|
|
Post by plinytheelder on Sept 15, 2018 0:21:15 GMT -5
I tired of the nonsense and quit. It felt good.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Sept 15, 2018 9:10:31 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. Not enough easy cases for that to work. If they want their jobs those writers will have to work “unpaid OT.” Probably half the agency’s writers are under 95%. It looks like 98% is the national average. 95% is equivalent to being a case or two off of 100% in a given month. So if a lifetime 100% writer has two step 4 denials that turn out to actually be step 5 favorables (a not uncommon occurrence), then you are now right below 95% and being put on a Performance plan. Indeed the difference between getting an “excellent” rating (120%) and getting fired is going to be like 4-5 cases. No I think the real reason for this is to clean house, thin out the SAAs, and overall make OHO look more like the VA. Except without the upward mobility to a gs 14 spot. Doing unpaid OT is the norm at the VA, from what I’ve heard. Oh they are also getting rid of the 4/10 and 4/9/whatever work schedules for offices with less than 15 writers because uhhhhh, morale was too high I guess |
|
|
|
Post by Judge McJudgeypants on Sept 15, 2018 9:13:44 GMT -5
So here’s a topic for discussion: would insiders be more likely to have smaller GALs, such that outsiders with a wide GAL or who are willing to move to small, less popular places still have a reasonable shot at selection? Or, are there enough insiders at even small, less popular locations who will meet the 7-10 year experience minimum, such that outsiders will have very little chance of getting their foot in the door?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 15, 2018 9:35:38 GMT -5
So here’s a topic for discussion: would insiders be more likely to have smaller GALs, such that outsiders with a wide GAL or who are willing to move to small, less popular places still have a reasonable shot at selection? Or, are there enough insiders at even small, less popular locations who will meet the 7-10 year experience minimum, such that outsiders will have very little chance of getting their foot in the door? Most outsiders don't know how the game is played, unless they have been reading this board for awhile, or they know a judge who gives them good advice about a wide GAL. I received bad advice from a judge, then when I got different advice about opening up my GAL, I got picked up. So most outsiders will have a small GAL. Insiders know how to maximize their chances for getting hired and will have a wider GAL. I imagine there are many insiders who have a wide open GAL, or close to it, so yes, there are insiders who will be available for every office, whether it is in their hometown or a location thousands of miles away. YMMV, Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by Thru Hiker on Sept 15, 2018 17:26:33 GMT -5
Per Charles Hall's blog post titled "Sad trombones for Lucia" * * * "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.pdfAt risk of stating the obvious, in these days of post- Lucia, does it not depend on whether Congress has "by law vest[ed] the Appointment [of ALJs] as inferior Officers . . . in the Heads of the [respective] Department[]." US Const., Art II, Sec II. The Executive Order cancelling the register could be interpreted as a shot across the bow, that the administration considers there is no "law", or at least a constitutionally-deficient one, and the quoted language from the Budget Conference Committee could be considered a shot in reply. Would that someone could cross the T and resolve this. |
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Sept 15, 2018 18:24:26 GMT -5
I was an outsider, now an insider, and all my knowledge about ALJ hiring I know from you all. In fact I wouldn’t be an insider if not for this board. I would submit the best way to be an ALJ, at least before the EO, is to read this board.
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Sept 15, 2018 20:35:59 GMT -5
The Executive Order cancelling the register could be interpreted as a shot across the bow, that the administration considers there is no "law", or at least a constitutionally-deficient one, and the quoted language from the Budget Conference Committee could be considered a shot in reply. Would that someone could cross the T and resolve this. Someone knows his naval history or tactics. |
|
|
|
Post by Thru Hiker on Sept 16, 2018 13:44:41 GMT -5
* * * Would that someone could cross the T and resolve this. Someone knows his naval history or tactics. SPN LIfer: yes, its true, I was thinking of Tsushima Straits or Surigao Straits. Perhaps already there has been a decisive resolution, like, say, Operation Praying Mantis. There are some who applaud the EO, see: Good News for ALJ CandidatesHere's some interesting reading on EOs: ->on EO 13843 & unilateral Presidential amendment of a federal regulation:
->on history of use of Executive Orders: |
|
|
|
Post by mrmojo on Sept 16, 2018 20:35:14 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. Not enough easy cases for that to work. If they want their jobs those writers will have to work “unpaid OT.” Probably half the agency’s writers are under 95%. It looks like 98% is the national average. 95% is equivalent to being a case or two off of 100% in a given month. So if a lifetime 100% writer has two step 4 denials that turn out to actually be step 5 favorables (a not uncommon occurrence), then you are now right below 95% and being put on a Performance plan. Indeed the difference between getting an “excellent” rating (120%) and getting fired is going to be like 4-5 cases. No I think the real reason for this is to clean house, thin out the SAAs, and overall make OHO look more like the VA. Except without the upward mobility to a gs 14 spot. Doing unpaid OT is the norm at the VA, from what I’ve heard. Oh they are also getting rid of the 4/10 and 4/9/whatever work schedules for offices with less than 15 writers because uhhhhh, morale was too high I guess The average is actually about 90-91% nationwide right now. You can go into How MI Doing and select Decision Writer -> DWPI, and check Compare to Others to see. The fact that they are adopting a standard that more than half of writers are not currently meeting shows that the standard is off. Part of this is the result of the ballooning of file sizes. Part of it is probably the result of the lack of a real basis for the numbers that they came up with. As for the alternative work schedule proposal, see Blacks Law for "Arbitrary and Capricious". |
|
|
|
Post by captainobvious on Sept 17, 2018 6:59:53 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).
The Agency is also piloting a downtime tracking software for Senior Attorneys. So, how that will interact with the future 95% standard will be interesting. Remember, the 95% standard doesn't apply to Senior Attorneys on Oct. 1, as it does for the attorney advisors and paralegals.
It's comical, 3-5 years ago the Agency was worried about "quality" and preventing things like what happened at the W.Va. office. There were also things like a max-flex schedule being discussed. You know, things that are actually important to both employer and employee. Now, the Agency's priority is holding employees to an unrealistic performance standard that the majority cannot, dare I say will not, attain.
Before this, the Agency beat up on the judges regarding scheduling and regarding disposition numbers. Since then, I have seen the instructions get worse, no evidence relied upon, no weight to opinions, and sometimes no opinions even identified. What does the Agency think the attorneys and paralegals are going to do when held to a higher production rate they have never achieved beforehand??? GIGO.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 17, 2018 8:54:50 GMT -5
Sure glad they brought up these new standards at PACS etc so we know how to achieve business results.
Edit: this is obviously sarcastic. Could someone remind management that we are in fact attorneys and that changes to contract duties need to be properly presented before applying it to us? Thank you.
Also, they wish to obtain counsel for these issues as we seem to be having some... difficulty with this type of thing lately.
Attempts to utilize in formal employment matters will be met without mercy. I give my all. I earn my paycheck. Attempts to interfere with that paycheck are not welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Sept 17, 2018 11:24:05 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).
The Agency is also piloting a downtime tracking software for Senior Attorneys. So, how that will interact with the future 95% standard will be interesting. Remember, the 95% standard doesn't apply to Senior Attorneys on Oct. 1, as it does for the attorney advisors and paralegals.
It's comical, 3-5 years ago the Agency was worried about "quality" and preventing things like what happened at the W.Va. office. There were also things like a max-flex schedule being discussed. You know, things that are actually important to both employer and employee. Now, the Agency's priority is holding employees to an unrealistic performance standard that the majority cannot, dare I say will not, attain.
Before this, the Agency beat up on the judges regarding scheduling and regarding disposition numbers. Since then, I have seen the instructions get worse, no evidence relied upon, no weight to opinions, and sometimes no opinions even identified. What does the Agency think the attorneys and paralegals are going to do when held to a higher production rate they have never achieved beforehand??? GIGO.
What is going to happen to all the decision writers once the backlog goes away? They plan to increase production standards and have hired a bunch of new writers this fiscal year (and the backlog has significantly decreased this year to well under a million cases |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 17, 2018 11:52:06 GMT -5
Just wait until the next downturn in the economy. Everyone better be hoping the backlog is down to less than 500,000 at that point.
|
|
