|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 24, 2009 9:04:03 GMT -5
Yes, we all knowingly checked the little GAL boxes for glamorous places like Flint Michigan, Fargo ND, Montgomery AL, Paducah KY, Huntington WV, etc. While some people may actually want to go to these places for various reasons, I think most only listed those places to increase their chances of getting an offer. These decisions benefit the candidates and ODAR. If ODAR actually told everyone that they would, in fact, be stuck in their offered location for a minimum of 10 years, they could very well have a minimal pool of candidates, if any for some of these less desirable cities. Flint Michigan is a perfect example because everyone already knows that it is close to, if not already, a dying city. It has reached a point that regardless of a candidate's cultural, regional, or aesthetic preferences, it does not make a lot of sense for an individual to make any kind of personal investment in Flint from a career, family, or property standpoint, until there is some future resolution of its economic turmoil. How else is ODAR going to get people to select Flint as an option, unless they continue to dangle a reasonable transfer option? I certainly understand and respect the sense of honor and commitment stated by some of the previous posters on this thread, but lets not forget that ODAR does benefit from the transfer system, and I'm sure that Flint is happy to get an ALJ for only a few years rather than none. Worse yet, it could be permanently stuck with the dregs of the register. That is one way to look at it. I don't think that the transfer system benefits ODAR as much as you think. The problem is that places like Flint Michigan and Tupelo Mississippi then become the place that gets all of the new ALJs and loses all of their experienced ALJs. That is not fair to the residents of these areas. That is, if Boston rarely loses ALJs and, when it does, only gets experienced ALJs, the Boston HO will always have experienced ALJs. Tupelo and Flint, on the other hand, have a significant number of inexperienced ALJs. Moreover, Boston will lose no time training ALJs, while Flint will expend a significant amount of time training ALJs. Why should applicants in Boston get this advantage? Please explain that to the Senators from Michigan and Mississippi and to the Representatives from Flint and Tupelo. There are 750 people on the register. All are qualified to be ALJs. It is disputable whether #1 on the register would be better than #750. But, there are at least 100 or 200 on the register who would jump at the opportunity to become an ALJ, no matter where. I think your fear of an inability to fill positions is not well founded.
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Apr 24, 2009 9:21:18 GMT -5
I need to take exception to the phrase "dregs of the register." By definition anybody on the register has been determined to be qualified to serve as an ALJ. I recall significant discussion on this board regarding the relative merit of different scores. I do not believe that an individual who scored 85 on the exam will necessarily be a better judge than somebody who scored 55. There are no "dregs" just individuals who are qualified to be ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by jandea on Apr 24, 2009 9:30:50 GMT -5
Last year, as a taxpayer, I paid for an SSA/ODAR attorney who worked in the hearing office located in (Any City), California to relocate to a hearing office in (Any Other City), Florida to be an ALJ. I paid for another SSA/ODAR attorney in a hearing office in (Any Other City), Pennsylvania to relocate to (Any Other City), Texas to be an ALJ. I did this at least 60 times. Different states, different cities but relocation expenses courtesy of the taxpayers. Total cost ? God only knows. In almost every case, the SSA/ODAR attorney relocating did not actually want to leave his home office/ home state. He plans to take the first available opportunity to go back where he was. If he goes back as a Hearing Office Chief Judge, I will pay for that move as well. What is wrong with this picture? Concerned Taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 24, 2009 9:39:12 GMT -5
"Why should applicants in Boston get this advantage? Please explain that to the Senators from Michigan and Mississippi and to the Representatives from Flint and Tupelo."
Because Boston is not considering the drastic step of bulldozing entire neighborhoods to try and save their city, and it doesn't lead the nation in statistics like infant mortality or lack of education spending.
Another factor is that ALJs who have poor production or otherwise cause trouble have difficulty transferring. If someone really wants out of Flint, Flint will likely gets its money's worth before the ALJ leaves.
Another note for future thought is the condition of the office you find yourself in. How much of an obligation do you have to ODAR if it puts you in an office with an idiot HOD, a useless staff, and a crumbling physical space?
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Apr 24, 2009 9:44:22 GMT -5
As has already been mentioned, it appears that some ALJs may have chosen to decline transfer opportunities because of the economy. The most recent AALJ transfer register (dated 4/15) bears that out. There were, by my count, fifty transfer offers declined in this round. I don't have old registers to compare it to, but I suspect that that is a record. Incidentally, the declination dates start in January and run until April 2, so the agency spent quite a while working the list. How does this number compare to transfer acceptances?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 24, 2009 9:54:18 GMT -5
"In almost every case, the SSA/ODAR attorney relocating did not actually want to leave his home office/ home state. He plans to take the first available opportunity to go back where he was. If he goes back as a Hearing Office Chief Judge, I will pay for that move as well. What is wrong with this picture? Concerned Taxpayer."
I suppose that the private sector never pays any relocation or allows any transfers. Horrors! And who cares about management positions? Anyone can do it! Just promote from within the office, you'll find someone competent for sure.
Oh, there goes the wind again blowing through the cracked caulking in my office windows. I'm sure a thoughtful taxpayer will be in this afternoon to fix it before the GSA guy gets here in October.
|
|
|
Post by jandea on Apr 24, 2009 10:16:35 GMT -5
Dear Valkyrie: I sympathize with you about the caulking in your office windows. My point was that taxpayer money could be spent more wisely fixing problems that actually exist. Did I mention in my rant that the ODAR staff attorney working in the Texas office moved to Pennsylvania to be an ALJ while the ODAR staff attorney working in the Pennsylvania office moved to Texas to be an ALJ, neither wanting to go. In each case the staff attorney would have been a great judge in their home office and everybody would have been happier, even me, the taxpayer.
As for the relocation for chief judge, I am just throwing out the possibility that someone might take advantage of the opportunity for paid relocation just to get back to an office he never wanted to leave in the first place. Maybe it is just me but I see that as a waste of taxpayer money. Concerned Taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 24, 2009 10:27:34 GMT -5
People said they were willing to consider a position in certain areas, if offered. No one made any promise to accept any offer. In case you missed it, a few things have changed in the last year. The personal economic situations of millions of families have changed significantly. People who had $100,000 in home equity a year ago now have nothing AND they cannot sell their home. If you cannot understand these complexities of modern life, perhaps you should not be a judge. I had to pull out my GAL form that I faxed to SSA last month. It is true that we did not make a promise to accept an offer to be employed in any of the specific cities that we checked off. It is also true that some folks didn't do their homework regarding various housing markets or that they find themselves in different financial circumstances than they did a month ago. I look at this as an Ethical Consideration. I make a representation to an Agency, I, like roggenbier, am ready to saddle up. I live and die by my representations. How else could I practice law? Oh, and by the way, I will take a substantial pay cut, but then I knew that, didn't I?
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 24, 2009 10:30:48 GMT -5
I apologize for my snippiness, its a particularly windy day. I think the problem you are alluding to is more a sacrifice for keeping the process as fair and objective as possible. It would be a lot easier and cheaper to just hire people for the office they are already occupying. I think our fellow candidates from outside ODAR would be more than a little concerned if there appeared to be an inside advantage to applying for slots in one's own office. So essentially your tax dollars are buying an arguably more fair and objective process.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 24, 2009 10:35:18 GMT -5
"I look at this as an Ethical Consideration. I make a representation to an Agency, I, like roggenbier, am ready to saddle up. I live and die by my representations. How else could I practice law? "
I look at it as contract law. If its not equally binding on both parties, its not a valid contract. Trust me Privateatty, ODAR will not feel obligated to live and die by its representations.
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Apr 24, 2009 10:36:11 GMT -5
I look at this as an Ethical Consideration. I make a representation to an Agency, I, like roggenbier, am ready to saddle up. I live and die by my representations. How else could I practice law? I agree 100%. I believe that it is also harder for us in the private sector to make that mental commitment to change - and now that I have made it, I am ready to go. It disappoints me that those who have gotten this far in the process are now not so committed, and will stay in long enough to get an offer - just to decline it if it is not the one or two city they really wanted, and thereby cause the other two on that city list to perhaps not get an offer, and have to wait unil another cert or another year. Perhaps a request could be made that a new GAL be allowed for those who are waffling, before the interviews conclude today and before the offers are formulated.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Apr 24, 2009 10:50:06 GMT -5
FYI, all operating costs for SSA are paid out of the Social Security Trust Fund. The SSA annual budget is less than 1% of the annual payments into the Trust Fund.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Apr 24, 2009 11:49:15 GMT -5
"I look at this as an Ethical Consideration. I make a representation to an Agency, I, like roggenbier, am ready to saddle up. I live and die by my representations. How else could I practice law? " I look at it as contract law. If its not equally binding on both parties, its not a valid contract. Trust me Privateatty, ODAR will not feel obligated to live and die by its representations. Not to belabor the issue, val, but I think you miss my point. If I were to gauge my actions by those of an Agency, I would be one sorry lawyer. So what that the Agency may have a different take on the GAL? With all due respect, I simply do not understand your attitude and those of other posters. I guess filling out that malpractice application and taking ethical classes every year has had some effect. Now, do not misunderstand me, I'm not saying you or other posters who agree with your point of view are unethical. Far be it from me to judge anyone, particularly when I do not understand anything about working in the public sector. I can only voice my opinions based upon my experience of 29 years of private practice before a federal agency.
|
|
|
Post by jandea on Apr 24, 2009 11:58:53 GMT -5
I am not suggesting in any way that a current attorney working for a particular hearing office be given special consideration for selection for an ALJ position in his home office or in any other office. I'm suggesting some shuffling of the list after SSA selects the candidates they want to hire. First, look at the list of cities getting a new ALJ and the candidates selected for each city and do some simple shuffling, attempting to keep everyone, insiders and outsiders, as close to home as possible. Surely, this would reduce some of the transfer anxiety we are discussing. I see this as win-win. There is some discussion on this board about "desirable" and "undesirable" offices but we must remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's trash is another man's treasure, or, in this case, one person's San Francisco is another person's Fargo.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Apr 24, 2009 12:10:38 GMT -5
There is a lot to be said for mandatory reassignment of judges every three to four years. The mix stays fresh and bad offices don't remain bad offices as good judges arrive. Also, three moves equals a house fire.
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Apr 24, 2009 12:34:31 GMT -5
"Not to belabor the issue, val, but I think you miss my point. If I were to gauge my actions by those of an Agency, I would be one sorry lawyer. So what that the Agency may have a different take on the GAL?"
You are right that we shouldn't base our own actions upon another actor's actions, but what I meant to show is that we, as candidates don't have an ethical obligation to the agency to the extent you suggest. The nature and length of the process, in my opinion, only holds us to a good faith response on the GAL at the time we fill it out. There is a huge difference between providing good faith information as to your past experience, versus what you think you will be able to do months from now. The fact that we are in an unusually bad recession that is significantly affecting both job markets and real estate markets creates a perfect storm of variables for any candidate, let alone multiple other variables that may not be immediately obvious, from children's allergies to public services. I don't begin to condone people rejecting offers over a city's lack of a pro sports team or lack of a vibrant arts scene, but there are plenty of valid, ethical reasons for a candidate to reject an offer.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Apr 24, 2009 13:54:36 GMT -5
If you've done your day's work and been paid, you're even with the employer. The reason employers offer perks and benefits is to make the job they need to fill more attractive. I don't think any of us is morally obligated to take a job that has not been offered to us yet and we can make the determination of whether to take it if and when it is offered. Between now and then things could change and you may have to decline. ODAR, I believe, is intellectually and strategically ready for some declinations. I don't think they're going to be offended or take it personally when they receive them.
As far as transferring is concerned, if it weren't ok they wouldn't allow it. Each vacancy would just be a new job for that location and a sitting ALJ would have to apply like everyone else. Federal judges don't get to transfer. Wouldn't it be great if they routinely shuffled federal judges around? Who would you send elsewhere first? That isn't the ODAR system for a reason.
As far as paying to move, whether somebody gives you the money to move or you do it yourself and write it off, it is still at the taxpayers' expense, because moving for a job is a tax deductible expense. In the private sector it's also a cost of doing business which is also tax deductible.
There are benefits to being in an office that is in a relatively stagnant market, namely stability of the staff - they stay because better opportunities are rarer. Conversely in a growing market one always has to deal with the pressure of new people coming in because others have taken advantage of a new opportunity that has presented itself or growth has required additional personnel. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with accepting a position in a place you know you'll want to leave - as long as you don't continually kvetch about the place itself until the transfer comes in. Imagine how disheartening it must be to be the president of the Flint CoC - Hey! We've got lots of cheap housing, cheap factory space, and lots of people ready to work!!!
|
|
|
Post by nonamouse on Apr 24, 2009 14:08:55 GMT -5
There is a lot to be said for mandatory reassignment of judges every three to four years. The mix stays fresh and bad offices don't remain bad offices as good judges arrive. Also, three moves equals a house fire. I assume that you are joking. They don't have free military housing for ALJs if the transfer gets forced, so I suppose the taxpayers would get stuck buying a lot of houses every 3-4 years. I would not have accepted the job under those circumstances and I know very few attorneys with the needed experience who would put up with forced moves. BTW, who says that it is the ALJs who make an office "bad" and not other factors like the managers or support staff?
|
|
|
Post by okeydokey on Apr 24, 2009 14:12:53 GMT -5
I concur.
In the military, general officers are moved quite a bit, on the theory of needing systemic changes.
Under this theory, it is the HOCALJs and the RCALJs that should be moving, not the line ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Apr 24, 2009 15:02:12 GMT -5
"Free military housing"? What is that? In 12+ years of active duty, the only "free military housing" I had was made of canvas.
Personnel rotation among the top people changes the dynamic of a unit, an institution, an office. Judges do not make an office bad or good, but "new" judges and management personnel in an office give the rank and file a chance to start over.
The most effective "agencies" in government are the active duty military departments. They move people around all the time. The recent conflicts showed, sadly, that the reserves and national guard, where there is very little movement, were not nearly as effective (check out the saga of the 48th Brigade during Bush War I).
Some of you comprehend; the rest can go back to the pity party.
|
|