|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 2, 2014 20:30:57 GMT -5
Mpd, You continue to fail to see my point. I don't care if one is an in or out, as long as they are good, conscientious judges that can do the job. That job can only be accomplished if the staff is equally good and conscientious. I know there are some shitty writers in the ranks now. No doubt bart and others see their workproduct regularly. But whether they admit it or not, there are some. damn good ones that really care and have pulled a couple bad cases from the fire for those same judges. You can work for a firm, do rep work or whatever but unless you have been in an odar office you can't fathom the degrees of hell having a bunch of writers that just don't care, that won't help fix your mistakesor just do the bare minimum can cause an office. My office has a share of shitty writers. Most didn't even apply and the ones that did couldn't write the AQ well enougth to break phase 1. I have no doubt from our many board convos and pm discussions you will makea fine alj. But I don't care what experience you have, you are gonna have only as much success as the staff in your office lets you have. Get a crappy decision? More work for you in an already crammed schedule. Remember, you have no supervisory authority over the writers. And you can't direct your opinions to the writers you want. I know some have problems with the perceived insider advantage. That's fine. Its a competition. But at least recognize that anything that gives a disincentive to the staff isn't good for you. No one is saying every AA or SAA "deserves" to make alj or should. But the deck also shouldn't be stacked so high against them that the best of them still can't advance. If these folks were told from the beginning this was a no advance job, like ul mentioned above, then that's one thing. I guess future hires have fair warning. But to be told since 07 they had a Shot and to have it almost entirely removed is just wrong. It leads to complacency and contempt, two things that are all to frequently encountered in gov work anyway. Finally, and for hoepfully the last time, I don't think being an insider makes you better for the alj job than an outsider. Suitability for the job hinges on much more subjective criteria. That said, some outsiders who dislike the perceived insider advantage in odar hiring need to reassess any penchant for degrading or downplaying the knolwledge, experience, work ethic and value of the AAs. All it does is show you have no funkin idea what you are trying to get into or how huge a part those staffers you degrade will play in your quality of life as a judge. Funkster, I understand your point completely, despite your belief I don't buddy. I don't think there is insider bias hiring by SSA, despite your inclination I somehow think it. I am sure there are many qualified AAs/SAAs that work at SSA and I wholeheartedly believe this point. However, where we disagree is what working at SSA should entitle you to, if anything. Your belief reminds me of those T-Ball teams where there is no winning or losing team when they play and everyone who competes or plays gets a trophy. We can't have people thinking that nobody ever loses in life and everybody always wins. Perhaps in your world we should just do away with federal competitive testing and anoint AAs/SAAs as ALJs. This way nobody's feelings will get hurt if they work for SSA and they all can be winners. (Now, realize I am only taking it to the extreme just to prove my point.) I know we will possibly lose some excellent writers from SSA, but like in a lot of law firms, hopefully a new group of good attorneys will come along to replace those who leave. Just as your office will lose an excellent writer if you leave to become an ALJ, so should we hope you not get the position, so your office and the public doesn't suffer from you leaving your job to advance. We have to hope for the best and prepare for the worse. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Apr 2, 2014 20:32:58 GMT -5
Innie outie ... All post umbilical cord. The proof is in the life each one breathes into the paperwork. Who can articulate their value the best. Sad but true... It's all about wordsmanship. And hopefully that translates to reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 2, 2014 20:38:51 GMT -5
Well stated sratty. It's all not important other than whether someone can do the job or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 21:00:43 GMT -5
Mpd,
You claim to grasp my point but then go directly to "maybe we should just annoint AAs and SAAs." Which proves my point went flew right by you, passed GO and is awaiting payment of $200.
I don't know how I can make it more clear. Lets break it down. 1. Insiders and outsiders both make great judges. Its subjective. 2. Not every insider or outsider will make a good judge. Its subjective.
3. Good dedicated public servants were led to believe if they worked hard within odar they would have a shot at advancement. 4. That shot was largely taken away. 5. People sad. 6. Sad people don't give their all. 7. Gov jobs offer a lot of protection to people that don't give their all. You don't get anything special for doing it better than absolutely necessary except advancement opportunities. 8. See #4. 9. As an alj, you need these people to give their all. 10. Sure there are vast numbers of attorneys to fill these unhappy employees' slots if they leave, but where is the motivation for them to give there all?
How bout a visual. Look back at redryders excellent post about the inverted pyramid management theory. Thats you at the bottom, in the point, fresh new alj moopigsdad. That big base line at the top? That's the AAs you will depend on. Now, close your eyes and imagine a big condor flying over that inverted pyramid and taking a huge dump. Guess where all that shittiness flows...
I'm not offering a solution. I'm happily on the register and I believe the testing found great candidates. But if you wanna hold on to the belief that setting the standard such that AAs and SAAs have no real shot is the best way to go about this...well, I hope you like condor shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Apr 2, 2014 21:05:48 GMT -5
Far more importantly, how long have we been able to say "shit"?
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 21:08:20 GMT -5
Indeed. I was surpised it went through.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 2, 2014 21:14:53 GMT -5
I said it about a week ago over at the polling palace.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Apr 2, 2014 21:19:46 GMT -5
So you shattered that glass ceiling for us. Or took us all down with you. Not sure which.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 2, 2014 21:23:36 GMT -5
Most likely the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 2, 2014 21:29:55 GMT -5
Funky I give up. I guess we are going to agree to disagree on some points. If AAs/SAAs have no shot or limited ones under the testing then how did you, sratty hopefalj, etc. make it to the Register? Sure, you will say I had other experience and that is the point privateatty and I have tried to make. If your only experience is working at SSA, then maybe you need to broaden your horizon and add in some experience at other attorney jobs. The more well rounded you are as an attorney the more likely you made the Register. Just as if all you did was litigation, the likelihood you may not have made the Register. A lot of litigators were tripped up by parts of the testing too. Ask gunner who got tripped up by the WD. It was testing to find well rounded attorneys. Let's leave it there. Yes, if it happens that all the good writers leave and only the bad writers remain, I guess I will be getting pooped on a lot, if I get lucky enough to be hired. I respect your opinion brother.  |
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Apr 2, 2014 21:38:07 GMT -5
Wait, how long have we been able to say "pooped"? BagLady, was that you too?
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 21:38:59 GMT -5
Same to you bro. Nothing but respect.
And don't worry, have have complete faith that you will land a gig. And even more faith that once you do, you will quickly realize just how right I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 2, 2014 21:43:58 GMT -5
And this is why I will be wearing my rain gear, my boots and carrying an umbrella just in case my brother, funky. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Apr 2, 2014 21:57:10 GMT -5
Funky I give up. I guess we are going to agree to disagree on some points. If AAs/SAAs have no shot or limited ones under the testing then how did you, sratty hopefalj, etc. make it to the Register? Sure, you will say I had other experience and that is the point privateatty and I have tried to make. If your only experience is working at SSA, then maybe you need to broaden your horizon and add in some experience at other attorney jobs. The more well rounded you are as an attorney the more likely you made the Register. Just as if all you did was litigation, the likelihood you may not have made the Register. A lot of litigators were tripped up by parts of the testing too. Ask gunner who got tripped up by the WD. It was testing to find well rounded attorneys. Let's leave it there. Yes, if it happens that all the good writers leave and only the bad writers remain, I guess I will be getting pooped on a lot, if I get lucky enough to be hired. I respect your opinion brother. I slept my way on to the register. Probably explains my fair-to-middlin' score. Now that we've given the 300th iteration of insider vs. outsider in this board's history, can we discuss more important issues like skirt suit or pant suit? If you get the call, will you wear a robe? And what is three-striking? |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 2, 2014 21:59:38 GMT -5
I'm definitely going skirt. With legs like dr. funkenstein's you don't hide em.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Apr 2, 2014 22:22:15 GMT -5
Now that we've given the 300th iteration of insider vs. outsider in this board's history, can we discuss more important issues like skirt suit or pant suit? Heck No!   |
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Apr 3, 2014 6:48:31 GMT -5
Mpd, I'm not offering a solution. I'm happily on the register and I believe the testing found great candidates. But if you wanna hold on to the belief that setting the standard such that AAs and SAAs have no real shot is the best way to go about this...well, I hope you like condor shit. Funky, why don't you think the AAs and SAAs have a real shot? For phase 1, decision writing is considered part of the 7 years litigation experience. My understanding of phase 2 and 3 is that it is graded based upon the merits of the answers given. While there may have been a lot of insiders who ultimately didn't make the cut, there may have been a same percentage of outsiders who also didn't make the cut who otherwise would have. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Apr 3, 2014 7:02:59 GMT -5
My point to Funky exactly grassgreener. Many people (insider and outsider) were cut during the process. I understand funky's concern about the AAs/SAAs not wanting to stick around without advancement, but that exist in every job. No advantage should exist for either group, whether insider or outsider. Now, I do understand funky's concerns, but I don't know how you solve it without having a bias toward one group or the other. I would rather have the best of the best moving on no matter where they come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 3, 2014 7:25:33 GMT -5
Funky's credentials are good as gold. He qualifies. I think that there may be something a lot of outsiders are not aware of. For a long time insiders were not given any credit for their work at SSA and were thereby not allowed to become Judges. That was changed and SSA experience counted for the application process. A group of sitting ALJ's got together and sought an injunction that SSA attorneys should nopt be allowed to be hired as ALJ's. This went over like a lead balloon, needless to say. There was much debate over the legitimacy of the action as it was supposedly based upon the fact that SSA attorneys just didn't have whatever to do the job. Behind the curtain, the rumor was that the ALJ Corp was scared to lose their best writers. Anyhow, this had a chilling effect in the OHA offices at the time and battle lines were drawn. At the time, even SSA attorneys with both inside and outside experience were being slighted, which was ridiculous. Then the pendulum swung and SSA attorneys were valued for their inside knowledge and the idea that they had already drunk the production kool aide and would toe the line. Now, OPM has gotten involved and it appears harder for the Agency to reach insiders, but we won't know for sure until the hiring is complete. Remember, ODAR does as ODAR wants to do, so there still may be a large hiring of insiders. Or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Apr 3, 2014 7:36:53 GMT -5
Mpd, I'm not offering a solution. I'm happily on the register and I believe the testing found great candidates. But if you wanna hold on to the belief that setting the standard sluch that AAs and SAAs have no real shot is the best way to go about this...well, I hope you like condor shit. Funky, why don't you think the AAs and SAAs have a real shot? For phase 1, decision writing is considered part of the 7 years litigation experience. My understanding of phase 2 and 3 is that it is graded based upon the merits of the answers given. While there may have been a lot of insiders who ultimately didn't make the cut, there may have been a same percentage of outsiders who also didn't make the cut who otherwise would have. gg, I agree the tests were tough on everybody. I mean, damn, like 25% were cut AFTER the DC round. But its pretty obvious the process redesign was most harsh to people without litigation experience and most in that category were career agency folks. you're right, 7 years of lit OR admin gets you by phase 1. But, by striking the old AR experience sections that gave you points for admin experience at phase 2 in favor of the new EA process that only awarded points based on litigation experience, one who got past phase 1 with the admin experience path and had little or no lit experience clearly had a bigger hurdle on the online components than litigators. If you got no or minimal points on the EA it only stands to reason you had to blow the SJT out of the water to make the "higher scored subgroup." from appearances, some adminners did that, but they are clearly the exceptions. All you have to do is look at the percentage of insiders that made it to DC and on this reg compared to the percentage of insiders on the old reg to see the effect. Again, not saying all insiders should have made it (or all litigators, I made a pretty good living when in private practice off the fact that there are plenty of stupid litigators out there). But there can be no question the new litigation centric process has completely or nearly completely closed the alj door for career admin folks. Are there exceptions, the state aljs and insiders with previous lit experience? sure. But if the door is shut to someone who went into public service out of lawschool, spent 20 years doing a great job using the law, facts and evidence to support alj decisions and knows the applicable rules and regs better than any alj in his office...? Sorry, but I don't see where adding a murder defense 20 years ago or a few hundred dui prosecutions 10 years ago makes that guy a better choice than he already is. I understand private,s position that litigation experience helps you know how to control a courtroom. But, if all the great litigators that made it envision themselves working for ssa and "cross examining the claimant" or "ruling on trial objections" or disallowing hearsay and all but the "best evidence"....well, you are in for some sad realizations. just check out the aalj newsletter someone posted. There is a sectionon bias complaints and what the agency did with them. From appearances, nothing the judges did would be improper in litigation, but in an ssa hearing? improper. When I came to odar and sat in on a hearing I was a bit shocked. if you have never seen one, don't imagine a trial. Its most akin to a deposition. Hell, there are good judges that have good disposition numbers and AC agreement rates that never ask a qauestion if the claimant is repped. They just let the rep lead the claimant thru their statements. To me, litigation experience is most helpful in teaching you to ask the right, targeted questions. But that skill, just like the rules and regs, can be learned. I mean damn, the new electronic bench book being phased in comes complte with scripts for the judges to read and suggested qauestions. I know we weren't just applying for odar judgeships and litigation is more important in some agencies. But with odar having 90% of all aljs and litigation skills being not so important for them, its just a calamity waiting to happen. Ssa already wants supervisory control of its judges. They appear to be gradually claiming that. It appears they'd love nothing better than turning their judges into "hearing examniers" or AJs without APA protection and to have the ability to discipline or terminate at will. By crafting the new testing process in a way that undoes odars past gains that got a healthy number of insiders on the reg and focusing alj qualifications on skills that have only mild impact on what odar does, opm has created a morale problem within ssa that will, sooner or later, negatively impact odars mission. That's just another justification for odar to push for doing its own hiring of hearing examiners without APA protection. That would suck for the judges and the claimants. It would also suck for wannabes. How would you like it if 90% of the jobs we are all competing for disappeared to a process that's internal and offers almost no hope to an outsider? Again, I don't see a clear fix. But there needs to be one. Having a register light on odar insiders coupled with low morale from the troops over the lack of advancement opportunities and a register consisting of people with skills odar doesn't value all that much is playing right into the hands of those that want to turn aljs at ssa into hearing examiners. |
|
