|
|
Post by papresqr on Feb 24, 2014 10:38:50 GMT -5
I'll take a crack at some of this. The Telework program they are referring to is SSA-wide, not just ODAR and not just ALJs and attorneys. We have clearly been doing it for some time. However, other ODAR personnel, such as SCTs, have not been able to work from home unless they had paper files to work on. So I think that was more directed at those type of positions, as well as other SSA personnel outside of ODAR.
As for the continuing to pursue agreement with the unions, I don't understand that. As far as I know, all Telework agreements are already in effect. The AFGE agreement was effective 11/3/13, but we were told they were still "working out the details," which apparently means the number of days, core days, etc. We had a couple of people in our office who were not eligible to Telework under the old agreement, but were under the new. They had to file a grievance before they were finally okayed. They also just recently let us start working credit hours during our Telework days. However, we still have not been given any information as to the number of days we can work from home, which days we can work from home, whether there will be a core day that is not available to work from home, etc. As to why they made these agreements effective without having all the details in place, your guess is as good as mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Feb 24, 2014 10:46:05 GMT -5
I'll take a crack at some of this. The Telework program they are referring to is SSA-wide, not just ODAR and not just ALJs and attorneys. We have clearly been doing it for some time. However, other ODAR personnel, such as SCTs, have not been able to work from home unless they had paper files to work on. So I think that was more directed at those type of positions, as well as other SSA personnel outside of ODAR. As for the continuing to pursue agreement with the unions, I don't understand that. As far as I know, all Telework agreements are already in effect. The AFGE agreement was effective 11/3/13, but we were told they were still "working out the details," which apparently means the number of days, core days, etc. We had a couple of people in our office who were not eligible to Telework under the old agreement, but were under the new. They had to file a grievance before they were finally okayed. They also just recently let us start working credit hours during our Telework days. However, we still have not been given any information as to the number of days we can work from home, which days we can work from home, whether there will be a core day that is not available to work from home, etc. As to why they made these agreements effective without having all the details in place, your guess is as good as mine. Completely agree. This memo had little to nothing to do with aljs. NTEU just updated our contract for the 1st time in almost 20 years , which allows us a 3rd work at home day. details to be worked out on when it can start but supposedly within the year. aFGE has been pushing hard to allow SCTs more time at home. The lack of laptops makes the implementation of this problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 24, 2014 11:55:21 GMT -5
I'll take a crack at some of this. The Telework program they are referring to is SSA-wide, not just ODAR and not just ALJs and attorneys. We have clearly been doing it for some time. However, other ODAR personnel, such as SCTs, have not been able to work from home unless they had paper files to work on. So I think that was more directed at those type of positions, as well as other SSA personnel outside of ODAR. As for the continuing to pursue agreement with the unions, I don't understand that. As far as I know, all Telework agreements are already in effect. The AFGE agreement was effective 11/3/13, but we were told they were still "working out the details," which apparently means the number of days, core days, etc. We had a couple of people in our office who were not eligible to Telework under the old agreement, but were under the new. They had to file a grievance before they were finally okayed. They also just recently let us start working credit hours during our Telework days. However, we still have not been given any information as to the number of days we can work from home, which days we can work from home, whether there will be a core day that is not available to work from home, etc. As to why they made these agreements effective without having all the details in place, your guess is as good as mine. As an aside, being able to work credit at home will be life changing. |
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Feb 24, 2014 12:03:08 GMT -5
As an aside, being able to work credit at home will be life changing. Absolutely. I have a 2.5 hour commute, so working credit at the office makes my day WAY too long. Not only for me, but for the furkids as well. However, being able to do so at home will not make my day any longer than a normal day going to the office, but I can earn up to 9 hours of credit each week. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 24, 2014 12:17:43 GMT -5
As an aside, being able to work credit at home will be life changing. Absolutely. I have a 2.5 hour commute, so working credit at the office makes my day WAY too long. Not only for me, but for the furkids as well. However, being able to do so at home will not make my day any longer than a normal day going to the office, but I can earn up to 9 hours of credit each week. That's interesting. We can only get two per day (not complaining). Theoretically, you could go into the office four days a month and still come out ahead with four new credit hours. Obviously that won't be allowed, but it sure would help your commute! |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 24, 2014 12:34:11 GMT -5
No credit hours have been approved at telework for Judges..
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Feb 24, 2014 12:38:41 GMT -5
Sealaw90, don't know if you are be facetious or not, but that is what the Agency has said. No telework if more than 2 hours away. ...and I know of at least one ALJ who used to telework under the old CBA, but is now unable to under the new CBA. Don't know if the ALJ has filed a grievance. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Feb 24, 2014 12:39:15 GMT -5
Absolutely. I have a 2.5 hour commute, so working credit at the office makes my day WAY too long. Not only for me, but for the furkids as well. However, being able to do so at home will not make my day any longer than a normal day going to the office, but I can earn up to 9 hours of credit each week. That's interesting. We can only get two per day (not complaining). Theoretically, you could go into the office four days a month and still come out ahead with four new credit hours. Obviously that won't be allowed, but it sure would help your commute! Just to clarify for those who may not know, the number of credit hours (for writers) depends upon whether you are AFGE or NTEU. Attorneys in some cities are AFGE, other parts of the country NTEU. Hence this may explain the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Feb 24, 2014 12:53:51 GMT -5
Sealaw90, don't know if you are be facetious or not, but that is what the Agency has said. No telework if more than 2 hours away. ...and I know of at least one ALJ who used to telework under the old CBA, but is now unable to under the new CBA. Don't know if the ALJ has filed a grievance. Does the CBA just say "more than 2 hours away"? That's very vague, or at least subject to interpretation and abuse. A 2 hour daily commute via train is different than a 2 hour commute via car. I guess I'll need to rely on earning credit hours if I intend on getting home for more than a Saturday & Sunday.  I appreciate this discussion mcb and bartleby, and any other ALJs who have an opinion on telework. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 11, 2014 16:16:44 GMT -5
Just an update. It would appear from stuff rolling downhill that come October 2014, if one does not have 480 hearings held one will not be allowed flexiplace. It does not matter if you used use or lose or took that vacation to Bali. It does not matter if you had a week of ALJ training or how many days of in-office training you had. It appears that it does not matter no how... So, if one is behind at this point, it would behoove one to pick up the pace or prepare for office drudgery 5 days a week. Six moths later it will be 270 and six months later it will be 300, or 600 hundred a year. Might be tough to do with all of this vacation, flexibilty and credit hours we have to use?? Wait until push comes to shove and we don't make it due to computer equipment or lack of hearing rooms, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by ed on Mar 11, 2014 17:24:10 GMT -5
Interesting distinction Bartleby, before everything was contingent upon dispositions, but you use hearings held. I always felt that if I had 500 plus cases out of my control, i.e. waiting for UNWR or DWPC, I would not worry about goal figures. For some offices have fewer writers, but now with the hearings held distinction it may be different. What about dismissals, and other non hearing dispositions?
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 11, 2014 19:12:48 GMT -5
I may have misled you. Actually, it is hearings scheduled not held. I am not sure how this will interpret out in the end. A lot of unpleasant changes going on right now. Some offices are getting clearer direction than others, perhaps to see how it goes. Much work for the Union and dismally I see very little action on their part. The new contract hasn't even been ratified and it is being enforced by the Agency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 10:04:30 GMT -5
Still processing this information myself. In the original memo:
“Considering the necessity for quality, timely, and policy compliant hearings and decisions, and historical data, scheduling an average of at least fifty (50) cases for hearing per month will generally signify a reasonably attainable number for the purposes of this contractual provision. I want to emphasize that this provision concerns the number of hearings scheduled, not cases heard or dispositions issued. Accordingly, if you schedule at least an average of fifty (50) cases for hearing per month during a twelve-month rolling cycle, then management generally will determine you have scheduled a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing for the purposes of this contractual provision. Conversely, if you schedule fewer than an average of fifty (50) cases for hearing per month during a twelve-month rolling cycle, then management likely will determine you have not scheduled a reasonably attainable number of cases for hearing, unless there are extenuating circumstances. For example, management may consider whether the ALJ is on a learning curve or training program or whether the ALJ has been on extended leave. Management also may consider postponement or heard-to-scheduled ratios.”
So, we have to schedule an average of 50 per month over the course of a rolling 12 month period to be eligible for flexiplace. I also recently learned that there is a cap on the number of cases an ALJ may be assigned. Apparently, in order to avoid situations like West Virginia, we are not allowed to schedule, or have scheduled for us, more than 840 per year, which is being interpreted as 70 per month. So, the bottom line appears to be that we are being told that we should be scheduling 50-70 per month, on average, over the course of a rolling 12 month period.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 12, 2014 10:32:01 GMT -5
Robg, that is what I get out of it and management said that vacations, training, etc. are not deducted from that. In other words if you have use or lose vacation and take a month off, you are not scheduling enough. Although they say the only thing that matters is that they are scheduled, but.. Once they are scheduled, you own them and then the status guidelines kick in and you can get in trouble if they sit in a status too long, ie, you hear 15 cases a week, go on vacation for a week and come back to a directive scolding you for not moving your ALPO timely. Talk about micromanagement. I am trying to stay optomestic about these changes, but if the Union doesn't do something soon I am not sure what I will do. I do a good job with my cases, but to shortcut the prehearing review or do sloppy instructions or not read decisions before signing, I don't think I can do that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Mar 12, 2014 10:54:35 GMT -5
Again people, let's not go crazy. If you were hired in 2008 or later, you told the Agency you would decide 500 to 700 cases per year. Were you lying? An average over 12 months should account for leave, training, etc. since no ALJ has been denied telework yet, why don't we wait and see how this pans out. Hopefully, some of the judges who have not been doing what they said they would will step up their games. For example, I've heard of ALJ's wanting to schedule 3 hearings on T, W, Th, and teleworking M&F. It's simple math-not going to hit 500 to 700 that way. Other ALJ's leaving cases in judge controlled status for 100 to 150 days or having 120 cases in ALPO just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 12, 2014 11:07:15 GMT -5
Jerseymom, do you really think we knew what was required to do 500 to 700 per year when we "promised" that? I don't know about you, but I didn't "promise" to do 500 to 700 per year. Many if not most of our illustrious leaders have never done 500 to 700 cases a year. Further I doubt that anyone was "lying". That is a pretty serious charge. Further, we were "promised" we had jobs that we couldn't be fired from. Who "lied" then?? I am glad you find life so easy. Stay happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 12, 2014 11:45:14 GMT -5
...no ALJ has been denied telework yet, why don't we wait and see how this pans out. ALJs are now being denied telework if they live more than two hours from their ODAR. I know an ALJ whose family life is currently turned upside down, due to this. You can have an apartment near your ODAR, in city A, and not be allowed to Telework from home, in city B, even though you were allowed to do it in the past. In a numbers driven agenda, not scheduling an average of 50 hearings a month will just be another discretionary arrow in the Agency's proverbial quiver. Hopefully, any HOCALJ dismissing 200+ hearings per annum will take that into consideration when considering using this arrow. |
|
|
|
Post by papresqr on Mar 12, 2014 11:59:56 GMT -5
Again people, let's not go crazy. If you were hired in 2008 or later, you told the Agency you would decide 500 to 700 cases per year. Were you lying? How exactly are you supposed to know for sure that you can decide 500 to 700 cases a year if you have not yet done the job to know what deciding 500 to 700 cases per year actually entails? Hearing people on here talk about what is required does not answer the question, since some say it's easy and others say it's not. Are you going to say on your interview, "no, I don't think there's any way I can do that."? Of course NOT. you are going to say you can do it. It's not lying...it's just a guess or an assumption until you actually try it. Hopefully, it's an accurate guess. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Mar 12, 2014 13:31:10 GMT -5
When I was a writer and a group supervisor, our office had a judge who would give the staff his hearing for the next twelve months at the first of October. I often wondered why he did that. Now, as a judge, I understand very well. It helps so much with the planning issues. I know I take the first week in June off every year and can plan for that. I get the set out where I want to hold hearings among our 3 hearing sites and the rooms are reserved for me. I have my time off at Thanksgiving and Christmas plotted out, as well as other vacation time. But it is not written in stone. I have some leeway to change dates, especially if the hearings have not been scheduled. My FY 2014 plan was for 22 dockets. The number of hearings varies but is generally 27-30. And right now, I am on target to get 500+ dispositions out of the year. I earn the maximum vacation time and so far, haven't lost any annual leave and very little credit (less than 5 hours). the workload is doable but it takes planning and time management.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Mar 12, 2014 14:15:00 GMT -5
Redryder is right, it is doable with time management. Did the outsiders (I was one) not do any research? Did the insiders not talk to the ALJ's in their offices? Sit in on a few hearings? MCB, the ALJ's living more than 2 hours away from the office are NOT being denied due to performance or scheduling issues. Should the need arise, an ALJ can get into the office within 2 hours. It is not an easy job but you can do it if you work hard, work smart, and are not afraid to make a decision. We are a high volume judiciary, not the SCOTUS. 900,000 people are waiting for a hearing. If you have trouble making a decision(6 months to pick out a paint color for the kitchen) may be the job is not for you. Doesn't make you a bad person, or not smart, or not nice, just not right for the job. Btw, thanks Bart, I am happy. I thank God every day for my job. I am righting this from my hotel balcony in San Juan. Puerto Rico is lovely this time of year.
|
|
