|
Post by thankful1 on Oct 17, 2015 0:13:18 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Float. Much like autoworkers sold out future hires during the GM and Chrysler bail outs by restricting the salaries of future employees, the AALJ, run by people who are, and have long been, in their desired locations, have sold out all of those future judges who are currently on the register, and who made GAL decisions based on an understanding that they would have a chance to get home after 90 days away from their families. At the very least, the AALJ should have bargained for the change to be implemented with the new register. Instead, we "won" the right to get credit for work that we do. That we have to fight for it, or consider it a win to get it, seems to speak more to a culture of acrimony between the agency and the union than it does to hard-nosed bargaining. And as mentioned above, a real win would have involved getting rid of the scheduling requirement.
|
|
|
Post by rodkneekingslayer on Oct 17, 2015 5:32:45 GMT -5
It is great to get the word out so quickly so new aljs will know they are 'stuck' in their first location for 15 months. And 24 in the next one. There are exceptions {e.g. getting a hocalj gig, an NHC hire, a hardship detail - must be a new situation for you plotters}. Prior to the 90 day rule there was a 2 year rule so it is not as bad as some had it. And before the 2 year rule there was no union and you were at management's mercy. So it is a new factor to go into the equation. Best wishes all - the backlog is growing daily. We need you!
The out of the way locations need aljs as much or more as the most desirable cities. How is ODAR to staff them? Video hearings are a very poor substitute for the real thing.
There is an intriguing, possible loophole mentioned in the latest aalj newsletter* about a 'no cost swap'. Management said it was acceptable, but it cannot affect the transfer list. So if you are in 'cropland South' and you can find another alj in 'cropland not too far from home' and no one ELSE wants to go to either location, you might be able to work a deal to get closer to your desired location. It has not been codified in the proposed CBA and after management looks at it they might do whatever, but look at the last aalj newsletter. Imagine the next class where the whole day is spent negotiating swaps of somewhat disgruntled newbies trying to do well for their careers and maybe see their families on weekends, vs. monthly! Forget the agenda, texting will rule the day. Remember to join the union and post your request so it will be seen asap at the judges' union bulletin board! Maybe we could enroll you now? There have been no swaps yet reported and this is brand new and I think the agency will 'walk back' its positive assertion once they see the management headaches or chaos it will seemingly create. It will be very strictly interpreted, I believe (if a judge in a city on the transfer list left for a swap you might think that does not create an opening for the judge # 1 on the transfer list, as the transferring alj is being replaced by the happy alj coming home - no way is my personal, non-management response and totally unofficial) Nevertheless here is what is reported in the 10/12/15 AALJ newsletter:
*{AALJ) 'suggested some judges doing a swap of offices at no cost to the Agency; Agency would have no objection so long as this does not impact the transfer list process of the CBA.'
|
|
float
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by float on Oct 17, 2015 10:57:57 GMT -5
Thank you for the thoughtful responses to my spleen venting.
About telework, I'd like to see more of us allowed to use it, sooner, and more often. I'd like to be able to edit cases in the middle of the night if I can't sleep, or from my parents home several hours from my office. I'd like newbies to be able to use it, even for limited purposes, at six months in instead of a year.
As a judge with a bit of mileage I get the more complex cases, yes. The presence or absence or departure of newer judges does not change that. The departure of a new judge saddens me because I enjoy the people who get hired, but I hold the same number of the same types of cases, no matter what.
As for scheduling, when a judge with a filled docket transfers out of my office, either we pick up some of those hearings, or the region covers them, or the cases go with the judge for video hearings from their new office. If their claimants have rejected video, then some swapping takes place...it is far from unusual or the end of the world to adjust schedules. I do not believe that claimants are disadvantaged if a judge leaves 91 days into their career; in fact it may be better since they usually do not have a full calendar scheduled yet. I can see committing to six months in the first location, but fifteen is long enough to actually create problems and if I think about it long enough I'll come up with some besides those created by a full docket scheduled six months out.
As for a drain on resources, I don't really see it as exceptional. Perhaps in an office that gets a new judge infrequently, the HOSA or admin folks may be called upon to do some tasks they are not familiar with. But two things: first, nothing about setting up a new judge is outside the scope of their job, this is what they do. Second, the HOSA who does this setting up frequently gets really good at it.
And that leads to my bigger point. In offices with lots of incoming judges, the processes and procedures for handling it get worked out and perfected. For anyone to argue it is a hardship may be overlooking the fact that it is not as difficult to deal with 42 new judges in a five year span than it is to deal with 5 new judges in a much longer time span. And yet the revolving door offices are being used to justify this rather significant change. I think it is disingenuous at best.
As for what I think will happen if the contract is not ratified, I have no idea. I'd like there to be more discussion to arrive at something more palatable, but if no one asked our collective opinions yet, they are not likely to ask now I suppose. So what will happen is that the thing will be ratified with disadvantages baked in. I will become either HOCALJ or LAR of my office and spend the next couple of years trying to deal with the consequences, either way. But I will be grumpy about it, and will feel badly for anyone who did not get picked up for this great job in time to avoid this.
|
|
|
Post by cafeta on Oct 17, 2015 14:24:13 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"! Indeed, they do! One of their favorite words! On the other hand, deference, not so much.
|
|