|
|
Post by christina on Jan 28, 2017 12:10:12 GMT -5
So what happens if you do not care about telework because you rather come into the office? When you work you do the best you can and do not compromise your ethical principles. You work the full eight hours, you take your vacation time every year. At the end of the year, despite your best efforts your total case disposition is 400. If there is no appraisal system, if you are supposed to be independent decision maker what can happen to you? Do you get a butt chewing? Do they write you up? If not then this telework is the only thing that they have over you and if you do not care for it then this continues to be a great job! you will get multiple butt chewings. likely in part to aggravate you enough to get more cases out. at this point, i don't think there is too much more agency can do. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 28, 2017 12:39:54 GMT -5
hopefalj, ok, in my office the newest Judge has been a Judge for over 5 years. Most Judges are 7 years or more, however, disposition rate per Judge is 1.34. So how are you going to explain that away? Not sure as I'm not sure what your office staffing looks like. Could be holidays, could be other issues. I do know your office kicked over 1.8 per ALJ last FY, so it looks like a temporal anomaly. I remembered something else prompted by TL's post and relying on dispositions. As has been much discussed, we're in a hiring freeze. We have a dearth of writers across the country. Last October, there were over 30k decisions in UNWR. As of this month, it's over 50k. By the end of September, it'll be well over 100k. Should a judge that has 460 written decisions with another 60+ in UNWR get punished because those decisions aren't written? Which reminds me, keep a good thought out for Monty, aa7, Debbie, christina, etc. as they are going to have immense pressure to overproduce to try and combat the glut of unwritten decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 28, 2017 12:58:00 GMT -5
hopefalj, ok, in my office the newest Judge has been a Judge for over 5 years. Most Judges are 7 years or more, however, disposition rate per Judge is 1.34. So how are you going to explain that away? Not sure as I'm not sure what your office staffing looks like. Could be holidays, could be other issues. I do know your office kicked over 1.8 per ALJ last FY, so it looks like a temporal anomaly. I remembered something else prompted by TL's post and relying on dispositions. As has been much discussed, we're in a hiring freeze. We have a dearth of writers across the country. Last October, there were over 30k decisions in UNWR. As of this month, it's over 50k. By the end of September, it'll be well over 100k. Should a judge that has 460 written decisions with another 60+ in UNWR get punished because those decisions aren't written? Which reminds me, keep a good thought out for Monty, aa7, Debbie, christina, etc. as they are going to have immense pressure to overproduce to try and combat the glut of unwritten decisions. gives us a chance to shine and show why we need to be judges once the DW disaster is resolved. Should a judge that has 460 written decisions with another 60+ in UNWR get punished because those decisions aren't written? my response- definitely not |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 28, 2017 14:58:53 GMT -5
and when we go insane @debbie, there will be 2 less for all of the hopefuls to worry about and gary will help by committing us to appropriate facilities! |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jan 28, 2017 17:51:33 GMT -5
and when we go insane @debbie, there will be 2 less for all of the hopefuls to worry about and gary will help by committing us to appropriate facilities! Always happy to help my Board brethren and cisterns with the paperwork necessary to get them out of my way; er, on their way in the next fulfilling steps of their lives. |
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Jan 29, 2017 16:05:11 GMT -5
This is to Judgymcjudgypants and others who may be testing or sitting out there with a score. You asked why people do this job if it is as bad as they say. First of all, you have to remember what one person finds distasteful may not be a problem for another person. So take the complaints with a grain of salt. Now is the job perfect? What job is?
There are aspects of this work that I personally detest. One of them is proofreading. But others get drafts from the same writers and don't seem to have the same view. Does that make me a better writer? Or their decisions less correct? Not necessarily. In my career here, some of those who complained the most about the quality of the writing would take 10,000 pages to explain "brevity is the soul of wit." Others have legitimate complaints about the quality of the product they receive. My answer to the problem is to write part of my decisions, reducing what I have to read from others.
I am not crazy about the representatives bombing the file with submissions the week of the hearing. I want to ask them when do they think I have time to read that to prepare for the hearing? Some of that problem will go away when the new evidence rules go into effect in May. Until then, I have to decide what is my response? I can try to review the evidence prior to the hearing or spend that time complaining about the rep. And if it is impossible to perform an adequate review, I may have to postpone that hearing, either asking the claimant and rep to come back later that same week when I can work them in, or wait until I hold the next docket for that site.
What I never foresaw when I took this job was the amount of planning it takes to coordinate the work expectations with the rest of your life. When I was applying for this job, we still had judges who cancelled dockets for little or no reason. Now, if you can't hold those hearings, you better have a good reason. Still considering the amount of time and effort that goes into the scheduling the hearings, it is a reasonable expectation from the public and management that you will hold the hearings you committed for. Now with hearings being scheduled 75 days out, you have to give your docket dates at least 120 days in advance. So I often feel locked in.
I don't like to have to wait for someone else to do something so that I can get my work done. So I have learned as much as I can about posting information in CPMS and working in the electronic file over the years and it has served me well as a judge.
The agency has changed. You have the title of ALJ, but management cannot treat you any differently from any other employee who also belongs to a union. You will not get a performance rating. But everyone else in the office does and their ratings depend in some part on the entire system working. So it is more and more important that you learn all of the responsibilities of your job and how to perform them well. The more skills you have and learn, the less dependent you will be on others. You will keep your working moving forward. And ultimately that is what makes or breaks this job.
My advice to a new judge is to take the time right now while you have the reduced dockets to learn as much as you can about the tools you are working with, like CPMS, efile and electronic bench book. Ask other judges about scheduling dockets, using experts, their procedures for handling certain situations. Get feedback from the writers on your instructions. And try to be a problem solver versus a problem for the staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Jan 29, 2017 17:55:44 GMT -5
Thank you, Redryder for taking the time to respond. I think the moral is that the job is what you make it? And, everyone has a different frame of reference?
For example, I am used to that locked - in feeling. I plan vacation time a year in advance because, if I do, I can make sure I have no dockets that week. I plan my life around dockets. It's part of my job. I'm used to high production, although I'm not given a specific numbers quota. I have dockets, and it's my job to get them done. I can write a decision, in a thorough way, and have learned to send it out into the universe without obsessing about academic levels of perfection. I can write a masterpiece, given the time, but a front - line judge doesn't have that sort of time, so sufficient does the job. I can edit a proposed draft order prepared by someone else so that it is sufficient, even if not my preference in all the particulars, and send that out into the universe, as well. Sometimes "done" is better than "perfect." Multi-tasking is a critical skill all day, every day. If I need to do research, I fit it in. I stay busy but not overwhelmed.
It is a job learned best by doing, I will say. And, honestly, for me it goes beyond being a "job," but is more of a "calling." I make a cumulative difference in the world, one case at a time.
Does that not sound very similar to what a federal ALJ does? (Although, it seems federal ALJs have more electronic tools at hand.)
J
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 29, 2017 21:22:19 GMT -5
Thank you, Redryder for taking the time to respond. I think the moral is that the job is what you make it? And, everyone has a different frame of reference? For example, I am used to that locked - in feeling. I plan vacation time a year in advance because, if I do, I can make sure I have no dockets that week. I plan my life around dockets. It's part of my job. I'm used to high production, although I'm not given a specific numbers quota. I have dockets, and it's my job to get them done. I can write a decision, in a thorough way, and have learned to send it out into the universe without obsessing about academic levels of perfection. I can write a masterpiece, given the time, but a front - line judge doesn't have that sort of time, so sufficient does the job. I can edit a proposed draft order prepared by someone else so that it is sufficient, even if not my preference in all the particulars, and send that out into the universe, as well. Sometimes "done" is better than "perfect." Multi-tasking is a critical skill all day, every day. If I need to do research, I fit it in. I stay busy but not overwhelmed. It is a job learned best by doing, I will say. And, honestly, for me it goes beyond being a "job, "but is more of a "calling." I make a cumulative difference in the world, one case at a time. Does that not sound very similar to what a federal ALJ does? (Although, it seems federal ALJs have more electronic tools at hand.) J Yes, "done" is almost always better than "perfect." In one of my past lives I was a law clerk for a Federal District Court Judge and then later a law clerk for a State Supreme Court Justice. At the district court level it had to get done. At the Supreme Court level, it had to be perfect. Where I am now, it has to get done. And I agree, it is more a "calling" than it is a "job." Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Jan 30, 2017 15:01:46 GMT -5
And wouldn't it be more efficient to just get rid of the AC all together and let ALJ decision go straight to the USDC without having to stop at the AC? Then you can just judge/rate/access/view/[insert term here] ALJs by their remand rate from the courts. It is a little silly to think about a claim that is denied/denied on reconsideration/denied by ALJ/denied review by AC/affirmed by USDC/decision of USDC affirmed by USCA. Not being snitty here, but I can tell you never clerked for a district court judge! To say the elimination of the AC would not go over well, would be the understatement of the month. It won't happen. Pixie Working on an AC remand today. Prior ALJ decided it on 3/18/14. A 2012 application. AC remanded on 6/1/16 because the prior ALJ did not address a CE opinion. Over two years to remand solely because an ALJ failed to address an opinion. Could have been handled in two minutes. This is why people question the efficacy of the AC. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 31, 2017 10:02:18 GMT -5
So what happens if you do not care about telework because you rather come into the office? When you work you do the best you can and do not compromise your ethical principles. You work the full eight hours, you take your vacation time every year. At the end of the year, despite your best efforts your total case disposition is 400. If there is no appraisal system, if you are supposed to be independent decision maker what can happen to you? Do you get a butt chewing? Do they write you up? If not then this telework is the only thing that they have over you and if you do not care for it then this continues to be a great job! Nothing happens. Particularly, if you aren't leaving cases in judge controlled statuses too long. If you don't care about telework they have very little in the way of sticks. Personally, the only thing I am looking forward to about telework is I can do some work from the house on Saturday and Sunday mornings. A couple of hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings would go a long ways towards letting me take a day off every month. Right now I have to put on pants and drive to the office and it's not always worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Jan 31, 2017 10:05:52 GMT -5
So what happens if you do not care about telework because you rather come into the office? When you work you do the best you can and do not compromise your ethical principles. You work the full eight hours, you take your vacation time every year. At the end of the year, despite your best efforts your total case disposition is 400. If there is no appraisal system, if you are supposed to be independent decision maker what can happen to you? Do you get a butt chewing? Do they write you up? If not then this telework is the only thing that they have over you and if you do not care for it then this continues to be a great job! Nothing happens. Particularly, if you aren't leaving cases in judge controlled statuses too long. If you don't care about telework they have very little in the way of sticks. Personally, the only thing I am looking forward to about telework is I can do some work from the house on Saturday and Sunday mornings. A couple of hours on Saturday and Sunday mornings would go a long ways towards letting me take a day off every month. Right now I have to put on pants and drive to the office and it's not always worth it. I thought in your part of the world the dress code was pants-optional. |
|
|
|
Post by judgymcjudgypants on Jan 31, 2017 10:21:57 GMT -5
What Gary said. ^^^
Pretty sure there was a past post about robes and pants/no pants.
J
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 1, 2017 20:12:28 GMT -5
If I telework (after my first year), it's max one day a week. If I raid the fridge at home, neither pants nor robe will fit. Mrs. Jagvet is a great cook.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Feb 2, 2017 8:13:17 GMT -5
If I telework (after my first year), it's max one day a week. If I raid the fridge at home, neither pants nor robe will fit. Mrs. Jagvet is a great cook. I don't know you, but based on past posts by others, I must ask; will you wear a suit when you telework? |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 2, 2017 9:28:45 GMT -5
The latest from management:
Judges:
Please provide your telework/hearing schedule as soon as possible, and no later than February 28, 2017.
For your convenience, attached hereto is a telework calendar in Excel format for the period April-September 2017. You can enter your telework and hearing dates by typing “T” or “H” into the dates corresponding to your name. The months April-September run along the bottom. After you finish, save it with your name, then email it to me. Please account for holidays (the attached calendar automatically does so).
Do not schedule hearings on the afternoon of OCEP dates April 19 and July 19.
For the upcoming telework period, scheduling an average of at least 50 cases for hearing per month will generally signify a reasonably attainable number of hearings for purposes of SSA/ODAR-AALJ/IFPTE National Agreement, Article 15, Section 7.L.3. Judges who fail to schedule a reasonably attainable number of hearings (i.e. generally, an average of 50 hearings per month), after consideration of all factors, may have their telework restricted.
So now we are up to 50 a month or 600 a year. If one has any seniority their leave will be 26 days a year. With Federal Holidays and mandated training, one would only work 10 months of the year. Guess what, that now means on will have to schedule 60 cases a month to maintain telework.
Further, since there can be no disparate treatment among Judges, the ones that don't telework will also have to do 600 a year.
And it just keeps getting better and better....
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 2, 2017 11:05:29 GMT -5
Further, since there can be no disparate treatment among Judges, the ones that don't telework will also have to do 600 a year. And it just keeps getting better and better.... That doesn't logically follow. You can schedule as many hearings as you feel comfortable scheduling, just like every other ALJ. There is no mandate to schedule 600 per year, though if you don't, then they can deny you telework, just like every other ALJ. Judges not doing telework do not have to schedule 600 per year, unless they want to do telework. Any judge that is comfortable working in the office 5 days per week can schedule as many or as few as they want. There is no disparate treatment here. Don't lose sight of the main point (requiring 600 per year without any provided basis for that number) over something farcical. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 2, 2017 11:11:34 GMT -5
They can not use telework as punishment per se. As such, they must require all Judges to do 50 cases a month, ie, 600 a year or they can't punish anyone. It is coming down the track, so prepare for it. It is only logical. There has never been any provided basis for 500 a year either or any other number, but they are doing it. There was a recent call down from Nagle that told management to begin putting decision writers on 30 day notice due to low productivity. It would appear that this time, the sky is falling.
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 2, 2017 11:26:49 GMT -5
They can not use telework as punishment per se. As such, they must require all Judges to do 50 cases a month, ie, 600 a year or they can't punish anyone. It is coming down the track, so prepare for it. It is only logical. There has never been any provided basis for 500 a year either or any other number, but they are doing it. There was a recent call down from Nagle that told management to begin putting decision writers on 30 day notice due to low productivity. It would appear that this time, the sky is falling. I am hearing all these dire things about writers being put on notice, going to be fired, but all of this is coming from non-writers and my managers haven't told me or my colleagues anything like this. I don't doubt it, and really this seemed to be the unspoken subtext of the all writer call: kick it up a notch because something bad will happen if we don't. Bartleby is a trusted source so I'm going to take this as confirmation that such is being discussed/implemented. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 2, 2017 11:50:47 GMT -5
They can not use telework as punishment per se. As such, they must require all Judges to do 50 cases a month, ie, 600 a year or they can't punish anyone. It is coming down the track, so prepare for it. It is only logical. There has never been any provided basis for 500 a year either or any other number, but they are doing it. There was a recent call down from Nagle that told management to begin putting decision writers on 30 day notice due to low productivity. It would appear that this time, the sky is falling. um, what?? please clarify what i bolded. would have been nice if that had been passed onto us. what do you know that i don't but should? and yep. agreed on the 500. As we both know but others may not, former Commissioner Astrue implemented the 500 cases although there has been an impression a long time that judges should be between 2 and 2.4 a day informally if i have facts right. i am not touching whether the 2.0 to 2.4 is reasonable, dreadful, etc. that just seems to be my memory of an unstated goal for ALJ's for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 2, 2017 12:08:31 GMT -5
Here is another source, Charles Hall Blog:
Anonymous said...
ODAR reportedly announced this week that it has a list of several hundred decision writers & senior attorneys whom they are closely scrutinizing for low production. Because they can't touch aljs, upper management is blaming low producing decision writers and senior attorneys for the backlog. And mid level and line supervisors apparently have free reign to start termination proceedings - 30 day warnings, etc. it has already started. Look forward to an uptick in "timely" decisions as well as an attrition in decision writers.
11:42 PM, January 31, 2017
Further, there was another source I heard from that noted the decisions no longer needed to be "QUALITY", but need to be quality with a small "q". Oh happy day for EDIT time..
|
|
