|
Post by sealaw90 on Jul 29, 2016 9:04:34 GMT -5
King and Queen County, Virginia. Actually, the town (home of a Smurfit-Stone paper plant whose sulfur dioxide emissions can be detected for miles around) might be at the tip of King William County. The Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers converge just East of the town to form the York River. When the York River reaches Yorktown, it and the Rappahannock converge to spill into Hampton Roads, thence to the Chesapeake Bay. Respectfully, Tom B I've been there! Thanks for the pronunciation lesson. As a born-and-bred New Yawker, I would've pronounced it "point" not "pint".
Kinda like Houston Street in lower Manhattan, which is pronounced differently than Houston, Texas.
|
|
|
Post by tom b on Jul 29, 2016 9:13:53 GMT -5
Yes, I'd always pronounce "lower Manhattan" differently from "Houston".
Respectfully, Tom B
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Jul 29, 2016 10:12:34 GMT -5
Yes, I'd always pronounce "lower Manhattan" differently from "Houston". Respectfully, Tom B " South Of HOuston" [just showing off my New York chops]
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 29, 2016 10:36:39 GMT -5
As to the cruise patches, you could have the lining partially removed, have the patches sewn in and then reattach the lining. That way the stitching doesn't show on the outside. Pixie Embroidered qualification insignia would be a capital idea. I still keep my dolphins on my desk - never thought of having them embroidered into my robe lining back in the day. Maybe a reversed image just to the side of the opening that becomes conspicuous when flitting about, flowing robe unbuttoned/unzipped! A submariner?
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Jul 29, 2016 10:49:20 GMT -5
YES, Ma'am. ETN2(SS).
And, of course, you know that it is pronounced: "Submarine-r" not "Sub-mare-in-er." Just for the record, a Sub-mare-in-er is a cartoon figure.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jul 29, 2016 13:28:52 GMT -5
Hey - someone in training feel like asking TPTB what they think is an appropriate level of support staff per ALJ, what they think ought to be done to prepare a case for hrg, and whether you should expect staff to comply with clear directions to be done POST. And what you as an ALJ are expected to do if you do not get that consistently?
While at it, might be nice to see an example of what TPTB think is the MINIMUM you should expect/accept in terms of a legally defensible draft. (Fortunately, better drafts are coming from RCACs/NCAs, but still stinks to regularly get worthless drafts from in-office writers/Sr Attys.)
Just saying, probably won't hurt to have more ALJs, but would be even more helpful to have more and more competent staff/writers and to get rid of the worst of the bunch. As you hear what they say during training, hope you are going back (or plan on transferring) to an office that is adequately staffed.
Seriously - in our 10 ALJ office we have - being VERY generous - maybe 5 minimally competent SCTs. I'd be curious how folk at HQ would suggest such staff be allocated/trained to adequately support 10 ALJs.
|
|
|
Post by southernfun on Jul 29, 2016 14:12:33 GMT -5
Hey - someone in training feel like asking TPTB what they think is an appropriate level of support staff per ALJ, what they think ought to be done to prepare a case for hrg, and whether you should expect staff to comply with clear directions to be done POST. And what you as an ALJ are expected to do if you do not get that consistently? While at it, might be nice to see an example of what TPTB think is the MINIMUM you should expect/accept in terms of a legally defensible draft. (Fortunately, better drafts are coming from RCACs/NCAs, but still stinks to regularly get worthless drafts from in-office writers/Sr Attys.) Just saying, probably won't hurt to have more ALJs, but would be even more helpful to have more and more competent staff/writers and to get rid of the worst of the bunch. As you hear what they say during training, hope you are going back (or plan on transferring) to an office that is adequately staffed. Seriously - in our 10 ALJ office we have - being VERY generous - maybe 5 minimally competent SCTs. I'd be curious how folk at HQ would suggest such staff be allocated/trained to adequately support 10 ALJs. Since you brought up support staff. Since March, ODAR seems to have lost about 100 decision writers; I assume it's to details and promotions to senior writers and group supervisors.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Jul 29, 2016 14:21:01 GMT -5
The best writers and SCTs get promoted, and either don't get replaced, or get replaced with poorly qualified veterans. Leaving offices with fewer and less qualified staff. Don't see how that is a sustainable model, but HEY! More ALJs!!
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Jul 29, 2016 14:33:00 GMT -5
What GS do DWs get hired in at and are they hired from within now? I don't recall seeing DW vacancies posted on USAJOBS thus I would guess they are hired from within now. I know previously at least some were hired from the outside. I think Funkyodar traveled the route of an outsider to insider via a DW position....iirc.
|
|
|
Post by anotherfed on Jul 29, 2016 14:35:25 GMT -5
Purple paisley is the ultimate robe lining...
Just sayin'...
|
|
|
Post by outlander on Jul 29, 2016 14:36:26 GMT -5
Yes, I'd always pronounce "lower Manhattan" differently from "Houston". Respectfully, Tom B " South Of HOuston" [just showing off my New York chops]every day is an education on this board
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Jul 29, 2016 15:11:15 GMT -5
Just don't get that other house, what was it? Puffinstuff? Hufflepuff Also were Slytherin and Ravenclaw.
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jul 29, 2016 17:54:28 GMT -5
What GS do DWs get hired in at and are they hired from within now? I don't recall seeing DW vacancies posted on USAJOBS thus I would guess they are hired from within now. I know previously at least some were hired from the outside. I think Funkyodar traveled the route of an outsider to insider via a DW position....iirc. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but regular attorney-advisers at ODAR are hired in at GS-11 (with promotion to GS-12 after a year or two, I forget which), and I would venture to guess most if not all of them are hired from outside the agency, seeing as it technically can be filled by an entry-level attorney. Now if by "inside" you mean inside the federal government, certainly some applicants apply from other agencies - when I was hired (from outside), one of my classmates was coming over from being an attorney-adviser at OMHA - but I certainly don't think the job announcements, when they happen, are restricted to current feds. Frankly, it would not be a destination of choice for many current fed attorneys.
Senior attorney-advisers, on the other hand, are GS-13 and most if not all of those positions are indeed announced only internally.
I would guess that the reason AA jobs in ODAR are not being listed on USAJOBS has to do with the hiring freeze. Also, within the past year or two NTEU negotiated a transfer system similar to that which exists for ALJs: you can put your name on a list for up to 5 cities, they have to work it before hiring for vacancies, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 29, 2016 19:37:28 GMT -5
The best writers and SCTs get promoted, and either don't get replaced, or get replaced with poorly qualified veterans. Leaving offices with fewer and less qualified staff. Don't see how that is a sustainable model, but HEY! More ALJs!! The best paralegal writer in our office is a retired Army NCO. Her work is impeccable. Management just has to be careful who is promoted to paralegal. Going by seniority is a recipe for disaster. Pixie.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 29, 2016 19:55:00 GMT -5
We had a presentation today from the Director of the National Hearing Centers who is also over the NCACs.
It sounds like they do quality work.
I know lots of offices are under staffed but from talking to my classmates I don't think most offices are in doom and gloom mode as described above.
The reality is with telework and electronic files the staff in your office is far less relevant than the agency's overall staffing level.
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jul 30, 2016 23:12:42 GMT -5
A number of us took a classmate who is getting married soon out for a bachelorette party this evening. It was subdued as those things go but it was a blast. We did a Potomac River cruise and it was great.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 11:51:37 GMT -5
"The best writers and SCTs get promoted, and either don't get replaced, or get replaced with poorly qualified veterans. Leaving offices with fewer and less qualified staff. Don't see how that is a sustainable model, but HEY! More ALJs!!"
Let's analyze this.
"The best writers and SCTs get promoted..." Ok, no problem that I see with this statement. That process of striving to be best thus resulting in a promotion is called American business model 101. Bravo I say.
"...and either do not get replaced, or get replaced with poorly qualified veterans." Well, again, business model 101. Once someone is promoted then the usual procedure is to either replace that person or not to replace them. If not replaced then that is usually indicative of the former position no longer being necessary to business function and eliminated. Again, simply business, no problem there. If replaced, then, yes, by logic the replacement with always have lesser qualification than those being promoted upward. To do otherwise would mean that the promotion that occurred is not a promotion (i.e., cognizant of increased qualification of an individual resulting in their shift upward to a more demanding position) at all, but simply a lateral business move wherein the outgoing person is equal in all aspects to the incoming person. In regard to the use of the term "veterans" that is not clarified. Does the post mean "veterans" of the place of employment itself? Again, that would be logical and most replacements within an office would be the result of re-assignment by other employees of the same employer; i.e., veterans. Or does the post mean "veterans" of a military nature? This would be a non-relevant sub-itemization as the replacement person is already being inserted into that position because of their qualifications (poor or otherwise) according to the post. Hence a military reference is a non-sequiter.
"leaving offices with fewer and less qualified staff" Again, business 101. If the position is not replaced, then ipso facto there are fewer persons on staff. No problem. However "less qualified staff" could not be logically true. With no replacement staff incoming then the staff that was in office remains the same, less the outgoing persons. The supposition then is that the remainder staff persons, who are the same staff as before, have suddenly become "less qualified" in their same jobs that they were performing as before, due to the removal and/or vacancy of some other unrelated personnel within that office. In other words, since Jane left her job, John is now less qualified to do his job. This is not a logical argument.
This leaves to the final statement of the above business 101 models resulting in "more ALJs". This also is an illogical statement. The post does not explain how the loss (by attrition, retirement, termination, etc of an office SCT directly results in the hiring not only of just one but "more" ALJs is not explained in any logical business sense, especially in view of the fact that the recruitment, hiring, qualifications, etc. of an SCT vs. an ALJ are entirely and completed unrelated business operations and agencies. I personally have yet to see any writer or SCT that was promoted have their former positions replaced and filled by more ALJs, but, again, this is the US government and anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Aug 1, 2016 8:13:22 GMT -5
How many of the 160+ ODAR offices have you served as HOCALJ? Just one. To papajudge - sorry if I did not phrase my comments in "business 101" terms you appreciate. I do not see it as terribly confusing. Say an office has 10 ALJs, and 15 SCTs. Let's apply the rule of thirds, and say 1/3 of the SCTs are really good, 1/3 are average, and 1/3 are poor. Over time, the top 5 SCTs transfer or are promoted. So the office now has fewer SCTs, and the average quality of them is lower than before. Sure, there will always be a "top third" of any group, but this top third was below the level of the previous top third. And there is no guarantee that the bottom 2 thirds will improve to the level of those who left. I'm not sure why this would be confusing, or why you feel it would be inaccurate to describe that as "fewer and less qualified staff." But I transferred out of business school as an undergrad... I do not have access to national staffing levels, but in all of the HOs in which I served, past years have seen an ongoing decrease in staff per ALJ. In the last 2 HOs, it is down to a level at which I cannot imagine how the number and quality of staff are expected to serve the ALJs. My understanding (possibly incorrect) was that the majority of clerical/writing hires were to be in shared resources such as RCACs and NCACs. If you are fortunate enough to be in an HO that has an adequate number of competent support staff, you may not understand what such a situation is like. Bear in mind that I am convinced that my expectations in terms of support are EXTREMELY low, and that I am VERY low maintenance in terms of PRE, POST, scheduling, MEs, etc. All I want is someone to glance at the damned file SOMETIME before the hrg to exhibit the evidence that was received, have some idea who is going to show up, and maybe proffer the evidence POST as I expressly asked before moving it to ALPO... I've long since given up on the hopes that someone will supplement my efforts by exercising a little initiative to identify potential problems/solutions. You know - the kind of support a JUDGE might expect? I've often said, assign me a competent SCT and a competent writer, and I'll gladly and easily double my dispositions. But that's not going to happen. I'm all for recognizing, rewarding, and promoting the most capable. Was my business model as HOCALJ. But to be sustainable, such a system requires hiring and training replacements - as well as promptly getting rid of candidates who do not measure up. Our workload is too heavy, and budgets and staffing too lean, to keep unproductive staff at ANY level (including ALJs.) In my opinion, increasingly aggressive and competitive hiring, and increasingly aggressive training/discipline/firing of unproductive staff are badly needed. No matter what they say on conference calls and such, IME HQ and OGC have not sufficiently supported efforts to remove folk who have proven themselves incapable or unwilling to to the job required. And, yes, "veterans" referred to ex-military. Of course there are qualified veterans. We've got an ex-military GS who is top-notch. But if you have not been in a hiring position, you may not be aware of the many situations in which you are allowed to fill a position ONLY from a list of veterans. I have no objections to affording some modest preference among qualified candidates to veterans, but that is not at all what is being done. My experience is only anecdotal, but as a HOCALJ I repeatedly was presented lists of veteran candidates who grossly lacked the skills, temperament, or even apparent inclination to perform the jobs at issue. In such instances, I often concluded it was better to leave the position unfilled, than to fill it with a poor candidate. To reiterate, in my current HO, the last 5 clerical hires were off of such lists of veterans. I cannot honestly say that a single one of the 5 is really good at their job. At their best, a couple of them are adequate. All 5 have screwed simple duties up far more often than I would expect. Is it better to have these 5 than none? Perhaps. But in today's economy, I would hope we would be able to competitively hire at least a couple of candidates with greater skill, aptitude, and temperament for the position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 9:00:50 GMT -5
Sorry but I must disagree. If an office has 15 SCTs ( 5 are good, 5 are fair and 5 are poor) and the top 5 are promoted out then per your logic the overall quality is left poorer. This is not statistically correct. Removal of top 5 leaves 10 scts. So statistically of the remaining 10 left, 3.3 would now be the good, 3.3 would now be the fair and 3.3 would now be the poor. The overall personnel scenario must statistically remain the same.
As far as staff decreases, our office lost through attrition and transfer this past month, 2 clerks, 2 writers and one ALJ now and 1 other this past year. Based on our office size that is about 40% reduction in clerical staff/writers in one month and with recent transfers a similar percentage reduction in ALJs with no plans replace same that we are aware of. Yet we continue with our case loads as before (I even increased mine per month) and our office production processing rate remains extremely high at national award levels.
Thus IMHO, and offices do differ, we are significantly down in staff and ALJs yet we continue with output, even increasing same. How and why? If there is a problem with an employee and/or their work, we address it quickly and directly and train and retrain as necessary, including ALJs. Someone gets behind another steps up to assist. Do I have an assigned sct? Yes, right outside my door, who takes care of my calendar, cases, who is going to show, etc. (In that regard I never use ALPO, I use only unwr, post, edit, and sign) So from what I can gather in your posts, the problem appears not to be a substandard employee issue but more or less a volatile one of no one being in charge and running things at your office.; i.e. lack of management. Thus the replacement of employees, good, fair, poor will have no effect on office production as long as there is a lack of top management. Replace or do not replace employees, will make no difference in overall office quality and production.
In regard to the quality of military veterans in the workplace, as a non-vet I leave that loaded topic to TIGERLAW to address. I will now take cover accordingly,
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Aug 1, 2016 9:25:06 GMT -5
Sorry but I must disagree. If an office has 15 SCTs ( 5 are good, 5 are fair and 5 are poor) and the top 5 are promoted out then per your logic the overall quality is left poorer. This is not statistically correct. Removal of top 5 leaves 10 scts. So statistically of the remaining 10 left, 3.3 would now be the good, 3.3 would now be the fair and 3.3 would now be the poor. The overall personnel scenario must statistically remain the same. I don't know if we are defining terms differently or what, so please explain some more. If I am simply missing something, I will willingly try to adjust my thinking. (Must admit, statistics as the reason I transferred out of business!) If I have 9 cars: 3 drive 30 mph and never break down; 3 drive 20 MPH and break down 1x/mo; and 3 drive 10 MPH and breakdown weekly. Overall average MPH is 20. Multiplied by 9 cars you have (abstractly) 180 MPH (20 x 9) for any time period. And 1/3 the staff never break down. Remove the top 1/3. You now have 6 cars, which average 15 MPH. Multiplied you have 90 MPH for any period. And each car breaks down at least monthly. I'm not sure how those situations are the same, or how the second is not significantly worse. Sure, you can always pursue increased efficiency and attempt to "do more with less." And most of us can work harder than we have in the past. But I do not believe such a trend is infinite. If it were, eventually 1 person (or no one?) would be capable of doing an infinite amount of work. Different people might disagree as to precisely where the tipping points are. I've personally experienced 2 offices where I think it has been passed. But, perhaps I AM just an ignorant whiner...
|
|