Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 8:52:49 GMT -5
Pixie's coffee talk is correct. Word here as elsewhere is that the proposed hiring freeze is no longer in proposal stage but is in actual effect. Our own prior request to fill much needed vacancies (writers, ALJ's, etc) has now garnered an "ain't gonna happen".
Sorry to rain on parade but for those in flux on here wondering "will they, will there be, are they going to"...the reply building up rapidly is a frigid "no".
|
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Nov 10, 2016 9:00:09 GMT -5
Until there is a federal budget, there will be no hiring under the continuing resolution. With the election returns in and the result, I suspect we will not even get a budget until after the new president takes office. As for OPM to continue its testing, that should continue. That is part of their mission and they have to keep a register with a "sufficient number" of candidates at the ready for any agency who does any hiring.
There can be hiring done even during a "freeze." I was hired during one. What an agency can or cannot do depends on the nature of the "freeze." I have seen where there was a freeze in all new hires for ODAR while the field offices could hire and vice versa. The last time any new hires were brought into my office, the constraint was that only veterans could be hired. Even when the Asdell litigation was pending and all hiring of ALJs was prohibited, SSA got permission to hire a limited number of judges due to exigent circumstances.
As anxious as you are to see the hiring and selection process proceed, there is nothing anyone can do right now but wait. And as you do wait, I suggest that you ignore the past hiring since 2007 as the pattern for what will be. As Pixie said, there is an animus against federal employees and until that dies down, any hiring will be closely scrutinized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 9:44:09 GMT -5
The critical effects of freeze are already being felt. For example the numbers of decisions out for writing has exponentially increased to the highest levels I have ever personally experienced, some offices I know are reporting a backlog of decisions out for writing now in the several hundreds just for a single office.
With little to no staff (writer) hiring/replacements now expected, ALJs may well meet and exceed their hearing rates and instructions issued for the upcoming year(s) only to find that their all important enumerator "dispositions issued" has fallen to lows and shortages never expected. What does this mean in the long term? The overall national backlog for SSA claims increases even more and a decreasing corps of ALJs may very well face the fact that their better course of action will be to start writing their own decisions now to keep their expected annual disposition rates in par. Of course writing your own decisions means less time to have hearing and issue more decisions.
Let the circles of finger pointing begin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 10, 2016 9:47:46 GMT -5
The critical effects of freeze are already being felt. For example the numbers of decisions out for writing has exponentially increased to the highest levels I have ever personally experienced, some offices I know are reporting a backlog of decisions out for writing now in the several hundreds just for a single office. With little to no staff (writer) hiring/replacements now expected, ALJs may well meet and exceed their hearing rates and instructions issued for the upcoming year(s) only to find that their all important enumerator "dispositions issued" has fallen to lows and shortages never expected. What does this mean in the long term? The overall national backlog for SSA claims increases even more and a decreasing corps of ALJs may very well face the fact that their better course of action will be to start writing their own decisions now to keep their expected annual disposition rates in par. Of course writing your own decisions means less time to have hearing and issue more decisions. Let the circles of finger pointing begin. And, unfortunately, point they will. |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Nov 10, 2016 9:51:07 GMT -5
Let's not forget about mid-term elections and perhaps take a longer view. If there are any amateur historians out there -- It wasn't long ago that a Contract on with America was proposed -- 1994 -- and then in a November 13, 2000, article by Edward H. Crane, president of the libertarian Cato Institute, stated, "...the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." I think a wait and see approach is best.
(Edit -- seriously did not do that on purpose -- wow -- it is funny how brains work sometimes...)
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaru on Nov 10, 2016 11:07:57 GMT -5
I think people may be reading the election tea leaves wrong. It doesn't take more hiring to fix SSA. There are some statutory and administrative changes, if anyone cares to look at them, that can reduce the pendings. In my short time here, I can already identify a few. Now don't pile on me here. I am not advocating for anything, but just stating things that might be considered: 1. Streamline appeals by establishing harmless error standard at AC and USDC level. Would reduce picayune remands. 2. 5-day closure rule on the record (should be waivable by ALJ for good cause). 3. Eliminate child cases over 5 years old unless claimant unable to attend school (ADA requires disability accommodations and services at public schools from K-12). 4. Update aging rules. 5. Integrate SSA law with ADA, so that VEs will consider the possibility of required employment accommodations for claimants in the workplace. 6. Expressly allow outright dismissals for no-shows, with right to refile if good cause shown. Any thoughts? I hereby appoint you to the transition team. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Nov 10, 2016 11:09:55 GMT -5
My .02 is that there will likley be a general hiring freeze, but I do not think it will effect SSA. SSA is one of those agencies that has the most contact with the constituency that propelled the president elect to his current position. Those workers who are having a hard time finding employment and who the economy has left behind. They are also often older. Many of them file for disability, have experience with the administration. They have personally experienced the back log and have phoned their senators about it.
I think that a more streamlined SSA process, including quicker hearings (reduced back log), would be right up the President Elects alley in delivering a responsive government to that constituency. One of the very things that constituency has complained of and one of the reasons why the voted for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Nov 10, 2016 11:24:17 GMT -5
It's my understanding that President Elect Trump has someone very close to him with with a disability. I have read about meetings he's had and his plans to help those with special needs. I don't think he's going to leave our disabled to die waiting for a hearing. Any cites to a place describing these meetings? First I am hearing of it. The only memory I have of him addressing anything to do with disability is when he was publicly mocking a reporter with MS or Parkinson's or something. Does not inspire confidence.
You know what would be cool? A candidate who actually articulated his policy ideas prior to the election so we aren't trying to divine what he might do based on relationships he may or may not have.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Nov 10, 2016 11:28:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Nov 10, 2016 11:29:31 GMT -5
My .02 is that there will likley be a general hiring freeze, but I do not think it will effect SSA. SSA is one of those agencies that has the most contact with the constituency that propelled the president elect to his current position. Those workers who are having a hard time finding employment and who the economy has left behind. They are also often older. Many of them file for disability, have experience with the administration. They have personally experienced the back log and have phoned their senators about it. I think that a more streamlined SSA process, including quicker hearings (reduced back log), would be right up the President Elects alley in delivering a responsive government to that constituency. One of the very things that constituency has complained of and one of the reasons why the voted for him. That would be awesome and I hope you are right. However, in my experience as a rep, most claimants first blame politicians or other disabled people for having to wait for a hearing (famous red flag quote: "I'm not like your other clients, I'm really disabled!"). There's not a lot of logical coherence. Claimants are just as likely to call congress and demand that SSA's budget be frozen as "punishment" for not working fast enough or to "incentivize" them as they are to call for increased funding. I mean why would you hire more people when the ones there aren't doing the job already?
Anyway, that's my (incredibly demoralizing) experience working with claimants, but I hope for all our sakes that your scenario turns out.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Nov 10, 2016 13:25:13 GMT -5
Well, as someone who is in a quasi rural area and has worked precinct level politics in several states let me note: 1. As to claimants understand that they're likely to want whatever it takes to get their benefits. If it's an agency that isn't paying them, sure, cut those whiny bureaucrats. 2. Look at history--many have come saying they would clean house. And yet, I recall one of the larger agency buildings being constructed during President Reagan's term. Plus ca change. There will be symbolic sacrifices--look for EPA to suffer the death of a thousand cuts (though it could as well have a James Watt type who just uses it to regulate out certain industries that compete with certain others. I forsee it renamed the Enviornmental Resources Agency, and have "Minimum particle requirements" regulations.) Think I'm wrong? Commerce has had a pretty contention free existence and the new admin will probably note how they've added to it's budget! Happy fish! 3. ODAR isn't a blip on anyone's radar. Clearing backlogs are only good if the sytem's "users"--the folk that have more numbers of votes--get paid; reduce backlog by draconian case measures, as has been suggested and a)Odar becomes known and b) develops a consituency that is not at all friendly and c) faces inquiries as to why it's cutting benefits... trimming rolls only will be politically acceptable on the SSI side. Consider: disabilityplanningdata.com/site/state_population_table.php?state=kentuckyYou cut Title II claimants through the internal regulatory and rules changes as someone suggested, you think you won't get a "who's the darned jackass who's denyin' all our constitutents claims for benefits they worked their entire lives for" inquiryfrom the Kentucky delegation? Consider whether the Kentucky Delegation cares about the voting block of ODAR employees and administrators? Do You think a Congressman or Senator wants to hear a backlog was cleared by steps that denied Mrs. x, who together with the x family of 40 very upset voters? Mrs x & family is way more important than admin stats on case clearance. Develop internal practices that have the effect of tightening the benefit tap and 1)ODAR becomes not just a blip on many radar screens but a glowing, target-type, threat alert sounding blip; 2) it develops a negative consituency. Recent returns suggest this is not a good thing. 3)recent results suggest you can only mess with rural constituencies so long.Bet some of those voters had claims denied. Yup. Even minimal government Rand Paul (R, Ky) wants so much to have poor Johnny McCampbell from Hodgenville, who is married in to the Atheys, you know them from over by Salt Lick Crik, well you know they' ALL kinda wound up over it and that means Judge Mathers from La Rue's going to be calling,....." Benefits are Personal. Personal is family. Family can be numerous. All politics is Local. Don't be stirrin' up families. There's a basket in the corner where y'all can put your administrative concerns. Thus endeth the lesson for today. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Nov 10, 2016 14:20:01 GMT -5
That was a bit long, so executive summary:
For the purposes of this very particular discussion we can agree that the swamp needs draining;
OAR is an island in the swamp'
Draining would therefore--should therefore--leave ODAR high and dry;
Because it is the aqueduct which carries the precious benefits to claimants (read constituents) everywhere, it must be, as part of the infrastructure development, refurbished, augmented, so that there are no delays caused by stenotic funding of ODAR.
'leastways that's the outline of the approach I'd take were I the Congressional educator for ODAR.
PS Happiness would then reign in Hodgenville, Salt Lick Creek, La Rue, and throughout this bountiful, wonderful and---dare I say it --GREAT--America.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 10, 2016 14:48:18 GMT -5
Letter to the editor in my local paper this morning. Interesting.
Paper should investigate Social Security payments
Has the [newspaper]considered investigating how Social Security’s refusal to grant disability or supplemental income benefits contributes to homelessness?
I have a renter who has rheumatoid arthritis. He applied for SSDI in March 2016 and SSI in September. He has received neither. SS has not given him any reason why he is not getting SSDI or SSI, so he can’t even appeal their decision.
He is doing odd jobs for me around the house and yard in exchange for rent or he would be now living in his car. (Although that would be short-term as he would have no money for gas and have to abandon the car for the streets.)
He cannot find work because he cannot guarantee he would be able to physically work on all assigned days. At some point, I will run out of odd jobs and he will have to leave for the street.
This enrages me that this guy paid into SS for decades and now they are not helping him. I doubt he is the only one in ______ County in this situation.
Maybe finding others in my renter’s situation might help my renter, and those already on the streets.
/s/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 17:22:00 GMT -5
Right but why couldn't he be a surveillance system monitor? I'm only half joking but he's really just 2 years away from that step 5 denial. Odd jobs .. Couldn't physically perform everyday.. He's done. A lack of knowledge is huge in people's perception of the program most don't understand its not that you can't do your old job you did when you were a young whippersnapper, it's you can't do any job oh and by the way it basically doesn't matter if you could actually get offered that job just that in theory according to a publication DOL publishes and some guy with a a rehab degree said you could
Try telling Rand Paul you can't work because of your rheumatoid arthritis.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmccol on Nov 10, 2016 17:38:33 GMT -5
You may well be right, Colonel. However, it seems the plan is imbued with a "government is no good" sentiment. Semper Fi. There's not going to be a Trump presidency. At least not this election cycle. Oops. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Nov 10, 2016 18:08:11 GMT -5
I am not optimistic about where we're headed with the budget. I'm not sure what to think at this point in terms of staffing, hiring, etc. other than we're way understaffed at this point to keep up with the current workload, let alone cut into the backlog. I believe we're projected to end the FY with over 200k in UNWR due to the limited writing staff we currently employ. That's 20% of the backlog just sitting there waiting to be written (although by the end of FY2017, it may only be 12-15% as it continues to climb).
I guess we'll see what happens in a few months. Until then, grind on everyone!
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Nov 10, 2016 19:22:39 GMT -5
Patience - I am not sure it is time to panic. Not yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by queenie262 on Nov 10, 2016 23:47:52 GMT -5
There's not going to be a Trump presidency. At least not this election cycle. Oops. whatever. I listened to the polls. |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Nov 11, 2016 8:14:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure that I agree with the recent posts in this thread, most of which seem to imply that a multi year government wide hiring freeze is inevitable.
1. Remember our high school civic lessons. Congress controls the purse strings. As wacky as this Presidential election was, Congress is still populated with traditional politicians. Just because Mr. Trump made certain election promises doesn't mean that Congress is going to automatically fall in line and help him accomplish those promises when they will impact the ability of the Congress members to be reelected. Republicans have long used the smaller government rhetoric but have rarely lived up to that rhetoric. The growth of government has not lessened in any significant manner under recent Republican led governments.
2. While the party labels say republican for the House, Senate and President, this by no means a homogenous government. There is almost as much tension between Congress and the President-elect as there is between Congress and the current President. Mr. Trump's positions often stray from traditional GOP positions and quite frankly, many of his positions overlap with traditional Dem positions. Bottom line, this government will not be a streamlined ship with singular captain headed in one direction. Whether enough of the members of Congress will go along with an indiscriminate govt wide hiring freeze is questionable. Many of the current members of Congress will be well aware of the negative consequences at the polls from the last time the GOP tried to shut down the government.
3. A step back is in order when discussing the doom and gloom emanating from the agency insiders and those within the Beltway. All of the political appointees are democrats that have enjoyed an 8 year run of democrat leadership. They thought that this was a sure thing for Mrs. Clinton. Now that they have suddenly lost the Presidential election they thought was a done deal and are about to be out of a job, they see the end of the world. Of course they foresee apocalyptic results for their agencies. I don't think that relying on what you hear out of the "deep blue" D.C. area or from the politically appointed democrat leadership of the agencies is really indicative of what will happen. They currently, and reasonably, lack the ability to objectively project the future.
4. Basic inertia and momentum also play a part. The U.S. government is a large unwieldy thing. It isn't built to turn on a dime and trying to make such large changes that are in the total opposite direction in which it is currently headed is difficult and long term. It is a bit like trying to turn around a battleship in a bathtub. U.S. history is rife with Presidents who have made campaign promises and tried like heck to implement them with little success. It is easy to promise; hard to deliver.
5. Obviously it is silly to think that Mr. Trump will not try to deliver on such a prominent campaign promise and I expect that there will be some type of freeze enacted for a short time. He will then declare that he achieved his promise and hiring will start again. This will not be a multi-year freeze with no hiring. I would be surprised if an absolute hiring freeze lasts beyond this fiscal year. From the perspective of ALJ hiring, this really likely hurts the persons currently on the register hoping for a substantial hiring action before the '16 applicants hit the register. For the '16 applicants who aren't likely to be on the register until mid to late summer anyway, I don't think this projected hiring freeze will create any long delays that aren't already inherent in the process. Even if the future budgets don't provide for increasing SSA ALJs to the projected 1900, there is still significant attrition each year. Even if the agencies are limited to just replacing those that leave, there will still be significant hiring of ALJs. Quite frankly, it looks to me that other than the recent large class, ODAR has been hiring at replacement level for the last few years despite their avowed intention to increase the size of the SSA ALJ corp. So hiring at the same rate as the last few years is a reasonable expectation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Nov 11, 2016 8:29:48 GMT -5
I'm not sure that I agree with the recent posts in this thread, most of which seem to imply that a multi year government wide hiring freeze is inevitable. 1. Remember our high school civic lessons. Congress controls the purse strings. As wacky as this Presidential election was, Congress is still populated with traditional politicians. Just because Mr. Trump made certain election promises doesn't mean that Congress is going to automatically fall in line and help him accomplish those promises when they will impact the ability of the Congress members to be reelected. Republicans have long used the smaller government rhetoric but have rarely lived up to that rhetoric. The growth of government has not lessened in any significant manner under recent Republican led governments. 2. While the party labels say republican for the House, Senate and President, this by no means a homogenous government. There is almost as much tension between Congress and the President-elect as there is between Congress and the current President. Mr. Trump's positions often stray from traditional GOP positions and quite frankly, many of his positions overlap with traditional Dem positions. Bottom line, this government will not be a streamlined ship with singular captain headed in one direction. Whether enough of the members of Congress will go along with an indiscriminate govt wide hiring freeze is questionable. Many of the current members of Congress will be well aware of the negative consequences at the polls from the last time the GOP tried to shut down the government. 3. A step back is in order when discussing the doom and gloom emanating from the agency insiders and those within the Beltway. All of the political appointees are democrats that have enjoyed an 8 year run of democrat leadership. They thought that this was a sure thing for Mrs. Clinton. Now that they have suddenly lost the Presidential election they thought was a done deal and are about to be out of a job, they see the end of the world. Of course they foresee apocalyptic results for their agencies. I don't think that relying on what you hear out of the "deep blue" D.C. area or from the politically appointed democrat leadership of the agencies is really indicative of what will happen. They currently, and reasonably, lack the ability to objectively project the future. 4. Basic inertia and momentum also play a part. The U.S. government is a large unwieldy thing. It isn't built to turn on a dime and trying to make such large changes that are in the total opposite direction in which it is currently headed is difficult and long term. It is a bit like trying to turn around a battleship in a bathtub. U.S. history is rife with Presidents who have made campaign promises and tried like heck to implement them with little success. It is easy to promise; hard to deliver. 5. Obviously it is silly to think that Mr. Trump will not try to deliver on such a prominent campaign promise and I expect that there will be some type of freeze enacted for a short time. He will then declare that he achieved his promise and hiring will start again. This will not be a multi-year freeze with no hiring. I would be surprised if an absolute hiring freeze lasts beyond this fiscal year. From the perspective of ALJ hiring, this really likely hurts the persons currently on the register hoping for a substantial hiring action before the '16 applicants hit the register. For the '16 applicants who aren't likely to be on the register until mid to late summer anyway, I don't think this projected hiring freeze will create any long delays that aren't already inherent in the process. Even if the future budgets don't provide for increasing SSA ALJs to the projected 1900, there is still significant attrition each year. Even if the agencies are limited to just replacing those that leave, there will still be significant hiring of ALJs. Quite frankly, it looks to me that other than the recent large class, ODAR has been hiring at replacement level for the last few years despite their avowed intention to increase the size of the SSA ALJ corp. So hiring at the same rate as the last few years is a reasonable expectation. Agree 100%. Folks -- we have seen this before. Take a deep breath. |
|
