|
|
Post by ssaer on Mar 14, 2017 11:51:17 GMT -5
In the spirit of "Look, President Trump, You Can Count On Us To Faithfully Implement Your Antiemployee Agenda and Destroy Employee Morale," here is the memo that was sent to all Hearing Office Chief ALJs regarding telework and ALJ performance expectations:
Date: February 15, 2017
To: All HOCALJs
From: Patrick Nagle /s/
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge
Robert Jandrlich /s/
Associate Commissioner
Office of Executive Operations and Human Resources
Subject: UPDATE: Telework Requests for IFPTE/AALJ Employees – INFORMATION
This guidance applies to all Office of Disability Adjudication and Review bargaining-unit employees covered by the National Agreement between the Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, and the Association of Administrative Law Judges, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO & CLC (IFPTE).
In accordance with Article 15, Section 5A of the 2013 SSA/ODAR-AALJ/IFPTE National Agreement, all administrative law judges (ALJs) who wish to participate in the agency’s telework program should submit their requests and schedules to you by February 28, 2017. You should approve or deny the telework requests by March 14, 2017. ALJs who receive approval for their requests may begin to work their new telework schedules on the first full pay period in April, which begins April 2, 2017.
When reviewing your ALJs’ requests for telework for this next 6-month period, please keep in mind the guidance that we have previously provided regarding what constitutes a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings, and the considerations you should take into account to make that determination. That guidance is contained within the Telework Guidance for HOCALJs document and the Reasonably Attainable Guidance, both of which are in the HOCALJ Telework Guidance library. Judge Bice’s September 2016 guidance stated that an average of 45 to 50 scheduled hearings per month would constitute a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings for the October 2016 through March 2017 telework period. Even prior to the implementation of this telework expectation, ALJs were regularly conducting a minimum of 50 hearings per month and this is a reasonable expectation for all ALJs. Therefore, for this upcoming telework period, April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, we will maintain that an average of 50 scheduled hearings per month is a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings.
Please remember that our expectation for all ALJs, teleworking and non-teleworking, is that they issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient dispositions per year; their scheduling of hearings should therefore be commensurate with this goal. To that end, please review carefully the Reasonably Attainable Guidance as you consider an ALJ’s telework request, and please take into account those circumstances that apply to that ALJ. If no such circumstances apply, an average of 50 hearings a month will be considered to be a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings. An ALJ who does not meet this expectation may have his/her telework restricted.
Please continue monitoring cases in judge-controlled status that may be “seriously delinquent.” You will find further guidance on addressing delinquent cases in the Addressing Delinquent Cases folder in the HOCALJ Telework Guidance library.
SIGN 10 days or greater
EDIT 30 days or greater
ARPR/ARFL and ALPO/ALFL 30 days or greater
As a reminder, effective October 9, 2015, Judges must use the Virtual Private Network (VPN) software on their device for all Telework. If an ALJ does not comply with this requirement, he/she is no longer eligible for telework and must wait until the next request period to apply for telework.
Before removing an ALJ from telework, please have a collegial conversation and explain the importance of using technology/the laptop as part of telework. You may consult with your regional attorney or labor and employee relations specialist for the next steps and to ensure we are addressing these issues consistently.
If you have any questions, please contact _____________, in the Division of Quality Service, at (888) 238-_______ ext. _________
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Mar 14, 2017 12:47:11 GMT -5
... When reviewing your ALJs’ requests for telework for this next 6-month period, please keep in mind the guidance that we have previously provided regarding what constitutes a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings, and the considerations you should take into account to make that determination. That guidance is contained within the Telework Guidance for HOCALJs document and the Reasonably Attainable Guidance, both of which are in the HOCALJ Telework Guidance library. Judge Bice’s September 2016 guidance stated that an average of 45 to 50 scheduled hearings per month would constitute a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings for the October 2016 through March 2017 telework period. Even prior to the implementation of this telework expectation, ALJs were regularly conducting a minimum of 50 hearings per month and this is a reasonable expectation for all ALJs. Therefore, for this upcoming telework period, April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, we will maintain that an average of 50 scheduled hearings per month is a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings. Please remember that our expectation for all ALJs, teleworking and non-teleworking, is that they issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient dispositions per year; their scheduling of hearings should therefore be commensurate with this goal. To that end, please review carefully the Reasonably Attainable Guidance as you consider an ALJ’s telework request, and please take into account those circumstances that apply to that ALJ. If no such circumstances apply, an average of 50 hearings a month will be considered to be a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings. An ALJ who does not meet this expectation may have his/her telework restricted. So what are "those circumstances?" Holidays, use of leave? If a judge is taking a week's vacation is she expected to schedule 38 or 50? |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 14, 2017 15:15:36 GMT -5
Tripper: The simple answer is don't take leave; then it won't be an issue. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Mar 14, 2017 15:31:47 GMT -5
Tripper: The simple answer is don't take leave; then it won't be an issue. Pixie Honestly, that feels like the expectation from the agency. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 14, 2017 15:44:44 GMT -5
Having followed these thoughts, I wonder how many judges have problems with scheduling because of the way the office operates and its culture. I come from an office where the judges schedule two dockets per month spread over two weeks of the month. Now how many days one holds hearings during a week depends on the particular judge. There is the 7 hearings per day/4 day docket, the 5 hearings per day/5 day docket and the combination of 6 hearings/4 days and 3-4 hearings/1 day plan. But we all know that we have to give our dates so that there can be coordination of the hearing rooms and sites. Once those docket dates and sites are settled, there are seldom any changes. If someone cannot cover his docket, other judges try to cover the hearings before they get cancelled.
So you commit 24 weeks to hearings. That leaves another 28 for time in and out of the office.
I am not hearing any of the angst over the 50 cases scheduled edict. We have all been hitting 50 or more hearings monthly for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Mar 14, 2017 16:42:15 GMT -5
As has often been pointed out, a case in one office does not equal a case in another office
If you are not near a VA facility, if your State does not have excellent access to health care facilities, or access to insurance, the files will be significantly smaller and 500 dispos with 50 hearings per month may not an insurmountable burden
However, if your office is near a VA facility, has access to good health care, and access to insurance (or "worst case" scenario, all three) your mileage may vary greatly
Some folks are buried by thousands and thousands of pages in their files
Let's try to be understanding that others may not have the same situation even if they have the same job
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Mar 14, 2017 17:19:59 GMT -5
I come from an office where the judges schedule two dockets per month spread over two weeks of the month. Now how many days one holds hearings during a week depends on the particular judge. There is the 7 hearings per day/4 day docket, the 5 hearings per day/5 day docket and the combination of 6 hearings/4 days and 3-4 hearings/1 day plan. Under this schedule, you presumably have to do your prehearing reviews well in advance of the hearings, i.e., during the two weeks when no hearings are held. How do you review "last minute" evidence that is placed in the record during the weeks that the hearings are actually held (e.g., a day or two before a particular hearing, while you are engaged in conducting other hearings)? |
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Mar 14, 2017 17:38:37 GMT -5
As has often been pointed out, a case in one office does not equal a case in another office If you are not near a VA facility, if your State does not have excellent access to health care facilities, or access to insurance, the files will be significantly smaller and 500 dispos with 50 hearings per month may not an insurmountable burden However, if your office is near a VA facility, has access to good health care, and access to insurance (or "worst case" scenario, all three) your mileage may vary greatly Some folks are buried by thousands and thousands of pages in their files Let's try to be understanding that others may not have the same situation even if they have the same job This ... From your lips to Falls Church |
|
|
|
Post by shoocat on Mar 14, 2017 19:35:42 GMT -5
... When reviewing your ALJs’ requests for telework for this next 6-month period, please keep in mind the guidance that we have previously provided regarding what constitutes a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings, and the considerations you should take into account to make that determination. That guidance is contained within the Telework Guidance for HOCALJs document and the Reasonably Attainable Guidance, both of which are in the HOCALJ Telework Guidance library. Judge Bice’s September 2016 guidance stated that an average of 45 to 50 scheduled hearings per month would constitute a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings for the October 2016 through March 2017 telework period. Even prior to the implementation of this telework expectation, ALJs were regularly conducting a minimum of 50 hearings per month and this is a reasonable expectation for all ALJs. Therefore, for this upcoming telework period, April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017, we will maintain that an average of 50 scheduled hearings per month is a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings. Please remember that our expectation for all ALJs, teleworking and non-teleworking, is that they issue 500 to 700 legally sufficient dispositions per year; their scheduling of hearings should therefore be commensurate with this goal. To that end, please review carefully the Reasonably Attainable Guidance as you consider an ALJ’s telework request, and please take into account those circumstances that apply to that ALJ. If no such circumstances apply, an average of 50 hearings a month will be considered to be a “reasonably attainable” number of hearings. An ALJ who does not meet this expectation may have his/her telework restricted. So what are "those circumstances?" Holidays, use of leave? If a judge is taking a week's vacation is she expected to schedule 38 or 50? But field ALJs don't have two attorneys working for them and have the same expectations? |
|
momo
Full Member
Posts: 101 
|
Post by momo on Mar 14, 2017 20:11:51 GMT -5
As has often been pointed out, a case in one office does not equal a case in another office If you are not near a VA facility, if your State does not have excellent access to health care facilities, or access to insurance, the files will be significantly smaller and 500 dispos with 50 hearings per month may not an insurmountable burden However, if your office is near a VA facility, has access to good health care, and access to insurance (or "worst case" scenario, all three) your mileage may vary greatly Some folks are buried by thousands and thousands of pages in their files Let's try to be understanding that others may not have the same situation even if they have the same job Exactly. In many areas, meeting that expectation would require huge cutting of corners in file review and lead to many incorrect decisions, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Mar 14, 2017 20:46:20 GMT -5
I come from an office where the judges schedule two dockets per month spread over two weeks of the month. Now how many days one holds hearings during a week depends on the particular judge. There is the 7 hearings per day/4 day docket, the 5 hearings per day/5 day docket and the combination of 6 hearings/4 days and 3-4 hearings/1 day plan. Under this schedule, you presumably have to do your prehearing reviews well in advance of the hearings, i.e., during the two weeks when no hearings are held. How do you review "last minute" evidence that is placed in the record during the weeks that the hearings are actually held (e.g., a day or two before a particular hearing, while you are engaged in conducting other hearings)? That'll be fixed with the upcoming five-day rule, right? Right?  ? I think I'd have an easier time scheduling 600 if my region didn't prohibit hearings on 8 days in addition to the 11 federal holidays with OCEP videos or regional judge meetings. It's absurd that I'm precluded from holding five hearings late that morning and afternoon after the OCEP videos or judge meetings, but I am. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Mar 14, 2017 21:57:12 GMT -5
Under this schedule, you presumably have to do your prehearing reviews well in advance of the hearings, i.e., during the two weeks when no hearings are held. How do you review "last minute" evidence that is placed in the record during the weeks that the hearings are actually held (e.g., a day or two before a particular hearing, while you are engaged in conducting other hearings)? I think I'd have an easier time scheduling 600 if my region didn't prohibit hearings on 8 days in addition to the 11 federal holidays with OCEP videos or regional judge meetings. It's absurd that I'm precluded from holding five hearings late that morning and afternoon after the OCEP videos or judge meetings, but I am. Yeah, right. You can count on it. |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Mar 15, 2017 7:39:01 GMT -5
As has often been pointed out, a case in one office does not equal a case in another office If you are not near a VA facility, if your State does not have excellent access to health care facilities, or access to insurance, the files will be significantly smaller and 500 dispos with 50 hearings per month may not an insurmountable burden However, if your office is near a VA facility, has access to good health care, and access to insurance (or "worst case" scenario, all three) your mileage may vary greatly Some folks are buried by thousands and thousands of pages in their files Let's try to be understanding that others may not have the same situation even if they have the same job I think my files are smaller on average than those in some other areas. However, the writing here is the worst I have seen anywhere. The question for me is whether I can decide AND WRITE 500 per year. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 15, 2017 16:17:54 GMT -5
Dear ssaer:
I generally review my cases the week prior to the hearing. On Monday, I do the Monday cases. Tuesday, the Tuesday cases... Now remember when I do this, I may not be reviewing 6 new cases. Some of these has been reviewed before and were postponed. In those, I am looking only for updated materials. Some days, it takes the full day to review the files but most it does not. And my Friday docket is not a full day.
As for looking at updated evidence, there are two times when that can be done. At the end of the hearing day, I can check on the cases for the next day. And again on the morning of the hearings, I come in early enough to check. And I facilitate checking for updates by using the DART report designed for that. So I am not opening up each file to look for these things. If something is submitted the day of the hearing, the hearing may be delayed while I review it. So far, I have never had to postpone a hearing due to a late submission. I have had a rep or two sit with the claimant in the lobby while I read the new records. One of the other judges in my office will ask the rep and claimant to come back for a hearing on another day during that week of hearings if possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by larry27 on Mar 15, 2017 19:46:37 GMT -5
OK so today in my Region 2 office, most of us got a memorandum telling us our telework is cancelled as of 4/1/17 because we did not schedule the reasonable number of 50 hearings in the next 6 months. One of us was approved bec she scheduled an average of 49.6 (don't ask!) I was 18 hearings shy of the magic 300 number (6 months x 50 cases). I honestly think our management is more interested in pushing the cases out, good decision, bad decision or whatever, than having us do a decent, fair job for the claimants.
The boilerplate memo stated that I needed to justify why I scheduled less cases. I'd really like to hear why 45 cases were good enough 6 months ago and aren't good enough now. I got +30 cases all the time in UNWR and over 100 in POST.
I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance. Sorry- just had to rant a little- as you can imagine everyone in the office is quite upset-hard to concentrate on the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Mar 15, 2017 20:01:19 GMT -5
OK so today in my Region 2 office, most of us got a memorandum telling us our telework is cancelled as of 4/1/17 because we did not schedule the reasonable number of 50 hearings in the next 6 months. One of us was approved bec she scheduled an average of 49.6 (don't ask!) I was 18 hearings shy of the magic 300 number (6 months x 50 cases). I honestly think our management is more interested in pushing the cases out, good decision, bad decision or whatever, than having us do a decent, fair job for the claimants. The boilerplate memo stated that I needed to justify why I scheduled less cases. I'd really like to hear why 45 cases were good enough 6 months ago and aren't good enough now. I got +30 cases all the time in UNWR and over 100 in POST. I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance. Sorry- just had to rant a little- as you can imagine everyone in the office is quite upset-hard to concentrate on the job. Definitely a smart move by management- morale has been intolerably high lately. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 15, 2017 20:10:09 GMT -5
OK so today in my Region 2 office, most of us got a memorandum telling us our telework is cancelled as of 4/1/17 because we did not schedule the reasonable number of 50 hearings in the next 6 months. One of us was approved bec she scheduled an average of 49.6 (don't ask!) I was 18 hearings shy of the magic 300 number (6 months x 50 cases). I honestly think our management is more interested in pushing the cases out, good decision, bad decision or whatever, than having us do a decent, fair job for the claimants. The boilerplate memo stated that I needed to justify why I scheduled less cases. I'd really like to hear why 45 cases were good enough 6 months ago and aren't good enough now. I got +30 cases all the time in UNWR and over 100 in POST. I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance. Sorry- just had to rant a little- as you can imagine everyone in the office is quite upset-hard to concentrate on the job. disappointed to see this. Rant away. the why i think is because of a recent labor/management decision by FSIP panel or some legal entity along those lines. I am sure everyone is very upset. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 15, 2017 20:10:30 GMT -5
OK so today in my Region 2 office, most of us got a memorandum telling us our telework is cancelled as of 4/1/17 because we did not schedule the reasonable number of 50 hearings in the next 6 months. One of us was approved bec she scheduled an average of 49.6 (don't ask!) I was 18 hearings shy of the magic 300 number (6 months x 50 cases). I honestly think our management is more interested in pushing the cases out, good decision, bad decision or whatever, than having us do a decent, fair job for the claimants. The boilerplate memo stated that I needed to justify why I scheduled less cases. I'd really like to hear why 45 cases were good enough 6 months ago and aren't good enough now. I got +30 cases all the time in UNWR and over 100 in POST. I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance. Sorry- just had to rant a little- as you can imagine everyone in the office is quite upset-hard to concentrate on the job. Definitely a smart move by management- morale has been intolerably high lately. ha! |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Mar 15, 2017 22:35:09 GMT -5
OK so today in my Region 2 office, most of us got a memorandum telling us our telework is cancelled as of 4/1/17 because we did not schedule the reasonable number of 50 hearings in the next 6 months. One of us was approved bec she scheduled an average of 49.6 (don't ask!) I was 18 hearings shy of the magic 300 number (6 months x 50 cases). I honestly think our management is more interested in pushing the cases out, good decision, bad decision or whatever, than having us do a decent, fair job for the claimants. The boilerplate memo stated that I needed to justify why I scheduled less cases. I'd really like to hear why 45 cases were good enough 6 months ago and aren't good enough now. I got +30 cases all the time in UNWR and over 100 in POST. I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance. Sorry- just had to rant a little- as you can imagine everyone in the office is quite upset-hard to concentrate on the job. Definitely a smart move by management- morale has been intolerably high lately. It is under-appreciated just how difficult people are to manage if they're allowed to become too happy. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 16, 2017 7:49:46 GMT -5
Yes, by all means, "I am going to schedule those extra 18 hearings under protest and file a grievance." If they ask you to schedule 50 and you do, ie., schedule those extra 18 cases, you have no grievance. They asked and you provided. Where is the harm. You are playing right into their hands. You can only file a grievance if you have been harmed in some way, such as being denied telework. By scheduling those extra 18 cases, you have proven to them that 50 a month is reasonable and they will use you as a statistic to tell the rest of us that we are losers and can't keep up. The majority of Judges have not been scheduling 50 cases a month. That is a lie they have repeated time and again. If you lower your quality to give them quantity they win. They truly care about nothing but the numbers. As usual, JMHO....
|
|
?
