|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 19, 2016 15:31:49 GMT -5
I know the data is available and at a much finer level of granularity than this. What I am suggesting is that the data be used better.
Also that data set doesn't tell you anything about the number of hearings scheduled per month. Hearings scheduled per month as opposed to dispositions per month is of course the metric the agency is clinging to in its bid to hold telework over judge's heads.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Sept 19, 2016 15:35:41 GMT -5
I know the data is available and at a much finer level of granularity than this. What I am suggesting is that the data be used better. Also that data set doesn't tell you anything about the number of hearings scheduled per month. Hearings per month as opposed to dispositions per month is of course the metric the agency is clinging to in its bid to hold telework over judge's heads. Hearings scheduled =/= hearings held Rep requests among many other things reduce the scheduled number when reality sets in. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 19, 2016 15:42:58 GMT -5
I know the data is available and at a much finer level of granularity than this. What I am suggesting is that the data be used better. Also that data set doesn't tell you anything about the number of hearings scheduled per month. Hearings per month as opposed to dispositions per month is of course the metric the agency is clinging to in its bid to hold telework over judge's heads. Hearings scheduled =/= hearings held Rep requests among many other things reduce the scheduled number when reality sets in. Excellent point I edited my post to add some clarity. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Sept 20, 2016 15:50:46 GMT -5
Gaidin, I am not sure what you are talking about, but all three sentences in my post were copied verbatim from the ALJ newsletter and quoted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 20, 2016 17:06:45 GMT -5
Gaidin, I am not sure what you are talking about, but all three sentences in my post were copied verbatim from the ALJ newsletter and quoted. Bart it wasn't a problem with what you said. I know it came straight from the newsletter. It was a problem with the third sentence. It appears to be saying that less than half the judges schedule 45 hearings per month. However, the preceding sentence indicates 48% of judges schedule 50 hearings per month. I'm not sure whether Judge Zahm just made a mistake with her statement, if there is simply data unavailable to us the reader, or something else. It seemed like a useful misstatement to further the Union's efforts to get the telework threshold reduced. While I support that cause I just wish there was greater effort to do so using office based as opposed to national numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Sept 20, 2016 23:19:01 GMT -5
Here's a few facts that might encourage all you sitting ALJs:
When Commissioner Astrue was appointed (by President Bush) in 2006, both houses of Congress had a republican majority. The agency was able to convince Congress to increase spending to hire more individuals to work on the backlog. It was larger now that it was then, but that effort was successful, which resulted in a lot of hiring 2007-2009. Incidentally, new registers were established in 2007 & 2009. Since that time, Congress may have significantly reduced the budget of other agencies, but not SSA. I'm not entirely sure if SSA's budget was increased in any of that time, but there were no serious reductions. This program has a direct connection to millions of constituents. Congress may bark loudly, even about federal employees, but this is a coveted agency.
Several of us are curious why SSA doesn't hire fast and furious. This cert especially seems slow and smaller than expected. There are MANY vacancies. Many ALJs retire or leave for whatever reason each year, creating more vacancies. The hiring freeze for staff is largely because there aren't enough ALJs. Since SSA's budget hasn't been significantly reduced in over a decade, the funds to pay for all these employees exists. What SSA does with this money, I have no idea. This year I believe they have hired more than in years past, but it still seems far short of what is needed.
So here are two concepts. Congress is not interested in reducing the budget for SSA or letting go of SSA employees. More employees are needed and there are still many vacancies. With the backlog larger than it's ever been, even more employees can be added. Sounds like a good time to be on the register. As noted above, the entire top spot of leadership in FC will be leaving, which if you think of it, is a given knowing that a new administration, elephant or donkey, will begin in January. Nothing more will be done until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Sept 21, 2016 5:40:33 GMT -5
Puzzle Palace has a history of not hiring to budget. They always blame OPM, but the reality is that they are just picky. They would much rather leave three vacancies than hire one potential problem.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2016 6:39:57 GMT -5
As noted above, the entire top spot of leadership in FC will be leaving, which if you think of it, is a given knowing that a new administration, elephant or donkey, will begin in January. Nothing more will be done until then. This is the singular statement that any applicant, newbie and sitting ALJ need pay any attention.
SSA budget allotments? Pffft. Number of hearings scheduled? Pffffft. Number of dispositions issued? Pfffft. Number of ALJs to be hired, incoming, outgoing, on register? Pfffft. New policies, memorandums of understanding, recommended practices being issued? Pfffft.
The controlling head(s) of the entire system and process is going to be replaced with who knows what within the next 100 days. That boulder is already loosed and rolling. Stand aside. Keep your head up and eyes open. Keep doing what you are doing. Nothing lasting will occur until that boulder stops in DC.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 21, 2016 8:13:03 GMT -5
... Several of us are curious why SSA doesn't hire fast and furious. ... The hiring freeze for staff is largely because there aren't enough ALJs. ... I agree with you that SSA has been extremely fortunate in terms of budget, and that I have not seen that money as well spent as it could in terms of supporting the local HOs. My understanding is that a great amount of $ and FTEs went to NCACs and RCACs - which are a great improvement over the worst writing I've encountered in my last 2 offices. Unfortunately, those worst local writers are still churning out garbage. But I strongly disagree with your assumption that additional ALJs are needed, and that there are sufficient staff to support even existing ALJs - not to mention new hires. I am only familiar with the staffing levels of fewer than 5 HOs, but every one of those 5 lacks sufficient competent SCTs/LCTs/GSs to support the number of ALJs currently there. We've got 1 fewer ALJ than our office is designated to support. We have approx. 1.6 SCTs per ALJ. MAYBE 1/3 of those are what I would consider good, and another couple minimally adequate. The remaining 1/3 are worthless, and should have been fired long ago. We have 2/3 of our allotted LCTs - with no sign of plans to hire another. Of our GSs, 2/3 are currently here on details. While they are doing a fine job - in some cases better than the folk they replaced, there is no way to have continuity with such a revolving door. But heck, we've got an open ALJ office and we could jam a couple more into writers' offices. So long as those of us here aren't being adequately supported, why not add a few more? In my HO, and the other HO I am most familiar with, ALJ production is dropping off the cliff due to a lack of clerical, writing, and managerial support - not because of a lack of ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Sept 21, 2016 9:38:29 GMT -5
In the office I'm heading to, I've already been told that due to lack of ALJ office space, I'll be given a writer's office until an ALJ office opens up (which is fine by me). But this makes me wonder about the staffing levels at this office - and without adequate staffing, I expect that my learning curve as a baby judge may be a bit steeper than if there is sufficient support staff.
Then again, aside from having a free writer's office, I have no idea what the staffing situation is there.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Sept 21, 2016 11:42:29 GMT -5
Don't take my comments to mean that I believe there is a sufficient amount of staffing per ALJ. There isn't. I remember a mentor of mine when I was first starting out that any attorney worth his salt can keep two secretaries/paralegals busy. We definitely need more SCTs and writers and quality of work isn't where I would like it. However, management has decided to freeze staff because the HOs are not at full capacity with ALJs. I don't agree with that decision, but it is the decision that was made.
It is not an assumption that more ALJs are needed. It is a fact. If you look at production from the workload summary, you may see in many offices the backlog is that not enough hearings are being held to address the cases taken in by the HO. In my office alone, we are short 6 ALJs. Empty offices that need filling. We have thousands of cases worked up waiting to be scheduled, but there isn't enough ALJs to conduct hearings to move the cases. I did two details to Miami conducting 35 hearings each week to help with their aged cases. I wasn't the only one. They had about 20+ visiting judges but it barely made a dent into their aged case backlog. That office was down 3 ALJs and probably needed 4. In talking with many of my fellow ALJs, there are vacancies all over, but there are also offices that are filled to the brim as Baymax has discovered. This is the reason that there was no hiring freeze for ALJs. More of them are needed to conduct hearings. More staff cannot get more hearings done.
I have noticed a drop in production from the staff at about the time that they were permitted to go on telework. I'm not suggesting that they are working to capacity or high standards. Some of them could do better. Some are very good. However, there are a lot of empty spaces. If they expect to chip away at the backlog, they need more hiring of ALJs, staff and writers. Expect the hiring freeze to be lifted in 2017.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 21, 2016 12:39:35 GMT -5
It is not an assumption that more ALJs are needed. It is a fact. You quite possibly are correct, but I've long doubted that ANY amount of additional hiring of ALJs will be sufficient. Look at the difficulties we've had keeping pace with attrition in recent years, despite unprecedented hiring. Unless the Agency steps up to reform the process, and the nation decides what sort of a safety net it wants for it's least successful members, trying to knock down the backlog through hiring additional ALJs impresses me as a Sisyphean task. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 21, 2016 13:27:45 GMT -5
In the office I'm heading to, I've already been told that due to lack of ALJ office space, I'll be given a writer's office until an ALJ office opens up (which is fine by me). But this makes me wonder about the staffing levels at this office - and without adequate staffing, I expect that my learning curve as a baby judge may be a bit steeper than if there is sufficient support staff. Then again, aside from having a free writer's office, I have no idea what the staffing situation is there. In my opinion and experience, the level of support you'll get is quality driven, not quantity driven, unless it's just completely bare bones in the office with a few support staff members running around with their hair on fire. It's the same with writing and attorneys, too, though sending decisions out might yield a smaller chance of the writer catching and fixing potential problems, though I've had NCAC writers catch my mistakes and fix them, too. You won't know until you get there, and outsiders particularly won't know until they can actually recognize the problems, if any. Training in a good office will be done with some help from the staff. Training in a bad office will be done by the AC. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 21, 2016 13:55:22 GMT -5
Training in a good office will be done with some help from the staff. Training in a bad office will be done by the AC. You should get this framed. |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 23, 2016 12:19:55 GMT -5
We've got 1 fewer ALJ than our office is designated to support. We have approx. 1.6 SCTs per ALJ. MAYBE 1/3 of those are what I would consider good, and another couple minimally adequate. The remaining 1/3 are worthless, and should have been fired long ago. Just heard that one of the 4-5 capable SCTs will be leaving shortly. Same old story - got a better opportunity elsewhere. So we'll have fewer than 1 "good" SCT for every 2 ALJs. Someone want to explain to me how an office could hope to function with that level of support? |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 23, 2016 13:08:01 GMT -5
We've got 1 fewer ALJ than our office is designated to support. We have approx. 1.6 SCTs per ALJ. MAYBE 1/3 of those are what I would consider good, and another couple minimally adequate. The remaining 1/3 are worthless, and should have been fired long ago. Just heard that one of the 4-5 capable SCTs will be leaving shortly. Same old story - got a better opportunity elsewhere. So we'll have fewer than 1 "good" SCT for every 2 ALJs. Someone want to explain to me how an office could hope to function with that level of support? I don't know. There's not a good answer obviously. The short answer/long solution is to essentially document all of the issues you're having with staff that's causing you problems to all of the office management. Keep doing the best you can do without killing yourself to do 1-2 additional jobs beyond your ALJ position. If at the end of the year your RCALJ or HOCALJ emails you about why you've dropped below 500, forward that person all of those documenting emails. Until we're allowed to hire/fire our staff, there's not a whole lot else we can do beyond our best. And while we are public servants, owe the public our best, and generally have a job that many Americans might consider to be relatively easy when compared to manual labor, our best effort does not include mentally grinding ourselves into the ground to the point of burnout, half-assed decision making, or, perhaps worst of all, indifference. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Sept 23, 2016 13:12:52 GMT -5
One thing that might help is to get to know how the office runs. Working in government most of my career, I rarely had someone that would assist me with my work. I largely did a lot of it on my own. I have since learned how to use the electronic systems in ODAR (CPMS, eView & others) to my advantage and making my work more efficient. The SCTs and GSs can help with this. Feel free to ask around how "others" do it. You may find easier ways to do the same job with less help. I did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2016 13:52:53 GMT -5
I am very lucky; in our very small office we have individual scts assigned to us and it works out extremely well. In short my sct takes my hand, pats me on the head, and tells me where to go, where to be, what to do every day. I do as I am told and all is well.
On the other hand, a co-ALJ who left our humble abode to go to the big city ODAR tells me that she is now in the new "pooled" sct system wherein a different sct is working the claim or with an ALJ every day. The ALJ spends most of her time trying to figure out what is going on in a case/docket/post/alpo etc by having to first figure out who the sct of the day is, and then repeating the process ad nauseum every new morning.
Kind of like Groundhog Day only in reverse.
Says it is a freakin' nightmare of office management.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 23, 2016 14:23:37 GMT -5
One thing that might help is to get to know how the office runs. I've been a HOCALJ in the past, and have some idea of how the office is supposed to run. But IMO being a decent ALJ, turning out 500 decent quality dispositions is pretty much of a full time job. I've already accepted any number of tasks that eBP says should be done by staff. But there is a limit as to how many additional tasks I can assume - even if I wanted to, while still trying to do a minimally acceptable job at my own duties. I have a hard time criticizing current mgmt in our office, because I have no idea how I would be able to handle the office's workload and minimally support the ALJs given the number and quality of staff. I'd likely make an effort to can the worst writers and clericals. But so long as add'l hiring of competent individuals is not permitted, that really doesn't solve the problem. Yeah, I have not heard an ALJ who thinks the "pooled" system is workable, but it clearly seems to be the current trend. The pool would be inconvenient yet workable IF there were sufficient staff in the pool and IF a majority of the staff were minimally competent/dedicated. We got neither, and the pool is getting shallower and shallower ... |
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Sept 23, 2016 14:33:48 GMT -5
I'll also add (in case my posts suggest otherwise) that I don't think I am a high maintenance prima donna.
I have decades with the federal gov't, doing nearly all of my own typing, and adding toner and paper to the copying machines since day 1. I consider myself pretty low maintenance compared to many of my fellow ALJs, in terms of PRE/POST development, MEs, supp hrgs, etc. I have previously had single SCTs assigned to me, and never had one of them complain that I was difficult to service, request reassignment, or anything like that. To the contrary, competent staff have repeatedly told me how easy I was to work for. I'm convinced I could do my job adequately with 1/2 of a good SCT assigned to me.
Just saying that my expectations and needs are VERY low, yet despite that, the current staffing falls woefully short. I can't imagine the culture shock of someone coming in from outside the government, thinking they would actually get treated as they expect a judge reasonably near the top of the federal payscale and with a lifetime appointment to be treated.
|
|
