|
|
Post by jerseymom on Mar 12, 2014 14:20:33 GMT -5
Sorry for the typo in my last line. The afternoon glass of wine made me forget to proofread!
|
|
|
|
Post by atlasta on Mar 12, 2014 14:56:12 GMT -5
After 30+ years with ODAR/OHA/BHA it is my impression that every change is greeted with hysteria which turns out to be much ado about nothing. It pays a good sum with good benefits with free weekends and evenings and no midnight phone calls. I do not see much to whine about (and if I did none of my friends or relatives in private practice/industry would listen)...
|
|
|
|
Post by atlasta on Mar 12, 2014 14:58:53 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Mar 12, 2014 15:09:46 GMT -5
Jerseymom and atlasta,
If you click on edit, in the upper right above your posts, you can correct your original post and not have to post a correction.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 12, 2014 15:32:05 GMT -5
MCB, the ALJ's living more than 2 hours away from the office are NOT being denied due to performance or scheduling issues. I NEVER said they were. Should the need arise, an ALJ can get into the office within 2 hours. And you KNOW this how?  If you look at the thread Warning Re: Termination of Telework Provisions, from the AALJ general forum, you'll see that some ALJs teleworking CANNOT get into the office within 2 hours, at least that's what their HOCALJs have determined when they terminated their scheduled telework, and these ALJs were hired PRIOR to this new article in the CBA, which if I remember correctly, has NOT been ratified (or turned down) by union members, though the Agency is NOW enforcing it. BTW, I have NO problems making my numbers (AND I came from private practice, so I had NO idea, whatsoever, whether I'd be able to do 500, much less 700 cases, when I told - with my bestest, straighest face - the RCALJ & HOCALJ who interviewed me in Falls Church that, "YES, I would be able to do more than 500 cases" (what, was I going to tell them: "No I can't," or better yet, "I don't know," LMAO). Anyway, I've finished fiscal year's '12 & '13 in the yellow (my HOCALJ & RCALJ love me) and am comfortably in the green this year (despite the furlough and some health issues at the start of fiscal year '14). Just don't like managers, especially non-attorney ones, trying to micro-manage my docket/case load. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 12, 2014 17:45:29 GMT -5
I personally don't understand the “within 2 hours from the office” to telework logic. given that newly hired ALJ's could end up having to make substantial moves and many have in the past, having the option to work at home some days regardless of where your office is could make the job more palatable for some folks. unless there have been issues with ALJ's not being to able to get back to their office in time(eg they don't make it back in time for hearings), this new restriction makes no sense to me. personally, I could care less where an ALJ teleworks. and I'd rather work with an awesome ALJ who teleworks several hours from my office than have that ALJ either not take the job or quit because the distance between their office and their home is too far. and for current ALJ's, some still are a long distance from their families which has got to be hard. or perhaps a spouse gets a job and has to move. Many on this board have seen or heard of the challenges transferring offices, particularly if it's in a desirable location. So an ALJ is either stuck having to live apart from their spouse or if they are lucky, they get a hardship transfer. if they were allowed to telework from wherever their spouse moved to, they may not need to transfer or at least they could likely delay a transfer for a longer period of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Mar 12, 2014 17:57:36 GMT -5
I personally don't understand the “within 2 hours from the office” to telework logic. given that newly hired ALJ's could end up having to make substantial moves and many have in the past, having the option to work at home some days regardless of where your office is could make the job more palatable for some folks. unless there have been issues with ALJ's not being to able to get back to their office in time(eg they don't make it back in time for hearings), this new restriction makes no sense to me. personally, I could care less where an ALJ teleworks. and I'd rather work with an awesome ALJ who teleworks several hours from my office than have that ALJ either not take the job or quit because the distance between their office and their home is too far. and for current ALJ's, some still are a long distance from their families which has got to be hard. or perhaps a spouse gets a job and has to move. Many on this board have seen or heard of the challenges transferring offices, particularly if it's in a desirable location. So an ALJ is either stuck having to live apart from their spouse or if they are lucky, they get a hardship transfer. if they were allowed to telework from wherever their spouse moved to, they may not need to transfer or at least they could likely delay a transfer for a longer period of time. Add to this that new ALJs are not given the opportunity to telework for the 1st year unless that changed recently. And hardship transfers are not in play like before but are now a temporary measure only until there is an actual transfer from the list. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Mar 12, 2014 18:16:29 GMT -5
ah, i forgot about the new folks not being able to telework at first. Still, my point remains. take a hypothetical new ALJ. it would be a much easier pill to swallow to be apart from their family for one year, after that year, they could work some at home and some in their office. That could keep that family from moving, which would certainly be less disruptive to them, especially if kids are involved. if the ALJ can handle the workload, does it really matter if their telework location is 5 minutes or 5 hours from the office? Yes, occasionally, it could be an issue, say their laptop is not working and they need to bring it to the computer guy. But most of the time, it won't matter. or let's say ALJ's telework spot is in a different time zone. then, yes, there could be some minor blips communicating with the office. But we rarely have emergencies that are so urgent that an e-mail response sent the following morning will be that disruptive to a case. and I've had some chances to communicate with coworkers in other time zones and usually, we can communicate on the same day anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcb on Mar 12, 2014 18:29:21 GMT -5
Just received an email for our LAR and here's some fat to chew on. ‘‘Telework Enhancement Act of 2010’’ www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ292/pdf/PLAW-111publ292.pdfAdditionally, found this over at the AALJ forum (I've perused the 2010 Act a few times and don't see the "two hours" callback from the SSA 2011 telework policy (see below), but may have missed it): [SSA]Draft 2011 Telework Policypersonnel.ba.ssa.gov/OPE/DraftSSATeleworkPolicy.pdf... Social Security Administration Page 1 PREAMBLE On December 9, 2010, President Obama signed the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010. Under that Act, Government agencies are to provide a telework policy to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) by June 7, 2011. This document constitutes our Telework Policy. Providing this policy to OPM is the first step of many needed to move towards instituting an agency-wide telework program. Prior to implementation of this new policy, we must fulfill our bargaining obligations with our various unions. Furthermore, we must address resource issues and implement appropriate assurances in balancing telework and the protection of personally identifiable information (PII) before we implement an agency-wide telework program. Resource issues include: • The availability of suitable agency information technology (IT) equipment for teleworkers who work on PII or other sensitive materials while at their Alternate Duty Station (ADS); and • The availability of sufficient staff to cover an office if we allow interested employees to telework. Finally, employees whose positions are eligible for consideration for telework must meet the criteria defined in this policy under sections 3 and 5.3 before the agency allows them to participate in the telework program. 1. ISSUE DATE - June 7, 2011 2. EMPLOYEES COVERED - All eligible full-time and part-time Social Security Administration (SSA) employees. ................................................................................ 5.6.3. Call Back During Duty HoursThe agency may call employees back to the office from the ADS. Callbacks may occur when management determines that the employee is required to report to his or her PDS. Employees are required to report to their PDS as soon as possible and no more than two hours after notification. |
|
|
|
Post by deltajudge on Mar 12, 2014 19:28:13 GMT -5
8-)The simple thing is, management is using the "backdoor" approach to impose quotas, not goals. When I was an ALJ, I considered myself a professional. When I was assigned a docket of cases, I scheduled them as soon as practicable,heard them, and did all I could post hearing to get them out the door. In the latter part of my career with OHA, under the circumstances of lack of sufficient staff support and the normal negative factors, I was able to schedule on a average at least 40 cases per month. Dispositions are a different matter. To impose an arbitrary quota, and it is a quota, is sufficient proof of a lack of communication between management and those in the trenches. Maybe communication is the wrong word, better, ignoring those in the trenches.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Mar 12, 2014 20:42:28 GMT -5
MCB, sorry if I I didn't get my point across. The prior posts had dealt with the scheduling/status issues. I'm sure you are well-liked by mgmt. I was stating the rationale behind the 2 hour rule as it had been explained to me. For example, if an ALJ calls in sick the morning of his hearings, the office mgmt could call an ALJ on telework and ask that ALJ to cover those hearings. Also, I believe these sections of the contract were resolved by the impasse panel fact finder so they were binding on both sides and not subject to ratification.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 12, 2014 21:15:21 GMT -5
Unless I am mistaken, if the new contract isn't ratified by a majority of the Union members the old contract would still govern. I am trying to figure out why the Union isn't doing something about the blatant hostility by the Agency. And yes, the position description change removing us from the APA is nothing less than hostile. Recently management sent out an e-mail telling us that if hearings at remote sites will run late and cause the VHR to have to pay extra for day care that we will reschedule hearings. I can certainly see why that is more important than a sick Judge and not being able to ask a flexiplace Judge to be able to arrive at the office within two hours. So if it is a Judge problem there is no way we can reschedule, but to cost a VHR a few bucks we can reschedule. It's all about priorities and it appears the Agency thinks everyone deserves more respect and consideration than the Judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by costco on Mar 12, 2014 23:57:30 GMT -5
Let's analyze. On my two telework days, I prepare for my two hearing days. If I'm called in from my telework day to cover the hearings of a sick judge, then I'll have to cancel one of MY hearing days because I won't be prepared for those hearings. And, while I'm covering for the sick judge, I'll do a pretty bad job of holding one or two hearings on cases that I've never seen before.
Does the "sick judge" rationale make any sense to anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Mar 13, 2014 1:48:38 GMT -5
I was stating the rationale behind the 2 hour rule as it had been explained to me. For example, if an ALJ calls in sick the morning of his hearings, the office mgmt could call an ALJ on telework and ask that ALJ to cover those hearings. I don't get this statement. As far as I know, management cannot call in an ALJ in to cover another ALJs hearings. We can be asked to cover hearings, but not mandated. Correct me if I am wrong. This didn't change with the new CBA. The arbitrary and apparently unnecessary enforcement of this provision of the contract just demoralizes judges for no apparent reason. Especially when you consider that some judges have made life choices (such as buying and selling property and choosing where their children go to school) based on the old contract, and are now facing huge hardship. I hate to admit it, but between the 2 hour rule and the now 600 cases I am apparently required to schedule (even though I make my 500 quota) it all makes me very unlikely to do anything to help management. In the past I tried to do my darnedest to help out in a pinch. Not any more. The last thing I'll have time to do is take on another judges hearings. Especially when I'm scheduling and then postponing hearings to make the arbitrary 600 scheduled number (as a member of management recently had the gall to suggest to me). |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 13, 2014 6:33:26 GMT -5
Never push a loyal person to the point where they no longer care.
AND
Don't start none, won't be none.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseymom on Mar 13, 2014 6:37:11 GMT -5
I did say "ask" didn't I? Some telework judges are working on ALPO or EDIT cases so they may be willing to come in to hold hearings.
|
|
|
|
Post by southerner on Mar 13, 2014 8:53:25 GMT -5
For me, I provide my schedule (tentative) to end of December last month. In our office we select which days we want to hold hearings only and the number of hearings per day. I block off 2 weeks a few times a year and also 3 weeks at one point so I can take spontaneous vacations or just enjoy use-or-lose as needed, rather than all at once in December. I am an insider so 500 seemed realistic to me and is still easily accomplished, usually falling in the 600-700 range since starting. Of course, I realize each office is different as well as case folders (electronic) and complexity and more time is needed, but I like having the same courtroom which we have per selection by seniority. I have 3 days per week in mine, and next in line has it if I do not need it. I do not have 3 days a week normally set, but occasionally do. I do not designate whether in-person or video and do not really care. I prefer in person, but all works for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Mar 13, 2014 9:37:12 GMT -5
Just received this from another Judge:
CALJ Bice testified at the Senate hearing last month that when she was in the field she made goal. I decided to determine how she did it. See data below.
She only made goal because as a HOCALJ she had 935 administrative dismissals over a two year period. She had the highest number of dismissals in Region 7 and was in the top 10 in the nation in 2009. Without the dismissals she would not have made goal at any time.
She also said 60% of judges are making goal, yet the only full year she was HOCALJ(2010)she made goal, but only one other judge in an eleven judge office made goal.
[Bice became a judge on June 22, 2008 but had no recorded dispositions in FY 2008. She became HOCALJ in Kansas City in mid-January 2009 and acting CALJ in early January 2011.]
Based on the first three quarters of FY2012 HOCALJs make up 70% of the top 100 dismissers ranging from a high of 327 to 119 and a majority of the top 250 dismissers were HOCALJs!
Last year (FY2011) only 27% of judges actually decided 500 or more cases a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by eyre44 on Mar 13, 2014 9:59:07 GMT -5
I did say "ask" didn't I? Some telework judges are working on ALPO or EDIT cases so they may be willing to come in to hold hearings. They can ask you if you live 2.5 hours away, and they can ask you if you live 2 hours away. So what is the point of denying telework to the former and not the latter? That is why this rule is so vexing. What is its purpose, other than to inconvenience or demoralize ALJs? |
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Mar 13, 2014 13:09:43 GMT -5
I did say "ask" didn't I? Some telework judges are working on ALPO or EDIT cases so they may be willing to come in to hold hearings. They can ask you if you live 2.5 hours away, and they can ask you if you live 2 hours away. So what is the point of denying telework to the former and not the latter? That is why this rule is so vexing. What is its purpose, other than to inconvenience or demoralize ALJs? To be fair, the ALJs are not the only ones. Those of us on the lower hanging branches have been working under this telework/commuting provision for some time now. In our case, it makes even less sense because an AA or SA would never be asked/told to come in to cover another's work. |
|
