|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 19, 2014 22:59:59 GMT -5
sratty, I would so like to be able to agree with you, but I have seen the Agency determine writers shall be allotted 4 hours for reversals and 8 hours for affirmations regardless of complexity. I have seen management insist that writers on probation, the first two years of the employment, do 150% of the goal or risk not being offered a permanent position. I have been around a long time and have seen a lot and have seldom seen the Agency show any kindness or gratitude to attorneys or Judges. This has been ongoing for over thirty years. Frank Borowiec documented it in his book. He was a line Judge, a HOCALJ and a RCALJ. I have never seen the Agency back off of numerical goals even though they deny there are such things. I think what upsets me is that they treat us and act like we are stupid. To say in two sentence that there are no fixed numbers and then turn right around and say the number is 50 is like an insult to my intelligence. The Agency is in Court right now wasting taxpayer dollars and causing us to waste Union dollars denying the Agency is using numerical goals. This just appears so underhanded and devious that I can't comprehend the madness behind it. Sratty, thank you for your input...However, how do you know about my weakness for sherbet?? (Especially orange)..
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 19, 2014 23:01:32 GMT -5
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. The stats for FY 2014 include days during the shutdown sans staff as well as months in which use or lose must be taken. If you look at FY 2013, slightly less than half (74) were at 2.3 or greater with 85 offices producing at 2.28 or better. Vast majority may be an exaggeration, but it's not uncommon. |
|
venus
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by venus on Feb 19, 2014 23:06:55 GMT -5
The FY13 numbers show that 500 was quite attainable. The job requires attention to quality and quantity. The 800,000 claimants waiting for a decision deserve both. It seems that the ire of many is focused on management trying to hold low producers accountable instead of being frustrated that Congress has not authorized the resources necessary to effectively handle the workload without raising the blood pressure of those that think they are above trivial matters such as accountability.
To cherry pick data that is limited to the period of Oct-Jan 2014 is really weak analytically. This period not only includes a period of furlough for support staff but also includes what is historically the least productive portion of any calendar year (end of November and entire month of December) due to holiday and use-or-lose leave. The dispositional data cited above does not account for when leave is taken, rather it averages everything over the entire year. Therefore, naturally the numbers will be lower when there is a greater percentage of time spent not working (such as holiday periods)and should be higher when the ALJs are working.
It is not surprising, but certainly disappointing that some on here would have such a low opinion of the ALJ corps. If they are bowing to the mere threat of criticism and paying any cases that are not warranted, then they are unfit to be in their position. If they are working without getting paid, then they are committing a criminal act.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 19, 2014 23:19:12 GMT -5
Venus, you are wrong and repeating an old wives' tale that is not true. It is not criminal to work without getting paid. That is called volunteer work and you can't be punished for it. The Federal Regulation says it is against the law for the Government to ask employees to work without pay. No one here has a higher opinion of the ALJ Corps than I, however, even Judges are humans and succumb to human weaknesses under duress.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 19, 2014 23:55:20 GMT -5
sratty, I would so like to be able to agree with you, but I have seen the Agency determine writers shall be allotted 4 hours for reversals and 8 hours for affirmations regardless of complexity. I have seen management insist that writers on probation, the first two years of the employment, do 150% of the goal or risk not being offered a permanent position. I have been around a long time and have seen a lot and have seldom seen the Agency show any kindness or gratitude to attorneys or Judges. This has been ongoing for over thirty years. Frank Borowiec documented it in his book. He was a line Judge, a HOCALJ and a RCALJ. I have never seen the Agency back off of numerical goals even though they deny there are such things. I think what upsets me is that they treat us and act like we are stupid. To say in two sentence that there are no fixed numbers and then turn right around and say the number is 50 is like an insult to my intelligence. The Agency is in Court right now wasting taxpayer dollars and causing us to waste Union dollars denying the Agency is using numerical goals. This just appears so underhanded and devious that I can't comprehend the madness behind it. Sratty, thank you for your input...However, how do you know about my weakness for sherbet?? (Especially orange)..  Yep I do see your point on the quotas/ benchmarks/ goals without a doubt. But I still stand behind the premise that in order to project budgets and hiring etc there must be some sort of "goal" in mind. Is that a bad thing? To guess what the average Joe ALJ might do in a year? Estimate? Yes indeed I feel the pinch at times that my 3700 pages of medical is no where the same as the 83 page one. But averaging it out... I'm ok with the estimate. And as a senior attorney it isn't a number that is followed since the job also includes training and other duties. I don't know the best way to do all of this but I think that if there is a better way that whoever has that idea they should step up and suggest it. Until then I'm not so sure the current scheme is so bad. But that is coming from a newbie of only 7 years with the agency in a non management position. You have clearly seen more than I have so I have to give a bit more weight to your opinion than mine. |
|
venus
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by venus on Feb 20, 2014 0:07:21 GMT -5
Venus, you are wrong and repeating an old wives' tale that is not true. It is not criminal to work without getting paid. That is called volunteer work and you can't be punished for it. The Federal Regulation says it is against the law for the Government to ask employees to work without pay. No one here has a higher opinion of the ALJ Corps than I, however, even Judges are humans and succumb to human weaknesses under duress. Bart, Is "the ALJ Corps" a new nickname you have bestowed upon yourself? If so, I agree that no one has a higher opinion of the ALJ Corps than you. If you are talking about the collective unit of SSA ALJs, I beg to differ. The majority don't need you to advocate against reason and accountability. The Anti-Deficiency does not allow federal employees to volunteer time. Interestingly, the need for this is because bozos that can't get their work done in a timely manner could otherwise assert that the unnecessary pressure of conforming to established standards of minimum competence and productivity FORCED them and their brotherhood to work off the clock. One need not look further back than October of 2013,when employees were not able to voluntarily report to work during the furlough, for evidence that this 19th century law is still in effect. |
|
|
|
Post by peterprinciple on Feb 20, 2014 0:46:47 GMT -5
It seems to me that one hoping to be an ALJ would want to create at least the illusion that they have an ability to analyze logically and argue reasonably without flaming argumentum ad hominem. Not trying to name names, or anything (Venus and Tigerlaw), but such discourse does not give the reader a favorable impression of the positions you take or enhance the credibility of your argument. Some may believe an important quality in an ALJ is not caring how others feel about you. On the other hand, not caring at all about how you interact [play] with others will make you a very ineffective judge. This agency (or any other) has little use for any more judges of such caliber.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssareality on Feb 20, 2014 6:06:44 GMT -5
It seems to me that one hoping to be an ALJ would want to create at least the illusion that they have an ability to analyze logically and argue reasonably without flaming argumentum ad hominem. Not trying to name names, or anything (Venus and Tigerlaw), but such discourse does not give the reader a favorable impression of the positions you take or enhance the credibility of your argument. Some may believe an important quality in an ALJ is not caring how others feel about you. On the other hand, not caring at all about how you interact [play] with others will make you a very ineffective judge. This agency (or any other) has little use for any more judges of such caliber. I can only assume you have the same feeling about the current ALJs on here who repeatedly refer to the Chief Judge as Debbie, question whether she even went to law school, call management all kinds if names, and criticize all they do from their "ivory towers." |
|
|
|
Post by ssaer on Feb 20, 2014 6:07:32 GMT -5
Venus, you are wrong and repeating an old wives' tale that is not true. It is not criminal to work without getting paid. That is called volunteer work and you can't be punished for it. The Federal Regulation says it is against the law for the Government to ask employees to work without pay. The law does not expressly ban asking employees to work without pay. Rather, it imposes criminal penalties on acceptance of voluntary services. See below: 31 U.S. Code § 1342 - Limitation on voluntary services: An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. This section does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government. As used in this section, the term “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property. 31 U.S. Code § 1350 - Criminal penalty: An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating section 1341 (a) or 1342 of this title shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both. |
|
|
|
Post by peterprinciple on Feb 20, 2014 8:27:19 GMT -5
I can only assume you have the same feeling about the current ALJs on here who repeatedly refer to the Chief Judge as Debbie, question whether she even went to law school, call management all kinds if names, and criticize all they do from their "ivory towers." You can make an Olympic leap to any assumption you desire, ssa"reality," but there is no logic available to you to bridge my statement to the conclusion you make here. My opinion on their interactions in this case provides you no basis for any understanding of my feelings about management, Judge Bice, or the Agency, as a whole. So "...reality," is your next step an ad hominem attack on me? |
|
|
|
Post by maquereau on Feb 20, 2014 9:07:18 GMT -5
At ALJ training, I was told that I must know the case/the file better than anyone else in the hearing room. I guess that means I am supposed to read it thoroughly and make notes. Let's look at a typical week of business. Let us suppose that I have 7 or 8 hearings scheduled on Tuesday and Thursday. On Monday, I would need to be prepared for Tuesday, so I would, again - needing to know the file better than anyone else, need to spend at least as much time reviewing the file and making my notes on it as I plan to spend at the hearing on the case (somewhere in the vicinity of an hour). Therefore, I would need to spend at least an hour, on average, on each case. So Monday is taken up by file/hearing review. Tuesday is taken up by the hearings. Wednesday I would need to prepare for the Thursday hearings. So that day is consumed with preparation and then Thursday consumed by the hearings. Now we come to Friday, hallelujah. I finally have time to write my instructions. Now I like to give good, detailed instructions to the writers and to give them some flavor of how I view the case, and I like to give citations to salient points in the file. So most instructions will take about 30 minutes, on average, to write. If I work through lunch, I would be able to get them done by the end of the workday. So far, I have spent 2.5 hours total on each case. And, whaddayaknow, the entire, regulation 40-hour workweek is spent. But wait a sec, now they want me to edit the draft decisions the writers have given back. Uh oh. Let's say there are 16 drafts - corresponding to the number of cases heard that week, though obviously the drafts would be of cases heard in prior weeks. If the drafts are beautiful (and they certainly are not), I could spend LESS than 30 minutes per decision on editing. That would mean that, if I am diligent, I could get done on Saturday in time to go home to catch some late afternoon programming, were I so minded. OK, now were good. Oh crap, I forgot! Management has put cases in ARPR for me to review for late filings, good cause decisions, on the record requests, etc. I guess I'll be heading back into the office on Sunday. OK, worked Sunday on those things and I'm ready to go home. Oops, wait a sec, there is some new evidence coming in on cases for which I've already drafted instructions. Gotta look at that and amend instructions appropriately. Ok, done with that. I'm ready to go home. Or so I thought, because now I have to review a TERI case that came into my office this week. Now I would really like to get out of here, but I need to watch some new mandatory video on how to properly decide children's cases; I might even get to take a quiz afterwards. Anyway, once I'm done with this I'll be ready to start the week afresh after having worked 7 days in order to attempt to put out a quality product. Of course this coming week we'll have our monthly staff meeting and subsequent ALJ meeting to discuss procedural problems and remand issues, etc. So that will cut out about 1 - 1.5 hours from available work time this coming week. Oh yeah, gotta fill out my STOCK act paperwork, my annual financial disclosure, take the annual blood oath not to reveal PII personally identifiable information, provide my hearings calendar to the scheduler, read emails about how I better be scheduling 50 cases a month, take an occasional pee break, talk over tough cases with colleagues, and the list goes on. How much time am I supposed to be spending per case in order to ensure due process to the claimant and fairness to the taxpayer? Or is this all just a charade and all they (mgmt) REALLY care about is the number of widgets .... er .... dispositions I can generate this week?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssareality on Feb 20, 2014 9:11:47 GMT -5
I can only assume you have the same feeling about the current ALJs on here who repeatedly refer to the Chief Judge as Debbie, question whether she even went to law school, call management all kinds if names, and criticize all they do from their "ivory towers." You can make an Olympic leap to any assumption you desire, ssa"reality," but there is no logic available to you to bridge my statement to the conclusion you make here. My opinion on their interactions in this case provides you no basis for any understanding of my feelings about management, Judge Bice, or the Agency, as a whole. So "...reality," is your next step an ad hominem attack on me? All I'm suggesting is that this board is frequently filled with personal attacks that seem to demonstrate a serious lack of professionalism and respect. It's hard to take any complaint seriously when it contains hyperbole about who REALLY knows what's going on in the field and who is just perched up on their ivory tower without a clue. I sincerely believe that many concerns voiced here have merit, at times. But I also believe one gets what they give in terms of respect and some in the corps could use a reminder of the boy who cried wolf story. |
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 20, 2014 9:18:54 GMT -5
8-)Don't think anyone is being disrepectful just for the sake of it. Out of curiosity, how many years did Debbie have in before being appointed CALJ? And rest assured there many fingerprints on her Memorandum. You really have to earn respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 20, 2014 10:12:20 GMT -5
At ALJ training, I was told that I must know the case/the file better than anyone else in the hearing room. I guess that means I am supposed to read it thoroughly and make notes. Let's look at a typical week of business. Let us suppose that I have 7 or 8 hearings scheduled on Tuesday and Thursday. On Monday, I would need to be prepared for Tuesday, so I would, again - needing to know the file better than anyone else, need to spend at least as much time reviewing the file and making my notes on it as I plan to spend at the hearing on the case (somewhere in the vicinity of an hour). Therefore, I would need to spend at least an hour, on average, on each case. So Monday is taken up by file/hearing review. Tuesday is taken up by the hearings. Wednesday I would need to prepare for the Thursday hearings. So that day is consumed with preparation and then Thursday consumed by the hearings. Now we come to Friday, hallelujah. I finally have time to write my instructions. Now I like to give good, detailed instructions to the writers and to give them some flavor of how I view the case, and I like to give citations to salient points in the file. So most instructions will take about 30 minutes, on average, to write. If I work through lunch, I would be able to get them done by the end of the workday. So far, I have spent 2.5 hours total on each case. And, whaddayaknow, the entire, regulation 40-hour workweek is spent. But wait a sec, now they want me to edit the draft decisions the writers have given back. Uh oh. Let's say there are 16 drafts - corresponding to the number of cases heard that week, though obviously the drafts would be of cases heard in prior weeks. If the drafts are beautiful (and they certainly are not), I could spend LESS than 30 minutes per decision on editing. That would mean that, if I am diligent, I could get done on Saturday in time to go home to catch some late afternoon programming, were I so minded. OK, now were good. Oh crap, I forgot! Management has put cases in ARPR for me to review for late filings, good cause decisions, on the record requests, etc. I guess I'll be heading back into the office on Sunday. OK, worked Sunday on those things and I'm ready to go home. Oops, wait a sec, there is some new evidence coming in on cases for which I've already drafted instructions. Gotta look at that and amend instructions appropriately. Ok, done with that. I'm ready to go home. Or so I thought, because now I have to review a TERI case that came into my office this week. Now I would really like to get out of here, but I need to watch some new mandatory video on how to properly decide children's cases; I might even get to take a quiz afterwards. Anyway, once I'm done with this I'll be ready to start the week afresh after having worked 7 days in order to attempt to put out a quality product. Of course this coming week we'll have our monthly staff meeting and subsequent ALJ meeting to discuss procedural problems and remand issues, etc. So that will cut out about 1 - 1.5 hours from available work time this coming week. Oh yeah, gotta fill out my STOCK act paperwork, my annual financial disclosure, take the annual blood oath not to reveal PII personally identifiable information, provide my hearings calendar to the scheduler, read emails about how I better be scheduling 50 cases a month, take an occasional pee break, talk over tough cases with colleagues, and the list goes on. How much time am I supposed to be spending per case in order to ensure due process to the claimant and fairness to the taxpayer? Or is this all just a charade and all they (mgmt) REALLY care about is the number of widgets .... er .... dispositions I can generate this week? Maq, Thank you for this extremely informative post. This should be posted in the "what it's REALLY like to be an ALJ" thread. Hard work takes long hours. My agency pretty much expects attorneys and other professionals, i.e., GS-15's and SES, to work more than 40 hours a week, especially if you work inside the DC Beltway. If you are running out the door after your straight-8 or compressed work-9 hour day, you are seen as undedicated. You CAN choose to work 40 hours, you will collect a paycheck, but you're going to be looked over when the fun/sexy jobs come open. That's a choice, just like the choice an ALJ makes on how dedicated they are to doing the job right, or doing the job and doing other things. At least I don't work under a stated minimum of widgets produced, and I do get a modicum of respect, so I really hope I don't end up in a crappy ODAR (regardless of it being in Crapland) if I am selected. I hope EVERY week is not like that for you maquereau, and if it is, please take some annual leave.  You've earned it. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 20, 2014 10:40:22 GMT -5
At ALJ training, I was told that I must know the case/the file better than anyone else in the hearing room. I guess that means I am supposed to read it thoroughly and make notes. Let's look at a typical week of business. Let us suppose that I have 7 or 8 hearings scheduled on Tuesday and Thursday. On Monday, I would need to be prepared for Tuesday, so I would, again - needing to know the file better than anyone else, need to spend at least as much time reviewing the file and making my notes on it as I plan to spend at the hearing on the case (somewhere in the vicinity of an hour). Therefore, I would need to spend at least an hour, on average, on each case. So Monday is taken up by file/hearing review. Tuesday is taken up by the hearings. Wednesday I would need to prepare for the Thursday hearings. So that day is consumed with preparation and then Thursday consumed by the hearings. Now we come to Friday, hallelujah. I finally have time to write my instructions. Now I like to give good, detailed instructions to the writers and to give them some flavor of how I view the case, and I like to give citations to salient points in the file. So most instructions will take about 30 minutes, on average, to write. If I work through lunch, I would be able to get them done by the end of the workday. So far, I have spent 2.5 hours total on each case. And, whaddayaknow, the entire, regulation 40-hour workweek is spent. But wait a sec, now they want me to edit the draft decisions the writers have given back. Uh oh. Let's say there are 16 drafts - corresponding to the number of cases heard that week, though obviously the drafts would be of cases heard in prior weeks. If the drafts are beautiful (and they certainly are not), I could spend LESS than 30 minutes per decision on editing. That would mean that, if I am diligent, I could get done on Saturday in time to go home to catch some late afternoon programming, were I so minded. OK, now were good. Oh crap, I forgot! Management has put cases in ARPR for me to review for late filings, good cause decisions, on the record requests, etc. I guess I'll be heading back into the office on Sunday. OK, worked Sunday on those things and I'm ready to go home. Oops, wait a sec, there is some new evidence coming in on cases for which I've already drafted instructions. Gotta look at that and amend instructions appropriately. Ok, done with that. I'm ready to go home. Or so I thought, because now I have to review a TERI case that came into my office this week. Now I would really like to get out of here, but I need to watch some new mandatory video on how to properly decide children's cases; I might even get to take a quiz afterwards. Anyway, once I'm done with this I'll be ready to start the week afresh after having worked 7 days in order to attempt to put out a quality product. Of course this coming week we'll have our monthly staff meeting and subsequent ALJ meeting to discuss procedural problems and remand issues, etc. So that will cut out about 1 - 1.5 hours from available work time this coming week. Oh yeah, gotta fill out my STOCK act paperwork, my annual financial disclosure, take the annual blood oath not to reveal PII personally identifiable information, provide my hearings calendar to the scheduler, read emails about how I better be scheduling 50 cases a month, take an occasional pee break, talk over tough cases with colleagues, and the list goes on. How much time am I supposed to be spending per case in order to ensure due process to the claimant and fairness to the taxpayer? Or is this all just a charade and all they (mgmt) REALLY care about is the number of widgets .... er .... dispositions I can generate this week? Maq, Thank you for this extremely informative post. This should be posted in the "what it's REALLY like to be an ALJ" thread. Hard work takes long hours. My agency pretty much expects attorneys and other professionals, i.e., GS-15's and SES, to work more than 40 hours a week, especially if you work inside the DC Beltway. If you are running out the door after your straight-8 or compressed work-9 hour day, you are seen as undedicated. You CAN choose to work 40 hours, you will collect a paycheck, but you're going to be looked over when the fun/sexy jobs come open. That's a choice, just like the choice an ALJ makes on how dedicated they are to doing the job right, or doing the job and doing other things. At least I don't work under a stated minimum of widgets produced, and I do get a modicum of respect, so I really hope I don't end up in a crappy ODAR (regardless of it being in Crapland) if I am selected. I hope EVERY week is not like that for you maquereau, and if it is, please take some annual leave. You've earned it. If every week were like that, maquereau would be scheduling 60-75 hearings per month, depending on whether the month has four or five weeks. And yes, that would be an insane schedule. There are obviously different ways to skin a cat, some more efficient than others and some more half-arsed than others. The post is certainly appreciated. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 11:20:58 GMT -5
Well, this discussion seems to have gone off the rails fairly quickly. Honestly, I don’t understand the anger and the venomous posts. I just don’t understand where that comes from. The sad part is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Though occasionally management does make me feel like a red-headed stepchild, or an independent contractor that has to be barely tolerated, we are all on the same team. Right? 1. I don’t understand why management does the things it does, and I don’t understand why they take the approach that they do. Like many on this board, I am not too upset about the telework memo. It really does not apply to me, because I’ve never had an issue getting enough cases scheduled or moved from status. Despite that, though, it seems so heavy handed and confrontational. Taken in conjunction with the recent re-write of the ALJ position description, what exactly is the message management is trying to send? Was it really necessary to go about it in this manner? 2. If management thinks that telework is being abused, let’s fix it. Currently, if I work at home, I am required to take my issued laptop to a separate workstation and download case files one at time for review. Then, when I return to the office, I have to repeat the process. It is onerous and time consuming. While working at home I can’t sign cases, or review cases in POST, or do anything expect review the case files that I downloaded. If management wants to make telework work they would allow me to access CPMS from my home office. They could require me to log in in the morning, be available for e-mail, case review, case signing, etc., and they could require me to log out at the end of the work day. That would be reasonable. 3. If management feels that some ALJ’s are not pulling their weight, then let’s fix that instead of this round-about method. If ALJ X is just pain lazy, and not doing his/her job, well then bite the bullet! Write them up, warn them, reprimand them, suspend them, and then work the suspension up the chain to the NLRB. Give the system a chance to work. Management may lose a few of those, but the message would be clear. After the infamous incident a month or so ago with the EPA employee who didn’t show up to work for years, my guess is the tolerance for slackers is limited: please see: www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/climate-change-expert-sentenced-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-v219435334. If management is really so focused on increasing productivity and reducing backlog, we should be focusing on the fact that our Agency does a tremendous amount of “churning” of cases. The Appeals Counsel sends cases back for re-hearing for reasons that frequently seem bizarre or just de minimis. All those cases take up docket spaces. Claimants do not appear for hearing, and we give them chance after chance to re-appear. The ALJs issue decisions and the claimants get back in line and re-litigate the same claim, over and over, forcing us to consider re-opening prior adjudicated claims, etc. The current system is inefficient, and rule changes that make decisions final and invoke the doctrine of res judicata would improve judicial economy and actually work down the backlog in a meaningful way. Just my two or three cents. |
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 20, 2014 12:17:11 GMT -5
8-)Well said robg, you have succinctly pointed how management over the years has failed to see the forest for the trees, and I failed to see any venom in any of your words.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssareality on Feb 20, 2014 13:02:30 GMT -5
Robg, good points. Let me see if I can address them in turn.
#1 - I don't see the memo or the PD issue as a big deal and therefore don't see them as confrontational. The memo provides guidance, while explaining that most ALJs are already in line, and for those who aren't, they are providing a very slow build up in terms of implementation to allow an adjustment period. Furthermore, I also don't know exactly why mgmt does all the things they do, but I'm willing to give them at least some slack since they have to deal with the good and the bad. They may not know every little thing those in the field do, but the reverse is true too. We don't know all they do. We don't know what all they are having to deal with.
#2 - I totally agree, but I can also see that this is already on the horizon. It's just something that takes a lot if time due to the acquisition and build of infrastructure. Some judges are already testing it. I have no doubt it will be expanded to all as soon as possible.
#3 - I think management is already doing what you're asking. And I know that some of our fearless leaders fight them at every turn even when there is no excuse for the actions of the bad apples.
#4 - I again, totally agree. However, this is an area where the corps should be working with mgmt and with congress. That'd be a better use of time than much of the other nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 20, 2014 14:11:45 GMT -5
Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I do not read robg's post the same way as ssareality does.
|
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Feb 20, 2014 16:16:07 GMT -5
Sorry, maybe it's just me, but I do not read robg's post the same way as ssareality does. Perhaps, this is true because ssareality is coming from a very different job, ODAR office and perspective than robg is coming from. Then again, no two people look at an issue exactly the same. We are individuals not automatons. |
|
Yep I do see your point on the quotas/ benchmarks/ goals without a doubt. But I still stand behind the premise that in order to project budgets and hiring etc there must be some sort of "goal" in mind. Is that a bad thing? To guess what the average Joe ALJ might do in a year? Estimate? Yes indeed I feel the pinch at times that my 3700 pages of medical is no where the same as the 83 page one. But averaging it out... I'm ok with the estimate. And as a senior attorney it isn't a number that is followed since the job also includes training and other duties. I don't know the best way to do all of this but I think that if there is a better way that whoever has that idea they should step up and suggest it. Until then I'm not so sure the current scheme is so bad. But that is coming from a newbie of only 7 years with the agency in a non management position. You have clearly seen more than I have so I have to give a bit more weight to your opinion than mine. 
You've earned it.
