|
Post by whyohwhy on Aug 26, 2015 15:19:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately, as is the norm with the union's current leadership, there are 3 or 4 good points in there buried underneath such unnecessary hyperbole and rhetoric that the entire letter would likely be dismissed out of hand. The only thing the letter is missing is the classic Grandpa Simpson "P.S. I am not a crackpot"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 15:21:16 GMT -5
I'm an eBB user (yes, I'm that one guy). **********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. I must agree 110%. I am that other EBB user. I also complete instructions immediately after each hearing, all the same day, and rarely --- if ever --- have anything in ALPO. Instructions are not rocket science nor anywhere as near complicated as the AALJ and management portray and are butting each others heads over the difficulty.
Watching the AALJ and management butt heads over such issues is akin to watching mom and dad argue with each over who is better able to teach little 3 years old Sally ALJ how to tie her shoes, all the while ignoring little Sally ALJ who in turn simply ties her own shoes and walks away saying "I did it!"
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 26, 2015 15:31:43 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! With all due respect, that is spoken like someone who has been with ODAR for three decades. Almost everyone that has been in private practice the last decade or two would openly scoff at the idea that this is a sweatshop environment. It's not. If you want a sweatshop, go work for a law firm or grind it out solo. This is nothing compared to that, expectations or not. Sure, this isn't the 80s or 90s where ALJs can schedule 25-30 hearings per month and where attorneys can get by with 15 decisions per month. And yes, management has put seemingly arbitrary numbers and has focused on production over quality (depending on which way the congressional wind is blowing that year) and provides really mean emails if you're not hitting those goals. But guess what? The old way wasn't working and helped get us to the million-plus backlog. Congress told ODAR to get it figured out, and that's what they came up with. It's certainly not perfect, and in some ways, it's not good. But it's far better than the Wild West days of "do whatever you think is good enough."
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 26, 2015 15:46:24 GMT -5
I see the analogy. I see that we can change the magnitude of the offenses and get to roughly the same outline. But I still find invocation of "sweatshop" a) hypoerbolic to the ALJ job; b) demeaning to those struggling with actual sweatshop conditions in the world today; and c) counterproductive to the points being made by he or she who invokes the analogy, since it derails the thought process.
WHAT IS A SWEATSHOP?
There are several different ways to define a sweatshop. According to the US Department of Labor, a sweatshop is any factory that violates more than one of the fundamental US labor laws, which include paying a minimum wage and keeping a time card, paying overtime, and paying on time. The Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE), the US garment workers union, says any factory that does not respect workers’ right to organize an independent union is a sweatshop. Global Exchange and other corporate accountability groups in the anti-sweatshop movement would add to this definition any factory that does not pay its workers a living wage—that is, a wage that can support the basic needs of a small family.
In the popular mind, a sweatshop is identified with hard work. And, in fact, garment manufacturing’s reliance on human labor helps explain why apparel factories are so often sweatshops.
The softness of the garments used to make our clothes, along with the complicated patterns involved, means that apparel production doesn’t easily lend itself to mechanization. For more than 150 years, the sewing machine has been, and today remains, the best way of making clothes. The basic method of garment production continues to be a worker, usually a woman, sitting or standing at a sewing machine and piecing together portions of cloth. Every blouse, every pair of jeans, every t-shirt, and every pair of shoes has to be tailored by a person doing the work. Everything we wear is made by someone.
To keep labor costs low, apparel shop owners usually pay workers a “piece rate.” That means workers don’t get paid by the hour. Rather, their wage is based on the number of items—shirts, shoes, socks—they complete in a shift. If workers hope to earn a decent income, they have to work hard, and they have to work long. Basically, they have to sweat.
WHAT KINDS OF ABUSES DO WORKERS FACE?
Around the world, garment workers spend dozens upon dozens of hours a week at their sewing machines to make the clothes and shoes that eventually end up on retailers’ shelves. Verbal, physical and sexual abuse are common. Workplace injuries occur regularly. The wages are low. And when workers try to organize to defend their interests and assert their dignity, their efforts are invariably repressed. In country after country, the stories are hauntingly the same.
Workers at a plant in El Salvador, for example, say they are frequently required to work mandatory overtime as they sew jerseys for the National Basketball Association, according to the National Labor Committee, an anti-sweatshop group. That means they often put in 11-hour shifts, six days a week. If the workers at that factory refuse to work overtime, they lose a day’s pay. Workers making jeans in Mexico say that sometimes they are forced to work all night shifts, and are prevented from the leaving the factory by armed security guards.
“I spend all day on my feet, working with hot vapor that usually burns my skin, and by the end of the day my arms and shoulders are in pain,” a Mexican worker, Alvaro Saavedra Anzures, has told labor rights investigators. “We have to meet the quota of 1,000 pieces per day. That translates to more than a piece every minute. The quota is so high that we cannot even go to the bathroom or drink water or anything for the whole day.”
In the grueling atmosphere of desperate cost-cutting by corporations, work is accorded little value and, by extension, workers are afforded little dignity. Viewed more as production units than as people, sweatshop workers regularly suffer abuse and intimidation from factory supervisors. “They don’t respect us as human beings,” a Nicaraguan worker has told anti-sweatshop groups.
Verbal abuse is particularly common, and workers regularly report being harassed and bullied by shop managers. Workers who managers think are not working fast enough are usually the target of shouting and yelling. Physical abuse is also not unusual. Workers in at a factory in Mexico making collegiate apparel for Reebok and Nike have said managers there regularly hit them and slap them, according to the Workers’ Rights Consortium.
Sexual abuse is endemic. Most garment workers are women, the vast majority of them young women in their teens or twenties who have left their homes for the first time so that they can earn money to send back to their families.
According to Human Rights Watch, in the maquiladoras along the US-Mexico border, factory managers who want to weed out pregnant workers so they can avoid having to pay maternity benefits force women workers to prove they are menstruating, a demeaning procedure that is against Mexican laws. Mandatory pregnancy tests are also common in El Salvador, and women who test positive are fired, also in violation of that country’s laws.
Workplace injuries and exposure to toxic chemicals also pose a daily risk to apparel workers. To prevent workers from stealing the items they are producing, factories sometimes lock the plant’s doors and windows, creating a fire hazard. In many factories, workers are not given masks to put over their noses and mouths, exposing them to tiny cloth fibers that get stuck in the lungs or dangerous glues.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 26, 2015 16:19:38 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. Wow. I must work for a different agency.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 26, 2015 16:27:53 GMT -5
As an outsider ALJ, and having followed this issue for the years that I have been one, I have to say that the union leadership, like SSA management, operates in the extreme. They are like the veteran claims adjuster and plaintiff's attorney who seem only able to operate their respective cars with the pedal to the floor and see each other as arch-enemies. If one was to allocate original blame a good case could be made for SSA managment of yore who famously proclaimed that they did not have to speak to the ALJs' representative because they "weren't even a Union."
While most ALJs can understand the need for AALJ, their constant bullheadeness and fixation on production quotas has become, IMHO, a detriment. When you have a well known US Circuit Court Judge ridiculing their 500 case quota lawsuit in terms of chicken de-boners on an assembly line one would think a bit of introspection was in order, even if you don't like Judge Posner. Does anyone doubt that every Judge, whether judicial or executive branch, has some sort of quota system that they must labor under? If you are under-worked in a small Agency you get assigned to another one on a detail.
While I get that AALJ has to justify their existence there is a better avenue for hard earned Union dues than lining the pockets of favorite counsel. Issues like legislation to increase the OPM retirement multiplier from 1.0 to 1.7 (like Congress) and spending money on lobbyists rather than lawyers in such litigation as described above would be money better spent.
As has been pointed out, the letter at issue was poorly written and repetitious. Form often trumps substance in the law and this is a good example of that truth. And let me be clear, SSA management are as much to blame. Castigating the many with an eye on the few is just crappy management--not to mention the example of how they changed the ALJ position description behind the backs of the Union (as one point to be made here).
Both sides need to sit down with a neutral Judge and act like the Judges they are instead of heat-seeking missle lawyers hell-bent on proving "points". Like any other management Union imbroglio, the irony is that they need each other just like a car needs gas. Maybe the Union could really boost membership with a bit more class/form and creative thinking.
|
|
|
Post by daisyjane on Aug 26, 2015 22:26:57 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! With all due respect, that is spoken like someone who has been with ODAR for three decades. Almost everyone that has been in private practice the last decade or two would openly scoff at the idea that this is a sweatshop environment. It's not. If you want a sweatshop, go work for a law firm or grind it out solo. This is nothing compared to that, expectations or not. Sure, this isn't the 80s or 90s where ALJs can schedule 25-30 hearings per month and where attorneys can get by with 15 decisions per month. And yes, management has put seemingly arbitrary numbers and has focused on production over quality (depending on which way the congressional wind is blowing that year) and provides really mean emails if you're not hitting those goals. But guess what? The old way wasn't working and helped get us to the million-plus backlog. Congress told ODAR to get it figured out, and that's what they came up with. It's certainly not perfect, and in some ways, it's not good. But it's far better than the Wild West days of "do whatever you think is good enough." hopefalj, With all due respect, I am not sure where you got the idea the 80's and 90's were the easy days when writer's could get by with writing 15 decisions per month. Young man,we had to complete monthly mathematical production reports. You had to meet goal to survive. It was a high pressure intense work environment. In many respects, worse than what exists today. There was even a period where the length of time a writer took for each restroom visit had to be accounted for in your monthly production report. Thus,your inaccurate and mischaracterizatsion of the 80's and 90's is not well taken, and had to be corrected. On what planet did you obtain such misinformation?
|
|
|
Post by numbersix on Aug 27, 2015 4:52:52 GMT -5
Rookie questions follow: Is it correct to assume the SSA ALJs have attorneys assigned to them who actually write the decisions for the ALJs? Do the ALJs review and sign? Are they ever responsible for writing decisions without the aid of a writer? Do they also have administrative support staff for things like correspondence and hearing scheduling?
|
|
|
Post by ba on Aug 27, 2015 6:30:41 GMT -5
Rookie questions follow: Is it correct to assume the SSA ALJs have attorneys assigned to them who actually write the decisions for the ALJs? Do the ALJs review and sign? Are they ever responsible for writing decisions without the aid of a writer? Do they also have administrative support staff for things like correspondence and hearing scheduling? Ruh-roh. *grabbing popcorn*
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Aug 27, 2015 7:24:24 GMT -5
Rookie questions follow: Is it correct to assume the SSA ALJs have attorneys assigned to them who actually write the decisions for the ALJs? Do the ALJs review and sign? Are they ever responsible for writing decisions without the aid of a writer? Do they also have administrative support staff for things like correspondence and hearing scheduling? Yay and Nay. When you first start, the training regimen calls for you to write a certain number of your own opinions. After that, the attorney advisers and paralegal specialists (collectively referred to as "writers") write your opinions based on instructions you give them. You then edit and sign the drafts. But, these indviduals are not "assigned to you." Hearing offices have pools of writers that write cases from all judges in that office. You have no control over which gets your assignment on any given day and, as with all large entities, there are excellent members and some that you wonder how they got out of writing Dick and Jane stories in the second grade. More often these days, your writing assignments are sent out of office to a writing unit that is either regionally based or in a National Case Assistance Center. There are benefits and detriments to this process. Some of the writers there are great, but just like in hearing offices, some are horrid. Adding issue, these people are not in your office and can not just come to see you about any problems they are having with your instructions (In truth this is less of a problem as they can use email and the instant messenger to achieve the same thing and with most writers working at home, even the ones in your office probably will contact you that way now). But....you have no supervisory authority over these people. None. If you are unhappy with their work, you have to go thru their group supervisor. The one caveat is, if assigned to an NHC (which I have seen no evidence of them placing a new hire there) you do get two attorneys assigned directly to you and have authority over them. But never in a hearing office.) The hearing office has staff responsible for assembling the file, gathering evidence, handling correspondence and scheduling your cases. But, like the writers you have no supervisory authority over them. You may even have an assigned case technician that is referred to as your "clerk," but you have no authority over them either. The agency and managment will remind you that you are simply a link in the chain and no more important than any other link in that chain from case techs to writers to the contact representatives (receptionist). And, unless you become a hocalj, you will not have any say in who does the work supporting you, how they do it, what happens if they suck at it or how their performance is judged, rewarded or compensated.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 27, 2015 7:48:38 GMT -5
Wow! You mean people do work for you and you do not have to supervise them. Excellent! I mean, awful. Everybody should immediately pull their application. I will sacrifice for all.
|
|
|
Post by marten77 on Aug 27, 2015 9:44:01 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. I will not disagree with you that there are problems, serious ones at that, that need to be addressed. But cronyism? I imagine it plays a part in every federal agency to some extent, but OMG... try giving DOJ a whirl sometime if you want to see cronyism in all of its flat out bestial glory. And numbers? Numbers drives any government agency because the budget is based off it. I can't tell you how many indictment meetings I sat through every month prior to grand jury meetings and the supervisors complaining about how we needed to "get our numbers up" and to "get out there and find cases" to charge. Snarky emails, phone calls and voicemails from the crim division chief, the first assistant and USA asking why you didn't have more cases charged in a given month even though you might have well over 200 active cases rolling through the federal court system at any one given time, etc., etc. They always want MORE. You will find the numbers game and pressure for numbers in any government agency because it is the benchmark upon which all agencies base their survival. Is it right? Not at all. Quality shouldn't suffer at the hands of quantity but it does nevertheless regardless of what agency you are in. It is an ugly fact of government service and not one likely to change anytime soon. SSA is far from perfect, but it has nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) on DOJ and some of the crap I saw while I was there. To SSA's credit, they are at least making some attempts at making quality a higher priority than it was in the past with the use of QR review and the AC's uptick on own motion review. I'm not saying those are the perfect answers to quality problems, just that they are making some sort of effort and it is a lot more than a lot of agencies even attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Aug 27, 2015 10:18:18 GMT -5
I really appreciate our conversation in this thread. What an excellent thread. Is there an award for people who start excellent threads?
But in all seriousness, literally everyone has a valid point here. Things being worse elsewhere doesn't make them better here; things being better or worse in the past doesn't make them better or worse now; putative attempts (arguably with no wherewithal behind them) to fix certain things doen't make the people with the power to change things perfect or diabolical. I responded comprehensively to daisyjane because of the adoption of AALJ's sweatshop analogy, but I actually support her points in general - the bed we are all lying in was shopped for, test-slept-in, purchased, delivered, set up, and made by the management of not very long ago, whose fingers still stir the metaphorical batter bowl despite their anonymity.
Cronyism is also a harsh word, but many people have noticed the pedigree of the diverse management positions from region to region and throughout headquarters and marveled at the similarilty of locations and dates of trainings and hirings.
I believe that the union(s) are powerless to do anything in this environment because management holds the cards, and if they are willing to hide an ace up their sleeve (and many would say they are), it would take a fine, fine gambler to catch proof of that. If management is willing to ... differently interpret the actions of the past in ways some would find an untenable characterization ... (and they have been doing that in front of tribunals for at least 14 years of which I am personally aware), it becomes very difficult to obtain meaningful judicial review or arbitration or mediation, or anything. Only when there is an impetus for management to determine they can catch more flies with honey (I realllllly love metaphors, ok?) will they enter into meaningful negotiations and policy-making. The unions can't force that, they can only entice that. They do not entice it when they play the battle-game that management loves (because they win, because they make the rules).
Then again, I literally have no idea what I'm talking about and have no credibility in my pseudo-anonymity, so be careful listening to me.
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Aug 27, 2015 10:51:25 GMT -5
I have avoided this thread since I did not find it positive. Too many raw emotions, which cloud logic. The only point I liked was the one concerning running to be the Chapter President if you want to make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Aug 27, 2015 11:44:31 GMT -5
I have avoided this thread since I did not find it positive. Too many raw emotions, which cloud logic. The only point I liked was the one concerning running to be the Chapter President if you want to make a difference. privateatty's post is pretty spot on. That's about as accurate an objective view as you'll see on the matter, and it makes sense coming from an outsider ALJ. Management tends to use a cleaver when a scalpel is warranted. The union tends to react like a European soccer player at every policy set forth by management, writhing on the ground and screaming in agony with the slightest poke. Neither side likes accepting responsibility, but both sides are experts in finger pointing. I tend to come across as pro-management with my posts, but honestly, choosing sides is a lot like asking a Michigan fan to pick a side in a Notre Dame-Ohio State football game. And all that said about the occasional dysfunction and eye rolling, you won't catch me leaving this job anytime soon. It's by far the best I've ever had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 12:02:49 GMT -5
Funkmeister: I think the mill has changed in the past year; there now does not seem to be a policy or requirement that new hire ALJ's self write a specific number of decisions anymore. They now post training jump right into hearing/instructions/review and sign.
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Aug 27, 2015 12:41:29 GMT -5
Funky: Extra points for the Dick & Jane reference!
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Aug 27, 2015 13:00:32 GMT -5
Funkmeister: I think the mill has changed in the past year; there now does not seem to be a policy or requirement that new hire ALJ's self write a specific number of decisions anymore. They now post training jump right into hearing/instructions/review and sign. Actually we still do have to write 1 unfav 3 fully fav and 5 dismissals. At least that was in my mentoring guide and I just finished training.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 27, 2015 13:02:37 GMT -5
Funkmeister: I think the mill has changed in the past year; there now does not seem to be a policy or requirement that new hire ALJ's self write a specific number of decisions anymore. They now post training jump right into hearing/instructions/review and sign. Actually we still do have to write 1 unfav 3 fully fav and 5 dismissals. At least that was in my mentoring guide and I just finished training. I hope this doesn't mean you're slow.
|
|
|
Post by Loopstok on Aug 27, 2015 14:45:42 GMT -5
Editing decisions written by someone else is hard work. I wrote decisions for ALJs for 4 years and I know in my head what I want my decisions to look like -- in terms of legal rationale, summary of the medical evidence, how long to discuss which medical opinions. But, what comes back to me from my own pool of writers, often has only a tenuous relationship to what I put in my instructions. The writers (theoretically) listen to the hearing (or read the very cursory notes written down by the so-called "verbatim hearing reporter"), and also read the medical evidence. They may disagree with I disagreeessments, and change or leave out my suggested language. They sometimes do this without telling me in advance.
I once tried to put in "hedge" language on an FF decision that I wasn't crazy about paying, but was paying because the VE said "no jobs" to my hypo. The writer rewrote all my hedge language, to make it seem like I was giving the claimant an award for being the most disabled person ever. I changed it back.
It is faster for me to write my own FF decision (45 mins) than it is to write instructions and then edit someone else's FF draft. When I was still on only 4 hearings a day, I would write my own FFs from time to time. After I switch from typing to Dragon Speak, I expect I'll get even faster and will still be able to write 1-2 FFs of my own per month... which is a very small drop in the 500-dispos-a-year bucket.
However, the reality is, there's just no time to write *every* decision. The writers are a necessary and vital part of the system. They get more time allotted per file than we do, and there are more of them than there are of us (ALJs). Some writers are clearly future ALJs; some writers are clearly future early-out retirees. You will, as an ALJ, have to make bargains with yourself about what decisions you are going to sign your name to. You will, as a matter of time and prioritization, have to sign off on some decisions that contain confusing and inaccurate medical evidence summaries, or nasty/snippy/uninformed credibility analyses. At other times, the writers do such good stuff that I immediately send letters to their group supervisors praising their work product (and I mean it, too).
I do "pre-write" language in my instructions; I try to give the writer 5-6 paragraphs of things that I (as a former writer), feel NEED to be in the decision to make it legally sufficient. I figure, if "my" text makes it in, the draft can survive less-than-ideal language written by someone else.
And, other times, my instructions have completely fouled something up (clicking on the wrong grid rule, or the wrong "paragraph B" criteria for mental limitations that clash with my RFC assessment), and the writers have saved me. Or they found vital stuff in the medical evidence that I totally missed.
This is drifting off topic from the AALJ letter to the DC. If eBB is properly used, it can salvage bad decision writing. But, good decision writing can also salvage bad judging. Both of those statements are already true about my own decisions, and I haven't even signed off on 100 cases total yet. The AALJ complaints in that letter don't correlate 100% to my own reality as a writer-turned-judge, that's for sure.
|
|