|
Post by quesera on Oct 10, 2015 9:45:00 GMT -5
This is all very interesting. I know of new SSA judges who started this calendar year and got their transfers to moderately favorable locales at about that 91 day mark. I understand the policy reasons behind all of this, though. I hope the earlier poster is right that this causes an adjustment of ALJ assignments with shift towards those moderately favorable towns reasonably close to areas of need. p.s. I can't believe all the discussion on this since last night. We (including me) need something else to do on a holiday weekend.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 10, 2015 9:56:00 GMT -5
ha ha, i will do something else soon. Football games don't start for another hour. and right now is my only downtime to play around on the internet before the family wakes up!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 10, 2015 11:04:26 GMT -5
oh boy, we are already fighting at Christinaville over which games to watch
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrakkasan on Oct 10, 2015 12:38:40 GMT -5
oh boy, we are already fighting at Christinaville over which games to watch Go Michigan!
|
|
|
Post by christina on Oct 10, 2015 14:27:10 GMT -5
oh boy, we are already fighting at Christinaville over which games to watch Go Michigan! um. ok..... Well at least you and i have a similar "love" for Ohio state..... let's agree where we can!!!
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 13, 2015 9:10:23 GMT -5
Thios from the Union "summary" of contract changes":
Sec. 3 C incorporates an MOU changing the old 2 years of service as a Judge before being able to get on the transfer register to 90 days. However, the October 2015 Settlement Agreement changes this for all Judges newly hired starting in January 2016. For Judges hired starting in 2016, ODAR has insisted that they stay in their initial office for an additional year above and beyond the 90 days mandated by OPM, for a total of 15 months, or 450 days. ODAR wanted this to be 2 years, but AALJ prevailed in getting them to accept only an additional 1 year. This has no impact on Judges hired in 2015 or earlier.
So...question: Those that were offered and accepted in 2015 for start dates in January.....are they "hired" in 2015 and only have to do 90 days before transfer eligibility or are they "hired starting in 2016" and have to wait 2 years? I assume they are still 90 days, but if not, that would seem a big chnage in expectations from when they accepted the job.
|
|
|
Post by saaao on Oct 13, 2015 11:15:19 GMT -5
Thios from the Union "summary" of contract changes": Sec. 3 C incorporates an MOU changing the old 2 years of service as a Judge before being able to get on the transfer register to 90 days. However, the October 2015 Settlement Agreement changes this for all Judges newly hired starting in January 2016. For Judges hired starting in 2016, ODAR has insisted that they stay in their initial office for an additional year above and beyond the 90 days mandated by OPM, for a total of 15 months, or 450 days. ODAR wanted this to be 2 years, but AALJ prevailed in getting them to accept only an additional 1 year. This has no impact on Judges hired in 2015 or earlier. So...question: Those that were offered and accepted in 2015 for start dates in January.....are they "hired" in 2015 and only have to do 90 days before transfer eligibility or are they "hired starting in 2016" and have to wait 2 years? I assume they are still 90 days, but if not, that would seem a big chnage in expectations from when they accepted the job. I don't know the particulars of the ALJ offers or how SSA plans to implement this, but your "hire" date is traditionally the onboard date. As the 90 days was based on an MOU not a formal contract provision, I don't think a January starting hire could hold SSA to the 90 days that was in effect when the offers were made if SSA wants to apply the 15 months wait immediately.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Oct 13, 2015 11:39:56 GMT -5
So...question: Those that were offered and accepted in 2015 for start dates in January.....are they "hired" in 2015 and only have to do 90 days before transfer eligibility or are they "hired starting in 2016" and have to wait 2 years? I assume they are still 90 days, but if not, that would seem a big chnage in expectations from when they accepted the job. This is exactly the kind of contract interpretation question I had to answer for the past 20 or so years. Who knows? It depends on the contract language and intent of the parties, which can be evidenced in many ways. One always hopes that if it comes up, the parties can figure it out without assistance. Off the top of my head, I would say that "hired" is generally the onboarding date but may not always be, depending on the language and past practice.
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Oct 13, 2015 14:13:26 GMT -5
My question has been answered by an impeccable source...the few that accepted but deferred starts to January will get the benefit of the 90 day transfer rule.
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Oct 13, 2015 14:24:42 GMT -5
I am glad to hear that. I was hoping that would be the decision. It is a fair one
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Oct 16, 2015 9:21:51 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with everyone who thinks this is a good idea, and must speak up. I currently am in an office with very frequent transfers, having spent the first four years of my appointment in a different office with very frequent transfers. That's my experience with this-I've seen what frequent transfers do to an office, up close and personal as a line judge and a HOCALJ.
It is not the sort of effect that has been discussed anywhere that I've seen: it is hard on the morale of the support staff. They get attached to new, sharp, engaged and enthusiastic people who then leave. That's tough.
There is no measurable impact on claimants. Reps love turnover, because new baby judges don't know the ropes and let stuff slide. Managers are ok with turnover because it moves out the tough people just as fast as those who are easy to deal with. The harm is to support staff. That's not nothing, but it is not yet in the discussion.
In exchange for making what I believe is a huge concession, the union should have been able to basically write the rules for telework to whatever we want. That's not what happened. This is a lousy exchange, and I believe the negotiators failed us.
I encourage current members to vote against ratifying. Fifteen months is way too long to commit incoming judges, and there is no good reason for the union to agree to this, or for the agency to worry about it for that matter, but since they are worried about it we should have extracted huge gains on what matters most to us, and that is telework.
My two cents. Vote no. This is junk.
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Oct 16, 2015 10:32:50 GMT -5
There is no measurable impact on claimants. . really? when you have an office where the judges continually leave on day 91, cases back up because hearings aren't being held. I would think that's a pretty substantial impact on claimants. plus, the impact on staff has nothing to do with morale. It's about the enormous investment the office has to do to get a new judge up and running. whether it's the HOSA getting your computer up and running, and thus diverting his/her attention away from any other IT issue that anyone else in the office may have, to sitting down with GSs/experienced writers to supplement the training you receive in DC, there is a net drain on office resources which directly results in lost office productivity. now, this is all perfectly fine, as there is always a net drain any time you hire a new employee, but when the new employee constantly leaves before he/she can provide work output, it's a net loss for the hearing office. Especially so for offices that are revolving doors.
|
|
|
Post by sapphire on Oct 16, 2015 12:34:55 GMT -5
There is also a negative impact on existing judges in a "revolving door" office because new ALJs do not handle certain more complicated types of hearings. When new judges don't stay long enough to take on a share of that work, existing experienced judges are bogged down with an uneven case load. There is an advantage to the ALJ corps to have some stability within an office.
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Oct 16, 2015 13:18:57 GMT -5
I understand (I believe correctly?) that the "old rule" was that if an ALJ took a transfer, then he/she had to wait two years before transferring again. Does anyone know, is that still the case under the tentative new 15-month timeframe? I apologize if this is stated somewhere here and I've overlooked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 13:35:59 GMT -5
Yes, hope2balj, you still have to stay at least 2 years before you can go back on the xfr list and I think float had some valid points. All in all, the 90 day rule was great for all of us and we basically sold out future ALJs, but ODAR had valid concerns. I like the newer rights under teleworking, but will ask float to add more to that point. tiger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 13:37:26 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with everyone who thinks this is a good idea, and must speak up. I currently am in an office with very frequent transfers, having spent the first four years of my appointment in a different office with very frequent transfers. That's my experience with this-I've seen what frequent transfers do to an office, up close and personal as a line judge and a HOCALJ. It is not the sort of effect that has been discussed anywhere that I've seen: it is hard on the morale of the support staff. They get attached to new, sharp, engaged and enthusiastic people who then leave. That's tough. There is no measurable impact on claimants. Reps love turnover, because new baby judges don't know the ropes and let stuff slide. Managers are ok with turnover because it moves out the tough people just as fast as those who are easy to deal with. The harm is to support staff. That's not nothing, but it is not yet in the discussion. In exchange for making what I believe is a huge concession, the union should have been able to basically write the rules for telework to whatever we want. That's not what happened. This is a lousy exchange, and I believe the negotiators failed us. I encourage current members to vote against ratifying. Fifteen months is way too long to commit incoming judges, and there is no good reason for the union to agree to this, or for the agency to worry about it for that matter, but since they are worried about it we should have extracted huge gains on what matters most to us, and that is telework. My two cents. Vote no. This is junk. What other changes would you like to see with teleworking, I agree with your comments, just curious as I do plan to start back teleworking just as soon as I can get this 800 pound ALPO off my back.
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Oct 16, 2015 13:55:45 GMT -5
In addition, the existing judges get the revolving door ALJ's remands . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2015 15:14:54 GMT -5
Yes and from experience, I can tell you that there are plently of remands of other ALJs waiting for the transferring Judge's at his next duty station. 9th Circuit seems to like the word "remand"!
|
|
|
Post by lizdarcy on Oct 16, 2015 21:29:32 GMT -5
In exchange for making what I believe is a huge concession, the union should have been able to basically write the rules for telework to whatever we want. That's not what happened. This is a lousy exchange, and I believe the negotiators failed us. My two cents. Vote no. This is junk. I'm curious about which rules you would write for telework and what else you think a negotiator could/should have gained in that negotiation. What was the missed opportunity? I am also wondering what you think will happen next if everyone votes no and the contract is not ratified.
|
|
|
Post by westernalj on Oct 16, 2015 23:02:15 GMT -5
The most meaningful win for telework would've been to lose the requirement to schedule 50 hearings per month, which will be effective in 1 year.
|
|