Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 16:25:23 GMT -5
In terms of the ability of ALJs to access claimant files (CPMS) during telework: I was at a training seminar (almost a year, year and half ago?) and the ALJs expressed to the CALJ our frustration. Particularly since representatives for the claimant have had access for some time. It is apparent that the ALJs had been clamoring for access for a while. The response was “soon.” Which is not really a response at all.
Maybe it does take years to set up the same remote access for the ALJs as is currently enjoyed by claimant’s reps. Maybe, but I find it hard to believe. What is the overlying technical hurdle that is so massive? Think about what we can do by just pulling up a web browser. I can access and change files in my bank, my TSP, my employee file, my taxes, etc. My spouse, an accountant, connects from home and manages the books of huge companies. What could possibly be so much more complicated?
If someone says that there is a pilot program, well that’s great. Glad to hear it, but the first I have heard of it. I wish someone would just, occasionally, share information. Perhaps include us in the process. As an ALJ who will be using the potential system, I might have something to contribute. How about a statement: “We have reached Beta stage, but are working on …authentication… Our planned delivery date is…. Summer 2014.” Would that be so impossible? Wouldn’t it be better than “soon”?
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 20, 2014 16:49:04 GMT -5
Having closely watched the AALJ as it affects us and the rest of the ALJ Corps and its continued struggles with Puzzle Palace (i.e, CALJ), much of the problem that robg and other ODAR Judges complain about is structural--its Union heirarchy v. CALJ. Of course there is going to be animosity and gamesmanship--heck the Union is suing CALJ over production and quotas. Lawsuits do not make good relations.
All you have to do is look at the auto industry do see that the Japanese and German style of worker integration into the car making business is far more efficient and prodcues a happier environment than a top down management is boss model.
By all accounts management brought the union about by a former CALJ or Deputy CALJ years ago declaring that she or he didn't have to speak to the ALJs because "...they weren't even a Union." Arrogance on the part of management always is the Mother of a union. On the other hand a Union will defend the indefensible because it legally must. It is, IMHO, no way for lawyers to behave with other lawyers--let alone Judges. But there is no alternative in this poisoned environment and that is truly sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by onepingonly on Feb 20, 2014 17:45:40 GMT -5
Management has it precisely backwards. Studies consistently confirm that telework increases productivity. So the agency should force slackers to work at home.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 20, 2014 17:56:10 GMT -5
Not a big fan of working from home. Mrs Funky has a hard time following the sexual harassment policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 20, 2014 18:04:02 GMT -5
Not a big fan of working from home. Mrs Funky has a hard time following the sexual harassment policy. For sheer two liners, this is very, very good... It is supposed to be a solitary endeavor, this telework. But I can relate funkster and if my Mainline to Bliss was home when I'm working, why I'd be...  |
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Feb 20, 2014 19:31:41 GMT -5
8-)Funky, you won't do! Think robg and privateatty have clearly shown what is truly the problem with management, and that is when they came up with all the schemes in the past to "increase production," especially HPI, all of which were monumental failures, they did it on their own, without any input from the field or those doing the face-to-face, hands-on work in the trenches, and in the field offices.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Feb 20, 2014 20:26:06 GMT -5
But that is precisely why I work from home two days a week, to enjoy the sexual harassment. Gives lunchtime new meaning, especially when the kids are in school (wink wink).
|
|
|
|
Post by peterprinciple on Feb 20, 2014 20:57:32 GMT -5
You can make an Olympic leap to any assumption ... 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. I completely agree. But in my experience, this is sadly not limited to this board. I know of more than one ALJ who finds it necessary to berate some claimants and browbeat some representatives on the record at hearing. As a former manager in this agency, I have heard both HODs and HOCALJs at the lower level, and management at much higher levels disparage the work ethic, intelligence and ability of other ALJs and/or staff. I have read AALJ newsletters that depict management and their motives in derisive and provocative terms. This type of invective serves no purpose and results in, at best, the complete alienation of the subject of the discussion, causing them to dig in their heels to the smallest of things and to turn a deaf ear to even the most reasonable of suggestions. Those of us trained in the legal professions should know better than to try to persuade colleagues and peers, who should have the highest of reasoning skills, with the basest of false arguments and personal attacks. That’s for mobs and schoolyard bullies. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Feb 20, 2014 21:21:56 GMT -5
OK, everyone let's settle down. Most of the judges schedule sufficient cases and won't be affected. Other judges may be motivated to schedule more cases in order to work telework. The other guidelines may motivate more than a few judges to move their cases. Should cases really stay in ALPO, EDIT or SIGN for months on end?
Every ALJ hired since 2008 told several interviewers that they would hear and decide 500 to 700 cases a year. Now being asked to schedule sufficient cases to reach those numbers is suddenly shocking??
You can blame management for all the world's problems or you can honor your word, work hard, and serve the public. And yes, HPI was a failure, but I don't think any of the current management team was involved so can we bury that one.
And RobG, yes, you heard correctly. VPN (virtual private network) is being tested. It will allow judges, writers, and may be even case techs full access to the system. No more downloading, etc.
Good luck to all are awaiting the results. 90 ALJ's will be hired this year, 110 next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterprinciple on Feb 20, 2014 22:18:06 GMT -5
In terms of the ability of ALJs to access claimant files (CPMS) during telework: I was at a training seminar (almost a year, year and half ago?) and the ALJs expressed to the CALJ our frustration. Particularly since representatives for the claimant have had access for some time. It is apparent that the ALJs had been clamoring for access for a while. The response was “soon.” Which is not really a response at all. Maybe it does take years to set up the same remote access for the ALJs as is currently enjoyed by claimant’s reps. Maybe, but I find it hard to believe. What is the overlying technical hurdle that is so massive? Think about what we can do by just pulling up a web browser. I can access and change files in my bank, my TSP, my employee file, my taxes, etc. My spouse, an accountant, connects from home and manages the books of huge companies. What could possibly be so much more complicated? If someone says that there is a pilot program, well that’s great. Glad to hear it, but the first I have heard of it. I wish someone would just, occasionally, share information. Perhaps include us in the process. As an ALJ who will be using the potential system, I might have something to contribute. How about a statement: “We have reached Beta stage, but are working on …authentication… Our planned delivery date is…. Summer 2014.” Would that be so impossible? Wouldn’t it be better than “soon”? A couple of years back, one of the OCALJ executives (previously an IT exec) came to our little southern office with some Regional officials and I asked him about this. First, we should be aware that Reps do not have full access of the type we would want in order to do all the functions we do in the office, but from home. Reps can access the electronic folder and the exhibited documents from within it. But we would also want to access CPMS (preferably not a truncated version), eView, DGS, etc, as well as have all the PII information that populates these programs flow through our home based systems. This is much more than what the Reps get and would require VPN, as Jerseymom mentions above. Now, the outside world has had VPN and successfully and safely utilized it for decades. This exec told me that we have had the ability to put some kind of VPN system in place, but the former COSS would have nothing like that during his watch out of concern for a PII calamity taking place during his tenure. I'm told recently by various IT folks in the agency we now have a VPN program, but it's boggy and crashes and does not compare to the private sector's capabilities. I'm also told by an ALJ who came from a northern state in a remote region that they were allowed to use VPN because of their circumstances. I would like to believe that attitudes at the top have changed and this is now being worked out, but as robg points out, who knows? This goes to one of my biggest frustrations with this agency, but also to the union and reiterates one of robg's point. Where is the communication? |
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 20, 2014 22:28:35 GMT -5
Jerseymom,
I think i love you. but I wanna know for sure. so come on, say that next year hiring number one more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Feb 20, 2014 22:50:59 GMT -5
I'm told recently by various IT folks in the agency we now have a VPN program, but it's boggy and crashes and does not compare to the private sector's capabilities. I'm also told by an ALJ who came from a northern state in a remote region that they were allowed to use VPN because of their circumstances. I would like to believe that attitudes at the top have changed and this is now being worked out, but as robg points out, who knows? VPN is currently being tested on a very small scale by certain ALJs. However, it's buggy, bandwidth is a huge issue, and security is a constant concern. As you noted, the senior leadership are forever worried about the possibility of a PII breach due to improper access into Agency systems. So while the Agency already inked the Union contract with AFGE last year to allow 500 SCTs nationwide to test VPN and do flex work from home using it, this pilot program keeps on being delayed and still hasn't happened yet. Hopefully this pilot will happen sooner than later. If the current ODAR leadership has its way, VPN and VTC will become an integral part of the future ODAR, much as CPMS and Eview are today. However, it looks like we still have a long way to get there due to all the tech issues involved. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Feb 20, 2014 23:17:44 GMT -5
This is for Funky. The Agency plans on hiring 90 ALJ's this year and 110 next. HQ is awaiting the register from OPM. Those waiting may want to send some positive karma towards OPM. It can't hurt and may help.
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Feb 20, 2014 23:22:24 GMT -5
This is for Funky. The Agency plans on hiring 90 ALJ's this year and 110 next. HQ is awaiting the register from OPM. Those waiting may want to send some positive karma towards OPM. It can't hurt and may help. Yep, I love you. I had heard the 90 but not the 110. As one who expects no better than a middling score, I think I'm a second cert kinda guy. So the news that an even bigger hire is planned for next fiscal...well, that just made my night. |
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Feb 21, 2014 2:45:02 GMT -5
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 I've read this statement a couple of times now and it keeps bugging me. I did in the low 500s last year, I did not schedule 50 cases a month on average (bold and underlined). The math is simple. 500 cases a year is 41.6 cases scheduled a month. If you schedule 50 a month, and follow the benchmarks, you will have dispositions in the 600 plus range, especially if you add in dismissals. I've often given management the benefit of the doubt on these things, but the text and tone of this memo was pretty clear. If you want to work flexiplace in the future you will have a quota of 600 cases per year. Consequently, many of the ALJs you point to above will be denied flexiplace despite meeting the agency goal. |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 21, 2014 6:57:40 GMT -5
This is for Funky. The Agency plans on hiring 90 ALJ's this year and 110 next. HQ is awaiting the register from OPM. Those waiting may want to send some positive karma towards OPM. It can't hurt and may help. This is in keeping with ODAR's hiring history since 2007. And for those future low scorers out there who polish RCALJ and CALJ apples, maybe two smaller certs. |
|
woody
Full Member
Posts: 50 
|
Post by woody on Feb 21, 2014 7:13:56 GMT -5
EYRE44 goes to my point and my frustration. The schedulers often can't accommodate the 45 cases I ask to be scheduled now, we don't have the space- so I am going to be punished for management's failure? Last year I was shy of the 500 by a little when I wasn't in previous years. Why? because some months they only processed 20 cases for me to sign while I had another 40 awaiting assignment to a writer. Every week I had days I ran out of work to do- nothing to hear, nothing to decide, nothing to edit. So I am going to be punished for management's failure? I get more done on a day at home so let them take it away and see what happens to my production then. And the CALJ does not deserve my respect. She was a judge in name only and has done absolutely nothing to assist us in doing our jobs. We even had a personal visit from her and to every request we made the response was that there was nothing she could do about it. Same with our regional chief. So all of you eager to be hired- get ready to be harassed daily by management about your production when you are given absolutely no control over any aspects of the job-not the staff, not the work product, not the reps, not the equipment, not the scheduling.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssareality on Feb 21, 2014 7:33:25 GMT -5
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 I've read this statement a couple of times now and it keeps bugging me. I did in the low 500s last year, I did not schedule 50 cases a month on average (bold and underlined). The math is simple. 500 cases a year is 41.6 cases scheduled a month. If you schedule 50 a month, and follow the benchmarks, you will have dispositions in the 600 plus range, especially if you add in dismissals. I've often given management the benefit of the doubt on these things, but the text and tone of this memo was pretty clear. If you want to work flexiplace in the future you will have a quota of 600 cases per year. Consequently, many of the ALJs you point to above will be denied flexiplace despite meeting the agency goal. I would be willing to bet my annual salary that you have nothing to worry about. 500 per year is 41.6 a month if every one of your hearings goes off without a hitch. We all know that's not the reality. We have no shows, postponements, etc that have to be factored in. For some offices, those things happen more than others. Maybe you never have these issues and will only need to schedule 45 a month in order to stay in track and hit 500, but for most they need to schedule closer to 50. I assure you, management has better things to do with their time. If you're a good ALJ who's doing their job, this will not impact you at all. |
|
woody
Full Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by woody on Feb 21, 2014 7:49:00 GMT -5
Wrong ssareality- already had the HOCALJ giving me a hard time about telework in spite of the fact that I have done it for over a decade without incident. Already have the HOCALJ handing out graphs to all of us on our production (as directed by region) and when she is asked how she expects us to increase production when cases are sitting in UNWR for two months and there are no scheduling slots available she has no suggestions. Yes, management has better things to do, but they are doing none of them. So pay up! That should take the sting out of not winning Powerball.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssareality on Feb 21, 2014 8:16:31 GMT -5
Wrong ssareality- already had the HOCALJ giving me a hard time about telework in spite of the fact that I have done it for over a decade without incident. Already have the HOCALJ handing out graphs to all of us on our production (as directed by region) and when she is asked how she expects us to increase production when cases are sitting in UNWR for two months and there are no scheduling slots available she has no suggestions. Yes, management has better things to do, but they are doing none of them. So pay up! That should take the sting out of not winning Powerball. If everything you're saying is true, it's possible you have an over zealous HOCALJ. That doesn't mean you'll make it on upper management's radar, which would happen before anyone approves restricting telework. Look at the numbers across the nation. There are plenty of judges doing 300 or fewer cases per year. Do you really think the managers that have the final say on who loses telework will care about good ol' Woody who cranks out 475 per year? I assure you, the managers that matter have far too much on their plates. |
|
