|
|
Post by sageadvice on Feb 20, 2008 16:40:39 GMT -5
So we're being hired to clean up a backlog...What happens after we've done a stellar job & there's no backlog? I have good seniority in my present job and with gloomy economic & job predictions nationwide, well, I'm feeling a bit skittish about leaving my currrent position for an ALJ position that may not exist next year. Any assurances? Also, I understand the local ODAR may have a number of retirements later this year. Will replacements be selected from the current register or will the positions disappear by attrition, in which case new hires may unwittingly be accepting positions now to carry caseloads that will become unreasonable? Let's talk...
|
|
|
|
Post by corrina on Feb 20, 2008 16:48:28 GMT -5
I would love to read a knowledgeable assessment of the life of the backlog. Given the forthcoming boomer retirements, is a quick turn-around actually possible even given an increasing mandate for annual opinions from ALJs? Are social security ALJs like water rights lawyers -- guaranteed security by growing need?
I've heard your thought expressed before and think some ODAR input would be most helpful.
Thank you very much, in advance, for your thoughts!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by texasatty on Feb 20, 2008 17:27:22 GMT -5
You bring up an interesting prospect: the possibility that we may not be retained by SSA on a permanent basis.
I was told by SSA employees that ALJs are initially hired on a probationary basis. If, by the end of the probationary period, SSA wishes, you can be let go, without their having to demonstrate cause. This is exactly how my agency operates, as well. I've also been told that the chance of unsuccessfully completing your probationary period as a SSA ALJ is infinitesimal. I make the same observation at my agency. In 21 years, I can only remember one person who did not survive the probationary period. And it was of great benefit to the agency that this person was let go.
For those of you in the know, is it correct that we would start "on probation", as described?
If I am hired with SSA, I will be leaving a coveted permanent federal position. I am more than willing to risk taking the ALJ job, with the risk, however limited, of not being retained on a permanent basis. The ALJ job will be much more challenging, and I think is much more important than what I'm doing now.
You've got to be willing to take some risk in life. To me, the possibility of being layed off with SSA is not worthy of worry.
No preocupes!
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 20, 2008 17:33:46 GMT -5
You bring up an interesting prospect: the possibility that we may not be retained by SSA on a permanent basis. I was told by SSA employees that ALJs are initially hired on a probationary basis. If, by the end of the probationary period, SSA wishes, you can be let go, without their having to demonstrate cause. This is exactly how my agency operates, as well. I've also been told that the chance of unsuccessfully completing your probationary period as a SSA ALJ is infinitesimal. I make the same observation at my agency. In 21 years, I can only remember one person who did not survive the probationary period. And it was of great benefit to the agency that this person was let go. For those of you in the know, is it correct that we would start "on probation", as described? If I am hired with SSA, I will be leaving a coveted permanent federal position. I am more than willing to risk taking the ALJ job, with the risk, however limited, of not being retained on a permanent basis. The ALJ job will be much more challenging, and I think is much more important than what I'm doing now. You've got to be willing to take some risk in life. To me, the possibility of being layed off with SSA is not worthy of worry. No preocupes! It is my understanding that the probationary period applies to Federal Employees, not to an ALJ position, per se, although I could be totally off the mark on that one. Pixie? |
|
|
|
Post by notafed on Feb 20, 2008 18:38:42 GMT -5
<<What happens after we've done a stellar job & there's no backlog?>>
You're kidding, right? There is ALWAYS a backlog; for the 25 years I have been practicing Social Security law, there has ALWAYS been a backlog. It is a question of how BIG the backlog is, not whether it exists. In 1989, it took about 4-6 months to get a hearing at my local ODAR. In the mid-1990s it stretched to 12-16 mos. Now it is going on 24 mos.
Given the forthcoming aging of the boomers, the number of claims is prrojected to continue to increase. The worse the economy is, the higher the number of claims filed. Think about it.
And I have never heard of a RIF of ALJs. Ever.
Then again, Sage, if you are skittish about leaving my currrent position, stay. I'll take your ALJ slot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Propmaster on Feb 20, 2008 18:51:25 GMT -5
I remember just after I started practicing Social Security law, the Creve Coeur ODAR got down to about 30 days wait for a hearing.  We would literally have to occasionally waive the 20 day notice in order to get a hearing scheduled less than 20 days after arrival at the OHA. Of course, this led to an increased level of holding the record open - clients usually came in around the time they appealed, and there had not been time to obtain medical source statements, etc. We would have issues about whether an impairment was going to meet the 12 month rule, because sometimes it was only 6-8 months after the application was filed!  Creve Coeur judges traveled the country hearing other OHA's cases. It was a dreamy time of rainbows and sparkling crystal joy. ;D Then there were a couple of ALJ issues with movements and transfers. Then came HPI, which instantly shut down the excellent sytem the OHA had developed.  Suddenly, cases that were not "certified ready to hear" sat waiting for the dwindling numbers of case-pullers to get to them, and the back log grew, and grew, and grew.  In the tummult from the HPI fallout, the ODAR (boy, that change was helpful) became average, at best.  Now we wait longer there than in other nearby ODARs. The end of an era.  In any case - to address the point - if the backlog was fixed next year at this time, the new ALJ's will still have job security. The ALJ corps is aging and ready to retire en masse. Newbies will find plenty of (ever-increasing) work to do; don't worry.  |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Feb 20, 2008 19:00:30 GMT -5
I have to agree. Every class I have ever heard of is told by those alleged to be in the know it is being hired at absolutely the worst time, since for [insert reason du jour here] there will be rifs etc. in the ALJ corps. Never happened. Far as I can tell, never gonna happen. Your mileage may vary. Use only as directed. Parental discretion advised. No other warranty expressed or implied. Unauthorized copying strictly prohibited. Do not read while operating a motor vehicle or heavy equipment. In case of eye contact, flush with water. Subject to approval. Apply only to affected area. May be too intense for some viewers.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Feb 20, 2008 19:11:34 GMT -5
It is my understanding that the probationary period applies to Federal Employees, not to an ALJ position, per se, although I could be totally off the mark on that one. Pixie? Well, while Pixie is off doing Pixie like things, I'll try to answer this one.  She can slap me silly if I get it off. The short answer is once you're sworn in as an ALJ, unless you committed fraud on your application, it's very difficult to get rid of you in the absence of some major wrongdoing on your part. So it's probably one of the most iron clad jobs in the federal system other than being a real Article III judge. This is because the Administrative Procedure Act provides significant protections to an ALJ in case of 1) removal, 2) suspension, 3) Reduction in grade, 4) Reduction in pay, and 5) furlough of 30 days or more. An agency cannot do any of the above withiout permission from the Merit System Protection Board first (i.e. so you have to litigate before the MSPB before you can do any of the above 5 things to an ALJ), and this applies as soon as you're sworned in. So any SSA employee that talks about a probationary period in the traditional sense probably doesn't know what he/she is talking about. If you want to read the MSPB's take on ALJ protection, Lloyd Tunik is a good decision to read even though it was reversed on another ground on appeal to Federal Court (and the underlying principle on MSPB jurisdiction has since be implemented into the CFR). You can find the decision here: www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=248671&version=248943&application=ACROBATHave fun! |
|
|
|
Post by sageadvice on Feb 20, 2008 19:24:01 GMT -5
Thanks for the sage info, Workdrone. You provided the legal assurance I sought. As for the offer to take my place, Notafed, Notachance. |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Feb 20, 2008 19:45:16 GMT -5
not being the Pix, I have none of her authority. However, I think Drone got it exactly right, so if we are wrong she can just slap us both silly. (not gonna happen)
|
|
cybear
Full Member
sic semper ursi
Posts: 57 
|
Post by cybear on Feb 20, 2008 21:37:16 GMT -5
The short answer is once you're sworn in as an ALJ, unless you committed fraud on your application, it's very difficult to get rid of you in the absence of some major wrongdoing on your part. So it's probably one of the most iron clad jobs in the federal system other than being a real Article III judge. Since Article III judges (state) are often subject to periodic elections or retention elections, one can argue that Article I judges are even more secure. |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Feb 20, 2008 22:20:26 GMT -5
The other advantage is no advise and consent of the senate either... which means no public hearings, so you can't get borked.
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Feb 20, 2008 23:34:42 GMT -5
Since Article III judges (state) are often subject to periodic elections or retention elections, one can argue that Article I judges are even more secure. Cybear, Point well taken on the re-election problems facing state judges. However, it would be a misnomer to call state court judges Article III judges because Article III refers to the section of U.S. Constitution that deals with the establishment of Federal courts by Congress (See Article III of U.S. Constitution). ALJs are Article I judges because legislative courts created by Congress are of various forms, and have differing levels of independence from the executive and legislative branches. They can be administrative agencies, Article I Courts set up by Congress to review agency decisions, or ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges. As for state courts, they are created through their respective State Constitutions, which has nothing to do with Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Hence while state judges are bona fide judges and should be treated with all due respect, they are not Article III judges created through the U.S. Constitution. I apologize for being picky, but we should keep our terms of art straight. [revised after Boo Boo's nice post ] |
|
|
|
Post by booboo on Feb 21, 2008 1:53:15 GMT -5
Since Article III judges (state) are often subject to periodic elections or retention elections, one can argue that Article I judges are even more secure. Cybear, Point well taken on the re-election problems facing state judges. However, it would be a misnomer to call state court judges Article III judges because Article III refers to the section of U.S. Constitution that deals with the establishment of Federal courts by Congress (See Article III of U.S. Constitution). ALJs are Article I judges because they are a part of the executive branch, which was formed through Article I of the U.S. Constitution. As for state courts, they are created through their respective State Constitutions, which has nothing to do with Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Hence while state judges are bona fide judges and should be treated with all due respect, they are not Article III judges created through the U.S. Constitution. I apologize for being picky, but we should keep our terms of art straight. This little bear just read your post and I also hate to be picky, but Article I establishes the legislative branch that vests all such powers in Congress. Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the executive branch. So by that logic federal ALJ's who are employed by executive branch agencies (e.g., DOL, HHS, HUD, etc.) are Article II judges (even though administrative agencies are sometimes called the "fourth branch" of government). Hope that clarifies things. If you're fortunate enough to be selected for one of these ALJ positions, your job is safe (just like Article III judges), regardless of whether you're classified as an Article I or II judge! Ah ... now that kind of job security is a nice thing to dream about as I go back to hibernating (snore). Boo Boo |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Feb 21, 2008 4:33:34 GMT -5
This little bear just read your post and I also hate to be picky, but Article I establishes the legislative branch that vests all such powers in Congress. Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the executive branch. So by that logic federal ALJ's who are employed by executive branch agencies (e.g., DOL, HHS, HUD, etc.) are Article II judges (even though administrative agencies are sometimes called the "fourth branch" of government). Hope that clarifies things. Boo Boo, Good logical reasoning, I got to remind myself to do some verification next time before typing from dusty recollections.  However, there's no such thing as an Article II judge. There are only Article I and Article III judges. Here's a link explaining the differences: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_I_and_Article_III_tribunalsI have modified my original post to reflect the correct info. Thanks!  |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 21, 2008 6:04:32 GMT -5
I read Drone's response hurriedly, but it seems to be on the money. Haven't had much time in the last few days to read the board.
There is no probationary period for judges.
Don't worry about clearing the backlog and then being let go. Neither is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 21, 2008 7:56:27 GMT -5
"So we're being hired to clean up a backlog...What happens after we've done a stellar job & there's no backlog?"
The backlog is well in excess of 600,000 with more added daily. Even if we all work like fiends, we will be well past the probationary period when the last of the backlog is processed.
"Any ideas about what we will do after we kill all these Persians?" -- Leonidas of Sparta
"Save some Indians for me!" -- George A. Custer to Tom Custer
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Feb 21, 2008 9:31:08 GMT -5
"So we're being hired to clean up a backlog...What happens after we've done a stellar job & there's no backlog?" The backlog is well in excess of 600,000 with more added daily. Even if we all work like fiends, we will be well past the probationary period when the last of the backlog is processed. "Any ideas about what we will do after we kill all these Persians?" -- Leonidas of Sparta "Save some Indians for me!" -- George A. Custer to Tom Custer Recapitulating earlier posts: 1. There is no probabtionary period for ALJ's. Ignore anyone who says there is. 2. The backlog ending? Hahahahahahahaha [gasp for breath] hahahahahah. Not in the working lifetime of anyone posting on this board. The claims have doubled and the ALJ numbers even with the new hire is basically about the same. |
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Feb 21, 2008 9:43:47 GMT -5
Didn't the OIG report accept the Administration's representation that a year's worth of claims was an acceptable amount pending, for scheduling purposes, and therefore not considered part of the backlog? Something like 440,000 claims? Sounds like a certain number of claims are now considered normal and to be expected. If we all get offers, get on board, and clear out all the backlog, we would still be far from empty handed (empty-desked? empty-computered?).
|
|
|
|
Post by morgullord on Feb 21, 2008 10:22:59 GMT -5
SSA's long-term goal is to process all disability claims within 166 days from the request for hearing date.
|
|
We would literally have to occasionally waive the 20 day notice in order to get a hearing scheduled less than 20 days after arrival at the OHA.
Now we wait longer there than in other nearby ODARs. The end of an era. 
She can slap me silly if I get it off.
However, there's no such thing as an Article II judge. There are only Article I and Article III judges. Here's a link explaining the differences:
