|
|
Post by christina on Sept 14, 2016 16:37:38 GMT -5
Supp: I do find it interesting that next month ALJs will begin using WeTA to electronically sign in and out instead of the papertrail sign sheets we have been using. In light of same, we should realize that in stark actuality our physical presence as ALJs will no longer exist. The record of attendance on the job will not be our true selves, but will actually instead be the recorded attendance of exactly when our laptops logged on and logged off. The agency will be watching our laptops as to work attendance, production, etc., and not "us" bodily per se. Taken to extreme hypothetical conjectures, one could theorectically propose that ALJs are merely administrative physical "index finger" enactors of logging on and off agency laptops, whereas the laptops themselves are the true agents of actual work time production and events, including numbers of dispositions issued annually. That said, my laptop is telling me to go ahead and take a coffee and apple fritter break so it can continue to work on scheduling upcoming dockets and move some dispositions. Sounds good to me. I feel like you just said our robot overlords are coming and they will be the least terrifying but most beauracratic overlords ever. uh yikes |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Sept 14, 2016 17:15:53 GMT -5
Supp: I do find it interesting that next month ALJs will begin using WeTA to electronically sign in and out instead of the papertrail sign sheets we have been using. In light of same, we should realize that in stark actuality our physical presence as ALJs will no longer exist. The record of attendance on the job will not be our true selves, but will actually instead be the recorded attendance of exactly when our laptops logged on and logged off. The agency will be watching our laptops as to work attendance, production, etc., and not "us" bodily per se. Taken to extreme hypothetical conjectures, one could theorectically propose that ALJs are merely administrative physical "index finger" enactors of logging on and off agency laptops, whereas the laptops themselves are the true agents of actual work time production and events, including numbers of dispositions issued annually. That said, my laptop is telling me to go ahead and take a coffee and apple fritter break so it can continue to work on scheduling upcoming dockets and move some dispositions. Sounds good to me. You had me at apple fritter.... I used WebTA (the online web based time and attendance sheet for those who do not know) when I was a senior attorney. It works great and once you get used to it, it is no big deal. The difference is changing from paper to online. No difference in the rules. Sign in sign out, log your time. Simple as that. I am actually shocked ALJs have not been subject to it before now, but maybe we (ALJs) are not as quick to learn as the rest of the staff at ODAR.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 6:57:09 GMT -5
I am a big proponent of anything that replaces paper, so the WebTA is a welcome update of an otherwise completely pointless and nonessential process.
I must admit I am quite amazed (astounded) at some of the responses of ALJs around the country who are literally freaking out about having to learn a "new computer process" over the next two weeks.
For all so concerned: Here is Lesson 101 of how to use the new fangled WebTA compared to current paper process:
Current paper sign in process:
1. Hand write-in your log in and log off times
New fangled WebTA sign in process:
1. Type in your log in and log off times |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 15, 2016 7:16:48 GMT -5
I dunno, man. You can't sign in until after the 3-5 minutes it takes your computer to boot up. Of course you are allowed a grace period, but that might require doing some math in your head. Could add a whole new wrinkle for those dedicated professionals who are fretting whether they'll be able to schedule 45 hrgs a month instead of 46, or whether they will get to use every second of credit hours earned!  |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 15, 2016 7:41:43 GMT -5
i like webta. im not a judge as i think everyone knows. if computer does not load up within 5 minutes, i sign in at time my office phone says(that is our office procedure) with a note that computer did not load up within 5 minutes. not a big deal but make the notes.
what i really like is i can see exactly how much leave i have at all times, im in use or lose category so i can also see that balance, and i can keep better track of my credit hours since i can see my balance at all times.
once i and our sups got used to webta, i prefer webta. we have to do our own timekeeping at end of each pay period, which is a minor hassle but again, once you get the hang of doing this, overall webta is much easier and convenient than paper. Welcome to the Big Brother of timekeeping!
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 15, 2016 8:08:56 GMT -5
WebTA is used by many federal agencies for years without any glitches, so it is not really the horrible Big Brother some may think, but it is helping SSA get into the 21st century. (No slight to you Christina, I know you like WebTA)
Now if they'd only update some of the vocational issues you ALJs talk about, that would be REAL progress!
|
|
|
|
Post by funkyodar on Sept 15, 2016 8:23:38 GMT -5
I think, but admittedly don't know for sure, that the issue for webTA and the ALJs was twofold. First, the union wanted there to be some way time spent by judges that was uncompensated to be notated in webTA. My understanding is that was remedied. Note the following language in the roll out email:
• "A new pay-code is available in WebTA called FRF-Forfeit. You may use the code to record unpaid and/or unauthorized work time that extends beyond your tour of duty. When using the FRF code in webTA, time must be recorded in fifteen-minute increments. Time recorded using the Forfeit code will not be compensated when your timesheet is processed."
This will allow better record keeping of just how much time judges actually spend working. This is important given the contract's now explicit confirmation that ALJs are allowed to work outside of compensated or credit hour time frames. The union wants a real, true accounting for obvious reasons.
The second issue is the same one that plagues the roll out of any new technology. There are many ALJs that are simply uncomfortable with technology. They don't like eBP, eBB, FIT or anything computer based and that includes timekeeping. It is what it is and, with the passage of time that contingent is shrinking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 9:59:19 GMT -5
WebTA, 450-500 dispositions per year....[shrug]
As I was just discussing with fellow OK1956, "if" the powers that be would let us ALJ's review and dismiss the hearing requests of all the frivolous claims out there, disposition rates of 800-900 per year would be easily doable.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 15, 2016 11:02:39 GMT -5
As I was just discussing with fellow OK1956, "if" the powers that be would let us ALJ's review and dismiss the hearing requests of all the frivolous claims out there, disposition rates of 800-900 per year would be easily doable. Ah, but there is no such thing as a frivolous claim. Every single claimant is among the most vulnerable of Americans, entitled to great process. And their representatives are all professional and responsible, greatly assisting in the efficient administration of the program. Meanwhile, we highly compensated chicken deboners have vast resources and crack staff at our beck and call...  |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 15, 2016 11:47:21 GMT -5
After reading the conversations about the dispositions, I wondered how far is reality from speculation? So I looked at the CAR, the case analysis report, for the nation. It shows how many judges work for ODAR but also adjusts for how they are counted as available for hearing cases. These are adjustments for HOCALJs, ROs, CALJ and newly hired ALJs in their training period with limited dockets.
Thru the end of the report period in 8/2016, there were 1339 available judges and 585,145 dispositions. That averages to 437 per judge. Based on this for 11/12 of the fiscal year, the total dispositions for the year would be projected to be 638,340 with an average of 476 per judge.
As you are aware, the average means some go over that number and some under. But these numbers certainly suggest that dispositions of 500 per year are attainable. If a judge is not hitting the 450-500 range, maybe that judge to engage in a little self-examination versus finger-pointing.
And no, I won't hit 500 dispositions this year. However, I feel I have a very good reason for that failure that had nothing to do with management or the support staff. As those who have read my posts know, my spouse was terminally ill from January 27 to March 19. I am on track to have 460 or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Sept 15, 2016 12:21:09 GMT -5
redryder, that is the most legitimate reason I have heard why an ALJ wouldn't reach the magic number.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2016 15:19:08 GMT -5
red you are a stronger man than I; my best to you!
|
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 15, 2016 15:31:37 GMT -5
Papajudge, bless your heart. I come from a long line of steel magnolias and strong men. It's in the genes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2016 15:18:04 GMT -5
LOL, got it!!!! Only in the South could one bless a heart for the other's (my) faux pas and each understands completely!! Carry on!
|
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Sept 17, 2016 9:30:38 GMT -5
christina , I have heard the same rumor, that the hiring freeze will extend to Judges for at least early fiscal 2017. My WAG? This is the last cert until mid-fiscal 2017, that is until next March or later. We have the same wag then I'm late to chime in, but I heard the same "rumor" at our latest staff meeting. Before seeing corroboration on the board, I thought that it was just bluster to get Congress to increase the budget allocation, but if TPTB want to play the "you told us to hire ALJs but we can't until you give us more money" card, this would be the ideal* time to do it, since it will likely be summer 2017 before the ~1600 (WAG) names who passed the 2016 exam are added to the register.
*Recognizing that no time is ideal for those currently waiting on the register.
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 19, 2016 11:00:09 GMT -5
From the latest Union newsletter: "In 2013, the benchmark year Judge Bice chose, about 80% of hearing offices issued 500 dispositions per judge per year and scheduled 50 hearings per judge per month.
As of 2016, the Agency’s own data shows that only about 45% of hearing offices issue 500 annual dispositions per judge and only about 48% schedule 50 hearings per month.
Since fewer than half of our Judges schedule 45 cases per month, how can the Agency deem 45 as a “reasonable” number that we all can reach?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 19, 2016 13:28:52 GMT -5
From the latest Union newsletter: "In 2013, the benchmark year Judge Bice chose, about 80% of hearing offices issued 500 dispositions per judge per year and scheduled 50 hearings per judge per month. As of 2016, the Agency’s own data shows that only about 45% of hearing offices issue 500 annual dispositions per judge and only about 48% schedule 50 hearings per month. Since fewer than half of our Judges schedule 45 cases per month, how can the Agency deem 45 as a “reasonable” number that we all can reach?"I was really curious about the bolded sentence because that is not what the data cited in the newsletter says. The preceding sentence says less that 50% of the judges are scheduling 50 hearings a month. Then she goes on to say fewer than half are scheduling 45 cases per month. That may also be true but isn't included in the data she cited.
All that being said I am not sure whether 45 is a reasonable number to schedule or not. It certainly gets you over 500 for the year and doesn't include the possibility perhaps even likelihood that you will pick up hearings for other ALJs and dispose of well over 500 cases per year. What I would love to know is what is an average judge (not management and not a newbie) producing in each office. Then you can start to get a sense of what is reasonable in each office based upon reality not based upon a national standard that the agency wants to make as high as possible and the Union wants to make as low as possible.
Tupelo ain't Jersey City and neither of them is anything like Seattle why try to impose an all encompassing number that isn't realistic. Better to put offices in 3 - 5 bands and say that performance should be within a band based upon actual conditions.
|
|
order
New Member
Posts: 11 
|
Post by order on Sept 19, 2016 14:21:42 GMT -5
You can see the ALJ disposition data for each ALJ in each office by googling "ALJ Disposition Data." (I tried to put in the link, but it didn't work.) That doesn't tell you how long anyone has been an ALJ or whether he/she is a HOCALJ, but you can generally assume that someone who did 4 cases in FY15 is pretty new.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Sept 19, 2016 14:27:00 GMT -5
You can see the ALJ disposition data for each ALJ in each office by googling "ALJ Disposition Data." (I tried to put in the link, but it didn't work.) That doesn't tell you how long anyone has been an ALJ or whether he/she is a HOCALJ, but you can generally assume that someone who did 4 cases in FY15 is pretty new. Or switched hearing offices, did a detail, picked up a few cases for an office or transferred from another agency. |
|
order
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by order on Sept 19, 2016 14:34:38 GMT -5
Or retired! I forgot that, too!
|
|
