|
|
Post by christina on Jul 3, 2019 7:51:57 GMT -5
Also, will the summaries be exhibited? Are they discoverable in Federal court appeals? Who knows? What happens when the senior attorney says pay and the judge says no? Let me alleviate your concerns: 1. No; 2. No; 3. I do; and 4. Judges can do whatever they want since they are the the judge. This is not new. Atty adjudicator worksheets will be in the private section in Eview, read em or dont, no one really cares. Well I’d prefer that they be read. But I hear u |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 3, 2019 8:07:59 GMT -5
Let me alleviate your concerns: 1. No; 2. No; 3. I do; and 4. Judges can do whatever they want since they are the the judge. This is not new. Atty adjudicator worksheets will be in the private section in Eview, read em or dont, no one really cares. Well I’d prefer that they be read. But I hear u I've always thought their value was directly proportional to how close to hearing the case was. If the review is done shortly after the DDS denial, then it's of limited value. If it's done a few months before hearing, then it could be great. I note that such reviews don't actually tell a judge whether to pay a case or not, but highlight issues that could be dispositive and those areas where further inquiry is necessary to resolve an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 3, 2019 8:24:08 GMT -5
If these preheating reports are similiar to those produced by NHC attorneys why aren't all NHC attorneys Senior Attorneys? Since Senior Attorneys are to refocus on different tasks, who will write the more difficult decisions? FYI: The AA jobs posted and filled last month were permanent, so for purposes of a RIF they will be retained before the 500 or so AAs hired in 2018. Interesting times. How messed up is it that the NTEs could be let go, but the people hired after them, with less experience, get to stay? Makes no sense. Now that the "all hands on deck/stfu and write the cases" phase is over, it would be nice if there were some strong consideration given to the saa program and opening up 13s again. In the past (way past now), saa promotion was largely a matter of seniority and not merit. I laughed when it was suggested that senior attorneys are the best writers. I know several who are horrible writers, and generally just bad attorneys. Pre-hearing review and writing the "complex cases" can be done by any attorney. This is just busy work BS they made up to justify saas after they restricted adjudicative authority. The real dividing line between aa and saa ought to be adjudcative authority. Saas should be selected for merit and required to be trained by the NAT and work on the NAT for a year. If they can hack it, they should be made a 13 and released back to their home office to review and pay cases. If they cant, then they stay a 12. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 3, 2019 10:20:45 GMT -5
I’m not sure 2018 people will be riffed. But we will see
|
|
|
|
Post by lurkerbelow on Jul 3, 2019 11:00:01 GMT -5
Saas should be selected for merit and required to be trained by the NAT and work on the NAT for a year. If they can hack it, they should be made a 13 and released back to their home office to review and pay cases. If they cant, then they stay a 12. Hypothetically assuming that this wo uld happen, I'd make one tweak to that to save a lot of money: have the AAs up for the 13 NAT training telework instead. Saves money on moves etc. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 3, 2019 11:24:51 GMT -5
FYI: The AA jobs posted and filled last month were permanent, so for purposes of a RIF they will be retained before the 500 or so AAs hired in 2018. Interesting times. Not sure I agree with the above statement. Individuals who are in the jobs posted and filled last month are in a probationary period/status. It would seem that term AAs who have finished their probationary period are on same footing as permanent AAs who are still in their probationary period; (both could be let go relatively easy?). However, there may be a categorical RIF priority I don’t know about that provides term employees get whacked before perm employees (even perm employees in a probationary status), and if so, then, yeah I guess 2rvrrun would be correct. I would be surprised if SSA actually rif’d anyone instead of letting attritions and terms expirations progress naturally. Does anyone know when the last time any Agency actually performed an official reduction in force? And how many were let go? That would be interesting to know. 20 years from what I hear and it was not a rif but rather a reassignment to other jobs |
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Jul 3, 2019 12:23:07 GMT -5
There is RIF guidance on the OPM website. It starts with four factors:
1) tenure (type employment)
2) vet preference
3) length of service
4) performance ratings (looks like past 3 years)
This page also explains termination benefits and transfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljanxious on Jul 3, 2019 13:04:49 GMT -5
Saas should be selected for merit and required to be trained by the NAT and work on the NAT for a year. If they can hack it, they should be made a 13 and released back to their home office to review and pay cases. If they cant, then they stay a 12. Hypothetically assuming that this wo uld happen, I'd make one tweak to that to save a lot of money: have the AAs up for the 13 NAT training telework instead. Saves money on moves etc. NAT attorneys stay where they are already. The current version had them transfered temporarily via their SF-50s to a different unit, but they are physically in their own original offices. This model seems to work well and is more reasonable than asking folks to move for a 13, as you noted. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Jul 3, 2019 13:48:17 GMT -5
There is RIF guidance on the OPM website. It starts with four factors: 1) tenure (type employment) 2) vet preference 3) length of service 4) performance ratings (looks like past 3 years) This page also explains termination benefits and transfers. Do those rules apply to excepted service employees? |
|
|
|
Post by dragon on Jul 3, 2019 14:10:21 GMT -5
There is RIF guidance on the OPM website. It starts with four factors: 1) tenure (type employment) 2) vet preference 3) length of service 4) performance ratings (looks like past 3 years) This page also explains termination benefits and transfers. Do those rules apply to excepted service employees? I think excepted would go towards tenure, one factor. If you look at the OPM site, there are pages explaining. Too much to cut and paste here. |
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Jul 3, 2019 16:25:01 GMT -5
I spend about 20-25 hrs a week on file review. And if senior attorneys could just do my file review on the one or two biggest cases I have each week, that would be amazing. I could adjudicate 50 or more extra cases a year if someone else was doing the file review for me. BUT my file review is pretty darned particular and detailed. Are the SAs really going to do a good job so i dont have to do file review for that case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2019 17:35:28 GMT -5
Do those rules apply to excepted service employees? I think excepted would go towards tenure, one factor. If you look at the OPM site, there are pages explaining. Too much to cut and paste here. No exempted employees go on a separate retention register. You cannot mix competitive employees with exempted employees. Highest on toting pole are career employees, then career conditional and then term or temporary as well as probationary. Vets preference comes into play in each group. There are rules on setting up a competitive area, bump and retreat rules etc. SSA has never had a RIF from what I was told. Before they do a RIF they usually offer early outs. But all rules ( and gloves) are off with new administration who came into office with promise to drain the swamp and strike back at the deep state. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Jul 3, 2019 17:55:48 GMT -5
Totally OT, but I was thinking - DC is built on a swamp/marshland/wetland. They literally had to "drain the swamp" to build it. Hence wouldn't the better /correct rhetorical phrase be "refill the swamp?"
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Jul 3, 2019 19:46:07 GMT -5
I spend about 20-25 hrs a week on file review. And if senior attorneys could just do my file review on the one or two biggest cases I have each week, that would be amazing. I could adjudicate 50 or more extra cases a year if someone else was doing the file review for me. BUT my file review is pretty darned particular and detailed. Are the SAs really going to do a good job so i dont have to do file review for that case. As far as level of detail, at NHCs the DWs report directly to their respective ALJ who sets the standard/tone for what the reviews should look like. With SAs serving in a more generalized office-wide role, I wonder how much each ALJ can direct the manner in which their reviews are performed? I imagine that might vary widely based on local management. |
|
|
|
Post by 2rvrrun on Jul 3, 2019 23:04:12 GMT -5
I think excepted would go towards tenure, one factor. If you look at the OPM site, there are pages explaining. Too much to cut and paste here. No exempted employees go on a separate retention register. You cannot mix competitive employees with exempted employees. Highest on toting pole are career employees, then career conditional and then term or temporary as well as probationary. Vets preference comes into play in each group. There are rules on setting up a competitive area, bump and retreat rules etc. SSA has never had a RIF from what I was told. Before they do a RIF they usually offer early outs. But all rules ( and gloves) are off with new administration who came into office with promise to drain the swamp and strike back at the deep state. 5 §351.502 Order of retention—excepted service. (a) Competing employees shall be classified on a retention register in tenure groups on the basis of their tenure of employment, veteran preference, length of service, and performance in descending order as set forth under §351.501(a) for competing employees in the competitive service. (b) Groups are defined as follows: (1) Group I includes each permanent employee whose appointment carries no restriction or condition such as conditional, indefinite, specific time limit, or trial period. (2) Group II includes each employee: (i) Serving a trial period; or (ii) Whose tenure is equivalent to a career-conditional appointment in the competitive service in agencies having such excepted appointments. (3) Group III includes each employee: (i) Whose tenure is indefinite (i.e., without specific time limit), but not actually or potentially permanent; (ii) Whose appointment has a specific time limitation of more than 1 year; or (iii) Who is currently employed under a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less, but who has completed 1 year of current continuous service under a temporary appointment with no break in service of 1 workday or more. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Jul 4, 2019 7:37:42 GMT -5
This from a board member. It gives an idea of who management feels might be in danger of losing their jobs:
“My office made new DW hires in 2017 and 2018. I helped train and mentor these new writers. I was asked by management this week what I thought the best way to approach the 2018 writers in order to warn them that a reduction was possible. It was stressed to me that local mgmt had not been told that anyone would be let go, but that the 4yr NTE was the most likely rationale and they might want to begin exploring other employment possibilities.”
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jul 4, 2019 7:47:44 GMT -5
Not that logic has ever guided most governmental personnel decisions, but it seems illogical to RIF DWs, assign Sr Attys to work other than writing, and not hire ALJs. Two of those three work together (A and C, and B and C), while the three of them together leave a gap in either writing or decision making (as Sr Attys will have to go back to writing if writers are let go).
It seems like they want to use Sr Attys as a utility infielder the way a pennant winning team does in post-season—fill in positional need where it arises, but they either don’t understand the proper way to do it or can’t decide which position they want the gap to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 4, 2019 8:04:56 GMT -5
This from a board member. It gives an idea of who management feels might be in danger of losing their jobs: “My office made new DW hires in 2017 and 2018. I helped train and mentor these new writers. I was asked by management this week what I thought the best way to approach the 2018 writers in order to warn them that a reduction was possible. It was stressed to me that local mgmt had not been told that anyone would be let go, but that the 4yr NTE was the most likely rationale and they might want to begin exploring other employment possibilities.” Oh crap |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Jul 4, 2019 8:31:41 GMT -5
Not that logic has ever guided most governmental personnel decisions, but it seems illogical to RIF DWs, assign Sr Attys to work other than writing, and not hire ALJs. Two of those three work together (A and C, and B and C), while the three of them together leave a gap in either writing or decision making (as Sr Attys will have to go back to writing if writers are let go). It seems like they want to use Sr Attys as a utility infielder the way a pennant winning team does in post-season—fill in positional need where it arises, but they either don’t understand the proper way to do it or can’t decide which position they want the gap to be. Some of that uncertainty in how to proceed might lie in the fact (as previously mentioned in this thread) Sr. Atty quality varies drastically. While some were truly promoted by merit, others were promoted by mere seniority/age. Coming up with an agency-wide or even region-wide policy could be difficult as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Jul 4, 2019 8:35:40 GMT -5
This has been eating to me, as a 4 year NTE. I do not understand what recourse they have to get rid of me. Can they simply not renew me after a year? Or do they have to wait for the 4 years to be up? I will be hitting one year in a few weeks, so naturally this is of interest to me. I am also in an office where 6 other DWs came on board at the same time, after apparently many years of no AA hiring. I don't even want to think about what would happen if I got riffed, yet here we are.
|
|
