|
Post by arkstfan on Mar 22, 2011 21:47:50 GMT -5
I've never not been in a position to keep up with time.
In private practice I logged everything for billing purposes and to track efficiency. At one state agency we logged time because we were partially funded by Federal grants and tracking was a condition of funding. At another we signed in because our agency director didn't care what FLSA said besides the support staff complaints about the lawyers not signing in were easier to deal with by making everyone sign in. In Federal government without having the fat bank of leave built up credit hours are a great way to avoid using leave and flexible hours are a great job perk and signing in/out avoids any questions about whether I've done my time.
Yeah I am a professional but I don't consider writing down my name and time to be a burden or imposition. Besides I usually get a chance to say hello and chat a bit with others in the office I don't see often because of where my office is within the suite.
|
|
|
Post by aljenvy on Mar 23, 2011 8:52:32 GMT -5
Straight 40 work schedule is provided for in Article 14 of the AALJ collective bargaining agreement: For those who chose flex time, does SSA have core hours?
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Mar 23, 2011 9:08:28 GMT -5
The core work hours are 8:00 - 4:30. There are sometimes that management may suspend flex time and require everyone to be there during core hours, i.e., trainers or a special guest is coming to the office.
Otherwise, flex time for ODAR means you sign in between 6:30 and 9:30, and depending on your sign in time, you sign out between 3:00 and 6:00. If you come in at 6:30, you could work up to 2 1/2 hours of credit time, signing out at 5:30.
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Mar 23, 2011 19:59:59 GMT -5
no, no, barkley got it wrong. The "core hours" 9:30 to 3:00 - the hours when anyone who will be working on site will be on site. The 8:00 to 4:30 is the fixed tour, not the core hours.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 24, 2011 17:08:14 GMT -5
8-)As Decade said, the ALJs were out in the cold. Management was dealing with the unions, they were getting everything and the ALJs nothing as far as any sayso in management or work conditions. There was absolutely no need for unions in the federal work force. You had the Civil Service Commission and later the Office of Personnel Management to protect employee rights. All the unions did was place another layer of encumbrance to getting rid of incompetent employees.
|
|
|
Post by northwest on Mar 24, 2011 20:44:45 GMT -5
Without the Union, there's nothing to stop the gradual chipping away at judicial independence and the dumping of more administrative tasks on the ALJs. For example, I understand that the reason the ALJs have to go through all the drop down menus and keying in of data before we can sign a decision is that the powerful writers' union said, Hey, those tasks aren't part of our job description. Management agreed, and then decided to dump this task on the ALJs. So we got a time-consuming administrative task that the writers could do just as easily. Fortunately, our union, AALJ, has just won on the issue of the electronic business practice having to be negotiated. So hopefully this will bring some balance into the decisions regarding what computer tasks get dumped on the ALJs.
The "electronic business practice" is a relatively small matter. The bigger deal is the union's protection of judicial independence and neutrality. Because management's agenda is to increase the number of cases decided, all the pressure is on the ALJ to decide cases favorably. This is because you can decide more cases favorably with minimal analysis than you can decide unfavorably, which requires extensive discussion of every fact and opinion. For this reason, the writers are given much more time to write unfavorable decisions compared with favorable decisions. However, the numbers "expected" of the ALJs are the same whether the decision is favorable (easy to do) or unfavorable (harder to do). And the expectations keep rising higher, as some regions adopt goals higher than the 500-700 national goal. As a goal is met, the next year's goal is jacked up. And the ALJs face consequences if they fail to meet their region's goals. The only thing protecting us is the AALJ. To all the ALJ wanna-be's reading this forum: Yes, this is a great job. But please join the AALJ at your first opportunity, as the job would be not so great without your brethren and sistren standing behind you to protect your APA-given right to be fair and neutral.
PS: In eras past, the pressure was on the ALJs to decide cases UNfavorably. In the current political climate, the winds might start blowing that direction again. To me, what is important is that the ALJ receive no pressure from management one way or the other how to decide a case. And to be given the time and tools to do the job right, given how much is at stake with every single case (worth on average, I'm told, $250,000 to $400,000 depending on whether you count the value of medical benefits).
|
|
|
Post by booney58 on Mar 25, 2011 7:12:44 GMT -5
Sorry, northwest, maybe it's just because I haven't had coffee yet and am uber grouchy, but I take exception to your remarks about writers. First, please explain to me what "powerful writer's union" you are talking about? I haven't seen them around here. Second, the "administrative" task that you are grousing about IS done by writers at this office, despite a memo that reportedly came out several years ago which specified ALJs should perform this task. So, if you don't like the arrangement where you are, then mosey on down to the Southeast and you'll be freed up to whine about something else.
Writers are under tremendous pressure to produce, just as ALJs are. I take pride in producing not just many decisions each month, but damn good ones. Anything that gets added to our plate -- like the keying in of data -- takes away from our time as well. I've argued (to deaf ears) that this task should be done by case technicians. That has not happened, and in fact most of the writers in my office find ourselves having to take steps to complete a case that should have been done by the techs. So, if you please tell me where I can find this "powerful writer's union" maybe they will help me get this issue resolved. I've not had any luck trying to tackle it myself.
Yes, you DO have a great job as an ALJ. Take comfort in the fact that when you are keying in data at your office, you are making about twice as much as I am when I have to do the exact same thing at mine.
|
|
|
Post by noah on Mar 25, 2011 9:24:31 GMT -5
There is something unbecoming about a sitting ALJ whining about the inconveniences of his/her job. If you cannot produce 700 decisions a year and perform the required perfunctory data entry functions without complaining, then simply resign, and create an opening for those who will gladly do said job without whining about it.
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Mar 25, 2011 9:59:00 GMT -5
It's been pointed out before, but over the course of a work year, if you divide the number of working hours in a year against the number of decisions expected of SSA ALJs, it comes out to about 4 hours per decision at 500, and 3 hours at 700. At some point, any further encroachment that takes the ALJ away from hearing and deciding cases is adversely affecting the amount of due process the claimant receives. That said, I suppose a board full of "wannabes" (like me) is unlikely to be the most receptive audience for the message.
|
|
|
Post by booney58 on Mar 25, 2011 10:32:29 GMT -5
maxlaw brings up some good points, and I confess to being an ALJ "wannabe" myself. But, pesky "administrative" busywork aside, who oversees ALJs who are not doing their jobs or not doing them properly? The union? Why is it that at the end of every fiscal year, it is the same ALJs who are begging for help to meet their quota? Why is it that these same ALJs cannot seem to figure out how to check the date last insured before they establish an onset date in a Title 2 case that is way, way past the DLI? Why are they including mental functional restrictions in an RFC when they have listed no mental MDIs, and vice versa? And the ALJ who has been discussed on this board who turns out thousands of decisions each year does so in large part because he does not bother to read the record on most of his cases (just ask the writers who have to go behind him and clean up his messes). Yep, judicial independence is important, but so is judical competence, and I don't see anybody doing very much about that around here.
Sour grapes on my part? Maybe, but I think these are valid issues. I'd ask the "powerful writer's union" their opinion, but I can't seem to find them.
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 25, 2011 12:49:54 GMT -5
There is something unbecoming about a sitting ALJ whining about the inconveniences of his/her job. If you cannot produce 700 decisions a year and perform the required perfunctory data entry functions without complaining, then simply resign, and create an opening for those who will gladly do said job without whining about it. Is it 700 now?
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Mar 25, 2011 12:53:57 GMT -5
You all don't need another fight between writers and ALJs. Nobody seems to get the point that it is staff support that drives productivity. Believe it or not, at one time I had a legal clerk, a hearing assistant and both an attorney and paralegal writer. If my hearing assistant believed a case to be an OTR, she drafted the opinion for my signature and she was always right on. My staff attorney signed probably 25 fully favorables a month and did prehearing conferences often as I was doing hearings. That TEAM of 5 folks turned out 100-125 cases a month; then the unions got involved and no one is accountable to anyone for anything. Paying an ALJ or GS 13 to do data entery clerk work that used to be done by a GS 5 is madness! And the electronic business process is ridiculously time consuming and inefficient. Management will never learn; the best thing they could do is resign instead of guarding their rice bowls and get out of our way. Then use the money to hire more CLERKS!
|
|