|
Post by deepredbells on Sept 18, 2018 20:02:37 GMT -5
My biggest concern is the new DWPi. I'd imagine some writers are considering retirement. I hope management realizes this and how to cope. They are asking a lot. Retirement or alternate employment, depending on one's age.
|
|
|
Post by monopoly on Sept 18, 2018 21:18:27 GMT -5
It's not a great time generally to be a federal employee. I don't like the 500 ALJ metric or the 95% DWPI metric for attorneys. I find these metrics generally less than realist. However, I still LOVE my job. Maybe it's because I came from an abusive 80 hour per week position. However, these metrics will do immense damage to the morale of employees. It just doesn't feel well thought out or realistic. We are all doing the best we can, but that never seems to be good enough. I work hard to meet those standards, but also understand just how easy it is to slip below the expected standards....That being said I think it is only right to give credit to ALJs for decisions that haven't been written yet. In these strange time may reasonableness endure on some level!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 4:54:58 GMT -5
It's not a great time generally to be a federal employee. I don't like the 500 ALJ metric or the 95% DWPI metric for attorneys. I find these metrics generally less than realist. However, I still LOVE my job. Maybe it's because I came from an abusive 80 hour per week position. However, these metrics will do immense damage to the morale of employees. It just doesn't feel well thought out or realistic. We are all doing the best we can, but that never seems to be good enough. I work hard to meet those standards, but also understand just how easy it is to slip below the expected standards....That being said I think it is only right to give credit to ALJs for decisions that haven't been written yet. In these strange time may reasonableness endure on some level! And on top of all this, slap us in the face with a federal pay freeze.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 19, 2018 9:19:34 GMT -5
I was a manager when the DW metrics were first introduced. From the very beginning, the writers under my watch understood that the productivity index was not a grade like in school. One hundred is average or expected performance. Anything less than that meant you were taking too long to do the work. And I was a writer. Few of the decisions I wrote ever took 8 hours to write/edit. And I never had a fully favorable that took 4 hours to review/write/edit. Now I know the hours for decisions have been altered with less time for the fully favorable decisions. Still, they are not as draconian as you imagine.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I started my career with OHO, the standard for writers was not based on time but on sheer numbers. You were expected to produce 1.88 decisions per day. And you were assigned to write for a single judge for the most part. So if you drew a judge who issued a fair number of fully favorable decisions, you could make your numbers. If you worked for the more conservative judge who paid fewer cases, you worked like a dog to make that standard. I wrote for a judge who has a pay rate of about 30% which meant I worked like a dog to make that standard. So in a typical 20 day month, with no leave taken, I was expected to produce 38 decisions to make that target. And with my judge that meant writing 25 to 27 decisions that were affirmations or partially favorable. But the writers did it.
But if you go into this with the mindset that you cannot meet the expectations, you never will. I apparently was too stupid to think about whether I could meet the numbers or not. I just did it.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Sept 19, 2018 10:14:34 GMT -5
I was a manager when the DW metrics were first introduced. From the very beginning, the writers under my watch understood that the productivity index was not a grade like in school. One hundred is average or expected performance. Anything less than that meant you were taking too long to do the work. And I was a writer. Few of the decisions I wrote ever took 8 hours to write/edit. And I never had a fully favorable that took 4 hours to review/write/edit. Now I know the hours for decisions have been altered with less time for the fully favorable decisions. Still, they are not as draconian as you imagine. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I started my career with OHO, the standard for writers was not based on time but on sheer numbers. You were expected to produce 1.88 decisions per day. And you were assigned to write for a single judge for the most part. So if you drew a judge who issued a fair number of fully favorable decisions, you could make your numbers. If you worked for the more conservative judge who paid fewer cases, you worked like a dog to make that standard. I wrote for a judge who has a pay rate of about 30% which meant I worked like a dog to make that standard. So in a typical 20 day month, with no leave taken, I was expected to produce 38 decisions to make that target. And with my judge that meant writing 25 to 27 decisions that were affirmations or partially favorable. But the writers did it. But if you go into this with the mindset that you cannot meet the expectations, you never will. I apparently was too stupid to think about whether I could meet the numbers or not. I just did it. I think you’re right that the old 8-hour/4-hour standard was too generous for most writers. The problem is that the agency overreached by changing the amount of time given to cases and also eliminating downtime. If a writer can’t take off time for things such as mentoring or participating in training (in-office, regional or national), some of the very best writers whom I’d think the agency would want to participate in those mentoring/training activities cannot make the grade. Yes.
When I returned from an extended medical leave, I had to catch up on all the trainings I missed while I was gone. An hour training here or there is not a big deal. But when you miss six hours of training because you're gone for a few months, you wind up starting your return almost a day behind. If you get unlucky enough to get a district court remand with 2,000+ pages of evidence and a case with illegible, confusing instructions in the same month, suddenly you're hovering at 80-85 percent that month through no fault of your own.
In theory, I have no problem with a 95 percent DWPI. Writers can and should generally be performing around there. My problem is that the elimination of down time has removed local management's discretion to account for unusual circumstances. You got a case that's on its third remand and has 17 medical opinions from 10 different sources? Tough. You get 10.5 hours credit, even though no amount of fully favorable decisions is going help you make up the lost time. You had to attend 3 hours of OGC training and 2 hours of OCEP in the same month? Suck it up, buttercup. You're at 92 percent but you also have the lowest remand rate in the office? Too bad so sad. They've just removed all context from the numbers.
In the end, we'll deal with it. We'll write faster. And in three years when the AC and district court remand rates go up, we won't be surprised when we start getting a flurry of memos and trainings about quality. Round and round we'll go...
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 19, 2018 15:25:28 GMT -5
After reading these last two posts about the elimination of down time, I did some quick math based on the 95% mark. A four-week reporting period has 20 work days or 160 hours. 95% of that is 152 hours. So there is a built in given of 8 hours for down time. I can see where that is insufficient for someone mentoring new writers but not for other downtime like training. But if I was worried about down-time, I would be keeping a running time sheet showing what time I was unable to work and for what reason for each and every month. It could run the gamut from computer problems to mandatory training to mentoring other writers. Then if my productivity index was ever questioned, I could show why it was not up to the standard.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 19, 2018 16:16:35 GMT -5
So I've done some thinking about this topic. As a writer, this obviously has a significant effect. I have heard through the vine that local management was only recently informed of this issue (great idea to withhold that information until the last minute. Wonderful for morale). I'd feel bad for the GS and HODs, but honestly, they get paid enough to be the bufferhere. I am certainly aware of some very very not happy writers right now.
Redryder, the number of hours you spend working is generally irrelevant minus a small punishment for taking leave. If you took four days of leave time (32 hours) it would still divide your DWPI by the number of hours you worked (by your math that'd be 128 hours worked, and 95% of that would leave 6.4 hours of leave time. So you are proportionally punished for taking leave by the ratio mechanism. That amount is relatively minor, though.)
The main issue is the 95% mark, which is...discouraging. I agree with all the comments that it is unreasonable to expect a competent work product at those paces. But honestly, I'm grateful to have this job, and if they want to impose ridiculous standards I can cry all the way to the bank. I'm getting paid for a reason, and nobody pays me to have fun (unless I decide it's fun!)
Modifications to the pay equation in my locale would change my response drastically. Modifications to benefits would change my response drastically.
The rules for employment remain the same regardless of this action. Figure out what the boss wants, do it, and if you can't do it, figure out why and work with your boss, not against them. I've generally found that they are grateful to have someone working with and not against. The exceptions...well, we are attorneys. Read up on federal employment law as a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Sept 19, 2018 16:30:33 GMT -5
Does anyone know where to find the DWPI standards? I can’t find them anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 17:08:26 GMT -5
After reading these last two posts about the elimination of down time, I did some quick math based on the 95% mark. A four-week reporting period has 20 work days or 160 hours. 95% of that is 152 hours. So there is a built in given of 8 hours for down time. I can see where that is insufficient for someone mentoring new writers but not for other downtime like training. But if I was worried about down-time, I would be keeping a running time sheet showing what time I was unable to work and for what reason for each and every month. It could run the gamut from computer problems to mandatory training to mentoring other writers. Then if my productivity index was ever questioned, I could show why it was not up to the standard.It seems like we’re back in private practice tracking billable hours. Do you realize exactly how much time it takes to track your time every step of the way and capturing when you were “not writing” and the reason you weren’t writing, at every given time you were interrupted by new hires, other staffers, or otherwise coordinating with aljs on case issues, and computer issues, VODs, LMS, OCEP, formal training, and on and on and on..... one ends up spending more time just trying to track the crap. Should they also get “downtime” for tracking their time? It is easy to say, “just track your time,” but in reality (which we all need to come back to) this is not feasible, plain and simple. Writers should not have to explain their productivity index when questioned when the productivity index is itself questionable. Do they also have to track the time they are having to explain why their productivity index is not reaching a questionable standard too?
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 19, 2018 17:17:02 GMT -5
It seems like we’re back in private practice tracking billable hours. Do you realize exactly how much time it takes to track your time every step of the way and capturing when you were “not writing” and the reason you weren’t writing, at every given time you were interrupted by new hires, other staffers, or otherwise coordinating with aljs on case issues, and computer issues, VODs, LMS, OCEP, formal training, and on and on and on..... one ends up spending more time just trying to track the crap. Should they also get “downtime” for tracking their time? It is easy to say, “just track your time,” but in reality (which we all need to come back to) this is not feasible plain and simple. Writers should not have to shoulder the burden of explaining their productivity index when questioned when the productivity index is itself questionable. Do they also have to track the time they are having to explain their productivity index is not reaching a questionable standard too? No. DWPI and billable hours are apples and oranges. I've done both (billables from the managing side). Billable hours have to be meticulous because the firm makes and breaks its money off of them. Clients tend to get annoyed when you charge them exorbitant amounts for what they perceive to be no or insufficient reasons, so the management team will want that stuff tracked to a T. With DWPI, however, one person needs it for one reason. Using a billable hours system to track it is complete overkill and a gigantic waste of time. Track the amount of time spent in cases, track your overall WebTA time, and briefly track any time you spend on other activities. That's it. Don't need to break it down into .1 billable hours. As to the remainder, keep a running word document called 'downtime.' Input as needed. Copy and paste and send report each month. Done. On to your penultimate sentence, which is the most interesting. Honestly, the best and simplest any individual writer can hope for is 'work with your supervisor.' I can and have debated it with my supervisor, and my impression is that most of them get that DWPI is pretty questionable.
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Sept 19, 2018 18:40:52 GMT -5
I understand that management has limited abilities to adjust an individual's DWPI. By that I mean that sending a report explaining why a case took X amount of time or why you spent Y hours doing other activities will not ultimately cause your DWPI to be adjusted in your favor. At least according to my local management team, management nevertheless cannot legitimately adjust your DWPI or as they used to call it "back out your time." They may be able to juke the numbers within your office, but the report that goes to (or is generated at) the national level does not consider your downtime, mentoring or other responsibilities, etc. if you are a rank and file AA.
This may vary by office/region for all I know. I do think it is good to work with management to let them know if you hit a snag in terms of productivity, but doing too much timekeeping sounds counterproductive, and Lord knows it is all about productivity!
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Sept 19, 2018 20:12:03 GMT -5
I understand that management has limited abilities to adjust an individual's DWPI. By that I mean that sending a report explaining why a case took X amount of time or why you spent Y hours doing other activities will not ultimately cause your DWPI to be adjusted in your favor. At least according to my local management team, management nevertheless cannot legitimately adjust your DWPI or as they used to call it "back out your time." They may be able to juke the numbers within your office, but the report that goes to (or is generated at) the national level does not consider your downtime, mentoring or other responsibilities, etc. if you are a rank and file AA.
This may vary by office/region for all I know. I do think it is good to work with management to let them know if you hit a snag in terms of productivity, but doing too much timekeeping sounds counterproductive, and Lord knows it is all about productivity! I believe your understanding is correct. Even nationally recognized activities such as SkillsConnect (which expects participants to spend up to 20% of their time on a non-decision writing activities) may not be backed out for DWPI purposes.
|
|
|
Post by christina on Sept 19, 2018 20:20:33 GMT -5
I’m not under dwpi yet. How is leave considered/calculated under dwpi?
|
|
|
Post by harp on Sept 19, 2018 23:17:38 GMT -5
I’m not under dwpi yet. How is leave considered/calculated under dwpi? It’s not factored in. So if you work 40 hours in an 80-hour pay period, the DWPI standard will be calculated for only 40 hours. OT/credit time is added in too, of course. The thing with downtime — although an hour training here or there might not change things dramatically, those people involved in national training are out three weeks straight to teach those classes. That time does not come off DWPI. And as someone else mentioned, even if your local office understands this and doesn’t give you trouble when your numbers are low, whoever looks at those numbers on a regional or national basis doesn’t get a bunch of asterisks next to each name explaining why the numbers are lower. For those with lower DWPI numbers, even when they’re low for a legitimate reason such as spending 15 hours a week mentoring/reviewing others’ decisions, it’s going to make you look less competitive when it comes to details, promotions, or ALJ hiring. Allllllll of this. And I know that I’m the board shrill feminist, but there legitimately are ways in which these things affect women disproportionately. I have taken two maternity leaves plus another medical leave (for a procedure related to a birth complication). Each time I’ve come back, I’ve had significant amounts of emails and trainings to catch up on. Each time, it’s taken me about two days to get back up to speed on IT issues, trainings, emails, and the like. Two of my three leaves happened when we still got down time, but it was really tough to come back from my most recent leave and be expected to be performing at the same level as others despite being massively behind on a bunch of non-writing stuff. Yes, this will affect anyone who is out for an extended period of time, men and women, but let’s be real - far more women are taking 8+ Week leaves because biology. The reality is that the lack of local management discretion can have a discriminatory effect. Also, at least in my office, every mentor for new writers is a woman. I don’t know why none of our male writers are mentoring, but the upshot is that the women are going to have a lower DWPI because they are busy performing the valuable and necessary function of mentoring.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 20, 2018 6:11:04 GMT -5
I’m not under dwpi yet. How is leave considered/calculated under dwpi? It’s not factored in. So if you work 40 hours in an 80-hour pay period, the DWPI standard will be calculated for only 40 hours. OT/credit time is added in too, of course. The thing with downtime — although an hour training here or there might not change things dramatically, those people involved in national training are out three weeks straight to teach those classes. That time does not come off DWPI. And as someone else mentioned, even if your local office understands this and doesn’t give you trouble when your numbers are low, whoever looks at those numbers on a regional or national basis doesn’t get a bunch of asterisks next to each name explaining why the numbers are lower. For those with lower DWPI numbers, even when they’re low for a legitimate reason such as spending 15 hours a week mentoring/reviewing others’ decisions, it’s going to make you look less competitive when it comes to details, promotions, or ALJ hiring. I think I would no longer be willing to do training or mentoring. If the Agency is not willing to work with me, then I would not be willing to work with the Agency. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Sept 20, 2018 6:46:38 GMT -5
... So there is a built in given of 8 hours for down time. I can see where that is insufficient for someone mentoring new writers but not for other downtime like training. But if I was worried about down-time, I would be keeping a running time sheet showing what time I was unable to work and for what reason for each and every month. It could run the gamut from computer problems to mandatory training to mentoring other writers. Then if my productivity index was ever questioned, I could show why it was not up to the standard. I realize that some of the language choices here are a matter of abbreviated thought. However, words matter, so I bristle at references to “what time I was unable to work”. If you are engaging in activities required/suggested by your employer, or were involved in waiting for changes so that you can do your job (E.g., fixing your computer, mentoring people ), you are “working”. And employee may not be, during those time periods, creating metrics that management can used to pat themselves on the back. However, do not encourage your colleagues to start thinking that you are not working during these periods of time. Some individuals in management might like employees to view that time in a way that employees feel pressured to make up for those hours per week. But those aspects are *part of your job*. I don’t expect my surgical team to perform an operation without washing their hands, checking the equipment, and having conversations to bring newer team members up to speed, and coordinate. If they were to find failed equipment, and were to have to wait an hour for replacement, I don’t think that anyone would think that the team was not “working“ during that time. This is why, as much as my law firm might have written off my time traveling to a deposition, I was still expected to bill it. The same went for attending trainings, or waiting for IT support. Including that as my “Billable“ time was not doing me a favor, that was the job.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 20, 2018 8:06:58 GMT -5
I too worked under the old 8/4 system. I believe the reasoning for changchange to the new values assigned to cases was supposed to be a more fair approach to the amount of work individual cases entailed.
Not sure if the consulting firm, actually wrote decisions before arriving at the values assigned, but if so they made a few mistakes in my opinion. For example, a partially favorable decision almost always takes less time to write than a nonsevere uaff, but the writer receives 2 or 3 times the credit for that part free. Writers now love to be assigned those. The nonsevere may take far more time to write because nonsevere is not as easy or an inituitive concept.
Consulting 101--sample the end user sufficently.
|
|
|
Post by harp on Sept 20, 2018 8:18:18 GMT -5
I too worked under the old 8/4 system. I believe the reasoning for changchange to the new values assigned to cases was supposed to be a more fair approach to the amount of work individual cases entailed. Not sure if the consulting firm, actually wrote decisions before arriving at the values assigned, but if so they made a few mistakes in my opinion. For example, a partially favorable decision almost always takes less time to write than a nonsevere uaff, but the writer receives 2 or 3 times the credit for that part free. Writers now love to be assigned those. The nonsevere may take far more time to write because nonsevere is not as easy or an inituitive concept. Consulting 101--sample the end user sufficently. IME, this varies based on the reason for the partially favorable. Partially favorable based on age change are THE BEST. Partially favorable with 2 different RFCs? That greater amount of credit is needed. The worse is a partially favorable with THREE RFCs because the ALJ finds a POD that begins after the AOD. You're basically writing an unfavorable, a favorable, and a CDR all in one. Those take forevvvvvvvvver.
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 20, 2018 9:12:32 GMT -5
It’s not factored in. So if you work 40 hours in an 80-hour pay period, the DWPI standard will be calculated for only 40 hours. OT/credit time is added in too, of course. The thing with downtime — although an hour training here or there might not change things dramatically, those people involved in national training are out three weeks straight to teach those classes. That time does not come off DWPI. And as someone else mentioned, even if your local office understands this and doesn’t give you trouble when your numbers are low, whoever looks at those numbers on a regional or national basis doesn’t get a bunch of asterisks next to each name explaining why the numbers are lower. For those with lower DWPI numbers, even when they’re low for a legitimate reason such as spending 15 hours a week mentoring/reviewing others’ decisions, it’s going to make you look less competitive when it comes to details, promotions, or ALJ hiring. I think I would no longer be willing to do training or mentoring. If the Agency is not willing to work with me, then I would not be willing to work with the Agency. Pixie I 100% agree. There are a number of things I wouldn't do if I were still a writer. I would no longer check the judge's work or correct things. I'd no longer check the hearing recording to make sure the RFC matches the hypo. I'd no longer cobble together the paragraph B criteria if the judge won't put that in the instructions. I'm no longer addressing every impairment not covered in the instructions. I'm not hunting and pecking for every opinion in the file. I'm going with what the instructions say, doing analysis to support the decision, and moving on to the next one. There are a number of other areas of lost time that this won't address, most obviously our systems and the slow downs we get to encounter daily (yes, I know... the new update is supposed to fix everything, just like every other update has done in the past). I don't think it's an exaggeration to state that it takes at least 5 minutes every day before you can actually use an application on your computer after logging on. That's nearly two hours a month spent waiting on your computer to boot up that's not accounted for. What happens when you're creating a shell, inputting basic information (impairments, paragraph B, maybe the RFC, PRW, etc.) and then FIT crashes and causes you to have to do it all over again? That's not an uncommon occurrence. What about those fun times when eView or CPMS aren't working and you can't access documents? What about the talkative judge that roams the halls and comes to talk to you about one particular case he/she has noticed you're writing? Or just stops by to BS? Or what about the time that you have to waste talking to your GS or a judge about instructions that won't work? The other thing about this is that much like our expectations with scheduling/hearing/disposing of cases, it fails to address regional differences in file sizes, represented cases, etc. When your average file size is a couple hundred pages with few repped claimants to stuff the file with MSSs that will need to be addressed, writing is much easier. When your average file size is 1k pages with 95% of the claimants being repped, good luck trying to keep your productivity up.
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Sept 20, 2018 9:48:44 GMT -5
I think I would no longer be willing to do training or mentoring. If the Agency is not willing to work with me, then I would not be willing to work with the Agency. Pixie I 100% agree. There are a number of things I wouldn't do if I were still a writer. I would no longer check the judge's work or correct things. I'd no longer check the hearing recording to make sure the RFC matches the hypo. I'd no longer cobble together the paragraph B criteria if the judge won't put that in the instructions. I'm no longer addressing every impairment not covered in the instructions. I'm not hunting and pecking for every opinion in the file. I'm going with what the instructions say, doing analysis to support the decision, and moving on to the next one. There are a number of other areas of lost time that this won't address, most obviously our systems and the slow downs we get to encounter daily (yes, I know... the new update is supposed to fix everything, just like every other update has done in the past). I don't think it's an exaggeration to state that it takes at least 5 minutes every day before you can actually use an application on your computer after logging on. That's nearly two hours a month spent waiting on your computer to boot up that's not accounted for. What happens when you're creating a shell, inputting basic information (impairments, paragraph B, maybe the RFC, PRW, etc.) and then FIT crashes and causes you to have to do it all over again? That's not an uncommon occurrence. What about those fun times when eView or CPMS aren't working and you can't access documents? What about the talkative judge that roams the halls and comes to talk to you about one particular case he/she has noticed you're writing? Or just stops by to BS? Or what about the time that you have to waste talking to your GS or a judge about instructions that won't work? The other thing about this is that much like our expectations with scheduling/hearing/disposing of cases, it fails to address regional differences in file sizes, represented cases, etc. When your average file size is a couple hundred pages with few repped claimants to stuff the file with MSSs that will need to be addressed, writing is much easier. When your average file size is 1k pages with 95% of the claimants being repped, good luck trying to keep your productivity up.
I think your post hits on a critical point which is the interplay between the actions of ALJs and DWs. Yes, a competent DW who has been properly trained should be able to maintain the 95% average assuming they receive proper and accurate ALJ instructions. However, in reality we see various permutations.
I am sure most ALJs will strive to hit their 500 disposition while maintaining high quality and accurate instructions, I fear some ALJs may rush out instructions that are either incomplete or inaccurate in their quest to reach 500. This in turns slows down the DW who is committed to drafting legally sufficient decisions. If a DW has to go back to the ALJ for clarification (time they are not allowed to write off), it could very well take twice as long to get the decisional draft out the door. Now the ALJ who has good instructions may be penalized a draft because the DW spent twice as long on the previous decision for the less conscientious ALJ.
Another issue is that not all DWs are competent and adequately trained. While most arguably are (which, when the new minimal standard is above the national average, causes some concern), it would also appear a notable number of DWs have been behind the curve for years. Should this have been addressed previously? Most definitely. However, we now face the challenge of reprimanding people for doing something we previously accepted for years as to magically expect them to now reach this new standard is "pie in the sky" mentality IMHO.
At the end of the day, I would hope that both ALJs and DWs try to approach the current production pressures with a "team" mindset. Historically, DWs are they only part of this equation who have faced any real risk of discharge for "underperformance" and with DWPI, it appears that risk is magnified. Either player choosing to shortcut the process not only negatively impacts the other player, but ultimately, does a disservice to our customer, the American people.
|
|