|
|
Post by gary on Jan 22, 2015 12:45:29 GMT -5
A Board Member whom I trust and who has previously been highly reliable and who wishes to remain anonymous has informed me of the following:
The NTEU has sent an email to its members stating that:
"They are hiring 40 new attorneys for two new region 6 writing units
The attorneys will be placed in San Antonio and Alexandria
There are 10 open offices and 14 open workstations in San Antonio
There are 17 open workstations in Alexandria
This does not take into account potential office sharing"
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 22, 2015 13:06:10 GMT -5
This is interesting and shows the expansion of the theme of having more regional and national centers!
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 22, 2015 13:35:54 GMT -5
well, those are nice geographic areas, to be sure!
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 22, 2015 19:57:53 GMT -5
Interesting indeed Gary. I am assuming one day there will no longer be writers in local ODAR offices and everything will be sent to writing centers.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Jan 22, 2015 21:28:00 GMT -5
Interesting indeed Gary. I am assuming one day there will no longer be writers in local ODAR offices and everything will be sent to writing centers. How many judges in the agency prefer writers from writing units over writers in their own ODAR office? I don't believe there are many. Writers benefit from knowing the judges they write for. Judges benefit from working with writers who know their preferences. In fact, I believe that the NHC model where you have close accountability over the writers is greatly preferred to the standard ODAR model. So, why is the agency going to a model which has failed repeatedly over the past decades? A model where each writer might write for that judge once or twice a year? What is that Einstein definition of insanity again? |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 22, 2015 23:01:25 GMT -5
In fact, I believe that the NHC model where you have close accountability over the writers is greatly preferred to the standard ODAR model. So, why is the agency going to a model which has failed repeatedly over the past decades? A model where each writer might write for that judge once or twice a year? What is that Einstein definition of insanity again? Yes, it is happening again. Beware. Pixie. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 23, 2015 7:27:40 GMT -5
Yes, it is happening again. Beware. Pixie. Gee-whiz Pixie it looks like somehow the system is misquoting me with johnthorton's quote. ***EDIT*** as it is misquoting johnthorton with your quote. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jan 23, 2015 7:31:19 GMT -5
As an aside it is part of the 2025 Plan for SSA. The idea is to rid of locaalization and go to regionalization for SSA. Hence, the reason for computer upgrades, changes in how claimants file SSA claims, etc. There will be little face to face meetings in the future at SSA, it is moving toward VTC and computerization.
|
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 23, 2015 7:40:50 GMT -5
Absolutely agree, Thornton. Knowing you will never have to interact personally with the judge for whom you are writing will lead to even greater sloppiness than exists now. The NHC model is far superior.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jan 23, 2015 8:02:24 GMT -5
Gee-whiz Pixie it looks like somehow the system is misquoting me with johnthorton's quote. ***EDIT*** as it is misquoting johnthorton with your quote. Pixie's post ended up inside the post she was quoting.. down the line, that gets confusing. EDIT NOTE BY PIXIE: Yes, it is confusing. I went back into my post to change it, and all appeared to be correct. That is, my comment appeared outside of the quoted material. Pixie. |
|
|
|
Post by sandiferhands (old) on Jan 23, 2015 10:02:46 GMT -5
Alexandria VA or Alexandria LA?
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 23, 2015 10:09:04 GMT -5
If it's Region 6, it would be LA.
I don't think they'll ever get rid of in-office writing. It will be scaled back somewhat, but there will always be staff present for ALJs in their local offices. On the bright side, these appear to be attorney positions only rather than a combo of attorney and paralegal writers. While the former certainly isn't perfect, the younger attorneys that I've seen come on board in recent years have been far better in terms of analysis, organization, and basic English/grammar than the more recently promoted paralegals.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 23, 2015 12:39:06 GMT -5
If it's Region 6, it would be LA. I don't think they'll ever get rid of in-office writing. It will be scaled back somewhat, but there will always be staff present for ALJs in their local offices. On the bright side, these appear to be attorney positions only rather than a combo of attorney and paralegal writers. While the former certainly isn't perfect, the younger attorneys that I've seen come on board in recent years have been far better in terms of analysis, organization, and basic English/grammar than the more recently promoted paralegals. ABSOLUTELY agree. I don't want to spark a "paralegal" v attorney debate, but why on earth would you ever want someone with less education than an attorney for the same GS level? Yes, there are exceptions, but the attorneys have been much better organized and skilled in the writing position than any of the most recent paralegal analyst promotions I have seen. I was glad to see the use of "attorney" in that email too! Frankly, if the ALJ instructions are adequate, and the writer has decent skills, there isn't a need for an "in office" visit to discuss the case. It is very rare to actually speak to an ALJ in person on a case. Between email and instant message, everything can be accomplished in terms of clarification. That's what we do on telework as it is stands now. |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Jan 23, 2015 12:47:18 GMT -5
Everything is cyclical. We invented the telegraph and were amazed we could send messages over a wire. Then the telephone came along and we gave up on sending messages when we could actually talk to people. Then cell phones unleashed us. Then, oddly, we went back to text messages from phone calls. now there are apps that let you speak your text message and that read those you receive. Won't be long till we are actually talking again.
Same thing with SSA's writing plans. Started with writers in the office with the judge. Then we went to big national writing units. But now, we see the rise of regional writing units. In a few more years, the big idea will be to put writers in the office with judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Jan 23, 2015 13:02:21 GMT -5
Frankly, if the ALJ instructions are adequate, and the writer has decent skills, there isn't a need for an "in office" visit to discuss the case. It is very rare to actually speak to an ALJ in person on a case. Between email and instant message, everything can be accomplished in terms of clarification. That's what we do on telework as it is stands now. In my experience, having worked in multiple offices, and written DOUT cases for ALJs across the country, I would estimate that less than 10% of ALJs issue instructions and conduct hearings such that the decision can be written with little to no personal interaction with the ALJ. Yes, IM and e-mails can sometimes resolve questions and conflicts, but honestly, it's rarely efficient, particularly when the problem is difficult to correct without some type of in depth discussion. Even though I'm only in the office now 2 days/week, I spend the majority of those days talking to ALJs. Some, particularly the new NODARs, want and appreciate the "advisor" part of our job description (which is completely phased out by the rise of the warehouses) to help them decide the case, or to help them choose the most strongly supportable onset date. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jan 23, 2015 13:23:00 GMT -5
Frankly, if the ALJ instructions are adequate, and the writer has decent skills, there isn't a need for an "in office" visit to discuss the case. It is very rare to actually speak to an ALJ in person on a case. Between email and instant message, everything can be accomplished in terms of clarification. That's what we do on telework as it is stands now. In my experience, having worked in multiple offices, and written DOUT cases for ALJs across the country, I would estimate that less than 10% of ALJs issue instructions and conduct hearings such that the decision can be written with little to no personal interaction with the ALJ. Yes, IM and e-mails can sometimes resolve questions and conflicts, but honestly, it's rarely efficient, particularly when the problem is difficult to correct without some type of in depth discussion. Even though I'm only in the office now 2 days/week, I spend the majority of those days talking to ALJs. Some, particularly the new NODARs, want and appreciate the "advisor" part of our job description (which is completely phased out by the rise of the warehouses) to help them decide the case, or to help them choose the most strongly supportable onset date. I guess this is an example of how different offices within ODAR have different levels of sufficient ALJ instructions. Out of the 7 years I have been at ODAR, I can say that there are only a handful of judges who wanted to discuss a case. That case was usually a rare situation that involved something out of the ordinary on a non-disability issue like a WEP or PDB offset, etc. In those instances I can see an advantage to having a face to face discussion. But on routine disability cases? I guess it all goes to how each office is used to utilizing their AAs and SAAs. I can see your point especially if the ALJ instructions are more routinely "unclear" than adequate. Ugh. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Jan 23, 2015 17:35:19 GMT -5
Judges aren't satisfied with writing and writers aren't satisfied with judging (at least the instructing part of it), and now both groups are being squeezed more by quota expectations. Hmmm, I wonder if that will make for a more harmonious work environment?
|
|
