|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 13, 2018 22:56:34 GMT -5
Don't bank on it.Haven't you read any of my posts about what the Agency wants in a candidate? Pixie I think Pixie is a wise one. If you read the old posts on this blog, you certainly do not get a picture of OPM//SSA officials getting together to discuss the EO. As I understand it, there was a long period when SSA could not fill needed ALJ positions because OPM did not provide enough names. After Congressional pressure, OPM agreed to administer more ALJ tests. SSA will now be able to "captain its own ship" so to speak. Yes, or put another way, it will be able to paddle its own canoe, once the regs and statutes are sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by Thru Hiker on Sept 14, 2018 0:17:07 GMT -5
Whenever they get to the point of hiring, will SSA reinterview previously-interviewed candidates? Unfortunately, I don't think so. In my model, SSA will want mostly known insiders; the outsiders will be left on the outside. It will become a closed society. Of course litigation could change all of this. Pixie This is also what I've heard from elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Sept 14, 2018 9:21:37 GMT -5
I think Pixie is a wise one. If you read the old posts on this blog, you certainly do not get a picture of OPM//SSA officials getting together to discuss the EO. As I understand it, there was a long period when SSA could not fill needed ALJ positions because OPM did not provide enough names. After Congressional pressure, OPM agreed to administer more ALJ tests. SSA will now be able to "captain its own ship" so to speak. Yes, or put another way, it will be able to paddle its own canoe, once the regs and statutes are sorted. I was going to suggest a leaky lifeboat. At least we are all thinking in nautical terms. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagoirish on Sept 14, 2018 11:14:01 GMT -5
Just as it bears repeating that the most likely outcome will be a closed society (Pixie's term I think) in terms of hiring insiders to be ALJs, it bears repeating that this will be a huge hit to veterans hiring, especially those of us who have excelled in leadership, high-stakes litigation, and internal advisory positions in high tempo environments like DoD, DoJ, Treasury, etc. Sounds like all that will mean nothing, or close to nothing, under this new EO. Your typical JAG officer leaving active duty is not doing to take a GS-11/12/13 decision writing position at SSA in the hopes of maybe someday making ALJ. Sure there will be exceptions, i.e. the JAG who wants to settle in a specific location - usually a smaller or mid-size city where perhaps the only federal opportunity is the local SSA office. But from my experience helping JAGs transition to civilian life, they will seek out a GS-14/15 slots in bigger cities like DC, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc. with more pay, more control over their work life, and a more broad-based legal job. Maybe time and a few waves of hiring under the new EO will prove me wrong, but I am not counting on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Sept 14, 2018 11:59:22 GMT -5
Just as it bears repeating that the most likely outcome will be a closed society (Pixie's term I think) in terms of hiring insiders to be ALJs, it bears repeating that this will be a huge hit to veterans hiring, especially those of us who have excelled in leadership, high-stakes litigation, and internal advisory positions in high tempo environments like DoD, DoJ, Treasury, etc. Sounds like all that will mean nothing, or close to nothing, under this new EO. Your typical JAG officer leaving active duty is not doing to take a GS-11/12/13 decision writing position at SSA in the hopes of maybe someday making ALJ. Sure there will be exceptions, i.e. the JAG who wants to settle in a specific location - usually a smaller or mid-size city where perhaps the only federal opportunity is the local SSA office. But from my experience helping JAGs transition to civilian life, they will seek out a GS-14/15 slots in bigger cities like DC, LA, NYC, Chicago, etc. with more pay, more control over their work life, and a more broad-based legal job. Maybe time and a few waves of hiring under the new EO will prove me wrong, but I am not counting on it. Good points especially regarding former JAG officers. I imagine they will still get quite a few veteran hires via attorney advisers/managers who had military service and then took the attorney path post-military service. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Sept 14, 2018 15:01:34 GMT -5
Per Charles Hall's blog post titled "Sad trombones for Lucia" From the Joint Explanatory Statement (page 67) of the Conference Committee on the bill to fund the Social Security Administration (and other agencies) for Fiscal Year 2019, which begins on October 1, 2018: It is vital that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) be independent, impartial, and selected based on their qualifications. The conferees expect SSA to maintain a high standard for the appointment of ALJs, including the requirement that ALJ s have demonstrated experience as a licensed attorney and pass an ALJ examination administered by the Office of Personnel Management. This would largely undo Trump's big win in Lucia v. SEC or at least render it mostly meaningless. I'm not so sure about Mr. Hall's reasoning, but it is interesting. (The language he quoted above is on PDF page 480.) www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Joint%20Explanatory%20Statement%20-%20HR%206157.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by orchid on Sept 14, 2018 15:31:16 GMT -5
Per Charles Hall's blog post titled "Sad trombones for Lucia" From the Joint Explanatory Statement (page 67) of the Conference Committee on the bill to fund the Social Security Administration (and other agencies) for Fiscal Year 2019, which begins on October 1, 2018: It is vital that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) be independent, impartial, and selected based on their qualifications. The conferees expect SSA to maintain a high standard for the appointment of ALJs, including the requirement that ALJ s have demonstrated experience as a licensed attorney and pass an ALJ examination administered by the Office of Personnel Management. This would largely undo Trump's big win in Lucia v. SEC or at least render it mostly meaningless. I'm not so sure about Mr. Hall's reasoning, but it is interesting. (The language he quoted above is on PDF page 480.) www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Joint%20Explanatory%20Statement%20-%20HR%206157.pdfI bet those with scores are feeling a little better now. |
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Sept 14, 2018 16:31:07 GMT -5
Per Charles Hall's blog post titled "Sad trombones for Lucia" From the Joint Explanatory Statement (page 67) of the Conference Committee on the bill to fund the Social Security Administration (and other agencies) for Fiscal Year 2019, which begins on October 1, 2018: It is vital that Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) be independent, impartial, and selected based on their qualifications. The conferees expect SSA to maintain a high standard for the appointment of ALJs, including the requirement that ALJ s have demonstrated experience as a licensed attorney and pass an ALJ examination administered by the Office of Personnel Management. This would largely undo Trump's big win in Lucia v. SEC or at least render it mostly meaningless. I'm not so sure about Mr. Hall's reasoning, but it is interesting. (The language he quoted above is on PDF page 480.) www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Joint%20Explanatory%20Statement%20-%20HR%206157.pdfI bet those with scores are feeling a little better now. Revise that: "I bet those insiders with scores are feeling a little better now." I take to heart Pixie's statement that SSA is looking for insiders, and I see a lot of merit to that. I am sure there are a lot of insiders on the list (formerly the register). With that said, I also anticipate that there will be room for some non-insiders who are deemed "highly qualified" by whatever criteria SSA ultimately decides upon. |
|
jbj32
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by jbj32 on Sept 14, 2018 16:54:54 GMT -5
I'd be interested to see a poll of people who were on the register, including the 2018 testers who received a "score," to get an idea of how many are SSA Insiders, outside attorneys who practice SSA law, and those who have no SSA law experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by uboat on Sept 14, 2018 17:10:58 GMT -5
I bet those with scores are feeling a little better now. I take to heart Pixie's statement that SSA is looking for insiders, and I see a lot of merit to that. I am sure there are a lot of insiders on the list (formerly the register). With that said, I also anticipate that there will be room for some non-insiders who are deemed "highly qualified" by whatever criteria SSA ultimately decides upon. I know I do, best I've felt since the EO. |
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Sept 14, 2018 17:16:02 GMT -5
I'd be interested to see a poll of people who were on the register, including the 2018 testers who received a "score," to get an idea of how many are SSA Insiders, outside attorneys who practice SSA law, and those who have no SSA law experience. You should make a poll! There are models from the past asking exactly those questions when the register was refreshed. Not sure how high participation will be, especially if you wait much longer. |
|
|
|
Post by uboat on Sept 14, 2018 17:23:25 GMT -5
I'd be interested to see a poll of people who were on the register, including the 2018 testers who received a "score," to get an idea of how many are SSA Insiders, outside attorneys who practice SSA law, and those who have no SSA law experience. Yes, someone with the necessary expertise please DO IT!  |
|
jbj32
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by jbj32 on Sept 14, 2018 17:51:10 GMT -5
If someone else has a few minutes to put one up that'd be awesome. I am on my tiny cellphone screen and it's hard enough to just post! I won't be able to get to a regular computer until later. So if anyone is inclined 🙂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 18:10:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by everflowing on Sept 14, 2018 18:26:45 GMT -5
Ssa insider here. NTEU (union) members were advised that senior attorneys would soon be held to a productivity index (95% expectation). Coincidence? I think not. SSA may not care about OPM scores, but in whatever new testing process they develop, maybe a senior attorney’s productivity index will play a role (behind the scenes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2018 18:32:00 GMT -5
Ssa insider here. NTEU (union) members were advised that senior attorneys would soon be held to a productivity index (95% expectation). Coincidence? I think not. SSA may not care about OPM scores, but in whatever new testing process they develop, maybe a senior attorney’s productivity index will play a role (behind the scenes). Think of quality as the stock market, and remands as inflation. One will crash, and one will skyrocket. Sound like someone is under pressure (or fear) from on high.... |
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Sept 14, 2018 18:35:02 GMT -5
That is HUGE news. My office is covered by the AFGE union and we were told writers would be held to that standard this week, but no mention was made of whether senior attorneys would be held to that standard. Thanks for the information. We have some LOW producers in our office (among all writers from paralegal analysts up through the SAA positions) and the only way they'll approach a 95% decision writer productivity index will be by producing work needing a great deal of editing. This will either slow the ALJs down while they attempt to rewrite decisions, or if not thoroughly edited, it will produce some real gaffes as those decisions are sent to claimants and their representatives. Heck, I know a writer who has told management she does not have time to proofread at all, so decisions are sent to ALJs with odd abbreviations only insiders would know and with incomplete, nonsense sentences.
In our office, management stressed they would try to work with people who could not meet these standards. I can't help but think that means the easiest cases will go to those who fail to produce a good number of decisions just to keep them employed.
|
|
|
|
Post by SaveMeASeat on Sept 14, 2018 19:11:31 GMT -5
My thinking is that any agency wanting to hire ALJs must announce a vacancy on usajobss and designate it as excepted service position open to the public, limited to existing agency employees etc. Does this sound right?
|
|
|
|
Post by alohastate on Sept 14, 2018 20:38:24 GMT -5
My thinking is that any agency wanting to hire ALJs must announce a vacancy on usajobss and designate it as excepted service position open to the public, limited to existing agency employees etc. Does this sound right? My understanding is that the jobs are unlikely to be posted on USA Jobs, since those are basically OPM postings. What has been discussed here is that the job postings will likely be announced on the individual agency sites. All the more reason to frequent this board, where job openings are routinely posted and shared. Great community, this. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 14, 2018 22:43:15 GMT -5
That is HUGE news. My office is covered by the AFGE union and we were told writers would be held to that standard this week, but no mention was made of whether senior attorneys would be held to that standard. Thanks for the information. We have some LOW producers in our office (among all writers from paralegal analysts up through the SAA positions) and the only way they'll approach a 95% decision writer productivity index will be by producing work needing a great deal of editing. This will either slow the ALJs down while they attempt to rewrite decisions, or if not thoroughly edited, it will produce some real gaffes as those decisions are sent to claimants and their representatives. Heck, I know a writer who has told management she does not have time to proofread at all, so decisions are sent to ALJs with odd abbreviations only insiders would know and with incomplete, nonsense sentences. In our office, management stressed they would try to work with people who could not meet these standards. I can't help but think that means the easiest cases will go to those who fail to produce a good number of decisions just to keep them employed.A possible adverse effect of this type of "cherry picking" of cases is that it provides a disincentive for those writers who are highly productive. No one wants to see a coworker shown the door. A better management practice would be to try to discover why a writer is unable to meet the 95% standard--a training issue, poor time management skills, low motivation are just a few that come to mind. Certainly, not all could be resolved, but simply giving easy cases to people who do not meet the standard does not help them gain required job proficiency. Interestingly, discussion of the new standard does not seem to address the many factors that make one decision harder to write than another. |
|
