|
|
Post by issuegirl on Sept 4, 2014 17:19:18 GMT -5
I need help from the think tank. I am geographically separated from my family. The only way I've been able to make this job work is through flexiplace. I maintain a home in 2 locations, but have done flexiplace where my family resides. This has never been an issue with management in the past. However, I have been told that my telework agreement will not be approved now because my residence is not within two hours of the office, as the new telework agreement states that you must be subject to call back within two hours. I am not going to lie on my telework agreement. Moreover with VPN, the location you're at can be tracked I don't plan to give up using the Vpn. I know of several judges that have cabins up north, etc. and telework from more than two hours away. I am very close to a remote hearing site, so in the extremely unlikely event that I ever I did get called back into work on a telework day, I can connect by video but there is no provision for this in the agreement. I know that this won't impact many people, but some of us will be a majorly impacted, such as those geographically separated from spouses and kids and those who do four-day weekends from another location.
Anyone have any thoughts or ideas. I guess I could send this up to Falls Church to decide. If I'm not approved, I will need to take leave every week. My existing situation has worked for me for several years, and never had a problem. This change just does not seem to me to be within the commonsense approach of the idea behind telework. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Sept 4, 2014 18:18:24 GMT -5
Have you talked to your union rep?
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 4, 2014 18:21:27 GMT -5
Ordinarily I would say that the fact that you have been doing this for years it could be a "past practice" that needs negotiation with the union, but if it is "new" in the new telework agreement, not a good argument. It's hard to point to others who do things and say "see Judge A goes to his cabin" and isn't actually within the 2 hour window since you can't bring in another individual's facts....but maybe argue inconsistent application of the agreement? Arbitrary application? Have you consulted with the union? Ugh...tough situation! Sorry you are in this dilemma!
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 4, 2014 19:02:22 GMT -5
We were warned of this in another thread awhile back. This is an issue that must be brought to the union's attention asap. If there is a location closer to your home that you be called into work to, that should be sufficient and a point to be made to the union.
If you search the blog, you'll find that thread and you can IM those folks who are possibly in the same situation. Good luck and keep us posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Sept 4, 2014 19:39:22 GMT -5
Is there now a minimum number of cases that need to be scheduled in order to be eligible for telework?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 4, 2014 20:28:28 GMT -5
Is there now a minimum number of cases that need to be scheduled in order to be eligible for telework? Read this thread . . . " ...if a judge does not schedule a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing, then the judge’s ability to telework may be restricted until a reasonably attainable number of cases are scheduled."
|
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Sept 4, 2014 22:05:36 GMT -5
As I understand it, there will be a graduated requirement with a 50 scheduled per month, on a rolling average, beginning Oct 2015; I don't remember what the rate of acceleration until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Sept 5, 2014 11:04:26 GMT -5
Could you perhaps make the case that your family home/telework site is within 2 hours of your ODAR office by plane?
I think the conundrum here is a bureaucratic one. Your local management probably actually would be fine with approving your arrangement, since it has worked for all parties just fine for years. However, they need to be able to justify having approved it if, say, someday some muckety-muck in the regional office or Falls Church or (heaven forbid) Congress decides on a whim to audit all the ALJ telework agreements. Not unreasonably they will want sufficient cover in the event they are ever questioned on why they allowed your apparently nonconforming agreement.
Trying to think creatively here on how to give them such cover (maybe others have better ideas)...Perhaps you could promise, in writing, that if there is ever a call-back to the office you will use your best effort to make it back within 2 hours (possibly 3 hours - isn't there something in the agreement about occasional tardiness of up to one hour being excusable?) - taking a plane if necessary - or take leave?
Now, obviously, if a call-back were ever to actually happen, you would simply take leave (which you could do even if your telework site was across the street from your ODAR office, by the way) instead of dashing to the airport and forking over $1000+ of your own money to hop on the very next flight. But there's no need to emphasize what you would actually do, since a call-back will probably never happen in real life anyway. Instead, just come up with something in writing that makes it look sincerely plausible that you could and would comply with the (creatively-interpreted) letter of the telework agreement's 2-hour provision.
They may go for it, they may not; but nothing ventured, nothing gained...
|
|
|
|
Post by quesera on Sept 5, 2014 13:19:06 GMT -5
Please let us know how it all turns out. These new contract provisions have implications for all three bargaining units in ODAR.
|
|
|
|
Post by southernmiss on Sept 5, 2014 16:35:37 GMT -5
We were just informed by our RCALJ that the MINIMUM amount of cases to be SCHEDULED
|
|
|
|
Post by southernmiss on Sept 5, 2014 16:37:16 GMT -5
Our RCALJ informed us Wednesday that the MINIMUM cases that can be SCHEDULED per month, in order to work at home, is 60.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Sept 5, 2014 17:07:10 GMT -5
Our RCALJ informed us Wednesday that the MINIMUM cases that can be SCHEDULED per month, in order to work at home, is 60. I thought the minimum was 50 for telework. Is your region upping the ante even further, or did I misunderstand? |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 5, 2014 17:35:49 GMT -5
The Agency has removed any and all discretion for management in these matters. Welcome to ODAR world.
|
|
|
|
Post by issuegirl on Sept 5, 2014 17:44:18 GMT -5
Thanks to those of you who gave me suggestions through this post and also through private messaging. I will update my post over the next few weeks as I get more information from management.
|
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Sept 5, 2014 18:08:49 GMT -5
Our RCALJ informed us Wednesday that the MINIMUM cases that can be SCHEDULED per month, in order to work at home, is 60. I thought the minimum was 50 for telework. Is your region upping the ante even further, or did I misunderstand? CALJ Bice's memo said 40 cases between 10/2014-3/2015, and then 45 from 4/2015-9/2015, 50 cases afterwards. The memo is posted in the thread link by Baglady up above - thanks Baglady. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Sept 5, 2014 22:17:05 GMT -5
Our RCALJ informed us Wednesday that the MINIMUM cases that can be SCHEDULED per month, in order to work at home, is 60. I saw an e-mail that said the maximum number of cases to be assigned per month is 60. If the max assigned is 60, how can the min scheduled be 60? |
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Sept 6, 2014 6:24:29 GMT -5
Early this year, if I remember the date correctly, Judge Bice sent all the ALJs a memo talking about the ramp-up to a certain number of cases scheduled/dispositions over the next year or so, for an ALJ to be able to telework. I frankly doubt that a Regional Chief Judge has any authority to require even greater productivity from the ALJs who want to telework. I personally think that Judge Bice's minimums are reasonable and achievable.
This past week, Judge Bice sent all the ALJs a memo saying that the maximum number of cases that could be assigned to an ALJ was 720 per year. Again, the RCALJs have no authority to change that. Bartleby, if you have written documentation from Judge Bice that says otherwise, I would welcome it if you'd post it. If some crackpot RCALJ says otherwise, somebody better report him or her to Judge Bice. I am confident that she will take care of it.
It seems to me, Bartleby, that the majority of your posts reflect a belief that Management is out to get us. I have to tell you--I just don't see it. My HOCALJ is delightful. My HOD is delightful. Nobody pressures me in any way. I don't think I'm quite going to meet goal this year, but that's because of office issues that are not within my control. It's no big deal, as I know that I am perceived as being conscientious. Every day--every single day, without exception--I feel I have complete, unfettered, unhindered decisional independence. Nobody pressures me to schedule cases. Nobody pressures me to decide one way or the other. I am treated as a professional, and I treat others as professionals.
The sky is not falling. Everybody get a grip! As Rodney King once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"--clearly anticipating the tension that some see in the ODAR Management/ALJ relationship. In my view, that perception is baseless.
Best, Hamster
|
|
|
|
Post by futuressaalj on Sept 6, 2014 6:49:26 GMT -5
Early this year, if I remember the date correctly, Judge Bice sent all the ALJs a memo talking about the ramp-up to a certain number of cases scheduled/dispositions over the next year or so, for an ALJ to be able to telework. I frankly doubt that a Regional Chief Judge has any authority to require even greater productivity from the ALJs who want to telework. I personally think that Judge Bice's minimums are reasonable and achievable. This past week, Judge Bice sent all the ALJs a memo saying that the maximum number of cases that could be assigned to an ALJ was 720 per year. Again, the RCALJs have no authority to change that. Bartleby, if you have written documentation from Judge Bice that says otherwise, I would welcome it if you'd post it. If some crackpot RCALJ says otherwise, somebody better report him or her to Judge Bice. I am confident that she will take care of it. It seems to me, Bartleby, that the majority of your posts reflect a belief that Management is out to get us. I have to tell you--I just don't see it. My HOCALJ is delightful. My HOD is delightful. Nobody pressures me in any way. I don't think I'm quite going to meet goal this year, but that's because of office issues that are not within my control. It's no big deal, as I know that I am perceived as being conscientious. Every day--every single day, without exception--I feel I have complete, unfettered, unhindered decisional independence. Nobody pressures me to schedule cases. Nobody pressures me to decide one way or the other. I am treated as a professional, and I treat others as professionals. The sky is not falling. Everybody get a grip! As Rodney King once asked, "Why can't we all just get along?"--clearly anticipating the tension that some see in the ODAR Management/ALJ relationship. In my view, that perception is baseless. Best, Hamster Hamster I'd like to come work at your office. It is on my GAL and it seems like a great place to work. Having said that, I have worked in offices that are dysfunctional and I suspect that Bartley works in such an office. I believe his office is on my GAL and I hope that if fortunate enough to get a job with ODAR that I do not wind up there. |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Sept 6, 2014 7:58:31 GMT -5
Our RCALJ informed us Wednesday that the MINIMUM cases that can be SCHEDULED per month, in order to work at home, is 60. I saw an e-mail that said the maximum number of cases to be assigned per month is 60. If the max assigned is 60, how can the min scheduled be 60? I concur with Baglady. Chief Judge Bice's e-mail that went out this week says maximum number of cases assigned per month is 60, and maximum dispo cap for a year is 720. I saw the e-mail myself, so it's valid. Now as for this alleged RCALJ's comment, the number just doesn't add up to what Judge Bice announced to all ALJs in the agency. I seriously doubt any RCALJ would be saying something like that in the current environment. But assuming it's true, please report it up to Judge Bice. |
|
|
|
Post by cougarfan on Sept 6, 2014 10:44:56 GMT -5
My experience mirrors Hamster's post. I've worked in two offices, in each office I've had excellent HOCALJs and HODs and I don't feel any pressure regarding numbers. I'm sure there other experiences in other offices.
Regarding the work at home number, the OCALJ memo has already been linked and I would note that I am quite happily working from home 4 days every other week (I take that Friday off) scheduling only 50 hearings per month.
|
|
