Memorandum of the Day

[moopigsdad]

Feb 19, 2014 14:59:35 GMT -5 ssareality said:

I know it's more interesting to come up with conspiracy theories about what the agency is really trying to do, but the most simple and obvious answer is usually the right one.

I have no doubt, this will be handled the same as all other laws, rules, etc. - the specific facts will dictate the specific result. This guidance is just that. It's not a threat, it's not a hard set of numbers with no wiggle room for individualized review of particular circumstances that a judge may face.

As Delta correctly points out, the agency should go after those who don't pull their weight. But in order to do so, they need to have rules to point to. Hence, the scheduling of a reasonable number of cases, etc.

I know it may be fun for some to point to management and criticize the 'beurocrats in their ivory towers', but the vast majority of those folks came from a hearing office at one point or another. They've seen both sides, while most of those so quick to criticize have only been in the field.

I can tell you from personal experience that just because I did a previous job that I now am the manager or supervisor over doesn't mean I automatically can relate to the old position. The longer one is away from the front lines the easier it is to forget the realities of the position one came from originally. Hence, the fact ssareality states that those in power have seen both sides and understand the issues faced, in my opinion doesn't necessarily correlate to an understanding of all the hardships faced by those on the front lines and not in the ivory towers.

[privateatty]

Feb 19, 2014 14:59:35 GMT -5 ssareality said:

I know it's more interesting to come up with conspiracy theories about what the agency is really trying to do, but the most simple and obvious answer is usually the right one.

I have no doubt, this will be handled the same as all other laws, rules, etc. - the specific facts will dictate the specific result. This guidance is just that. It's not a threat, it's not a hard set of numbers with no wiggle room for individualized review of particular circumstances that a judge may face.

As Delta correctly points out, the agency should go after those who don't pull their weight. But in order to do so, they need to have rules to point to. Hence, the scheduling of a reasonable number of cases, etc.

I know it may be fun for some to point to management and criticize the 'beurocrats in their ivory towers', but the vast majority of those folks came from a hearing office at one point or another. They've seen both sides, while most of those so quick to criticize have only been in the field.

Well, finally we have someone who is willing to stand up for the Puzzle Palace and take a stand! Welcome to the Board! As one who knows of ODAR only as a slave to these pages, I can honestly say that not only are you in the minority, but you show grit and determination and I for one appreciate that.

If you like to post, you will have ample opportunity to be disagreeable here.

[bartleby]

I can tell you of one high ranker in the Puzzle Palace Ivory Tower that has never done 500 a year, much less 600. I would imagine there may be no one there that has ever done that many decisions..

[venus]

For ninety percent of the ALJ Corps, this memo is neither newsworthy nor troubling. The only people filled with angst are underachievers that want to hide behind a bare thread veil of indignance rather than carry out the duties assigned in a timely manner.

Becoming an ALJ is a worthy goal. It is an amazing job that pays well and provides a good work life balance. It is not a license to avoid accountability. If a judge can't keep up with the required workload, then they need to have the professional awareness and responsibility to move out of the way and let others that are willing and able to do the job have a chance.

If you get to be an ALJ, never forget that the case belongs to a claimant, a real live person that is waiting on a decision. ALJs, as much as some don't want to acknowledge it, do not OWN a case. They are merely assigned to the case and given the responsibility of applying the rules and regulations to the facts.

True professionals don't anonymously whine about how sad it makes them feel to be held accountable. They roll their sleeves up and show the world that they hold themselves to a higher standard.

Telework is not constitutionally protected but it is good for everyone. It is a virtually no cost benefit for employees and every employee that does it LOVES it. Upper management has an incentive as well. If it works as hoped, government agencies can reduce their footprint and lower costs. Local management has to love it when it works because it reduces friction/tension in the office (the less type A personalities bumping into each other in hallways, the less overall drama in the office). There is no anti-telework lobby out there.

There are, however, people that are responsible and thankfully unwilling to ignore the fact that some some ALJs don't do what they should (just like every other job in America, by the way). Why is it bad to try holding people accountable when they are serving the public? Is it wrong to demand a minimum level of service when the mission is so noble? Why not focus on trying to provide timely decisions to our friends, family, and neighbors that are desperately waiting for a decision instead of complaining that all of your leave time makes it hard to get your work done?

Of course, this is JMHO.

[woody]

We negotiated that contract for over two years. The Agency fought us as every turn. I sat in on negotiations briefly--the disdain and contempt they hold us in was palpable. The telework provisions went to the arbitrator. Overall, we got splatted by the arbitrator who adopted everything the Agency wanted. If the Agency wanted more specificity they were required to negotiate that and LOST. Debbie doesn't get to come in after the fact and define all of the terms of the contract- did she go to law school? The morale of the corps is in the toilet. For the past I don't know how many years, our HOCALJ has asked us every month to schedule more hearings. Yet the schedulers tell us every month that they can't find us the space. The backlog in writing is the highest I have seen in a decade yet the HOCALJ drops off a graph from Region showing my dispositions lagging. Deltajudge has it right- this is not a suggestion, it is a threat. Interestingly, I was speaking to a couple of our judges who were formerly attorney advisors- they are blown away at how bad it is.

[philliesfan]

Remember folks. This provision only relates to telework. If you want to schedule less than 50 hearings per month, then don't telework. I don't, as do more than half of the Judges in my office.

Three of us had a short discussion today. We wondered why it is so hard to schedule 50 hearings per month because we all do and the other two Judges both telework.

[cougarfan]

I don't know; my hearing schedule is set up (by my design) such that I schedule 50 hearings a month anyway, and the hearing prep can be a little overwhelming at times but I haven't had any problems with it. In addition to the dismissals I also see roughly 5 per month that show up to the hearing and ask for an adjournment to find an attorney, those 5 are then rescheduled for a different month and since I've already prepared those 5 files it really only requires an abbreviated review the second time around. So I am really only reviewing 45 files plus 5 short reviews every month. So, while I don't have a problem with that benchmark I can see that it could be burdensome. As for the other benchmarks I don't see any problem at all (absent an extended illness or other absence); does anyone really leave the file in SIGN (keep in mind you've already EDITed the decision and sent it to SIGN) for 10 days? Is there a reason I should be letting my cases sit in SIGN for > 10 days (or greater than 10 minutes for that matter)? And it drives me crazy if I go home on the weekend and have anything in ALPO (though it does occasionally happen).

In short, I could see some concern for the 500 scheduled hearings but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable and the other benchmarks all seem reasonable to me. But I'm in a really excellent office with a good HOCALJ and good writers so my view is clearly based on experience which is different than others on this board.

I do understand we are all professionals, but I've production expectations in every job I've been in, whether it was working as an associate in a medium sized firm or production expectations imposed by clients and the courts when I was a solo practitioner; and I certainly had those expectations when I hired associates. I have just always assumed it's part of the work I do, where ever that work is.

[deltajudge]

8-)Begs the question, why the memo?

[woody]

Sorry if I was not clear- I make all the benchmarks. Actually, I exceed the benchmarks based on my own work ethic. When they give me eleven cases to sign in a month I sign them. When they give me sixty cases to sign in a month they get signed. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is being treated like the enemy. The issue is being held out as the scapegoat for management's deficiencies. I cannot do my job when you don't provide me with hearing space for the cases I have already requested; but then you turn around and demand 50 scheduled hearings or no telework. I cannot give you the 500 decisions a year (or is it 600, 700, who can keep up?) when my cases languish in unassigned writing for two months after I make my decision. If you are not in the mix you cannot understand; your production as an ALJ is entirely dependent on the assistance provided by management. And management delights in asking us to do more without holding themselves accountable for anything.

[funkyodar]

I love these "breaking news threads." Kinda like watching the same story break with one spin on MostlyStupidNBC then watching the same story spun to the right on Faux News.

[ssareality]

Where to start...

Maybe some in the ivory tower havent done 500 in a year, i really don't know. What I do know is that many on the other side of the negotiation table aren't exactly in a position to throw stones on that front. I recently saw a news article pointing out that one of our fearless union leaders did a whopping 60-something cases last year. I'm not saying that's a good thing or bad thing, but if we really need to go down the road of knowing what it's like in the trenches, let's be honest about it.

As for "Debbie changing the terms and whether or not she went to law school," I think that comment is a pretty good example of why rules like these have to be in place. Just a thought, but if we're all such professionals, maybe it's more appropriate to call her the Chief Judge and to not question whether or not she went to law school.

Based upon my experience with the agency, the judges that show up each day and do their work are very well rewarded. Managers have better things to do with their time than hover over each of us to monitor every little thing we do.

I'd also like to point out that if no one had given any guidance on what "reasonably attainable" and "seriously delinquent" meant, I'm guessing the same folks who are currently complaining would instead be complaining that without guidance, the terms are too vague.

[JudgeRatty]

Feb 19, 2014 19:44:19 GMT -5 deltajudge said:

8-)Begs the question, why the memo?

I think that for 90% of the ALJs this is not an issue. For the remaining 10% or so it is an issue for which they need to be concerned. There are and have been judges that have had the impression they are untouchable. They can buck the system not giving adequate instructions, holding 15 minute hearings, or not doing their fair share. Whatever the case,this is the way to remedy that. What would you have the agency do about these folks? Nothing? Sit idly by while episodes of West Virginia play on the television? This is no doubt in response to the long list of bias complaints and other problems such as extreme over production or refusal to adhere to standards. Frankly the only judges that have voiced concern over this are those who may have an ongoing issue. Every job has expectations or goals. Every job from working at McDonald's to being a physician. Why oh why is this such a shock? I just do not get it. What I do see is that the agency is making an effort to get the people in line who NEED the extra direction. These are not unobtainable goals from what I have seen and from what most of the judges in my office have said. Now I am not in those shoes and maybe that is offensive to some. But I bet the agency did a lot of math before putting these numbers out there. 

[foursquare]

Will someone repost the timeline that one judge gave for how long it takes for an ODAR ALJ to do each task for each case that we have to do without real clerks or assigned writers? You don't punish everyone for the deeds of a few. That is not leadership.

[bartleby]

Actually, those you point out, Huntington, etc. Would not be concerned or affected by this as they were doing over 50 hearings a month. None of the National scandals have involved low producers. They have all been Judges that espouse how many they were helping by doing their job so well. Of course their definition does not include quality, only quantity. And that is why the Agency lets them carry on until the news makes a national scandal out of it and the Agency acts totally surprised and horrified while they have not only known about it, but endorsed it. If we are having a quality issue is the best way to deal with it to demand higher quantity? Further, one of the current metrics is 2.3 dispositions a day. National average is around 1.7. This tells me that a majority of Judges are not making goal. Do you not think Judges will pay more marginal cases and spend less time developing the record in an effort to maintain these goals? We owe the claimants a fair and full hearing. We owe the American taxpayers the assurance that we have made the best determination based upon the facts whether a claimant is disabled before we award $250,000.00 - $400,000.00 of their money as benefits. We must not allow ourselves to be put in a spot where we compromise the trust placed in us because management pushes quantity and it and it is more expeditious to award benefits than face criticism from management. It is only human nature to take the easy way out and even those with the best of intentions will invariably become worn down and begun to succumb. We need to insure that we stay above reproach and continue to do the right thing.

[chessparent]

Right or wrong, just call it what it is. Don't tell me a "recommendation" is not an expectation if there is a penalty attached to underachieving. Guidelines become benchmarks and benchmarks become quotas overnight in large institutions. If they want to institute an objective measure of productivity, I say just do it and we'll let the geniuses in the district courts duke it out. I have no problem knowing what is expected of me. Just don't p** on my leg and tell me its snow melting.

[ssareality]

The vast majority of judges around the country are hitting these numbers. See for yourself here:
www.ssa.gov/appeals/DataSets/archive/archive_data_reports.html#a1=2&ht=1

For those who aren't, maybe they could use a little more face time in the office.

[chessparent]

Feb 19, 2014 22:15:09 GMT -5 chessparent said:

Right or wrong, just call it what it is. Don't tell me a "recommendation" is not an expectation if there is a penalty attached to underachieving. Guidelines become benchmarks and benchmarks become quotas overnight in large institutions. If they want to institute an objective measure of productivity, I say just do it and we'll let the geniuses in the district courts duke it out. I have no problem knowing what is expected of me. Just don't p** on my leg and tell me its snow melting.

Unless the snow actually is melting...to which my response is "Yeah"!!

[bartleby]

I'm sorry, but the stats show 10 offices out of 164 that are doing 2.3 dispositions or better a day. How is that a majority hitting these numbers?? I must have missed something. Perhaps some have use or lose leave and credit hours they will lose if they don't get out of the office once in a while. I have yet to find a lazy Judge. I have found some Judges that spend more time working than they are paid for. I have found frustrated Judges agonizing over how long to spend in editing a decision or waiting for additional evidence to come in post hearing.

[JudgeRatty]

Feb 19, 2014 22:00:10 GMT -5 bartleby said:

Actually, those you point out, Huntington, etc. Would not be concerned or affected by this as they were doing over 50 hearings a month. None of the National scandals have involved low producers. They have all been Judges that espouse how many they were helping by doing their job so well. Of course their definition does not include quality, only quantity. And that is why the Agency lets them carry on until the news makes a national scandal out of it and the Agency acts totally surprised and horrified while they have not only known about it, but endorsed it. If we are having a quality issue is the best way to deal with it to demand higher quantity? Further, one of the current metrics is 2.3 dispositions a day. National average is around 1.7. This tells me that a majority of Judges are not making goal. Do you not think Judges will pay more marginal cases and spend less time developing the record in an effort to maintain these goals? We owe the claimants a fair and full hearing. We owe the American taxpayers the assurance that we have made the best determination based upon the facts whether a claimant is disabled before we award $250,000.00 - $400,000.00 of their money as benefits. We must not allow ourselves to be put in a spot where we compromise the trust placed in us because management pushes quantity and it and it is more expeditious to award benefits than face criticism from management. It is only human nature to take the easy way out and even those with the best of intentions will invariably become worn down and begun to succumb. We need to insure that we stay above reproach and continue to do the right thing.

I totally agree that quality is first. But this is an attempt to do something. They are also addressing quality. That is for sure another issue that is being addressed in all of the recent training. No one is saying this is cut in stone. I have no doubt that if there is a "valid" reason for not making these benchmarks that you would have an opportunity to explain the reason. They aren't Nazi driven! Really maybe taking the attitude of ok I will give this a try before reading it and automatically thinking they are the enemy... Maybe that would actually work. I understand that you have clearly felt wronged by management at some point, but do you ever give them any credit at all? Ever? I am not attacking you here and I totally respect your posts and what you have to say. But sometimes I think that if management said today is free ice cream day you would criticize them for not having sherbet! Love ya man but geez....

[ssareality]

Feb 19, 2014 22:35:04 GMT -5 bartleby said:

I'm sorry, but the stats show 10 offices out of 164 that are doing 2.3 dispositions or better a day. How is that a majority hitting these numbers?? I must have missed something. Perhaps some have use or lose leave and credit hours they will lose if they don't get out of the office once in a while. I have yet to find a lazy Judge. I have found some Judges that spend more time working than they are paid for. I have found frustrated Judges agonizing over how long to spend in editing a decision or waiting for additional evidence to come in post hearing.

Look at individual judges. And I don't mean new judges on a learning curve or rehired annuitants who work part time or the judges that retired part of the way into the year. The majority hit 500 dispositions in 2013, or real close to it. And if they hit 500 or close to it, I feel pretty confident that they generally (bold and underlined) scheduled 50+ hearings a month