|
Post by natethegreat on Sept 20, 2018 9:55:52 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.
While your example calculation appears consistent with how DWPI is applied by SSA, it also appears that the base hour calculation is inherently flawed. During a standard 8 hour workday, is not the DW expected to work only 7.5 hours as 30 minutes per day consists of paid break time? So the base would more accurately be 37.5, not 40, IMHO. That is nearly a 6.5% difference. While 95% of 40 is 38 hours per week, arguably a DW was only expected to work 37.5 hours out of that 40 hour workweek. As a result, there was no downtime, but rather a penalty for taking your allotted paid breaks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 10:19:26 GMT -5
Yeah, that will be the next thing to go: (30 minutes for lunch on the timesheet but get to take an hour). I bet they will say, oops, you only get to actually take 30 minutes like on your timesheet.
Or keep the hour but start having to stay 30 minutes longer at the end of the day.
Mark my words.
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 20, 2018 10:25:20 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. While your example calculation appears consistent with how DWPI is applied by SSA, it also appears that the base hour calculation is inherently flawed. During a standard 8 hour workday, is not the DW expected to work only 7.5 hours as 30 minutes per day consists of paid break time? So the base would more accurately be 37.5, not 40, IMHO. That is nearly a 6.5% difference. While 95% of 40 is 38 hours per week, arguably a DW was only expected to work 37.5 hours out of that 40 hour workweek. As a result, there was no downtime, but rather a penalty for taking your allotted paid breaks.
A fifteen minute break in the morning, thirty minutes for lunch and a fifteen minute break in the afternoon. That is the official position. And yes, 7.5 hours must be accounted for. Pixie
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Sept 20, 2018 11:32:32 GMT -5
While your example calculation appears consistent with how DWPI is applied by SSA, it also appears that the base hour calculation is inherently flawed. During a standard 8 hour workday, is not the DW expected to work only 7.5 hours as 30 minutes per day consists of paid break time? So the base would more accurately be 37.5, not 40, IMHO. That is nearly a 6.5% difference. While 95% of 40 is 38 hours per week, arguably a DW was only expected to work 37.5 hours out of that 40 hour workweek. As a result, there was no downtime, but rather a penalty for taking your allotted paid breaks.
A fifteen minute break in the morning, thirty minutes for lunch and a fifteen minute break in the afternoon. That is the official position. And yes, 7.5 hours must be accounted for. Pixie Thank you for the confirmation. It is my understanding that DWPI takes raw figures from WebTA, so for the denominator it counts a normal workday as 8 hours, not 7.5. As a result, to hit 95% under DWPI, a DW must actually exceed 100% during their 37.5 hours of "working time" in a standard 40 hour workweek.
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Sept 20, 2018 15:54:02 GMT -5
To those of you who pointed out that I did not include the paid break time, mea culpa. The old standard of 4/8 worked well when it was properly administered. Unfortunately too many managers and writers thought of 100% as the equivalent of an A+ when it was just meeting the expectation and nothing more. Offices were complacent with writers having indices as low at 75% to 80%. I know because I was going around my region doing training at the time and was shocked when told that these were indices for acceptable performance by writers and managers. Now it appears someone has tried to devise a system that truly does not account for the fact that each case is different. As a previous poster pointed out, a denial at Step 2 can be more complex than a partially favorable. And what do the wizards propose for these strange cases where the claimant has a period of disability, a period of cessation and another period of disability? These beasties happen and more often now with the longer waiting periods. Clt disabled at 47, improves by 49 1/2 with a sedentary RFC, disabled again at 50 under the grid with that sedentary RFC.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 20, 2018 20:47:28 GMT -5
While I don’t agree with you, you make a good point.
This thread should be about ALJ issues not writers. We should probably return to that.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 20, 2018 20:55:06 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. [b At least a partially free is an easily understood type of decision--not disabled then disabled. In the case of nonsevere impairments, there is sometimes confusion based on lack of or little tx, or noncompliance. A part free is a pretty easy case to write for the credit received.
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 20, 2018 21:19:41 GMT -5
While I don’t agree with you, you make a good point. This thread should be about ALJ issues not writers. We should probably return to that. [br Let's get back on topic, but realize production demands on ALJs cannot be achieved without team support. So getting the decision out takes full effort of all. If one part of the team produces less, pressure is placed on others parts or the team to overcome the loss. For example, no time awarded for trainig others, equals less knowledge held by newer writers. Decisions with lower quality ultimately result in more ALJ time spent reviewing and correcting, makung the goal of 500 is harder to achieve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2018 21:42:04 GMT -5
While I don’t agree with you, you make a good point. This thread should be about ALJ issues not writers. We should probably return to that. This thread has given me a renewed appreciation for the writers in my office, i am glad the discussion went into what writers face. I get differing decisions from really bad to outstanding. I know exactly which writers i have to just spot check Impairments, Listings, RFC, Opinions and job numbers and then sign. Others, i have to read and revise from the first to the last paragraph. Somehow, i suspect the writers will continue to write the same. Some folks just take pride in their work and they just will not move a case into Edit to get rid of it. Some will do a barely acceptable job that requires me to work harder. I appreciate 90 percent of the writers who work hard and allow me to move cases into MAIL status quickly. Thank you all for sharing all of this information
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Sept 21, 2018 8:16:17 GMT -5
While I don’t agree with you, you make a good point. This thread should be about ALJ issues not writers. We should probably return to that. This thread has given me a renewed appreciation for the writers in my office, i am glad the discussion went into what writers face. I get differing decisions from really bad to outstanding. I know exactly which writers i have to just spot check Impairments, Listings, RFC, Opinions and job numbers and then sign. Others, i have to read and revise from the first to the last paragraph. Somehow, i suspect the writers will continue to write the same. Some folks just take pride in their work and they just will not move a case into Edit to get rid of it. Some will do a barely acceptable job that requires me to work harder. I appreciate 90 percent of the writers who work hard and allow me to move cases into MAIL status quickly. Thank you all for sharing all of this information [br Thank you for saying this. Most writer I know or have contact with, especially those of us in this conversation care deeply about the quality of decisions we write and we want to produce high numbers. I want each ALJ I write for to meet and even exceed goal with few if any remanded. Often I think of the agency's mission and what we at SSA must do to excel above other agencies because I believe that is the real test. So writers who are not at 95% let's kick it up. Listen and use methods utilized by more productive writers. ALJs this can work for you as well. Steal effective methods of those getting 500. Business calls it benchmarking. I observed hearings of an ALJ that produced well over goal this year. Said ALJ has a process that is both efficient and respectful to the claimants. It does not hurt to absorb excellance. Managers, the under 95% writers are already trained. It will take the agency considerable time, effort, and money to train new writers. Figure out what makes slow writers slow rather than reward them with easier cases.
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Sept 21, 2018 8:23:46 GMT -5
Managers, the under 95% writers are already trained. It will take the agency considerable time, effort, and money to train new writers. Figure out what makes slow writers slow rather than reward them with easier cases.
[/quote]
I agree. Continuing to spoon feed easy cases to writers with 3 or 4 years' experience is pointless if doing so these last few years has seen no commensurate increase in the quality and quantity of their decisions. The low producers who exclusively receive easier cases with no additional training simply pull the entire office down and will need remedial training to be effective.
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Sept 21, 2018 8:26:40 GMT -5
But who will train them if downtime is not permitted for training as discussed above?
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Sept 21, 2018 8:30:02 GMT -5
I need coffee, but you are 100% correct. I have mentored several writers in the past but I am like all others in the hunt for ALJ and feel reluctant to take the hit to my productivity index.
|
|
|
Post by Peabody on Sept 21, 2018 8:34:45 GMT -5
That being said, there are resources available and that I make readily available to colleagues in my office to help them improve their writing without worrying about the downtime. Further, I received what I would call uninspired and relatively pitiful training when hired, so I took it upon myself to seek out the best writers, ask for examples, and ask ALJs for feedback initially for a couple of cases until I could improve. I do not see a great deal of that sort of behavior presently (or within the past several years, for that matter), but I do think a desire to do well coupled with personal initiative would go a long way in terms of helping writers do a better job given the constraints of training and mentoring.
|
|
|
Post by pseudonymous on Sept 21, 2018 12:06:45 GMT -5
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. This. I know that I issue a far-greater-than-average PF decisions involving closed periods (perhaps 5% of my total decisions), as I believe that conclusion often best reflects the evidence. (Fortunately, sometimes treatment works!). I’ve already attempted to get the rep to agree to a closed period, but they rarely do, so the analysis needs to be far more sophisticated than a straight unfavorable.
|
|
|
Post by chicagoirish on Sept 21, 2018 13:39:08 GMT -5
I was treated with more dignity and respect as far as my time management when I was a lowly retail worker. No thanks! One reason I went to college and law school, among many, was to no longer have my breaks and lunches on a timer.
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Sept 21, 2018 14:17:18 GMT -5
This is an ALJ issue. In my office this year, none of the ALJs will reach 500 dispositions, but all have at least 100 cases in UNWR which would put them over the top.
Also, if the writers start taking the short cuts some have mentioned, what do you think that will do to your time in EDIT hell? It is maddening to see the Administration being so punitive. One cannot just say, we need more cases, so let's pump up the number of cases turned to be successful. Quality has to be a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Sept 21, 2018 19:37:14 GMT -5
Lots of talk about DWPI in this thread. One way DWPI is going to affect judges is that management is going to send back instructions. DWs already complain about instructions, so it will only get worst under the new standard. So judges are going to have to spend more time editting decisions because DWs are going to “write faster” and spend more time drafting instructions so they don’t get sent back. It will vary by office and it will be interesting what NCACs decide to do. As one poster mentioned, it really is a team process. Hopefully, it will play out that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2018 21:37:17 GMT -5
Lots of talk about DWPI in this thread. One way DWPI is going to affect judges is that management is going to send back instructions. DWs already complain about instructions, so it will only get worst under the new standard. So judges are going to have to spend more time editting decisions because DWs are going to “write faster” and spend more time drafting instructions so they don’t get sent back. It will vary by office and it will be interesting what NCACs decide to do. As one poster mentioned, it really is a team process. Hopefully, it will play out that way. Without pointing fingers, I will have to admit, I opened my last case for today to prep the draft decision for writing Monday and found writing instructions that neither stated whether it was an unfavorable decison, ff decision, or later onset. Based upon the the content contained therein I have determined it must be UF, however, the instructions do not indicate whether it is a step 4 or step 5 denial. It does not contain any citations to any exhibits, and it does not provide any evaluation of the evidence or assign any weight to any MSOs (much less indicate where they are in the record). I admit it is the first time I have encountered writing instructions this bad, but from my experience, writing instructions are like a box of chocolates. Some ALJs are absolutely stellar in being thorough and explicit (in which case I can write their step 5 UF in 4 hours), and others are awful and I literally have to pretend to be an ALJ and analyze the case from start to finish, and then take more than the alloted time I have to get a “legally sufficient” decision out the door (which hinders my productivity and the other hundreds of cases in UNWR from the other Judges). Extremely frustrating. However, with the new DWPI standard, I now know which Judges will have a higher remand rate, and which ones will look like gold. I will also state that if any ALJ ever sends a case back to me, their initial writing instructions better be top notch. Otherwise, they will learn the biblical lesson about taking the plank out of their own eye before trying to remove the speck from mine. I understand that ALJs are very crunched for time and the very last thing they want to have to do is sit for hours rewriting a decision on a case they don’t hardly remember in the first place, but I would think that if they could take just a little bit more time writing the instructions when the facts of the case is fresh in their mind, it would not only help the DWs get a fully supported decision back to them quicker, but also mitigate the EDIT time and dispo rate as well. in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Sept 22, 2018 9:21:28 GMT -5
I cannot speak for all ALJs, but if I was so rushed I did not include a note of whether it was UF, FF, etc., or whether it was a Step 4 or 5, or any other of the issues above, I would anticipate receiving an email to that effect, so I could fix it.
As a former AA, I would have sent a (very nice, professional) email to that effect to the judge and would have moved to the next case in my queue, (because I would have asked for more cases before I got to just one left in my queue). Lost time? 5 minutes to write the email.
As a former GS, I mediated issues between writers and ALJs, to address patterns in such areas. Happened once? ok, bad day (whether it was bad instructions or bad writing). Repeatedly? that was an issue that adversely impacted the entire office, and management needed to address.
Yes, it's a team effort and it is one in which we all bear some of the responsibility.
|
|