|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 13, 2008 7:50:26 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with ALJsouth's assessment. If stopping the hiring process was not a goal of the AALJ, why were private attorneys added as plaintiffs? Why did the pleadings assert that the private attorney plaintiffs were harmed by "insider information" to which they were not privy? Why did the private attorney plaintiffs assert that they were harmed by OPM's decision to cut off applications at 1250 even if the two-week window had not expired?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck...
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 13, 2008 9:22:53 GMT -5
If they did not intend to pursue it, then it was a frivolous lawsuit, always a fan favorite for District Court judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 13, 2008 9:27:56 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree with ALJsouth's assessment. If stopping the hiring process was not a goal of the AALJ, why were private attorneys added as plaintiffs? Why did the pleadings assert that the private attorney plaintiffs were harmed by "insider information" to which they were not privy? Why did the private attorney plaintiffs assert that they were harmed by OPM's decision to cut off applications at 1250 even if the two-week window had not expired? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck... I think that these Plaintiffs want to be added onto the Register, morgullord. As ALJSouth has noted, there has been no attempt to slow or stop the hiring process (thank God). The 64K question for us on the Register is does OPM have the $ in FY 2009 to add onto the Register--even if they want to (which makes that two questions). If we were to be selfish, then we would want the Register to stay just as it is, while (hopefully) giving a shot to the appellants. Maybe that's not being selfish, maybe some would be saying to these private attorney plaintiffs, hey, we got it done--why couldn't you? And does your failure to stay on USAJOBs like a hawk over the wheat fields of Kansas bear any rational relationship to your qualifications to be an ALJ? Fodder for a REALLY opinionated poll/query? |
|
|
|
Post by chinook on Feb 13, 2008 10:40:47 GMT -5
What has not been mentioned is that one possible result of the filing of the lawsuit is that OPM will not try to re-open the register until the case is decided. That leaves those of us not on the cert or those that don't get picked with more opportunity in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 13, 2008 12:50:35 GMT -5
Part of the relief requested is to declare the ALJ Vacancy Announcement "null and void." That seems to say that they want to stop the hiring process. However, they are rather unserious about it since they have not tried to get a TRO or PI stopping it (regardless whether they would have succeeded in getting an order, they have not even tried). Cute. Burn the village and declare a victory. |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Feb 13, 2008 13:43:19 GMT -5
The only real early notice from OPM I know of are to folks who were on the old register (which a couple of my friends were). They got a letter from OPM sometime in April advising them of the immenent termination of the old register and that a new register is going to open to application very soon. I never saw a copy of the letter, so I don't know the exact wording of it. But from the conversations I had with my friends, they didn't know the exact date as to when the new application was going up either.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Feb 13, 2008 16:18:16 GMT -5
I supported the initial lawsuit against OPM's regulation. It has no affect on me since I have two licenses: one judicial and one active. OPM has issued letters to others (either DOJ or SSA, I don't remember) saying no active license was needed after appointment. OPM simply lies in its adoption of its regs saying that this has been the rule all along.
I did not support the attack on the register b/c of insider knowledge. I do disagree with some other aspects of OPM's regulations, none of which would invalidate the register.
For those of you upset, well ... I would be too if I were an attorney at odar or other federal agency. However, don't be too quick to let hurt feelings damage you when you become an ALJ. Yes, there are problems with the union and you will not agree with everything it does or does not do. The same is true of every organization. However, it it the AALJ and NO ONE else that has gotten ALJ's work at home rights and the right to transfer without "pleasing' mangment types in 2 regions and falls church. Only the union stands between you and someone who wants to make an example of you because you did not do something the way they wanted it done. This is an agency that will not stand behind you; but is actively seeking to "get" judges.
Don't be foolish and think they will treat you differently because you did not join the union or because you work overtime without claiming credit hours. For example, there is no authorization to hold hearings by phone. The agency will verbally encourage you to hold prisoner hearings by phone. It will NEVER put that in writing. If you do hold such hearings and a prisoner files a lawsuit, the agency will not only abandon you but will actively seek dismissal or other discipline. The agency is considering such changes, but that is one example in many. Think you are being "good" and showing a "can do" attitude by carting around several laptops and digital recording equipment. Hope no one breaks into your car and steals a laptop or recorder, because the agency has so far refused to say a judge would not be disciplined if his/her car was stolen with such equipment in it.
Think reviewing raw files and paying lots of on the records is a good idea? They will love you until congress thinks too many people are on disability and then you will be blamed (this happened in the 1980's when high paying judges were subjected to special review by the agency).
I guess what I am saying is that only the union stands between you and the whims of the agency. This COSS simply invented the 500 to 700 a year "goal." No studies were ever done. Why not 1000 a year or 2000?
|
|
|
|
Post by tootsie on Feb 13, 2008 16:31:49 GMT -5
ALJSouth-
I hear you. I've been an NTEU member for almost 10 years. But, the fact is that those who do not pay dues also benefit as members of the bargaining unit. Paying dues is, in my opinion, expressing support for the union's position on labor/management issues in a way that matters most- through the wallet. I'd have a hard time doing that with the AALJ union at this point, especially with the complaint (paragraph 100) questioning the qualifications, experience and most egregiously, "independence of judgement" of the Federal attorneys!
What? Are they kidding? If so, it's not a very funny joke!
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 13, 2008 21:01:11 GMT -5
What aljsouth says is true as far as I know. However, I pose this question: if Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coast Guard JAGs manage to maintain active bar membership as required by the Judge Advocates General of the respective services, when when posted to places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or on board ships at sea, how is it an intolerable burden for ALJs to travel to another state to keep their active bar status if their state does not have judicial status for an ALJ?
The burden cannot be a financial one because ALJs make significantly more that senior field grade officers, and a whole lot more than company grade officers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Feb 13, 2008 21:13:27 GMT -5
What aljsouth says is true as far as I know. However, I pose this question: if Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coast Guard JAGs manage to maintain active bar membership as required by the Judge Advocates General of the respective services, when when posted to places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or on board ships at sea, how is it an intolerable burden for ALJs to travel to another state to keep their active bar status if their state does not have judicial status for an ALJ? The burden cannot be a financial one because ALJs make significantly more that senior field grade officers, and a whole lot more than company grade officers. My experience with the Army was training for the Queen of Battle so I have no knowledge of JAG  Does the army allow you time for cle or provide you with cle. SSA has been very stingy with the attorneys here and basically demand they use their own time. When I was a state judge the state gave us time and paid for our CJE. We could also get CLE and substitute it in some cases. I know SSA will refuse all requests for money; what about paid admin leave? They have refused on several occasions in the past for attorneys. Once again I am fortunate in having active status and being exempt from CLE. |
|
knownuthin
Full Member
Out of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Posts: 114
|
Post by knownuthin on Feb 13, 2008 22:05:35 GMT -5
I have taken 16 hours of administrative leave each year for CLE while I've been employed with ODAR. Unfortunately, ODAR doesn't pay for it. But at least it doesn't cost any leave.
|
|
cybear
Full Member
sic semper ursi
Posts: 57 
|
Post by cybear on Feb 13, 2008 22:53:48 GMT -5
What aljsouth says is true as far as I know. However, I pose this question: if Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coast Guard JAGs manage to maintain active bar membership as required by the Judge Advocates General of the respective services, when when posted to places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or on board ships at sea, how is it an intolerable burden for ALJs to travel to another state to keep their active bar status if their state does not have judicial status for an ALJ? The burden cannot be a financial one because ALJs make significantly more that senior field grade officers, and a whole lot more than company grade officers. Morg, You make an excellent point! As an outsider, I have to admit to some degree of incredulity at the whole idea that maintaining active bar status or attending CLE would be an issue. I teach, usually twice yearly, some practice-specific CLE. As a presenter, I generally have some discretion in choosing my topics, so I opt for issues which I find timely, of concern or just important. Preparing a manuscript requires me to organize my thoughts. Teaching requires that I learn well enough to explain matters esoteric to my colleagues. As a presenter, I generally get to attend the seminar for free and I get to learn from others who feel the same way about continuing education. I also teach a law office management course for my state bar. My audience is captive, either because of recent bar admission or for disciplinary reasons. A common denominator among the latter group, though by no means the only one, is that they view CLE as a chore, rather than as an investment in their careers. |
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 14, 2008 7:01:48 GMT -5
In my office, we treat CLE as training time.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Feb 14, 2008 9:27:08 GMT -5
I supported the initial lawsuit against OPM's regulation. It has no affect on me since I have two licenses: one judicial and one active. OPM has issued letters to others (either DOJ or SSA, I don't remember) saying no active license was needed after appointment. OPM simply lies in its adoption of its regs saying that this has been the rule all along. I did not support the attack on the register b/c of insider knowledge. I do disagree with some other aspects of OPM's regulations, none of which would invalidate the register. For those of you upset, well ... I would be too if I were an attorney at odar or other federal agency. However, don't be too quick to let hurt feelings damage you when you become an ALJ. Yes, there are problems with the union and you will not agree with everything it does or does not do. The same is true of every organization. However, it it the AALJ and NO ONE else that has gotten ALJ's work at home rights and the right to transfer without "pleasing' mangment types in 2 regions and falls church. Only the union stands between you and someone who wants to make an example of you because you did not do something the way they wanted it done. This is an agency that will not stand behind you; but is actively seeking to "get" judges. Don't be foolish and think they will treat you differently because you did not join the union or because you work overtime without claiming credit hours. For example, there is no authorization to hold hearings by phone. The agency will verbally encourage you to hold prisoner hearings by phone. It will NEVER put that in writing. If you do hold such hearings and a prisoner files a lawsuit, the agency will not only abandon you but will actively seek dismissal or other discipline. The agency is considering such changes, but that is one example in many. Think you are being "good" and showing a "can do" attitude by carting around several laptops and digital recording equipment. Hope no one breaks into your car and steals a laptop or recorder, because the agency has so far refused to say a judge would not be disciplined if his/her car was stolen with such equipment in it. Think reviewing raw files and paying lots of on the records is a good idea? They will love you until congress thinks too many people are on disability and then you will be blamed (this happened in the 1980's when high paying judges were subjected to special review by the agency). I guess what I am saying is that only the union stands between you and the whims of the agency. This COSS simply invented the 500 to 700 a year "goal." No studies were ever done. Why not 1000 a year or 2000? ALJSouth thank you for taking the time to put this law suit into the perspective of poor management/labor relations. Labor that of course is truly unique on a couple of different levels, not just legally. OPM is not defensible in terms of how they treat people. No quarrels on this blog. But to go into Court and attempt to stop the hiring--that's beyond the pale. Now I know what peejay said and he's right, they have obviously backed off of that goal, but they need to be taken to the woodshed on it and on the Count dissing the gov attys. |
|
Does the army allow you time for cle or provide you with cle. SSA has been very stingy with the attorneys here and basically demand they use their own time. 
