|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 11, 2019 12:02:49 GMT -5
Wait, what is that you say Bart, the sky is falling??? No way Bart, the rewrite of our position description doing away with the APA is nothing to worry about...… My friends, this could have been the best job in the world, but as long as you have non-lawyers managing the largest law firm in the world it will never be good. They don't understand the need for judicial independence in that we are supposed to be an independent entity between the applicant and the Agency. The APA says we will have no supervision or performance evaluations from the Agency and yet they are doing it with focused reviews which are usually caused by their own rules, regulations, POMS and Hallex that are confusing, contradictory, and conflicting... When I attempted to explain the time spent trying to interpret this mess I was told I was not to interpret it, but just to apply it... LOL. I was also told by management that I was not a real Judge and that was why I did not get judicial support from staff... I am not sure where the Agency is headed, but, yes, Dorothy, the sky is falling and I fear your Union leadership is clueless so you best get braced for the storm. Love and Merry Christmas to all, until I check my naughty list again... 71stretch, enjoy your retirement. Thank you, Bart. Here I am, in the office on a holiday, trying to wrap things up. Merry Christmas to you, too. |
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Nov 11, 2019 14:18:18 GMT -5
Wait, what is that you say Bart, the sky is falling??? No way Bart, the rewrite of our position description doing away with the APA is nothing to worry about...… My friends, this could have been the best job in the world, but as long as you have non-lawyers managing the largest law firm in the world it will never be good. They don't understand the need for judicial independence in that we are supposed to be an independent entity between the applicant and the Agency. The APA says we will have no supervision or performance evaluations from the Agency and yet they are doing it with focused reviews which are usually caused by their own rules, regulations, POMS and Hallex that are confusing, contradictory, and conflicting... When I attempted to explain the time spent trying to interpret this mess I was told I was not to interpret it, but just to apply it... LOL. I was also told by management that I was not a real Judge and that was why I did not get judicial support from staff... I am not sure where the Agency is headed, but, yes, Dorothy, the sky is falling and I fear your Union leadership is clueless so you best get braced for the storm. Love and Merry Christmas to all, until I check my naughty list again... 71stretch, enjoy your retirement. Thank you, Bart. Here I am, in the office on a holiday, trying to wrap things up. Merry Christmas to you, too. Years ago, I used to poke fun at Barteby for being pessimistic. Bart, you were right. I was wrong. But only this one time. You were prescient. 71stretch, I hope you aren’t in the office today. First of all, the K prohibits you from being in the office on a holiday. More importantly, it would mean that you’re donating time to the Agency, not enjoying a federal holiday, and facilitating the Agency’s bogus non-quota quotas. If you are in the office, walk away as fast as you can. Collegially, Hamster (USAF, Ret.) |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 11, 2019 14:53:02 GMT -5
Thank you, Bart. Here I am, in the office on a holiday, trying to wrap things up. Merry Christmas to you, too. Years ago, I used to poke fun at Barteby for being pessimistic. Bart, you were right. I was wrong. But only this one time. You were prescient. 71stretch, I hope you aren’t in the office today. First of all, the K prohibits you from being in the office on a holiday. More importantly, it would mean that you’re donating time to the Agency, not enjoying a federal holiday, and facilitating the Agency’s bogus non-quota quotas. If you are in the office, walk away as fast as you can. Collegially, Hamster (USAF, Ret.) Not sure 71stretch is a fed |
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 13, 2019 11:29:36 GMT -5
Years ago, I used to poke fun at Barteby for being pessimistic. Bart, you were right. I was wrong. But only this one time. You were prescient. 71stretch, I hope you aren’t in the office today. First of all, the K prohibits you from being in the office on a holiday. More importantly, it would mean that you’re donating time to the Agency, not enjoying a federal holiday, and facilitating the Agency’s bogus non-quota quotas. If you are in the office, walk away as fast as you can. Collegially, Hamster (USAF, Ret.) Not sure 71stretch is a fed I am not a fed, just an almost 32 year veteran of my state retirement system, 30 of that as an ALJ with two different agencies. And today is my last official day in the office, though I am on the payroll through Friday. For those of you still looking to be a fed ALJ, do not discount being an ALJ in state service. It has been a very satisfying career. If you find a place where the political bureaucracy stays out of your way, it's a great gig. (that's been changing here at my place, which largely precipitated the retirement once full Social Security (as in no earnings limit) kicked in). I will miss the work, but mostly I will miss the people, who are truly my tribe after 25 years in this office. I'll still be stopping in once in a while to see how you all are doing. Best of luck to you all. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 13, 2019 13:28:42 GMT -5
71stretch And best of luck to you. It has been a pleasure having you on board for all of these years. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Nov 13, 2019 13:56:26 GMT -5
Not sure 71stretch is a fed I am not a fed, just an almost 32 year veteran of my state retirement system, 30 of that as an ALJ with two different agencies. And today is my last official day in the office, though I am on the payroll through Friday. For those of you still looking to be a fed ALJ, do not discount being an ALJ in state service. It has been a very satisfying career. If you find a place where the political bureaucracy stays out of your way, it's a great gig. (that's been changing here at my place, which largely precipitated the retirement once full Social Security (as in no earnings limit) kicked in). I will miss the work, but mostly I will miss the people, who are truly my tribe after 25 years in this office. I'll still be stopping in once in a while to see how you all are doing. Best of luck to you all. Congratulations and best of luck in retirement! You have always been one of my favorite posters and, IMO, most helpful posters even back when you were a mere observer.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 13, 2019 15:20:20 GMT -5
Yes, I remember those "Observer" days. Pixie
|
|
|
|
Post by Lulu on Nov 14, 2019 8:57:12 GMT -5
Hi all. I haven't been on much lately but I want to weigh in on this. I left SSA for OMHA as an AA...life could not be more different. I am so much happier here. By the time I left SSA (August) I felt like I was working in a sweatshop with no care for my mental health and well being or for the quality of my work. All the SSA wanted was numbers, numbers, numbers. Who cares if it comes back on remand and we have to spend how ever more hours/money on adjudicating the case when it could have been done properly the first time. A case with 5000+ records, unfavorable, twice remanded from the AC, once remanded from the DC, 10+ opinions, and originated in another office that should only take you 10.5 hours, right? Just like that other unfavorable you have with 35 pages of medical. The agency does not care about the ppl who work hard every day to help the public, whether their decision is favorable or unfavorable. They only care about numbers. I took a lateral transfer across the country with no relocation just to get away. No promotion, no promises of a 13 position, no anything. That is how bad I hated my life at SSA. Side note, not to say anything negative about the judges one here, but our office was full of judges who refused to comply with any rules, especially not the new HALLEX rule regarding ALJ instructions. Dealing with an office full of judges with different levels of understanding/caring of their job was a nightmare too.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Nov 14, 2019 9:47:31 GMT -5
Congrats on the new job and hope you continue to be active with your insights. I remember hearing that a former SSA ALJ was told that transferring to your new agency "would add 10 years" to his/her career. lol. Being an AA with SSA is a tough job, but it had it perks compared to other jobs...no phone calls from angry or frustrated clients, less stress compared to many other attorney jobs, decent money, telework, and best of all, overtime.
While I agree with the unfairness at times with the metrics, the other issues like ALJ instructions and quality are changing for the better, at least in my experience.
For those still on the team, just a few humble suggestions. If the instructions are deficient, forward to management. OCALJ has been very clear about policy compliant instructions preferably in DWI/HCAPS. More importantly wise words from my first HOCALJ after I was hired as a DW and I will paraphrase to avoid the inappropriate language...no crap in, no crap out, meaning as an attorney advisor, if something is incorrect, fix it or recommend a fix to the ALJ.
Lastly, I just disdain the title of this thread, "played for fools". Again, as an ALJ, this is one of the best gigs in government. If you feel like you're being played for a fool, no one is forcing you to do the job. When I get frustrated I try to remember that there are literally thousands of motivated, hard charging and more than qualified applicants (most on this board) that would trade places with you in a heartbeat. No disrespect to the person that started this thread, I'm just be real as it's hard out there in non-ALJ land.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Nov 14, 2019 10:58:42 GMT -5
... Lastly, I just disdain the title of this thread, "played for fools". Again, as an ALJ, this is one of the best gigs in government. If you feel like you're being played for a fool, no one is forcing you to do the job. When I get frustrated I try to remember that there are literally thousands of motivated, hard charging and more than qualified applicants (most on this board) that would trade places with you in a heartbeat. No disrespect to the person that started this thread, I'm just be real as it's hard out there in non-ALJ land. I pretty much agree with you. The only way an ALJ would have been played for a fool is if they were concerned about what they job could/should be, or if they are hung up on the idea of actually being a "judge." We get paid awfully well for plucking them chickens. You are right, a heckuva lot of folk get paid far less and labor under far worse conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Nov 14, 2019 15:39:36 GMT -5
I think we do more than pluck chickens although that literally is very hard work, but I get your analogy.
I'm not saying the bean counters aren't occasionally annoying, but no one has ever even tried to tell me how to rule on a case. I've been told to when to decide a case, but never what to decide, which is the essence of being a judge. Moreover, please do not misconstrue my words to infer that we are coasting with an easy job. Easy and "best gigs" aren't necessarily synonymous. Best gig to me means we have a fun job running a hearing room and deciding cases where we get to help disabled people obtain benefits while helping non-disabled people move on with their lives.
Regarding what the job could and should be, I'm seeing a lot of HOCALJ positions being posted, which seems to be a good place to make the job what it should be. However, please do not diminish our roles as judges and all the good work we do by comparing our roles to plucking chickens. If we do not act like judges, then we should not expect to be treated like judges.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunshinedaydream on Nov 16, 2019 12:08:52 GMT -5
I think we do more than pluck chickens although that literally is very hard work, but I get your analogy.
I'm not saying the bean counters aren't occasionally annoying, but no one has ever even tried to tell me how to rule on a case. I've been told to when to decide a case, but never what to decide, which is the essence of being a judge. Moreover, please do not misconstrue my words to infer that we are coasting with an easy job. Easy and "best gigs" aren't necessarily synonymous. Best gig to me means we have a fun job running a hearing room and deciding cases where we get to help disabled people obtain benefits while helping non-disabled people move on with their lives. Regarding what the job could and should be, I'm seeing a lot of HOCALJ positions being posted, which seems to be a good place to make the job what it should be. However, please do not diminish our roles as judges and all the good work we do by comparing our roles to plucking chickens. If we do not act like judges, then we should not expect to be treated like judges. Indeed. "Poultry Dresser," DOT code 525.687-070, came up at a recent hearing:
CODE: 525.687-070
TITLE(s): POULTRY DRESSER (agriculture; meat products) alternate titles: tipper
Slaughters and dresses fowl in preparation for marketing, performing any combination of following tasks: Chops off bird's head or slits bird's throat to slaughter bird, using knife. Hangs bird by feet to drain blood. Dips bird into scalding water to loosen feathers. Holds bird against projecting rubber fingers of rotating drum to remove feathers. Cuts bird open, removes viscera, and washes bird and giblets. May pluck chickens by hand. May be designated according to type of fowl dressed as Chicken Dresser (meat products); Turkey Dresser (meat products). May be known according to specific duties performed as Poultry Picker (meat products); Poultry Scalder (meat products).
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 16, 2019 12:31:25 GMT -5
I think we do more than pluck chickens although that literally is very hard work, but I get your analogy. . If you think it's hard on the plucker, how do you think the chicken feels |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 16, 2019 13:02:18 GMT -5
I think we do more than pluck chickens although that literally is very hard work, but I get your analogy.
I'm not saying the bean counters aren't occasionally annoying, but no one has ever even tried to tell me how to rule on a case. I've been told to when to decide a case, but never what to decide, which is the essence of being a judge. Moreover, please do not misconstrue my words to infer that we are coasting with an easy job. Easy and "best gigs" aren't necessarily synonymous. Best gig to me means we have a fun job running a hearing room and deciding cases where we get to help disabled people obtain benefits while helping non-disabled people move on with their lives. Regarding what the job could and should be, I'm seeing a lot of HOCALJ positions being posted, which seems to be a good place to make the job what it should be. However, please do not diminish our roles as judges and all the good work we do by comparing our roles to plucking chickens. If we do not act like judges, then we should not expect to be treated like judges. Indeed. "Poultry Dresser," DOT code 525.687-070, came up at a recent hearing:
CODE: 525.687-070
TITLE(s): POULTRY DRESSER (agriculture; meat products) alternate titles: tipper
Slaughters and dresses fowl in preparation for marketing, performing any combination of following tasks: Chops off bird's head or slits bird's throat to slaughter bird, using knife. Hangs bird by feet to drain blood. Dips bird into scalding water to loosen feathers. Holds bird against projecting rubber fingers of rotating drum to remove feathers. Cuts bird open, removes viscera, and washes bird and giblets. May pluck chickens by hand. May be designated according to type of fowl dressed as Chicken Dresser (meat products); Turkey Dresser (meat products). May be known according to specific duties performed as Poultry Picker (meat products); Poultry Scalder (meat products).
Sounds to me like this job description fits a specific other component of our agency. I will leave it to your own interpretation as to which component I’m referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by bippity on Nov 17, 2019 21:09:07 GMT -5
... Lastly, I just disdain the title of this thread, "played for fools". Again, as an ALJ, this is one of the best gigs in government. If you feel like you're being played for a fool, no one is forcing you to do the job. When I get frustrated I try to remember that there are literally thousands of motivated, hard charging and more than qualified applicants (most on this board) that would trade places with you in a heartbeat. No disrespect to the person that started this thread, I'm just be real as it's hard out there in non-ALJ land. I pretty much agree with you. The only way an ALJ would have been played for a fool is if they were concerned about what they job could/should be, or if they are hung up on the idea of actually being a "judge." We get paid awfully well for plucking them chickens. You are right, a heckuva lot of folk get paid far less and labor under far worse conditions. I thought he said ALJs were chicken deboners, not chicken pluckers. I'm still surprised he retired so quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Nov 22, 2019 11:12:01 GMT -5
I'm late to this party. What is this "raise" thing of which you speak? In my gig, we are "special rate" which means unless the city council affirmatively votes a new pay rate, we stay where we are for, oh, ever, I guess! Explains how my staff will all make more than I do next calendar year--it's good to be in a union. But looking things over, it seems to confirm what I have always thought, law is NOT a high paying profession. Basically, if you want the cash, you are not a legal expert, you are a salesperson. Being able to make rain is the big thing, you hire a smart introvert to do the work for you/the firm.
Now, of course, this is the Big Law firm model. Most of us here are the smart ones who have a sense of duty and a desire to see justice done for its own sake. We will always be underpaid in cash, but we are the ones who make the whole thing work. Every time I try to "phone it in" or "not care", well, can't do it. Can't bear to see someone getting dunned for a default judgment that never should have been entered. Even with the most obnoxious respondent, I still see a person who is scared and in pain. And I always remember that our system is much larger than any one person. So, I stay the extra 40 minutes, take that call that will be a nightmare, etc. And I know you all do so as well. That's why it is such an honor to be part of this board. What's that saying, all it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing? Yeah, that's us.
Now, hoping everyone who endured that li'l "cold snap" last week has thawed out. And hoping everyone has a lovely Thanksgiving holiday and most of all that you all have something or someone in your life for which you give thanks!
Smile!
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Nov 23, 2019 15:19:15 GMT -5
Yes, I remember those "Observer" days. Pixie Heh. Yes, indeed. Thanks for the kind words and "likes", all. Carry on! |
|
ducky
Full Member
Blowing in the wind
Posts: 108 
|
Post by ducky on Nov 26, 2019 22:52:53 GMT -5
Not to be the jerk judge, but I signed 38 cases in the last 2 days. In 20 or more of them I had to correct the attorney name and/or correct the VEs name. Joes VE LLC is not the name of a VE. And, before anyone screams metrics or instruction quality, I take extra effort and the first 3 line of my instructions go like this: let me know if there’s an issue..., double space VE: name placed there for the writers, double space Representatives: main rep name, rep at hearing name. And, then I rewrote chunks of 10 favorables and 2 CDRs because writers were on vacation (and they all earned and deserved that) because they were legally insufficient or were remand from the AC ready. The writer metrics aren’t helping out the judges. But........
|
|
|
|
Post by ohodiablo on Nov 27, 2019 0:04:47 GMT -5
I can explain this! The transition from FIT HACPS results in this information being overlooked. The fields for the representative name and the VE name exist in FIT and so most writers were making those corrections when running FIT to generate the document. The use of HACPS is now mandatory for many types of decisions. HACPS does not include fields for the representative name and the VE name when generating the decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Nov 27, 2019 7:05:27 GMT -5
Nor does it contain space to explain WHY I chose the B criteria I did; nor does it include space for two RFCs (later onset? just a box to check without addition of space for the second RFC which makes any note I add for the second one hard to find).
Not quite sure why those things could not have been transferred over from FIT; perhaps it was working too well ... since there is no font for sarcasm, think upside down smiling emoji
|
|
