|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 2, 2017 12:42:48 GMT -5
So if they fire "low producing" writers during a hiring freeze, how does this help?
|
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Feb 2, 2017 13:06:47 GMT -5
So if they fire "low producing" writers during a hiring freeze, how does this help? This could be a great plus to some of the writers. If they are fired for low productivity or poor performance they may be eligible for a little known animal called the "Discontinued Service Retirement." "Discontinued service retirement applies to those who are involuntarily separated, other than for misconduct or delinquency, and have at least 25 years of service or are at least age 50 with 20 years of service, will be entitled to an immediate annuity. (Under CSRS/CSRS Offset, that annuity will be reduced by 2 percent for each year the employee is under age 55. There is no reduction under FERS.) At least five years of that service must be civilian service. CSRS/CSRS Offset employees must have been employed under CSRS for at least one year out of the last two years preceding retirement. There is no such requirement under FERS." www.fedweek.com/retirement-benefits/two-types-retirement-special-situations/Boy did I ever thread creep for telework. Sorry Pixie. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 2, 2017 13:42:02 GMT -5
So if they fire "low producing" writers during a hiring freeze, how does this help? This could be a great plus to some of the writers. If they are fired for low productivity or poor performance they may be eligible for a little known animal called the "Discontinued Service Retirement." "Discontinued service retirement applies to those who are involuntarily separated, other than for misconduct or delinquency, and have at least 25 years of service or are at least age 50 with 20 years of service, will be entitled to an immediate annuity. (Under CSRS/CSRS Offset, that annuity will be reduced by 2 percent for each year the employee is under age 55. There is no reduction under FERS.) At least five years of that service must be civilian service. CSRS/CSRS Offset employees must have been employed under CSRS for at least one year out of the last two years preceding retirement. There is no such requirement under FERS." www.fedweek.com/retirement-benefits/two-types-retirement-special-situations/Boy did I ever thread creep for telework. Sorry Pixie. Never trust a Zebra to put a message in the proper thread. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 3, 2017 19:13:48 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 understand why you'd view it as a punishment since you'll no longer be eligible to telework, so it's like something is being taken away. However, since it's being phrased as a requirement for telework eligibility, it will be interpreted as just that by everyone other than the union. There is no disparate treatment as all judges must schedule 50 per month to telework, but no judge must schedule 50 per month. I have no doubt the union will challenge it on similar grounds, and they'll throw a bunch of money on a case that will yield similar results to the litigation a few years ago. Frankly, with regard to pursuing low producers, there is a group of judges that won't schedule more than 15-25 hearings per month when working a full month, and there is a group of writers that doesn't produce more than 8-10 decisions per month when working a full month. In my not so humble opinion, neither is doing the job they're being paid to do well enough to keep it. |
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Feb 3, 2017 21:29:24 GMT -5
To understand abut telework. About 15 years ago, the Clean Air Act mandated that Agencies allow employees that could do their duties at home to be allowed to. This was a mandate. Therefor, telework is not a privilege, it is a mandate in the Clean Air Act. For management attempt to use this as a threat to their employees is a violation of said Act. Further, one can not treat employees teleworking different from employees not teleworking.
From the most recent AALJ President's Newsletter:
PRESIDENT’S NEWSLETTER
Telework
Our files have grown larger, the Agency-imposed requirements to adjudicate “policy-compliant” cases have become more burdensome, and staff reductions and unavailability have diminished our resources. Nevertheless, the Agency has increased the requirement to telework, from 45 to 50 scheduled hearings a month.
AALJ is prepared to deal with this misguided and unwarranted action.
We recommend that everyone who is interested in telework apply for it, regardless of the number of hearings you plan to schedule. Consult with your AALJ Vice President to discuss your application before you file it to ensure that it is complete. Should your application be denied, we will assist you in filing a grievance.
Agency managers seem not to understand that it is they who have caused the decline in the number of dispositions issued by the Judges. Moreover, the Agency is giving lip service to the aim of issuing correct decisions while creating an environment which precludes that from happening.
AALJ has been regularly suggesting ways to make our system more efficient, but our recommendations have generally been ignored. To now punish Judges because the Agency allowed its backlog to markedly increase is unconscionable. Scheduling 50 hearings a month is not, in most offices or instances, reasonable or possible if one is to implement all Agency policies and read the file. Our work analysis study shows that it takes about seven hours to adjudicate a case if the Judge follows all Agency policies and reads the file – not the 2.5 hours that the Agency allots us.
Judges are keenly aware that the over 1.1 million claimants waiting for hearings and decisions are suffering; we – not the Agency bureaucrats - see these folks every day. And, it should be noted that AALJ has exhorted our members to work as hard as they can to serve the public. In fact, we have negotiated into our contract the right to access the office from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. so that Judges can put in their own, uncompensated time to perform their duties, and a great many do so. But there is a limit to what we can do, and we have reached it. Directing our Judges to do more and more with less and less is neither proper nor intelligent management. We would not be surprised if soon the Agency proposes we do everything with nothing.
And Here Is What Is Coming …
I have received reports that HOCALJs are asking Judges if they would like to schedule between 720 and 840 cases a year (60 to 70 per month).
Those of you who have been with this Agency for years will recall the reason why the cap of 720 dispositions was established – Judges who issued untold number of decisions did a poor job. The Agency encouraged and promoted this behavior while it suited management purposes. When what was going on became public, the Agency threw the Judges under the bus, asserting that it could do nothing with “those Judges” and asking for more control over us. A number of Judges were called before a Congressional Subcommittee to explain themselves. Others were subject to the Agency’s focused reviews.
The AALJ has always advocated that Judges should perform their duties in an ethical and legal manner. I would hate to see us go down this road again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 4, 2017 8:21:33 GMT -5
While telework may be a fair topic for discussion, let's not let this thread morph into an anti management or anti union discussion.
Bartleby: I think the quote goes something like this, "Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Feb 4, 2017 10:05:42 GMT -5
I understand why you'd view it as a punishment since you'll no longer be eligible to telework, so it's like something is being taken away. However, since it's being phrased as a requirement for telework eligibility, it will be interpreted as just that by everyone other than the union. There is no disparate treatment as all judges must schedule 50 per month to telework, but no judge must schedule 50 per month. I have no doubt the union will challenge it on similar grounds, and they'll throw a bunch of money on a case that will yield similar results to the litigation a few years ago. Frankly, with regard to pursuing low producers, there is a group of judges that won't schedule more than 15-25 hearings per month when working a full month, and there is a group of writers that doesn't produce more than 8-10 decisions per month when working a full month. In my not so humble opinion, neither is doing the job they're being paid to do well enough to keep it. Then take action against the Judges only issuing 15-25. Bottom line is that management is extracting a ransom for work at home. As usual, the law of unintended consequences is in effect. There are plenty of judges that like, but don't love or need, work at home. The real number for agency sanction or action is 400 decisions a year and the agency doesn't have the employees to actually pursue action against anyone under that number. Management pushes too hard, they will end up getting a result where those that don't really need work at home give it up and cut their case load. 45 scheduled really correlates to 500 dispositions in a large part of the country. Pat and Jack, I know you are reading. You might want to leave it at 45 scheduled. If not, I'd bet my the amout of my mortgage overall dispositions go down year to year. I don't disagree with anything you've said here and believe it will result in actions like you've mentioned. I don't think this is tied to the 15-25 hearing judges. I should have prefaced that part of my post by mentioning it was in regard to management going after writers. But if you've always had a prior efficiency rating of 50% or less, you're likely the one they'll be looking at. I threw judges in there because there are those of us in this job doing similar levels of work at taxpayer expense. And bartleby, I think you're confusing the Clean Air Act with the Telework Enhancement Act. Neither issues a mandate on telework, and the latter clearly indicates telework is permissive rather than required. The one thing I was wrong about was that the telework act does say teleworkers and non-teleworkers are treated the same for work requirements. However, the Act does delegate implementation and guidance to OPM, and in their guide, they give management far more discretion to set minimum requirements for participation than the plain language of the Act. |
|
|
|
Post by ncatty007 on Feb 4, 2017 22:32:31 GMT -5
I understand why you'd view it as a punishment since you'll no longer be eligible to telework, so it's like something is being taken away. However, since it's being phrased as a requirement for telework eligibility, it will be interpreted as just that by everyone other than the union. There is no disparate treatment as all judges must schedule 50 per month to telework, but no judge must schedule 50 per month. I have no doubt the union will challenge it on similar grounds, and they'll throw a bunch of money on a case that will yield similar results to the litigation a few years ago. Frankly, with regard to pursuing low producers, there is a group of judges that won't schedule more than 15-25 hearings per month when working a full month, and there is a group of writers that doesn't produce more than 8-10 decisions per month when working a full month. In my not so humble opinion, neither is doing the job they're being paid to do well enough to keep it. Then take action against the Judges only issuing 15-25. Bottom line is that management is extracting a ransom for work at home. As usual, the law of unintended consequences is in effect. There are plenty of judges that like, but don't love or need, work at home. The real number for agency sanction or action is 400 decisions a year and the agency doesn't have the employees to actually pursue action against anyone under that number. Management pushes too hard, they will end up getting a result where those that don't really need work at home give it up and cut their case load. 45 scheduled really correlates to 500 dispositions in a large part of the country.Pat and Jack, I know you are reading. You might want to leave it at 45 scheduled. If not, I'd bet my the amout of my mortgage overall dispositions go down year to year. I believe the above is spot on. As someone who was in private practice for about 18 years before coming to ODAR, I personally could not care less about telework. For me, and those I know and worked with in private practice, the practice of law meant going to work at an office. Working from home was generally reserved for the rare illness or other similar occurrence. If I'm excluded from telework for scheduling 6/day, 2 days a week, again, I couldn't care less. That said, I think it absurd to play hardball with a judge over telework when you have a legion of support staff freely working 3 days of telework, and even doing a 4/10 schedule so they're in the office 1 day a week. You basically have an office with no one there on a consistent basis. Only in government would someone think this is the norm for what is the equivalent of a huge law firm. The real miracle is that the backlog isn't larger. |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Feb 5, 2017 15:37:14 GMT -5
[quote author=" victor31"[/span]Does an experienced ALJ actually read everything on every page of the medical? [/quote] Actually, I do - which is why I max out my credit hours and donate time to the Agency - 'bigly' And that, I surmise, is why my pay rate is the lowest in our office, because I find all of those little gems in the record that make you sit up and say "you can't make this stuff up!" The weekly e-mails listing all of the cases well beyond "status" that could cause loss of telework privileges for ALJs are an excercise in futility, since the ones in our office who do not telework, are the ones with the docket / time management problems, and they know we can't do a thing about it. Writers who are in R4 are all AFGE, so the new DWPI does not apply, and they know it. Hence, part of the reason for the writing crisis. Judge Nagle was acting RCALJ in R4 before moving to Falls Church, and he always asks of opinions and suggestions as to how to improve the process and workload, so I just hope that TPTB will listen to him. |
|
ducky
Full Member
Blowing in the wind
Posts: 108 
|
Post by ducky on Feb 9, 2017 9:56:17 GMT -5
Here's a telework question: some of us didn't get to stay home when we were hired and like to go home on the weekends. It's been mentioned that if your home is more than 2 hours away from the office and thus cannot be used for telework during the week, it can't be used for teleworking on the weekends either. Anyone out there able to weekend telework from somewhere outside the 2 hour box???
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Feb 9, 2017 10:06:18 GMT -5
Aren't you more appropriately asking if you can work credit hours from home on the weekends? I think that is the preliminary question. I guess I need to look at the contract again. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 9, 2017 11:20:14 GMT -5
Here's a telework question: some of us didn't get to stay home when we were hired and like to go home on the weekends. It's been mentioned that if your home is more than 2 hours away from the office and thus cannot be used for telework during the week, it can't be used for teleworking on the weekends either. Anyone out there able to weekend telework from somewhere outside the 2 hour box??? I've been deep in the weeds on this one, talked to management (obliquely) and NTEU about it. First the telework location does not, technically, have to be within any set distance of the home office. It only requires that you be able to make it back to the home office within 2 hours. Consider that in a rural area, this could be over a hundred miles, yet in a large city could be less than 50. If you own a plane, you could be thousands of miles away and still be in compliance -theoretically. Second, you will only be called back if there is an issue you could not otherwise resolve over the internet. Other than VPN failure/CPU failure, I have a hard time conceiving of what else could not be remedied over IM/skype/email. Third, the contract allows for you take time off that day if you can't fix the problem and management is cool with it. Fourth, maybe you noticed/maybe you did not, but when you sign the telework agreement it specifically states that if you are not scheduled to come in once a week you forfeit your locality pay for the home office and get the locality nearest your AWS. This is odd, because there is no scheduling scheme I am aware of where you would not be scheduled to be in-office once a week. Nevertheless the situation is clearly contemplated. Moreover the insinuation that your locality pay would be adjusted to whatever region/locality pay area your AWS falls into also suggests that the AWS could be a significant distance from your home office. In coastal cities you might have different pay localities with two hours of each other, but not in most of fly over country. The real bottom line here is that unless you are making it an issue they cannot ignore and/or are hated by management no one really cares where your AWS is so long as you are getting the work done. Unfortunately in your case it appears management has already put the kabosh on your home as an AWS, and if that's the case, then yeah you can't work there to do credit, OT or comp hours. That said, if you are a producer (i.e. management likes you) then I would re approach whether you can make your home your AWS. The plus side of the freeze is they can't hire anyone to replace you, so they are not likely to fight you on technical basis like this. Not to mention, we'll need all that offfice space for the judges who are getting their telework yanked. FWIW, depending on the time of day/traffic my AWS is more than 2 hours away from my home office. No one has tried to mess with me about it. |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 9, 2017 11:31:31 GMT -5
Aren't you more appropriately asking if you can work credit hours from home on the weekends? I think that is the preliminary question. I guess I need to look at the contract again. Pixie Reread it and I think that is the question - oops. Anyway no if you have not signed a telework agreement you cannot work at home for anything. Which begs the question - why in the world aren't you teleworking? |
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Feb 9, 2017 12:00:15 GMT -5
So, are you saying I would not be able to telework everyday from my beach house in Mexico?  You would be surprised how helpful the iguanas are with legal analysis. (For the record I do not own a beach house in Mexico, or anywhere else. I did, however, at one point have a sandbox, which is better than nothing I guess.) |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 9, 2017 12:42:14 GMT -5
So, are you saying I would not be able to telework everyday from my beach house in Mexico? You would be surprised how helpful the iguanas are with legal analysis. (For the record I do not own a beach house in Mexico, or anywhere else. I did, however, at one point have a sandbox, which is better than nothing I guess.) To the contrary, I think that you could if you were circumspect enough |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Feb 9, 2017 12:48:09 GMT -5
So, are you saying I would not be able to telework everyday from my beach house in Mexico? You would be surprised how helpful the iguanas are with legal analysis. (For the record I do not own a beach house in Mexico, or anywhere else. I did, however, at one point have a sandbox, which is better than nothing I guess.) If it was near tijuana and u were in San Diego office, why not? |
|
|
|
Post by montyburns on Feb 9, 2017 12:51:07 GMT -5
So, are you saying I would not be able to telework everyday from my beach house in Mexico? You would be surprised how helpful the iguanas are with legal analysis. (For the record I do not own a beach house in Mexico, or anywhere else. I did, however, at one point have a sandbox, which is better than nothing I guess.) If it was near tijuana and u were in San Diego office, why not? Note to self: transfer to San Diego; look for home in Ensenada. |
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Feb 9, 2017 12:56:47 GMT -5
Come to Mt. Pleasant where you are two hours from either Lake Michigan or Lake Huron - beach property is very affordable. BIG sandbox. Plenty of ice for drinkies in the early months. Sunscreen and computer-equipped wave runners for the mid-months.
. . . or, for Christina:
|
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Feb 9, 2017 13:40:47 GMT -5
If Mt. Pleasant was closer to Kalamazoo I would sign up in a second because (1) Bell's beer is delightful and (2) I have always wanted to tell people I was from Kalamazoo. The problem is that I have this gag reflex when anyone mentions MSU or UM. Actually, typing that sentence almost made me nauseous.
|
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Feb 9, 2017 13:57:18 GMT -5
What (MSU/UOM) Envy??!!?? |
|
