|
Post by ba on Jan 23, 2015 13:53:31 GMT -5
While the result I expected, after listening to the OA, I actually was surprised that the opinion wasn't harsher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 14:16:51 GMT -5
Karma: what goes around comes around. I myself worked in meat packing (Yes long ago). Thus with all respect to the 7th CCA, I myself stand proud to say that I was and am honored to have been a line laborer in poultry/meat processing as well as now a US Administrative Law Judge; both equally respectful positions IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jan 23, 2015 16:21:09 GMT -5
What a piece of work Posner is! Oh well, gotta get back to boning them chickens!
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 23, 2015 17:30:04 GMT -5
There must be a silver lining somewhere. Here it is: Posner will now not beat up on the ALJ decisions he receives in SSA appeals. That should be a relief for Chicago judges. After all, how much can he really expect from a bunch of chicken deboners?
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Jan 23, 2015 23:18:02 GMT -5
Bowser, Sir, I must respectfully remind you, it is de-boning the chickens, not boning the chickens. The is a respectable Board...
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 24, 2015 7:30:41 GMT -5
Bowser, Sir, I must respectfully remind you, it is de-boning the chickens, not boning the chickens. The is a respectable Board... Best post ever! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 24, 2015 8:45:27 GMT -5
Bowser, Sir, I must respectfully remind you, it is de-boning the chickens, not boning the chickens. The is a respectable Board... Another great laugh for the day. However, I must say I have no idea what Bowser does with his chickens. Just remind me not to have a chicken dinner at his house!
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jan 24, 2015 8:57:52 GMT -5
Papajudge wrote: "Thus with all respect to the 7th CCA, I myself stand proud to say that I was and am honored to have been a line laborer in poultry/meat processing as well as now a US Administrative Law Judge; both equally respectful positions IMHO."
Good for you, Papajudge! A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I worked in a salmon cannery in Kodiak, Alaska for four summers. I stank of fish guts for several months each year, but I could tell a halibut from a King Salmon, by God. It was good, honest labor, and I'm glad I did that in my youth (and don't do it anymore!). I have great empathy for the chicken deboners, hand packagers, table workers, and potato chip inspectors I hear so much about these days.
I especially liked this language from the concurrence, which I hope will "ripple" through the Corps:
"The administrative adjudicative process is a vital part of our system of administering justice in today's United States. Indeed, it is in the administrative process that most Americans have any contact with the American Justice system. Here, their Government decides whether their elderly family members will receive a steady, albeit basic, income stream in their old age. Here, those in their family who have the misfortune of coping with a physical or psychiatric disability find whether they are eligible for sufficient support to live in some semblance of economic dignity. Administrative law judges affect directly the lives of millions; the quality of their work deeply affects, moreover, the respect that our people have for our system of justice. The rights of Americans are not processed by our judges; they are adjudicated. The task of adjudication at the administrative level involves an intimate knowledge of a complicated statutory scheme and the capacity to comprehend and analyze technical and, at times, conflicting statutory material. The judge must have the practical wisdom to evaluate the testimony, some of it true, some of it untrue, and some of it simply mistaken. ... [T]hese analytical and evaluative tasks alone are time-consuming and demand great attention to detail."
Thanks, Judge Ripple!
Best, Hamster
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Jan 24, 2015 9:16:34 GMT -5
Karma: what goes around comes around. I myself worked in meat packing (Yes long ago). Thus with all respect to the 7th CCA, I myself stand proud to say that I was and am honored to have been a line laborer in poultry/meat processing as well as now a US Administrative Law Judge; both equally respectful positions IMHO. Agreed PJ. Not sure what J. Posner meant by that paragraph. If he was trying to say ALJ's are wannabes or whiners, say it. He is an Article III and likely would not be impeached for it. No need to drag people who bust their butt for a living into it or to diminish other people's livelihoods.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jan 24, 2015 9:45:12 GMT -5
I personally wish Posner had gone with "candy wrapper" instead of "chicken deboner":
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jan 24, 2015 11:34:12 GMT -5
So it seems that ALJs should, on the one hand, not be accorded the control of their office that comes with an Article 3 judgeship, most importantly, a team structure and hiring and firing discretion for their staff and clerks (aka writers). But, on the other hand, ALJs should act as professionals by staying at the office after normal hours in order to do a diligent job on all cases before them, regardless of sometimes (not always) getting poor quality support from staff.
I agree wholeheartedly with the latter--if you're a lawyer and a judge, you should do top level work on all matters you handle, regardless of how long it takes. For a true professional, there are no "office hours." To argue, as the union apparently has, that the increased workload "prevents" full consideration of the cases implies a clock-punching mentality that IMHO is beneath the office of any judge. Staying until the job is complete is the hallmark of a professional.
However, it seems unfair to then shackle the ALJ by giving her no authority to select the best staff for the job and demand the best of her staff. It is essential in my private practice office that I have reliable and skilled staff, or the team doesn't work efficiently and the process breaks down. Part of that equation is I pick them, I train them, and they perform well or they are gone. If that occurs, the fault is mine for not picking and training well.
The move toward writer "pools" is doomed from a quality standpoint--see the old "secretarial pool" model. That worked ok for bookkeepers, but will not work for the complex and nuanced practice of law (or, I would think, ALJs).
Do I still want the job? Yes. But based on the discussions above could the ALJs' work circumstances be improved? Yes. Will anything change? Doesn't look like it, at least in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 24, 2015 11:50:57 GMT -5
So it seems that ALJs should, on the one hand, not be accorded the control of their office that comes with an Article 3 judgeship, most importantly, a team structure and hiring and firing discretion for their staff and clerks (aka writers). But, on the other hand, ALJs should act as professionals by staying at the office after normal hours in order to do a diligent job on all cases before them, regardless of sometimes (not always) getting poor quality support from staff. I agree wholeheartedly with the latter--if you're a lawyer and a judge, you should do top level work on all matters you handle, regardless of how long it takes. For a true professional, there are no "office hours." To argue, as the union apparently has, that the increased workload "prevents" full consideration of the cases implies a clock-punching mentality that IMHO is beneath the office of any judge. Staying until the job is complete is the hallmark of a professional. However, it seems unfair to then shackle the ALJ by giving her no authority to select the best staff for the job and demand the best of her staff. It is essential in my private practice office that I have reliable and skilled staff, or the team doesn't work efficiently and the process breaks down. Part of that equation is I pick them, I train them, and they perform well or they are gone. If that occurs, the fault is mine for not picking and training well. The move toward writer "pools" is doomed from a quality standpoint--see the old "secretarial pool" model. That worked ok for bookkeepers, but will not work for the complex and nuanced practice of law (or, I would think, ALJs). Do I still want the job? Yes. But based on the discussions above could the ALJs' work circumstances be improved? Yes. Will anything change? Doesn't look like it, at least in the near future. The ALJs are confined to specific working hours unlike private practice. Even though they have the ability to enter and leave the building at times staff is not allowed, the hours are still limited by the contract. And they do punch a clock so to speak as they must sign in and sign out.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 24, 2015 14:00:18 GMT -5
"The ALJs are confined to specific working hours unlike private practice. Even though they have the ability to enter and leave the building at times staff is not allowed, the hours are still limited by the contract. And they do punch a clock so to speak as they must sign in and sign out."
This is largely true, which is why I am in here on Saturday and will be in again on Sunday, as I am almost every single week of the year, and why I stay from 6 - 6 on weekdays. I come in and do my utmost, and sometime that is still not enough - because I simply do not get the support that the Chief Judge has said that I am supposed to get. So it all falls on me. Staff are more restricted in their work hours - and I don't really expect them to come in and work uncompensated as I do.
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Jan 24, 2015 14:25:02 GMT -5
Bowser, Sir, I must respectfully remind you, it is de-boning the chickens, not boning the chickens. The is a respectable Board... Best post ever! LOL! ROFTL.
|
|
Yeats
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by Yeats on Jan 24, 2015 19:10:53 GMT -5
A DISSENTING VOICE: LITIGATION RUIN
The Seventh Circuit has spoken, and Judge Posner’s opinion can be read as a ringing endorsement of quotas for ALJs. Ironically, the very thing that AALJ sought to end (the imposition of quotas) through its lawsuit has led to a legal opinion that management can use to justify quotas in the future.
Originally, when I went on record I predicted that this might be the outcome. My remarks prompted a member of the AALJ Executive Board (“NEB”) to wager the NEB’s 100 odd years of litigation experience against my lone opinion. Like many expressions of bravado, history has punctured it. But although I derive some mean spirited satisfaction from watching this NEB member eat his arrogant words, I would rather be on the wrong side of history than live to see the eminently predictable outcome of this litigation effort.
For me, watching the events unfold has been the legal equivalent of watching a car wreck in slow motion. First, there was the NEB’s unwillingness to explain to its membership why it believed that the lawsuit would be successful. Second, there was the poorly drafted and conceptualized civil complaint. Third, there was the District Court’s dismissal and one last opportunity to cabin the harm from this lawsuit by not continuing the litigation. Finally, there was the poor appellate brief and the even poorer appellate argument by Judge Zahm that led to the scathing opinion by Judge Posner. At every stage, the NEB had an opportunity to retreat but instead, heedlessly kept pursuing and ultimately achieving litigation ruin.
Now, at the end of the day, hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money has been spent on producing a result that management can use to further intimidate and “manage” judges. Given the magnitude of this setback, I think that is incumbent on the NEB to give the membership access to the materials and discussions that formed a backdrop for this monumental lapse in judgment.
Based upon Judge Wenzel’s presentation in Savannah, we know that the Board received legal memos from two law professors, and a law firm about the issues in this lawsuit. Similarly, the NEB minutes that refer to discussions about the lawsuit have been hidden in Executive Session, and very little is known about Board discussions about the pros and the cons of suing. Finally, there is also the matter of cost. How much exactly did the NEB spend on this matter?
It is now time to release these materials to the membership so it can see some of the legal analysis the Board considered in making this decision. Since this litigation should be for all practical purposes be at an end, there is no further justification for keeping these materials under wraps and every justification for giving the membership the opportunity to independently evaluate the NEB’s judgments here.
If I had to hazard a guess about what went wrong here, I would conjecture three things. First, I think it is likely that the Board pretty much followed Judge Wenzel’s lead in this matter, and did not actively challenge his conclusions about the likelihood of litigation success, the status of the law or the proper venue for the lawsuit. I suspect that if a history was ever written, he would have to bear a large measure of responsibility for this misguided venture. Second, each NEB member (as should have been their individual responsibility in a decision of this magnitude) did not study the law deeply and form their own conclusions about the merits. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, one Board Member came to visit my hearing office to discuss the lawsuit. The one thing that stood out from her presentation was how reliant she was on the law firm’s opinion in the matter, and how little knowledge she herself had of the issues at stake. Before I voted to support a decision that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and make terrible law, I would very much want to know the issues inside out. Finally, there was the NEB’s failure to understand that any perceived need for a lawsuit had been eliminated by Congressional pressure on the Agency to produce higher quality decisions. At the time the lawsuit was dismissed in District Court, the Agency was actively retreating from a numbers at any cost philosophy and embracing “quality” because of Congressional pressure. There was no longer any need to continue the lawsuit.
The time has come for the NEB to be transparent. The time has come to give us as much information as it can provide about how this decision was reached so that we can judge whether they should continue to represent us or be replaced. If history is prologue, I suspect that we will continue to see the NEB blame everyone else for this terrible result rather than accept responsibility for it themselves. And we will continue to see Judge Frye continue his insular approach to decision-making, one that smacks more of the three amigos in an Albany, New York political backroom than one that is sensitive to the AALJ membership’s needs and values their opinions.
God help our honorable corps.
Zachary S. Weiss
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Jan 25, 2015 8:56:56 GMT -5
Yeats wrote: "Now, at the end of the day, hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money has been spent on producing a result that management can use to further intimidate and 'manage' judges."
My comments: With all due respect to Yeats, I just don't get the perception that "management" is going to "further intimidate and 'manage' judges."
It's true that I, as an ALJ, would be susceptible to "further intimidat[ion] and 'manage[ment]'" if I was weak-kneed and pusillanimous. I would use an egg timer if I didn't care about doing my job right. I would agree to skip over half of the medical records in the file to economize on time if I had no guts and would simply cave to the insistence of a pushy group supervisor to "pay down the backlog."
Please! Stop the madness!
I do NOT have a pushy group supervisor. I do NOT have a mean-spirited HOD. I do NOT have a dictatorial HOCALJ. And you know what? Even if I did, it WOULDN'T MATTER!
I do not mean this as any criticism of any poster--not Yeats, not anybody. But there are judges out there who say, "Oh, gosh, mean old management is not permitting me to do my job!" Balderdash, people!
Sure, "management" wants you to move your cases. And, let's face it--there are some judges who won't, or can't. But if your HOCALJ or GS or HOD is a hand-wringing type--JUST IGNORE THEM! A judge who "uses an egg timer," or "pays down the backlog," or skips over half of the file himself or herself is the problem! "I was just following orders" hasn't worked as a legal excuse in over 50 years.
Grow a set, people! No ALJ has to cut corners unless YOU YOURSELF decide to cut those corners. People need to stop blaming mean old "management" and start directing blame where much of it properly lies. The taxpayers and the claimants rely on us to be honest and conscientious in the performance of our jobs. If an ALJ can't do that, regardless of the reason, he or she should resign. Make way for an ALJ who is willing to do the job right.
Management is not perfect. There is a tension between quality and quantity, I know. But ALJs should have the integrity to do the job right. The fault lies within--not without: It is not management's fault...it is our own.
Best, Hamster
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 25, 2015 9:14:55 GMT -5
"Management is not perfect. There is a tension between quality and quantity, I know. But ALJs should have the integrity to do the job right. The fault lies within--not without: It is not management's fault...it is our own."
Very good, Hamster. I think, by and large, ALJs "have the integrity to do the job right." But we can't make ODAR run all by ourselves. The question is whether management and our alleged supporting crew have the integrity. My files are disorganized and evidence is not properly exhibited. My decisions read as though they are written by grammar school dropouts. When I bring these issues up to management, they tell me that they will address those problems with the relevant personnel. But the problem is never solved - - and my name appears at the end of the decision. So here I am back at it again Sunday morning trying to fix things here at ODAR.
Management can never fix things, but they can sure fire me for not doing my job, regardless of whether I have been given proper support.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 25, 2015 9:23:38 GMT -5
Yeats wrote: "Now, at the end of the day, hundreds of thousands of dollars of our money has been spent on producing a result that management can use to further intimidate and 'manage' judges." My comments: With all due respect to Yeats, I just don't get the perception that "management" is going to "further intimidate and 'manage' judges." It's true that I, as an ALJ, would be susceptible to "further intimidat[ion] and 'manage[ment]'" if I was weak-kneed and pusillanimous. I would use an egg timer if I didn't care about doing my job right. I would agree to skip over half of the medical records in the file to economize on time if I had no guts and would simply cave to the insistence of a pushy group supervisor to "pay down the backlog." Please! Stop the madness! I do NOT have a pushy group supervisor. I do NOT have a mean-spirited HOD. I do NOT have a dictatorial HOCALJ. And you know what? Even if I did, it WOULDN'T MATTER! I do not mean this as any criticism of any poster--not Yeats, not anybody. But there are judges out there who say, "Oh, gosh, mean old management is not permitting me to do my job!" Balderdash, people! Sure, "management" wants you to move your cases. And, let's face it--there are some judges who won't, or can't. But if your HOCALJ or GS or HOD is a hand-wringing type--JUST IGNORE THEM! A judge who "uses an egg timer," or "pays down the backlog," or skips over half of the file himself or herself is the problem! "I was just following orders" hasn't worked as a legal excuse in over 50 years. Grow a set, people! No ALJ has to cut corners unless YOU YOURSELF decide to cut those corners. People need to stop blaming mean old "management" and start directing blame where much of it properly lies. The taxpayers and the claimants rely on us to be honest and conscientious in the performance of our jobs. If an ALJ can't do that, regardless of the reason, he or she should resign. Make way for an ALJ who is willing to do the job right. Management is not perfect. There is a tension between quality and quantity, I know. But ALJs should have the integrity to do the job right. The fault lies within--not without: It is not management's fault...it is our own. Best, Hamster AMEN!!! Work ethic, integrity, pride in our work, doing the right thing, self responsibility, whatever you want to call it....everyone should own it. THIS is one of the best straight to the point posts I have read on this board ever. Thanks Hamster!
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 25, 2015 12:24:26 GMT -5
Management can never fix things, but they can sure fire me for not doing my job, regardless of whether I have been given proper support. That's a little overstated, no? How many ALJs have ever been fired? Aside from Shapiro, have any been fired where they have not engaged in some form of outright illegal conduct? The amount of hoops that need to be jumped through and the level of documentation that is required to remove a judge is essentially prohibitive. It's the same for AFGE and NTEU line employees, which is why they can't fix the problems with workup or writing. They can counsel those folks until they're blue in the face, but the amount of work it takes to go down the road of removing someone exceeds what they are willing to do. I'm sorry that the job requires you to spend so much extra time fixing things to make sure things are done properly. I hope I don't run into the same problems, and I really hope I'm not walking into your office tomorrow. If things are that bad and you are concerned about losing your job, I would recommend saving the horrendous drafts in a separate folder before you take the time to edit and sign them. I would also continue to report problems with workup and decision drafting to the GSs and/or HOCALJ as well. At least if you do those things, you will be performing some sort of CYA. And yes, I realize doing this will result in even more donated time, but it's something that could ultimately be worth it if they try to get rid of you.
|
|
woody
Full Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by woody on Jan 25, 2015 14:22:14 GMT -5
I have got to respond to sandiferhands and maquereau. I strongly resent the statement that the only way to be professional or a good alj is to donate time to the agency and/or work seven days a week. Do a diligent job in the face of poor management, of course. Treat everyone with dignity and respect, of course. Work when you are at work, of course. But some of us have lives, families, hobbies, and volunteer work that are owed our attention too. The claimants are the beneficiaries of my professionalism 40 hours a week, but that is enough to give to this agency. Further, you will never resolve the backlog and if they decide they need to throw you under the bus for some reason they won't care at all how many weekends you spent in the office. Working all that extra time does not make you a better judge but it probably makes you a poorer person. And if you are working all that extra time just to meet the arbitrary quota, you are skewing the statistics and "de-boning" every one of your fellow judges who would like to have a life.
|
|