|
Post by factfinder on Apr 19, 2013 7:51:43 GMT -5
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=177888482This is all over the net and every news station. As those of us who are or have been SSA judges know, the truth is there are case quotas, but they are no usually super rigid about it although the fear and the evidence seems to be they are getting more rigid. Does it result in too many pays? Probably. Lot easier to pay than not. Did not affect me, I paid when I found the person was disabled and could not perform substantial gainful activity and did not pay when I found the person not to be disabled. But, I can understand how those who do not move as fast as others may have difficulty. Real problem is if you have a lot of VA or DOD medical record type cases with very tough records - those slowed up everyone. Hope the Union is in the right court this time.
|
|
|
Post by goodoleboy47 on Apr 19, 2013 9:55:05 GMT -5
The "quotas" are a unnecessary distraction as are the benchmarks that lead to successfully fulfilling the quotas. The e-mails from the regional office, the constant reminders from the bureaucrats at headquarters, and the graphs detailing production that we get every day are all direct pressures that are not only annoying but push everyone to cut corners to be in compliance with some number of case production that has no basis. Although I do not pay much attention to all the bunk pressure, I do the most I can in the time I have to thoroughly review, hear and decide the cases assigned to me. I have that luxury because I have a great HOCALJ who doesn't push the quota requirements and he/she diffuses alot of the pressure coming from the regional and headquarters offices rather than let it pour down on us. Many offices do not enjoy that luxury as can be seen from the AALJ filing and the comments from judges in other offices I am in contact with regularly. We have good staff and with with mostly dedicated judges who work hard we do OK.
The fact that a number of judges meet their production numbers by working extra hours distorts the bell curve the agency uses to find those judges it wants to put more pressure on to meet quotas. Sure there are times when we all have that case or cases that we need to prepare for especially when we get exhibits in just before the hearing. However to work regular unpaid hours just to increase numbers distorts the reality of the very complicated process we are involved in.
What is the acceptable number of cases to decide monthly and yearly? Don't have an answer. There was a time when we were golden stars if we decided 35-40 cases per month. It is not a number that can be determined by a national "quota" because some judges just work faster than others and have better staff so they can do more, among many other variables. Good on the AALJ for taking this on. It may be a long fight but very necessary given the direction the agency is going. The agency will push the envelope until someone says "enough".
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Apr 19, 2013 10:48:00 GMT -5
This is another example of the union overreaching and taking action without asking to see if the majority of members agrees.
500 cases is not unreasonable. I have done 550 the last 3 years, am able to look at every page of medical evidence in the "F" folder, do not give time away over the 40 hour week, and use my leave.
Everyone in our office hit 500 last year, and our pay rate is very close to the national average. Our remand rate is better than average. Nobody gives time away.
This lawsuit reflects the opinions of a few leaders in the union, and likely a minority of ALJs. Might be time to ask the union to for an audit of how they have spent our dues over the past few years. Either that or quit the union altogether.
|
|
|
Post by goodoleboy47 on Apr 19, 2013 11:36:19 GMT -5
I agree with you hopeful that 500 cases a year is not unreasonable for me either. However, some of our brother and sisters out here do have problems with the required numbers for various reasons including heath related problems but are continously bombarded with memos, counseling sessions and other gigs to fit them to an arbitrary mold. We do not need to have set quotas. We need good, experienced CALJs, HOCALs and RCALJs who have been in the trenches long enough to know what can reasonably be acconplished on a sustained basis by each of their judges and people who will tell the Commish the reality of the process rather than what they think he/she wants to hear. What is reasonable for me after many, many years doing this job with only minor health problems is not be reasonable for everyone. One size does not fit all. As an aside, the AALJ is audited every year and a report is issued to all members and is discussed at the annual members meeting. Probably should attend one.
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Apr 19, 2013 15:17:46 GMT -5
GB47 I hear your words, but sick judges and those producing less than 500 cases per year (with 1 recent justifiable exception) are simply not being fired. All you have to do is look at the San Diego office to see that; half those people should be embarrassed to be taking their pay check. ROADies.
Many I have talked to agree that the lawsuit just makes us look like petty whiners who did not get what they wanted in the contract negotiations. When does the union ever acknowledge that there is still a backlog of over 800,000 cases, and we are the ones who have to tackle it. Goals are a fact of life in just about every area of law, business, and even government. Even federal district judges can lose staff if they do not meet certain goals. Why are we so special or different?
If all ALJs had done 400 cases on average the last 3 years, that would have added approximately 150,000 cases (100 x 1500) per year or 450,000 total to the backlog. The backlog would be close to 1.3M. At some point congress says the system is broken if we cannot do the work. I support the goals simply because they represents what we need to do to maintain our job security. The math is imprecise but I think everyone can get the point.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Apr 19, 2013 15:53:46 GMT -5
Well, if the Union wins this one, I think we'll all become AJs like immigration and we can kiss the APA goodbye.
What Congress giveth, it can easily take away. And I don't know if the fools in the Union have been reading the news lately, but the current Congress isn't exactly a friendly audience.
|
|
|
Post by philliesfan on Apr 19, 2013 17:12:58 GMT -5
Just remember the old cliche, be careful what you wish for you might get it. If the Union wins the lawsuit, then what. Workdrone may be right. And worse, what if the suit is lost, it could memorialize the 500-700 disposition goal as absolute agency policy.
If the Union was going to take such a monumental step, it should have asked the membership for input. It leads me to wonder what I am paying $18.95 per pay for.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 19, 2013 18:59:12 GMT -5
Management refused to meet with ALJ's to discuss anything so they were forced to unionize. It was not all willingly and rushed into. It's the only thing you have protecting your butt and they do a lot of good work. Their educational seminars are really good and on point for our work. If you are lucky enough to be in an office that doesn't go nuts about numbers congratulations, but it's just a matter of time. They are replacing management with yes men from Chief Judge down and it affects the quality of your hearing. If you are not using ARPR, you are probably not doing proper prehearing development as required by CFR's. Management is attempting to get rid of ARPR and at least discouraging it's utlization. Reason, offices are too busy to develop files. If you haven't received a letter form your HOCALJ demanding cases be moved within CPMS, it's only a matter of time. Support your Union. Read the complaint, it was very well thought out and drafted. Very professional and it may remind you of our responsibilities..
|
|
|
Post by hopeful on Apr 19, 2013 18:59:16 GMT -5
Membership is not mandatory. Some of us are thinking about walking.
Question for union leaders: How much has been spent so far, and what is the budget for this litigation?
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Apr 19, 2013 20:35:17 GMT -5
Workdrone hit it on the head. Union is in a no win situation. Welcoming the new commish with a lawsuit is not a smart move nor the right timing. Also Astrue may be out but he may have some pull with congress. union definitely burnt bridges w two commish. by winning nor losing the lawsuit does not change anything. There should a study as to what a reasonable ALJ could dispose of per year, a range. Then fund # of ALJs in accordance with receipts and pending. Some will do more, some less. it will even out. Don't want to end up like immigration, EEOC and MSPB. Now the cat is out of the bag. I will pressure to drop the lawsuit ASAP. Touche!
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Apr 20, 2013 7:00:34 GMT -5
While I'm wasn't in favor of the suit the sky isn't falling, and Congress won't get rid of ALJs in retaliation. We're fairly minor cogs, and not a big enough problem to justify the political capital needed.
I've been a in few different offices and regions during my fairly brief stint as an ALJ, and I have to say, in some offices, and in some regions, the pressure applied by management is fairly burdensome. I haven't done more reversals to reach a goal, but do I limit file review time? Sure. Do I deny more requests for postponement, or order fewer post hearing CEs than I otherwise would? Probably. I found the article on "stretch goals" cited in the complaint interesting, and I'm going to try to be aware of the above going forward. It be interesting to see if I can continue to issue 500+ while consciously avoiding these things.
|
|
yuni
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by yuni on Apr 20, 2013 7:18:15 GMT -5
Let's all take a breath here, and consider a couple of indisputable aspects of our job;
FIRST-- We are judges, meaning that we employ a deliberative process to chose between alternate outcomes for a given set of law and facts. That process, to be meaningful, requires extremely broad parameters for reaching a decision. Put simply, you cannot consider the dispensing of justice to be "production" and expect a just result. The corollary here is that arbitrary "goals" are per se unreasonable.
SECOND- No judiciary, administrative or otherwise, should stand for non-judges setting "performance" standards for us. Should doctors expect bureaucrats untrained in medicine to be setting standards for care? (Yes, I know about Obamacare, but notice I said "should", not "must"). The point is, only someone who has played the game should make the rules.
THIRD-For the benefit of the newbies, recent management, especially the recently departed commissioner, has been utterly antagonistic to the Judges. Case in point: were any of you consulted prior to the setting of the "goals" for case "production? Have any of you been consulted as those goals have risen over time (in the case of region one, our goals have risen about 20% in the last 4 years, with no corresponding increase in resources.) I don't know why the management behaves this way. Perhaps it's a desire to consolidate power. Perhaps it's the "Peter Principle"in action. Whatever the case, no one can deny that the upper levels of management are hostile to us.
Proof? They roundly rebuffed Randy Frye's attempt to avoid this lawsuit. They never consult the union prior to taking actions affecting the Judges. And they waste fabulous amounts of money on unnecessary things (training conferences that could be better conducted on-line)rather than putting it into resources that would help us do our job better.
Ever wonder why you can bank online, check your medical records online, buy and sell stocks online, but can't access CPMS from home? Ask Commissioner Colvin. Maybe she'll give you a better answer than ex-Commissioner Astrue did.
We all know, or ought to know, that whether the word "goal", "quota", "benchmark" or other term is used, a rose by any other name still smells the same. If you take pride in your job, if you value your independence, and if you believe that some fights are worth fighting, you should support this lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Apr 20, 2013 8:25:33 GMT -5
8-)yuni, the Union is just like management, unclear and mixed objectives, and overall ineptness. If I had not retired, would have dropped my membership. OHA was always understaffed, but management kept coming up with grandiose schemes to improve production, which never worked, and actually hindered output, and of course did not provide sufficient staff to carry them out.
|
|
avril503
Full Member
The Stick of Truth
Posts: 66
|
Post by avril503 on Apr 20, 2013 9:09:12 GMT -5
I am always a fan of unionizing, but it sounds like the union may have made a misstep this time. I have heard ALJs in NHCs cannot join the union, correct?
aljfaq - SO BLUE COLLAR??! Maybe more life experience will give you added respect for folks from different walks of life.
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Apr 20, 2013 9:17:40 GMT -5
Let's all take a breath here, and consider a couple of indisputable aspects of our job; FIRST-- We are judges, meaning that we employ a deliberative process to chose between alternate outcomes for a given set of law and facts. That process, to be meaningful, requires extremely broad parameters for reaching a decision. Put simply, you cannot consider the dispensing of justice to be "production" and expect a just result. The corollary here is that arbitrary "goals" are per se unreasonable. I'm fairly certain the Administrative Judges at Immigration, EEOC, and MSPB have a lot more production pressures than we do. Or check with the state ALJs about how miserable their lives are. Are they not judges? The only reason Article III Federal Judges are immune is because they are protected by the Constitution. Last time I checked us SSA ALJs are not in that marble hallway. We're merely protected by an act of Congress. Major reforms are likely in the next few years due to the depleting disability trust fund, and all it takes would be a couple paragraphs in the reform statutes to fundamentally change the nature of our job. There are a lot of judges in the Federal system that are not APA judges, and if APA becomes an obstacle in the eyes of Congress, it could go the way of dinosaurs in the context of SSA disability. To Congress, we'll still be judges, and the public probably won't care one iota whether we're ALJs or AJs. NOSSCR would know the difference, but last I time I checked no one really like them. Frye is a politician like the rest of them. Interested in promoting himself and his little fiefdom. If we back in the early 80s again, this lawsuit might work as well as the Belmont suit back then. But we are now in the Age of Sequestration, so to file something like this is akin to ask for a pay raise when everyone around you is getting laid off. What we do is important, but we're not indispensable. No one is. I haven't seen a case of strategic myopia this bad in a long time. Maybe we'll all become hearing officers like Decadejudge always ranted about. Will Frye still be our union president then?
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Apr 20, 2013 16:55:24 GMT -5
aljfaq - SO BLUE COLLAR??! Maybe more life experience will give you added respect for folks from different walks of life. So glad I've escaped that BLUE COLLAR riff raff, myself. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Apr 21, 2013 0:56:22 GMT -5
Let's all take a breath here, and consider a couple of indisputable aspects of our job; FIRST-- We are judges, meaning that we employ a deliberative process to chose between alternate outcomes for a given set of law and facts. That process, to be meaningful, requires extremely broad parameters for reaching a decision. Put simply, you cannot consider the dispensing of justice to be "production" and expect a just result. The corollary here is that arbitrary "goals" are per se unreasonable. I'm fairly certain the Administrative Judges at Immigration, EEOC, and MSPB have a lot more production pressures than we do. Or check with the state ALJs about how miserable their lives are. Are they not judges? Frye is a politician like the rest of them. Interested in promoting himself and his little fiefdom. If we back in the early 80s again, this lawsuit might work as well as the Belmont suit back then. But we are now in the Age of Sequestration, so to file something like this is akin to ask for a pay raise when everyone around you is getting laid off. What we do is important, but we're not indispensable. No one is. I haven't seen a case of strategic myopia this bad in a long time. Maybe we'll all become hearing officers like Decadejudge always ranted about. Will Frye still be our union president then? I worked FOR a labor union at one time. I found it interesting that its own staff felt the need to unionize to deal with the management. As a state ALJ, my life is not miserable, due to production pressures or anything else in the job. Others' experience may be different.
|
|
|
Post by judgeallan on Apr 21, 2013 12:15:45 GMT -5
Or check with the state ALJs about how miserable their lives are. Are they not judges? Actually, I enjoy my work a lot, but I'm not part of the central panel that does a lot of state benefits work. Consequently, I'm not sure that I'd enjoy the Federal ALJ position if it was SSA only, so I really applied with only one foot in the ring. The downsides are that after 13 years, I'm sick of the 100 mile roundtrip daily commute and I like the fact that the federal position would pay about 50% more. I only applied to my home city, so I'm not likely to be much of a competitive threat to anyone on the board
|
|
sta
Full Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by sta on Apr 21, 2013 19:24:19 GMT -5
Hi, I sent you a PM.
[/quote]I worked FOR a labor union at one time. I found it interesting that its own staff felt the need to unionize to deal with the management.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Apr 21, 2013 21:33:50 GMT -5
All, Let me reiterate, the Union is the only protection you have against management. This action was discussed and if I remember correctly voted on at the annual AALJ conference in Knoxville last year. Further your posting your disdain of the Union action on a public webpage may actually hurt what the Union is attempting to accomplish. This will truly cause a waste of funds if we lose. You are weakening the cause. If you are happy with the stress level in your office, might I ask you to not hinder the process for others. This was well debated and given full consideration before proceeding. If you think you are immune from directives and subsequent punishment for not meeting benchmarks through no fault of your own, you are delusional. I know a Judge that routinely does 60-70 hearings a month and does a fairly good job of it. She was assigned an SCT that let het POST sit for close to a year and then dropped about 100 cases into ALPO within 3 days. While still conducting her normal load, she could not move these out of ALPO soon enough and got a written directive to move them by a certain day or face punishment, such as a letter of reprimand. Management has shown they care not about our judicial process, but only about numbers. Don't be naive and don't trash talk the Union publicly. There is a Union website that you can use to show your displeasure and perhaps learn what is really going on. As usual, JMHO.
|
|