|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 25, 2015 10:53:29 GMT -5
I am not going to reproduce the whole letter here from ALJ Frye and the AALJ (judges' union) to Terrie Gruber (the new head of ODAR) that is making the rounds, because I didn't bother to read past the second paragraph before throwing my hands up in the air and bemoaning the inability of seemingly professional lawyers to couch their arguments in anything like a format that would be listened to.
----
Ms. Theresa Gruber Deputy Commissioner, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review Subject: AALJ Recommendations
Dear Ms. Gruber,
It was an absolute pleasure meeting with you and Donna during our FORUM meetings this week. We are so pleased that you are leading the world’s largest judicial system and we truly look forward to working with both of you. As earlier promised, we are forwarding our views on needed changes designed to improve morale and productively.
The damage to our adjudicatory system, and the workplace where judges and staff provide due process hearings to the American people, has been severe during the past six to seven years. Professionalism in most of our Hearing Offices has been eliminated, replaced with a production line approach of bringing a diminished level of justice to our fellow citizens. In fact, many judges and staff compare our work environment to the sweatshops at the turn of the last century.
Regrettably, during this same period of time, our labor-management relationship with ODAR management has been acrimonious. We are forced to litigate every disputed issue emanating from our collective bargaining agreement. In fact, we are presently in litigation before the Federal Labor Relations Authority over our contract negotiations. Few if any grievances are ever settled, and our contract committees have become ineffective because of intentional management neglect.
The AALJ is honored to work closely with you and Donna as change agents, with the goal of making the world’s largest adjudicatory system as efficient and effective as possible. To that end, we respectfully offer the following recommendations. The first category involves ODAR’S relationship with the AALJ and the ALJ corps, while the second category relates to needed changes in the adjudicatory system.
-----
Blah blah.
-----
I guess all those ALJs who had their arms ripped off on photocopying accidents and now have to beg on the streets because of lack of medical coverage, disability, or any kind of job perks of any kind can rest better knowing the AALJ will focus on getting the other workers no more than 10-hour work days in an air conditioned environment with access to a bathroom and a food break. Whew.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 25, 2015 10:55:08 GMT -5
And in case you're wondering, they keep it up as a theme - at the top of the second page, they say, "... we must immediately take steps to change the Hearing Office work environment and culture from a sweatshop to a 'Pro Shop.' "
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 25, 2015 11:03:40 GMT -5
Oh my goodness, I can't read this all at once. So much humour! Ready for this:
---
First and foremost, we must address management actions that caused our productivity to decline. The Judge Bice memo to Judges requiring decisional instructions to be overly comprehensive and completely policy compliant, must be immediately rescinded. Complying with this memo adds 1 ½ to 2 ½ judge hours to each case. Prior to this memo, most judges prepared decisional instructions between hearings. Now, because of the additional time required, the case is placed in ALPO where it stays until the judge can find a block of time to complete this burdensome and unnecessary task.
---
People who are not from ODAR environments might not realize this, but to clarify - the ALJ union has officially demanded/requested that the requirement that judges decide each determinative finding for the decision and provide their findings in the instructions to the decision writer be rescinded.
I have no idea how an ALJ can take 1.5 to 2.5 hours to memorialize the thoughts they are supposed to be having when they decide a case. I fall back to the impression I was given when the ill-fated lawsuit was filed about productivity: most ALJs are not using the actual legal rules to decide cases, and having to think of those rules after they make their "smell test" decision takes a bunch of extra time. If the ALJ has a grasp of the issues and asked relevant questions at the hearing and listened to the answers, the ALJ should have an idea of what is the most important evidence, why the claimant is or is not credible, and the finding required at each step. Writing it down (without, by the way, a prescribed format) should not add any time except the time to type or write the words. What were they writing in their instructions between hearings before? As far as familiarity with the exhibits, if the ALJ was doing it 'right,' he or she already revieweed the exhibits and knows what's important, and if the ALJ already didn't have time to review the file 'right,' the instructions are not the thing adding extra time.
OK, I'm done now. Sorry to any sitting judges that legitimately think they are working in a sweatshop. I have no sympathy for you, but sorry nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Aug 25, 2015 11:05:21 GMT -5
And in case you're wondering, they keep it up as a theme - at the top of the second page, they say, "... we must immediately take steps to change the Hearing Office work environment and culture from a sweatshop to a 'Pro Shop.' " So if we get the job we can look forward to having our golf clubs properly fitted?
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 25, 2015 11:07:10 GMT -5
And in case you're wondering, they keep it up as a theme - at the top of the second page, they say, "... we must immediately take steps to change the Hearing Office work environment and culture from a sweatshop to a 'Pro Shop.' " So if we get the job we can look forward to having our golf clubs properly fitted? LMAO. I hope I work with you someday - my indignation has been replaced by amusement.
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Aug 25, 2015 11:18:16 GMT -5
I saw a copy of the letter earlier this morning as it was circulating the office. I must admit there were some eye rolling moments. As for the instructions part of it, I admit, I am biased as a writer. I don't need chapter and verse instructions. But something better than a happy face v/s frowny face or "reverse, if tenable" on the instruction sheet is definitely needed.
Not to crap all over the entire letter though. It did have some legitimate points that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by lonestar on Aug 25, 2015 12:57:40 GMT -5
As a writer, I believe this letter did have some good points, but I think the ALJs fail to understand, and sadly, some do not realize the production requirements the writers are under. Except for the few attorney advisors who made it to the senior attorney program before it was terminated, most attorneys have maxed out at GS-12, with only a small chance of making GS-13 by becoming a manager and an even smaller chance of possibly becoming an ALJ. We have production quotas that must take into consideration all of the Bice memo points. Additionally, many judges leave the majority of those points to attorneys to ferret out, to address, and/or to resolve. So, the sweatshop atmosphere is not limited to ALJs. And, yes, despite the view of other attorneys and other federal attorneys, we are professionals. I agree that I don't need a detailed, 30-page memo explaining a FF or UF decision, but I definitely need something more than a smiley face. A simple, overall sentence or two as to why an ALJ decided a decision in a certain way would suffice, I am professional "enough" to take it from there.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Aug 25, 2015 13:08:49 GMT -5
As a writer, I believe this letter did have some good points, but I think the ALJs fail to understand, and sadly, some do not realize the production requirements the writers are under. Except for the few attorney advisors who made it to the senior attorney program before it was terminated, most attorneys have maxed out at GS-12, with only a small chance of making GS-13 by becoming a manager and an even smaller chance of possibly becoming an ALJ. We have production quotas that must take into consideration all of the Bice memo points. Additionally, many judges leave the majority of those points to attorneys to ferret out, to address, and/or to resolve. So, the sweatshop atmosphere is not limited to ALJs. And, yes, despite the view of other attorneys and other federal attorneys, we are professionals. I agree that I don't need a detailed, 30-page memo explaining a FF or UF decision, but I definitely need something more than a smiley face. A simple, overall sentence or two as to why an ALJ decided a decision in a certain way would suffice, I am professional "enough" to take it from there. Exactly this... writers' production requirements assume that the Judge Bice memo requirements are met, which is almost never the case. I cringed when I read that it appears to be too much for the union to support requiring "completely policy compliant" ALJ instructions.
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Aug 25, 2015 13:48:24 GMT -5
The term "change agents" like "thought leaders" makes me wanna drop a hair dryer in my bubble bath !
|
|
|
Post by ibnlurkin on Aug 25, 2015 14:01:26 GMT -5
The term "change agents" like "thought leaders" makes me wanna drop a hair dryer in my bubble bath !
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 25, 2015 16:09:59 GMT -5
Good grief! Sweatshop? REALLY? Ok, the entire tone of that whole letter was embarrassing. The shotgun approach to throwing out every single item that the "union" feels is worthy of putting into one letter to the brand new DC was ridiculous. I read that letter and immediately regretted signing up. I felt I needed to have a voice if I want to complain about how the union is run, but seeing just how bad it is... I am not sure I can make a difference. This letter was (as I steal the term from a friend of mine) a complete b-i-t-c-h (auto changed to pregnant dog LOL) session letter. It gives the reader the impression that working at ODAR is hellish with terrible working conditions. This is NOT the case!
This compilation of complaints appears to be just that... a pile of complaints. Almost EVERY ALJ I know and have spoken to is disgusted by the union and this exact type of letter, and now I see why.
This type of letter (with this tone and long laundry list of complaints) completely detracts from legitimate issues that can be resolved. They would have held my interest if they had picked a few good issues to raise with management and presented them in a more professional dialogue. Starting the letter with how "damaged" the system was by the prior DC is NOT how you get the new DC to be in your court. Don't throw mud. It is not necessary and makes it look like we are a bunch of whiners.
We have excellent jobs with good pay and good working conditions. Can some things improve? Sure! Everything can improve! But please, leave the exaggerations out and keep the tone professional. And PICK YOUR BATTLES! Don't shotgun every single thing that comes through the door! Prioritize! Sheesh!
Prop, thanks for starting this thread. That letter annoyed me and I am happy to see others feel the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 16:20:05 GMT -5
If I ever become an ALJ, I am going to have a hard time joining a union that sounds like this. I agree with JudgeRatty, they need to pick their battles and use a better tone. In addition, they would do well to check their spelling and grammar if they are to come off as so pompous and self-righteous.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 25, 2015 16:53:00 GMT -5
OMG! Something from the AALJ that is full of histrionics, gross exaggeration, and hyperbole? ?? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 25, 2015 17:11:37 GMT -5
OMG! Something from the AALJ that is full of histrionics, gross exaggeration, and hyperbole? ?? I am shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you! Ok, I like your response much better than mine. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by ba on Aug 25, 2015 18:49:43 GMT -5
Always good to start your relationship with someone by complaining about how mistreated you were by their predecessor. (Why don't I have a sarcasm font when I need one?)
Good grief.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 25, 2015 18:53:17 GMT -5
Always good to start your relationship with someone by complaining about how mistreated you were by their predecessor. (Why don't I have a sarcasm font when I need one?) Good grief. It worked with the second of my ex-wives.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Aug 25, 2015 19:14:06 GMT -5
Always good to start your relationship with someone by complaining about how mistreated you were by their predecessor. (Why don't I have a sarcasm font when I need one?) Good grief. It worked with the second of my ex-wives. Well, when their an ex, maybe "worked" is a matter of perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 19:56:12 GMT -5
If I ever become an ALJ, I am going to have a hard time joining a union that sounds like this. I agree with JudgeRatty, they need to pick their battles and use a better tone. In addition, they would do well to check their spelling and grammar if they are to come off as so pompous and self-righteous. I hope you do become an ALJ! JudgeRatty and everyone else are correct in the tone of the letter. But, you can't change what you are not a part of, you will be covered and protected by the union when necessary, but all ALJs should seriously consider being members of the union to make it a better union. The AALJ has made several bad choices in their battles since I came on board years ago ( ok, it's only been one year and a day!), but they have fought a couple of smaller battles and won, such as the tele-work for all of the new ALJs in the first and second classes and the security problem in Kentucky (I think it was Kentucky) wherein the Agency stuck its nose into how the U.S. Marshall's Service and the local contractors handled security screening of ALJs in a Federal Courthouse building. We need new members working their way up the leadership chain of command to make it a better union. For better or worse, it was the union that gave us our current collective bargaining agreement and it is a very good CBA. I think calling what I do a "sweatshop" was a moronic thing to say, but so was going to the 7th Circuit COA while spending hundreds of thousands of dollars without researching the legal concept of "subject matter jurisdiction", but at least we got a ton of laughs out of the "chicken de-boner" language. IMHO tiger
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 25, 2015 20:41:47 GMT -5
well said Tiger
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Aug 25, 2015 22:27:35 GMT -5
I sent the following email to the AALJ the moment I read the newsletter that decried the 'sweatshop conditions." Unfortunately, they chose to keep the reference in the typo-ridden letter to management. I'm very much pro-union, but I really think they need to change their tone. I would encourage all union members to provide feedback to union leadership. They've done many wonderful things for all ALJ's, but their demeanor is not helping our image. We need to be the adults in the room, all the time, regardless of whether or not we are being treated like adults. Here was the email:
"I’m elated to read of the AALJ’s victory regarding memos being considered disciplinary action. It reaffirms my pride in being a union member. Only a strong and effective Union can win such a grievance. I am, however, not going to stop suggesting that the AALJ change its tone to one of complete professionalism, in all communications. Specifically, in the August newsletter, the AALJ uses the phrase “ODAR Hearing Offices were models of professionalism. Today, they are models of the sweatshop era which existed in manufacturing plants around the turn of the last century.” That type of hyperbole, in my opinion, is unproductive, not to mention completely inaccurate. We are highly paid Judges who occupy some of the most sought-after positions in federal government. We are the pride of our family and friends. To compare our working conditions to those who suffered through 80 hour or more workweeks six days a week doing hard physical labor with absolutely no workplace health or safety protections only lessens our credibility. I imagine when Judge Posner sees us complaining that we are working in sweat-shop conditions, it leads him to conjure up factory-work analogies that while too, are undeserved, are now part of the fabric of the public’s (and judiciary’s) opinion of our status.
Additionally, the AALJ characterizes management’s position on the issue of the memos as “shallow.” That may or may not be. But we won. There is no need to pile on, particularly after the fact. We will have future disputes with management. They will recall that we openly criticized their position in this matter as “shallow.” That won’t help us in the next dispute. It’s hard not to notice the irony of pining for the good old days when ODAR offices were models of professionalism, and then taking a swipe at management as taking shallow positions. If it is professionalism we want, then it is professionalism that we need to exude in all aspects of our conduct. Thank you for your consideration, thankful1"
I've come to find out through conversation and now this thread, that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I think our union leaders should be aware of this. I trust that they would be responsive to the collective will of the membership
|
|