|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 19, 2016 0:12:24 GMT -5
I just don't know how many more ALJs they can bring on while there is still a hiring freeze for all other staff. Offices around the country are decimated. Someone needs to work up the file and someone needs to write the decision or we simply have not increased our service to the public. Yes, that was the problem through the late 1900s and the early to mid 2000s. Congress just wouldn't fund the the program. Let's hope we aren't reprising our past underfunding with the current Congress. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by seeker7 on Nov 22, 2016 1:02:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 22, 2016 16:47:06 GMT -5
I just don't know how many more ALJs they can bring on while there is still a hiring freeze for all other staff. Offices around the country are decimated. Someone needs to work up the file and someone needs to write the decision or we simply have not increased our service to the public. Yes, that was the problem through the late 1900s and the early to mid 2000s. Congress just wouldn't fund the the program. Let's hope we aren't reprising our past underfunding with the current Congress. Pixie I sadly suspect funding the current program may not be on The Agenda. Where's the constituency? |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 22, 2016 19:05:35 GMT -5
Yes, that was the problem through the late 1900s and the early to mid 2000s. Congress just wouldn't fund the the program. Let's hope we aren't reprising our past underfunding with the current Congress. Pixie I sadly suspect funding the current program may not be on The Agenda. Where's the constituency? Are you kidding? How about the 1.7 million people waiting for a decision? |
|
|
|
Post by Lawesome on Nov 23, 2016 7:57:38 GMT -5
Another way to think about it (I'm always trying to stay positive)... if they change the program to provide more regulation on the receipt of benefits (which I'm expecting will happen), this could potentially cut off a bunch of recipients. This, in turn, could mean more judges needed due to the sharp rise of both CDRs and subsequent applications. It could happen...  And the glass is ALWAYS half full. |
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Nov 23, 2016 9:32:42 GMT -5
Well, let me share my "magic money" theory of government. If TPTB want something bad enough, there's ALWAYS money for it, no matter what the budget or economy or general outlook would otherwise seem to indicate.
The fat lady isn't even warming up her vocal cords, so keep calm and carry on.
J
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 25, 2016 11:29:12 GMT -5
In 2013, in the middle of the shutdown (furloughs), my old agency managed to steal money from others in the department and actually grew a little bit because it was an Obama administration priority. JmcJP is right. It's really impossible to tell what the new administration will do with SSA in general and ODAR in particular, so I'm not responding to the speculation and fear-mongering. We'll know by spring what's the future for ODAR. Anything could happen. Meanwhile, if you're in the running, don't drop out. Keep pushing for that ALJ position.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 26, 2016 16:15:00 GMT -5
To all, listen to jagvet. Great wisdom. He has always encouraged me to keep up the faith and hope when I've had downtimes And so have many others |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Nov 27, 2016 11:36:48 GMT -5
I sadly suspect funding the current program may not be on The Agenda. Where's the constituency? Are you kidding? How about the 1.7 million people waiting for a decision? Ironically, this number is smaller than the number of people in the popular vote gap - the 2.5 million more people who voted for the candidate that lost the electoral college than voted for the person who won the electoral college. If 2.5 million people are not a big enough constituency to matter, 1.7 million people would not be enough to do it either. Having said that, the post in this thread linking to an article on the states with the most people on SSDI reveals that the top ten states are all states whose electoral votes went to the candidate who won, so maybe it will matter. We're now officially in bizarro world so it is hard to know how these things will shake out. |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Nov 27, 2016 11:46:30 GMT -5
Are you kidding? How about the 1.7 million people waiting for a decision? Ironically, this number is smaller than the number of people in the popular vote gap - the 2.5 million more people who voted for the candidate that lost the electoral college than voted for the person who won the electoral college. If 2.5 million people are not a big enough constituency to matter, 1.7 million people would not be enough to do it either. Having said that, the post in this thread linking to an article on the states with the most people on SSDI reveals that the top ten states are all states whose electoral votes went to the candidate who won, so maybe it will matter. We're now officially in bizarro world so it is hard to know how these things will shake out. Amen! So, maybe it is time to stop overthinking and just do what we must to be eligible when this all shakes out? Gotta be in it to win it. |
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Dec 8, 2016 11:27:25 GMT -5
This was on one of the other threads (administration plans and Iput it on two others)
yesterday at 11:44am carrickfergus said:
Per Charles Hall's blog, either the Senate or House(I don't remember which), under the terms for FY 2017 appropriations the committee wants SSA to ensure that 25% of new ALJ hires are made to the NHCs. So leaving out Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, and ABQ would probably disproportionately reduce your chances of getting picked up.
There are other interesting items in those bills that are worth looking at.
socsecnews.blogspot.com/
If you read the article, looks like money for slots, money for IT, etc.
ALJ's may want to fan this Congressional/Senatorial committee interest to amplify what has been accomplished despite cutbacks by attrition, what could be accomplished, get potential coalition going with attorney/claimant groups, ABA, AAJ,
Legal Services types (NLADA), to make this a feel-good, benefits are coming to your district.
(I know some are carrying a torch for limiting new evidence--but that's not a coalition builder, it's boring, so I would put that bottom of the priority list. You want that more than better IT, better staffing, new hires to ease the collective load--it's a free country. You want a coaltion--go with the coalition partners).
Seems like relatively good news to me--at least they are looking at ODAR and not thinking cuts.
Thanks to carrickfergus for a new source, too
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Dec 8, 2016 11:30:19 GMT -5
Regarding the above, I'm not sure what if anything is in the bill for support staff, but if they are thinking about money for IT I would hope they'd be thinking about those that use it besides the ALJ's. Something is better than nothing or a cut further.
With the stocking you get some coal--especially with the new administration.
|
|
dwfl
Full Member
Posts: 32 
|
Post by dwfl on Dec 8, 2016 22:05:19 GMT -5
If NHCs get additional ALJs, then the NHCs will also get additional staffing. Each NHC ALJ is assigned two attorneys. An expansion of NHC ALJs will result in attorney hiring being funneled to NHCs at the expense of understaffed hearing offices. If your office relies on NCAC or a writing unit, that will probably continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Dec 9, 2016 4:22:26 GMT -5
If NHCs get additional ALJs, then the NHCs will also get additional staffing. Each NHC ALJ is assigned two attorneys. An expansion of NHC ALJs will result in attorney hiring being funneled to NHCs at the expense of understaffed hearing offices. If your office relies on NCAC or a writing unit, that will probably continue. White doesn't the NHC's depend on the NCACs for writing? I don't see the Agency moving from the NCAC model of writing for hearing offices. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 9, 2016 7:11:29 GMT -5
just wanted to point out i think only the House bill wanted 25 percent of the ALJ hires in an NHC. at least i think so. i don't remember seeing that in the Senate version. and this is starting to take speculating pretty far out there even for me who can WAG with the best of them!!! we don't even have a proper budget yet...  Good day everyone! |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Dec 9, 2016 10:12:08 GMT -5
If NHCs get additional ALJs, then the NHCs will also get additional staffing. Each NHC ALJ is assigned two attorneys. An expansion of NHC ALJs will result in attorney hiring being funneled to NHCs at the expense of understaffed hearing offices. If your office relies on NCAC or a writing unit, that will probably continue. Silly wannabe question: I thought only experienced ALJs were assigned to the NHCs. If so, how could 25% of new hires be for them, assuming that experience requirement stands? Don't get me wrong, being in the land of Rahm, I would gladly go to Chicago NHC if offered, but believed that would not be an option. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Dec 9, 2016 10:17:34 GMT -5
If NHCs get additional ALJs, then the NHCs will also get additional staffing. Each NHC ALJ is assigned two attorneys. An expansion of NHC ALJs will result in attorney hiring being funneled to NHCs at the expense of understaffed hearing offices. If your office relies on NCAC or a writing unit, that will probably continue. Silly wannabe question: I thought only experienced ALJs were assigned to the NHCs. If so, how could 25% of new hires be for them, assuming that experience requirement stands? Don't get me wrong, being in the land of Rahm, I would gladly go to Chicago NHC if offered, but believed that would not be an option. The agency has at least in recent days only allowed experienced ALJs to work in NHCs. That however is not statutory, and even if it were Congress could certainly make this change. It is only in one House's version of a bill that will die with the end of this Congress, so it is probably premature to worry about/celebrate it. Let's see what the next Congress proposes. |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Dec 9, 2016 10:59:24 GMT -5
Silly wannabe question: I thought only experienced ALJs were assigned to the NHCs. If so, how could 25% of new hires be for them, assuming that experience requirement stands? Don't get me wrong, being in the land of Rahm, I would gladly go to Chicago NHC if offered, but believed that would not be an option. The agency has at least in recent days only allowed experienced ALJs to work in NHCs. That however is not statutory, and even if it were Congress could certainly make this change. It is only in one House's version of a bill that will die with the end of this Congress, so it is probably premature to worry about/celebrate it. Let's see what the next Congress proposes. Gary's advice is the voice of reason and restraint. Things change from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. Take everything with a healthy dose of skepticism until things actually start taking shape. |
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Dec 9, 2016 11:15:30 GMT -5
Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Coincidence perhaps but I don't believe that the NHC ALJ's are unionized?
|
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Dec 9, 2016 11:27:32 GMT -5
That is correct, they are considered management.
|
|
