclusions of law;


Old PD read:
(18) fully consider all the evidence of record, and issue decisions with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which decisions are completely independent and final,…

New PD reads:
(18) fully consider all the evidence of record, and issue timely and legally sufficient decisions with the requirements of the Act, which decisions are individually assigned or individually approved by the incumbent…


Taken in conjunction, could it be argued that (1) my position no longer has any relevance to the Administrative Procedure Act, (2) the only decision making authortiy I have is based soley on SSA reg, ruling, and policy (what about District Court case law, or even issues of due process, Rules of evidence, procedure, etc?), (3) I am no longer the "sole Trier of fact and law", (4) my decisiona are no longer made within the requirements of the APA and are no longer "completely independent and final..." ?

[sealaw90]

Thank you Rob for pointing these isues out, and it looks problematic for the ALJ Corps.

Is the AALJ going to do anything about this? The PD was apparently in the works for approximately 18 months - didn't the union have notice that something was afoot?
I am not sure which is worse - that SSA felt compelled to change the PD or that the union sat by silently? I am watching what the union does with this, and if I ever get to join the ranks of the ALJ Corps, I may or may not join the union based upon how they actually represent us in this matter.
Suffice it to say I am dissapointed all around, as I was really looking for a career change from advocate to ALJ. I still wonder if I would be trading DOD crap for SSA crap - which pile stinks less? Assuming of course I even make it through the entire process!

[christina]

i had the impression the ALJ union was not aware of the PD changes until last month. perhaps my impression is wrong but that was my take away.

[bartleby]

Sealaw90, Having spoken to many of the upper level Union personnel, it is my understanding that this was the best kept secret that SSA has ever had. The Agency is supposed to discuss any substantial changes with the Union prior to making these types of decisions unilaterally. That was not done. It is my understanding that this will be a first level attack on the change. The Union is being very hush-hush about their strategy and I will admit it is frustrating. Normally an individual has a specific amount of time to file a grievance on matters with the Agency. I think it is 30 days, but I am not certain. My quandry is, should individual Judges file grievances about the PD now or wait for the Union. I would hate to waive my rights to file while waiting on the Union since they are being so closed mouth about their strategy. I understand their need to maintian secrecy for strategy sake, but, it leaves us in a quandry as to how to proceed on any level. I do trust the Union and I feel confident that they have our best interest at heart, but the quiet is deafening..

[christina]

bartleby, could u file something and then withdraw it if the union also files something?

[sealaw90]

Jan 8, 2014 9:59:13 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Sealaw90, Having spoken to many of the upper level Union personnel, it is my understanding that this was the best kept secret that SSA has ever had. The Agency is supposed to discuss any substantial changes with the Union prior to making these types of decisions unilaterally. That was not done. It is my understanding that this will be a first level attack on the change. The Union is being very hush-hush about their strategy and I will admit it is frustrating. Normally an individual has a specific amount of time to file a grievance on matters with the Agency. I think it is 30 days, but I am not certain. My quandry is, should individual Judges file grievances about the PD now or wait for the Union. I would hate to waive my rights to file while waiting on the Union since they are being so closed mouth about their strategy. I understand their need to maintian secrecy for strategy sake, but, it leaves us in a quandry as to how to proceed on any level. I do trust the Union and I feel confident that they have our best interest at heart, but the quiet is deafening..

Bartleby, first off, I appreciate the information, as it helps explain some things.  Second, sounds like AALJ needs to conduct a phone conference with members.  That way, any information posted on the website or emails being sent around cannot get into the "wrong" hands. This is frustrating to say the least.  You can always grieve the personnel action and then withdraw it, as Christina said, and i think there is some serious merit to that action.   

[moopigsdad]

Jan 8, 2014 11:24:48 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

Jan 8, 2014 9:59:13 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Sealaw90, Having spoken to many of the upper level Union personnel, it is my understanding that this was the best kept secret that SSA has ever had. The Agency is supposed to discuss any substantial changes with the Union prior to making these types of decisions unilaterally. That was not done. It is my understanding that this will be a first level attack on the change. The Union is being very hush-hush about their strategy and I will admit it is frustrating. Normally an individual has a specific amount of time to file a grievance on matters with the Agency. I think it is 30 days, but I am not certain. My quandry is, should individual Judges file grievances about the PD now or wait for the Union. I would hate to waive my rights to file while waiting on the Union since they are being so closed mouth about their strategy. I understand their need to maintian secrecy for strategy sake, but, it leaves us in a quandry as to how to proceed on any level. I do trust the Union and I feel confident that they have our best interest at heart, but the quiet is deafening..

Bartleby, first off, I appreciate the information, as it helps explain some things.  Second, sounds like AALJ needs to conduct a phone conference with members.  That way, any information posted on the website or emails being sent around cannot get into the "wrong" hands. This is frustrating to say the least.  You can always grieve the personnel action and then withdraw it, as Christina said, and i think there is some serious merit to that action.   

I don't think bartleby wants to be the poster child for grieving the issue himself. I think the Union needs to step up and do it due diligence by sticking up for its dues paying members. If it doesn't fight this issue, then there would be no reason for a Union at all for ALJs in the future. If this occurs without a fight from the Union and its members, then the ALJs will be nothing more than glorified hearing officers. I am sure many will be happy as long as their pay isn't decreased, but there are many issues way more important than an ALJ's pay that affect their everyday working lives.

[sealaw90]

mpg, I don't think this has anything to do with pay at all. Erosion of the APA as well as the ALJ corps in SSA is the frustrating part. I totally agree that the union's silence is not what the members want to hear. As far as a poster child - perhaps Bartleby's kitties can file the grievance :-)!

[moopigsdad]

Jan 8, 2014 12:41:39 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

mpg, I don't think this has anything to do with pay at all. Erosion of the APA as well as the ALJ corps in SSA is the frustrating part. I totally agree that the union's silence is not what the members want to hear. As far as a poster child - perhaps Bartleby's kitties can file the grievance :-)!

I know the issue is not about pay, but many ALJs in the ranks now will not want to "rock-the-boat" if it doesn't affect their pay. To some of them the PD means nothing. Now, you and I say they are totally foolish, but I am sure that is how many actually feel. As long as they have a job and pay, what the job requires them to do isn't as important to them.

[bartleby]

Sealaw90, My kitties file grievances every morning when I leave them. There is talk of mutiny among the clowder if I don't retire and spend more time with them. Their idea of fun is getting me into the recliner, covering me with the blue blanket and then draping themselves all over it in weird positions so I can't move and then falling asleep for hours on end..

[sealaw90]

mpg - true, so very true.

Bartleby - my kitty has filed a habeus corpus brief in support of releasing him from the dogs that I am babysiting for the next week - it is not a pretty sight at my house. LOL!

[bartleby]

I hesitate to file a grievance as I am afraid I might mess it up for the Union. I also agree that this has nothing to do with money and everything to do with the position. Unfortunately there are many that have drunk the kool-aide and do not understand what the APA is all about, the protection it promises us, and the responsibility that goes along with that. We cannot and must not align ourselves with the Agency as our sole role is to stand between the public and the Agency and make sure the public has a fair shake from the Agency. We are not and cannot be employees of the Agency or we cannot stand independently for the public.. It's not rocket science, but the kool-aide is strong.

[christina]

bartleby, could u file a barebones grievance? I am thinking if your pleadings are minimal but enough to file, that would be unlikely to damage union case. I am hopeful the union will file something but that 30 day deadline is coming up. and i agree with another poster that it would be best for the union to get you guys up to speed. yeah, i guess the koolaide must be available at the newer trainings. Rather not think about it too much :/

[privateatty]

I would not be so quick to castigate AALJ and assume that they are doing nothing. By all accounts they were blindsided--deliberately. That they will respond I have little doubt.

Thank you robg for your excellant post.

[christina]

deliberately blindsiding a union on an issue this big shows where the agency is at..... Still hard to believe and by this i mean I did not realize the agency had reached a point this low. I fully believe the union was blindsided. 

[pubdef]

Jan 8, 2014 12:48:29 GMT -5 moopigsdad said:

Jan 8, 2014 12:41:39 GMT -5 sealaw90 said:

mpg, I don't think this has anything to do with pay at all. Erosion of the APA as well as the ALJ corps in SSA is the frustrating part. I totally agree that the union's silence is not what the members want to hear. As far as a poster child - perhaps Bartleby's kitties can file the grievance :-)!

I know the issue is not about pay, but many ALJs in the ranks now will not want to "rock-the-boat" if it doesn't affect their pay. To some of them the PD means nothing. Now, you and I say they are totally foolish, but I am sure that is how many actually feel. As long as they have a job and pay, what the job requires them to do isn't as important to them.

As an outsider, it is clear enough to me that this PD change is significant. If people that are directly affected by the change (whether they feel the effects of it or not) think it means nothing, I don't think they are upholding their broad ethical duty. Judges and attorneys should point out when there are potential ethical or legal problems. It's time for the Union and the ALJs to fight for their independence. They owe it not only to themselves but also the public. That's just my opinion.

[christina]

pubdef, i'm sure the union will fight it. i think some are understandably on edge cause they don't know how the union will fight it and it sounds like there has been inadequate communication with its members so far. That being said, from what i've indirectly witnessed of the ALJ union over the years, there is no way they will sit this one out.

[bartleby]

I am well aware of the intolerance of politics on this board, however, it is possible that considering this topic and it's importance to all involved that an exception may be in order. It may very well be impossible to have a discussion regarding this topic with out politics being introduced.. JMHO, as usual.

[71stretch]

I don't think the political party of the current administration has anything to do with what should, or will, happen in terms of the AALJ. So, I agree with bartleby that we can leave that out of it, and with chinook that we should.

[deltajudge]

8-)This is not a new thing. It has been going on for decades. SSA has always been resentful of ALJs and the APA. It just goes back to that old beauracratic control of everything.