|
Post by x on Aug 25, 2015 22:48:34 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. As ALJs are more difficult to create than are writers, writers' production requirements should be adjusted as necessary to maximize ALJ efficiency. Is it logical that writers are sometimes able to decide the favorable merits of a case, but require detailed instructions when provided the same outcome?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 23:17:39 GMT -5
Well said thankful1:
"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...
...If it is professionalism we want, then it is professionalism that we need to exude in all aspects of our conduct."
At the tigerlaw level, it could get ugly, (ugly as in Funkyodar in a leotard), but at the national AALJ level, it should be professionalism, first, last and always. IMHO tiger
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 26, 2015 6:06:27 GMT -5
I'm not taking the bait Tiger. As we both know, I look amazing in a leotard. Proven by my ongoing attempts to get "leotard Monday's" officially sanctioned in the Tupelo office.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 26, 2015 6:37:21 GMT -5
If they had Tight Tuesdays it would please both Funky and BagLady.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 26, 2015 8:28:23 GMT -5
I'm glad we have a union. The letter to the incoming management team was a little over the top, but I suppose they wanted to show every union member that they had remembered every item that was a matter of concern to the membership. They probably should have been more focused. "Sweatshop" may be a somewhat relative term. Some people put in 40 hours per week and no more. Others put in more than 60 hours per week because some people cannot or will not do their jobs - which causes a shift in the workload as others pick up the slack. Some people put in for vacation and then spend every day of said "vacation" at work trying to catch up and meet goal.
All ODAR locations are not equal. I have had good and bad. The type of office one is in and the quality of the people there make all the difference.
The yearly quota/goals/deboned chickens that must be produced each year, according to management, may or may not be possible. If one is fortunate enough to be in a good office with good writers and techs, it is probably doable. If one is in an office where a substantial number of drafts must be rewritten because, somehow, the management hired people who simply have no idea how to write, then the goal will remain elusive. I don't know how to solve that particular problem; it's not as if management is going to fire people just because they cannot write at a certain grade level. But they will fire people for not "producing." My judge mentor told me that SSA never fired anyone for producing crap - - - just for not producing enough of it. A cynical observation, but one that has been borne out in my time at this agency.
I appreciate the union sticking up for me even if the officials don't always adhere to what might be considered the highest degree of professionalism. Problems that keep me from producing at the highest level need to be brought to the attention of SSA management - maybe to the attention of the Congress as well. So I am not going to trash their methods even if I think the leadership might have done a better job in certain instances.
For now, I would advise any current or prospective ALJ to get themselves into a good office where management and staff are competent. You might have the chance to get your work done, make goal, and take real vacations.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Aug 26, 2015 8:36:22 GMT -5
Maq u said it better than I ever could. Agreed and thx for post
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 26, 2015 11:28:38 GMT -5
Dear X,
I totally agree that writer requirements should be adjusted to maximize the efficiency of the ALJ's - and I'm a writer. I think that approach only makes sense. DWPI seems to be traveling in the opposite direction, although it does recognize that all FF's and UF's are not created equal.
As for the comment that writers are allowed to do FF's but need detailed instructions to write ALJ FF's, I have a couple of reactions.
Only SA's are allowed to do a FF and then only in a very narrow range of cases. And SA's are becoming scarcer and scarcer. The rest of us AA's do not write FF's. Ever. I don't think it is logical to assume that because a few writers are allowed to do a few types of decisions, no writer should need detailed instructions to do a FF.
As for the ease of writing a FF, many, but certainly not all, are straightforward. If the evidence lines up nicely to support the outcome and there is enough of it to make sense and not too much to read, then a happy face will suffice. On the other hand there are close cases. Sometimes the amount and detail of the analysis rivals some UF's in reconciling conflicting expert opinions, notes in treatment records, etc.
In sum, as a writer I think the amount of detail in FF instructions should be tailored to the case. The ALJs in my office typically do not pay a case without giving it some thought - and most share their rationale which helps enormously, even if they don't go so far as to reduce it to a FIT or HLDS. As far as I'm concerned, whether they use those formats is between them and management, I can work with pretty much any format from hen scratches to eBB, but I do think it's fair in most cases for the DW to get more than a happy face if we are going to meet our numbers.
Maybe I'm lucky to work in an office where the ALJs and DWs try to work together instead of at cross-purposes.
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Aug 26, 2015 12:20:14 GMT -5
Mamaru, I'm glad you work in a good office. On the other hand, I am just amazed that the AAs don't get to write FFs. Is this really true? If so, it just shows how different practices are in the various offices around the nation. When I was a writer, there were certain judges from whom I'd rather had just a frownie or smiley. If I knew what the ultimate decision was, I could generally get the judge there without too much oversight. I saw my share of bad instructions - to include smileys/frownies at the top of the page. I do my utmost NOT to repeat the mistakes I saw judges make when I was writing. I'm sure I must make mistakes from time to time, but it's not for lack of effort.
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Aug 26, 2015 12:47:26 GMT -5
Mamaru, I'm glad you work in a good office. On the other hand, I am just amazed that the AAs don't get to write FFs. Is this really true? If so, it just shows how different practices are in the various offices around the nation. Senior attorney adjudication is essentially a thing of the past. There is a small adjudicatory unit, but the vast majority of senior attorneys are not allowed to sign fully favorable cases any longer. In my office, senior attorneys review OTR requests or critical cases, generally not yet assigned to a judge, and if it looks like it could be favorable, then it is assigned and the SA pitches the case to the ALJ. It's tricky because you don't know which ALJ will get the case, Judge X who is a softy, or Judge Y who never pays people who smoke marijuana. Good instructions, in my opinion, have a short explanation of why the ALJ is finding as he/she is... a writer should not be required to guess why a later onset date is when it is or why a treating source opinion is given no weight. The other parts, I'm happy to fill in as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Aug 26, 2015 13:09:23 GMT -5
I'm a former decision writer and senior attorney (as opposed to a former SRatty) who made ALJ earlier this year. From two different vantage points, I am dismayed by the AALJ letter.
First, the letter was clearly dictated and not read. Lots of run-on sentences and wild analogies, which probably sounded very good when shouted at Dragon Speak. However, as a written document, it is the opposite of persuasive. It may convince the new DC that the union is made up of a bunch of crackpots and whiny malcontents, and may in fact persuade the DC that her predecessors were on the right course.
Second, and maybe I'm speaking unrealistically, because I'm an agency insider... but it does not take 120 minutes to write legally sufficient instructions. I'm an eBB user (yes, I'm that one guy). I take exhibit by exhibit notes, and pre-fill out as much as I can of the RFC instructions, the first time that I review the file. Then, the day before the hearing, I review any updated exhibits that have come in since my initial review (this can range from 0 pages to 3000 pages) and make any tweaks to the RFC field. This does not take as long as it sounds.
From that eBB base, writing the instructions is typically very simple, because I did most of the hard work before the hearing. It does take about 20-30 minutes for me to say what I want to say in the instructions -- I try to give rationale for each medical opinion that I'm accepting or rejecting, and I also copy out some of my medical exhibit notes to go into the rationale (I highlight very specific things in the medical evidence and I want the writers to adhere to that). But, I can still hold my set number of hearings in a day, and get all my instructions out on that same day. If a case goes into POST, I still pre-fill out preliminary instructions, and finalize them when the case graduates from POST to ALPO. Basically, I never leave the office without finishing my instructions (or preliminary instructions) on every case I've heard that day. And I still have time left over, after my hearings, to edit decision writer drafts, and review additional files, etc.
Basically, instruction-writing is not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 26, 2015 13:32:17 GMT -5
Thank you for your wide-based perspective. Double like.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 26, 2015 13:51:13 GMT -5
Mamaru, I'm glad you work in a good office. On the other hand, I am just amazed that the AAs don't get to write FFs. Is this really true? If so, it just shows how different practices are in the various offices around the nation. When I was a writer, there were certain judges from whom I'd rather had just a frownie or smiley. If I knew what the ultimate decision was, I could generally get the judge there without too much oversight. I saw my share of bad instructions - to include smileys/frownies at the top of the page. I do my utmost NOT to repeat the mistakes I saw judges make when I was writing. I'm sure I must make mistakes from time to time, but it's not for lack of effort. For real. I don't pretend to have knowledge of each and every office, and I have only been with the agency about five years so I don't have much history. Perhaps there are offices where AA's and SA's are still paying FF's. If so maybe they will chime in.
|
|
|
Post by daisyjane on Aug 26, 2015 13:57:14 GMT -5
AALJ is 100% spot on in this letter.
I have been a well respected Attorney and Senior Attorney with ODAR for nearly 3 decades, and will gladly attest to everything said in this letter. I have personally witnessed much of what is described in this letter day in and day out for many, many years.
There are very serious managerial issues which desperately need to be addressed and changed within the SSA and ODAR, in particular.
Hats off to the AALJ for finally standing up and loudly asserting things which should have been said and addressed about this Agency years ago!
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 26, 2015 13:57:23 GMT -5
Mamaru, I'm glad you work in a good office. On the other hand, I am just amazed that the AAs don't get to write FFs. Is this really true? If so, it just shows how different practices are in the various offices around the nation. When I was a writer, there were certain judges from whom I'd rather had just a frownie or smiley. If I knew what the ultimate decision was, I could generally get the judge there without too much oversight. I saw my share of bad instructions - to include smileys/frownies at the top of the page. I do my utmost NOT to repeat the mistakes I saw judges make when I was writing. I'm sure I must make mistakes from time to time, but it's not for lack of effort. For real. I don't pretend to have knowledge of each and every office, and I have only been with the agency about five years so I don't have much history. Perhaps there are offices where AA's and SA's are still paying FF's. If so maybe they will chime in.
I thinnk there is a miscommunication here betewen deciding and issuing a case and simply writing it for an ALJ. AA is itself ambiguous in this context, since the agency uses it for attorney advisor and attorney adjudicator in different contexts, and a latter AA can't be a former AA, only an SA (or SAA). Not to mention the AAs who are administrative assistants.
|
|
|
Post by ba on Aug 26, 2015 14:17:39 GMT -5
AALJ is 100% spot on in this letter. I have been a well respected Attorney and Senior Attorney with ODAR for nearly 3 decades, and will gladly attest to everything said in this letter. I have personally witnessed much of what is described in this letter day in and day out for many, many years. There are very serious managerial issues which desperately need to be addressed and changed within the SSA and ODAR, in particular. Hats off to the AALJ for finally standing up and loudly asserting things which should have been said and addressed about this Agency years ago! I don't care if every issue is spot on (which is not the case). This is a union that says they are only a union because management would not speak to a professional organization. Grinding old battle axes and relying on hyperbole in your first communication to a new ADC doesn't make you look legitimate and professional. It makes you look like whiny crackpots. Credibility is sometimes as important as substance.
|
|
|
Post by daisyjane on Aug 26, 2015 14:38:18 GMT -5
Propmaster,
For the record, I have been a SA since 1995. Prior thereto, I was an AA.
I equate much of what the AALJ states in the letter with my job, as well. There is a sweatshop, production oriented mentality in ODAR that is beyond ridiculous. Quality of work is rarely rewarded with the exception of compliments from ALJ's. Quantity is the ONLY thing ever rewarded.
Writing and issuing decisions in ODAR's obsessive 'numbers' environment produces a garbage in/garbage out work product, which unnecessarily causes many remands that would not occur with a little more thoughtful and introspective writing. In turn, this never ending vicious cycle of remands needlessly keeps the backlog of cases high.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 26, 2015 14:40:29 GMT -5
AALJ is 100% spot on in this letter. I have been a well respected Attorney and Senior Attorney with ODAR for nearly 3 decades, and will gladly attest to everything said in this letter. I have personally witnessed much of what is described in this letter day in and day out for many, many years. There are very serious managerial issues which desperately need to be addressed and changed within the SSA and ODAR, in particular. Hats off to the AALJ for finally standing up and loudly asserting things which should have been said and addressed about this Agency years ago! You don't seem to be being sarcastic. So I am responding seriously. I do not have 30 years of service. I am well respected though, I guess. And everything in this letter has been said for over ten years, as they point out in the letter. 1) I too have seen productivity of ALJs vary depending on the extent to which the ALJs admire and respect their bosses, as opposed to the extent to which their workday allows. I interpret the first relationship change paragraph as a vaguely extortion-like demand that the contract negotiations conclude forthwith or "something might happen to your productivity, if you know what i mean." 2) I too have seen ALJs who do not believe they have a "boss," and cannot understand the concept of the "master-servant" aspect of an employment relationship. 3) I have no opinion or knowledge about the third demand. 4) I have no reason to think the 4th demand is valid without any evidence about why the current benchmarks are wrong, or any suggestions about what the new benchmarks should be. 5) I agree with the 5th demand, although I doubt either party is interested for fear of the result. 6) I don't even understand #6. Maybe going point by point wasn't the best idea. But, really, if an office has a goal each year, how can you NOT consider the fair share each ALJ should do? What is this asking for, really? 7) The agency has objectively been underhanded and dishonest about telework, and i support the grievance in this case. BUT, I still fail to understand why distrust and poor morale causes low production. How does punishing the claimants help ALJs feel better? And I do not believe for a second that it is merely the unintended consequence of low morale that is being referenced - if you have been here 30 years, you have seen petulant ALJs go "on strike" and slow down to cause distress to number-hungry management. And if not, well, I have. Overtly. Changes to the system 1) Dealt with above. Ridiculous. 2) If you have been here 30 years, you know that the quality review issues are not because the ALJ decisions were not "law review quality," but because they were systemically insufficient at management's earlier urging. Not the ALJs' fault, but also not a point I care to support - that judges shouldn't feel compelled to spend more time on cases to ensure they pass any kind of reviews. 3) Meh. See #2, above. You have a boss. Who can support an employee saying "don't let my boss check on what I'm doing"? I'm pretty sure they aren't sending memos to ALJs who are efficient, thereby causing a lessening of that efficiency. 4) There is no harmless error standard in SSA law. Anything they reverse for is reversible error. What are you talking about? No time constraints, no quality constraints? I agree the Appeals Council is another whole manifesto of error-prone, but what kind of demand is "let us make more errors?" 5) I defer comment on #5 6) Hahahahahaha. Well, I guess the representatives pulled one over on the AALJ. Maybe because the drafters don't do cases or something. I thought they did. No rep believes they have to submit everything, it's a talking point to protest the new rule. The rule says "relevant." I can't believe AALJ added this to its platform. Is it hoping to get rep support for making worse, slower decisions? 7) Hahahahahaha. Mom! Cindy isn't doing her share of the dishes! I guess the union thinks it can bargain over allocation of management resources. 8) We lost those judges because they were driven out (which means they won't be hired back), they were disgusted with the job (which means they won't come back), they died (ditto), or they retired (often with good reason (e.g., health), which means they are not likely to come back). Who is this for? What is the real demand here? Are the union brass preparing to retire and want to come back part-time? 9) Waaaaaaaay out of AALJ purview, completely impractical, and probably based on a nefarious ulterior motive I don't want to speculate about. OK, I will. I assume the "inefficiencies" refer to getting decisions drafted by writers who are not familiar with the ALJ idiosyncracies and follow a single, uniform, national model (hopefully). 10) I don't understand this - we have this in our office. They never took away the ability of SAAs to review OTR cases. 11) This is regulatory. 12) I have no information to speak to this. 13) When was this plank written? What office schedules 20 days out? Do any? i don't believe it. Most already do 75 days. This is a silly catchall to include everything else. You know what they should consider? Having each judge be completely automnomous in every way, choose his or her employees, working conditions, hours, productivity, location of work, caseload, types of cases. They could be roving judges, under the auspices of the SSA, traveling from city to city, doling out justice of all kinds as they see fit. 13.5) OK, this is interminable. I apologise for descending into sarcasm. I kind of am losing my train of thought. Was I even arguing about something? This is like the 20th demand or something. JudgeRatty was right about picking one's battles. 14) Actually, a great idea. But 7/10 ALJs in my office objected to it when we tried it 4 years ago because they did not want anyone else making 'decisions' about whether evidence should be developed, etc. 15) This is ridiculous. eBB is not required. It is improving all the time. It is somewhat clunky and ineffective now (and in fact, I hate it), but it is developing and has potential to save ALJs tons of time. You know what slows ALJs down? Computers. Get rid of those new-fangled things. I have a fountain pen and a legal pad, and that's all my daddy needed when he was an ALJ, so Pshaw. 16a) How does accessing FaceBook make decisions go faster? What was the point of this letter? How is it an official ALJ position that they want to read claimants' Twitter feeds? I strenuously oppose this demand with something like 7 legal objections as detailed in the initial guidance prohibiting it. The very concept of this demand - that an ALJ should be able to independently investigate someone, rather than refer it to law enforcement/investigative staff in the agency, is egotistical and more than a little disquieting to me. 16b) I was against the ban on using the MMPI for a personality inventory because I disputed that it was a test of malingering. Now that the AALJ has officially declared it a psychological credibility test, they've shot themselves in the foot, and I fully agree with barring them from getting it, because that's not what that test is for. Oh gracious - I feel so dirty. I hope I don't have to read this thing again anytime soon. [Edit: I never used the word "you" to refer to Daisyjane, but to the hypotehtical embodiment of the AALJ.]
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 26, 2015 14:41:36 GMT -5
Propmaster, For the record, I have been a SA since 1995. Prior thereto, I was an AA. I equate much of what the AALJ states in the letter with my job, as well. There is a sweatshop, production oriented mentality in ODAR that is beyond ridiculous. Quality of work is rarely rewarded with the exception of compliments from ALJ's. Quantity is the ONLY thing ever rewarded. Writing and issuing decisions in ODAR's obsessive 'numbers' environment produces a garbage in/garbage out work product, which unnecessarily causes many remands that would not occur with a little more thoughtful and introspective writing. In turn, this never ending vicious cycle of remands needlessly keeps the backlog of cases high. Absolutely agree with everything you said here. Except that "Sweatshop" has a meaning, and it cannot possibly apply here, even if you put the word mentality after it.
|
|
|
Post by daisyjane on Aug 26, 2015 15:03:22 GMT -5
The problems are caused by those at the top who run SSA and ODAR and all levels of management - Not the AALJ or other employee unions. The organizational and managerial structure of the Agency is inefficient, outdated, reinforces the sweatshop numbers mentality, and lends itself to a great deal of cronyism. Drastic changes are needed, and I view the tone of the AALJ letter, as well as the unions overall stance and presentation, as a breath of much needed fresh air and a firm step in the right direction. All offices are, indeed, different; however, those I have worked in over the years are consistent with the sweatshop, obsessive numbers environment described by the AALJ, and all have exhibited problems created by poor management through the entire chain of command, and cronyism.
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Aug 26, 2015 15:05:06 GMT -5
For real. I don't pretend to have knowledge of each and every office, and I have only been with the agency about five years so I don't have much history. Perhaps there are offices where AA's and SA's are still paying FF's. If so maybe they will chime in.
I thinnk there is a miscommunication here betewen deciding and issuing a case and simply writing it for an ALJ. AA is itself ambiguous in this context, since the agency uses it for attorney advisor and attorney adjudicator in different contexts, and a latter AA can't be a former AA, only an SA (or SAA). Not to mention the AAs who are administrative assistants. Points well taken. I was using AA as an attorney advisor (DW) not attorney adjudicator and was referring to actually paying cases, not drafting decisions for judges.
|
|