|
|
Post by bowser on Dec 16, 2020 12:53:55 GMT -5
As the vaccine is being rolled out, I wondered whether any consideration had been given towards providing it to government personnel w/ direct public contact, or other employees where it might improve the public's access to services. No, I'm not going to suggest ALJs are anywhere close to healthcare providers or first responders.  But I wondered if other judges or court officials might be given priority, to allow tribunals to more rapidly return to normalcy. Yes, I understand that claimants/litigants/etc will likely not receive priority, but allowing ALJs back into the offices would at least relieve some of the hassles related to trying to prepare to conduct video hearings from home. Heck, front line employees such as SSA local office claims reps, or folk in drivers' license facilities should likely be ahead of ALJs. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 16, 2020 13:10:03 GMT -5
As the vaccine is being rolled out, I wondered whether any consideration had been given towards providing it to government personnel w/ direct public contact, or other employees where it might improve the public's access to services. No, I'm not going to suggest ALJs are anywhere close to healthcare providers or first responders. But I wondered if other judges or court officials might be given priority, to allow tribunals to more rapidly return to normalcy. Yes, I understand that claimants/litigants/etc will likely not receive priority, but allowing ALJs back into the offices would at least relieve some of the hassles related to trying to prepare to conduct video hearings from home. Heck, front line employees such as SSA local office claims reps, or folk in drivers' license facilities should likely be ahead of ALJs. As I understand it, the order of distribution is left up the the states. I doubt the states will put any federal employee group in front of any other cohort. I think the states are pretty much following CDC guidelines for priority. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Dec 16, 2020 13:28:17 GMT -5
My understanding is that workers in critical/essential industries are to be given priority.
Now, there is obviously zero reason an ALJ working from his or her bedroom ought be given any kind of priority.
But, I could nonetheless see it happening under an overbroad definition of "critical or essential".
But, I also can't figure out how ALJs are considered to be "essential" workers when we have our weekly government shutdown prep meetings, so what do I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Dec 16, 2020 17:45:08 GMT -5
I think that if you are working strictly from home, you are not on the priority list to get a vaccine. Maybe if there is a position where you absolutely have to come into the office (e.g., deal with mail, deal with the public in person, etc.), I could see maybe being given a vaccine (but due to limited supply, I think it would be limited to select employees who absolutely have to come into office to do their job (that is me speculating). I am thinking maybe March or April before most of us are able to get vaccine (or maybe later). That might be good, as you can better see if there are any additional side effects or issues with the current vaccines (I am a little hesitant myself, as it is not a full FDA authorization, and I would rather wait the year or two myself to verify if there are any long term side effects or any other issues with the vaccines first-I am wondering if feds will have any choice on whether to take vaccine or hold off (might be required to take it-will see
|
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Dec 16, 2020 18:31:12 GMT -5
Got an e-mail from VA today. Once VA long term care facilities and staff are all inoculated they will offer vaccines to vets who are older and have underlying conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Dec 16, 2020 22:14:33 GMT -5
I think that if you are working strictly from home, you are not on the priority list to get a vaccine. Maybe if there is a position where you absolutely have to come into the office (e.g., deal with mail, deal with the public in person, etc.), I could see maybe being given a vaccine (but due to limited supply, I think it would be limited to select employees who absolutely have to come into office to do their job (that is me speculating). I am thinking maybe March or April before most of us are able to get vaccine (or maybe later). That might be good, as you can better see if there are any additional side effects or issues with the current vaccines (I am a little hesitant myself, as it is not a full FDA authorization, and I would rather wait the year or two myself to verify if there are any long term side effects or any other issues with the vaccines first-I am wondering if feds will have any choice on whether to take vaccine or hold off (might be required to take it-will see ssa is apparently soliciting people to come into the office to handle non-portable work. That’s a few very short steps away from “essential” for a vaccination. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Dec 16, 2020 23:14:13 GMT -5
I think that if you are working strictly from home, you are not on the priority list to get a vaccine. Maybe if there is a position where you absolutely have to come into the office (e.g., deal with mail, deal with the public in person, etc.), I could see maybe being given a vaccine (but due to limited supply, I think it would be limited to select employees who absolutely have to come into office to do their job (that is me speculating). I am thinking maybe March or April before most of us are able to get vaccine (or maybe later). That might be good, as you can better see if there are any additional side effects or issues with the current vaccines (I am a little hesitant myself, as it is not a full FDA authorization, and I would rather wait the year or two myself to verify if there are any long term side effects or any other issues with the vaccines first-I am wondering if feds will have any choice on whether to take vaccine or hold off (might be required to take it-will see ssa is apparently soliciting people to come into the office to handle non-portable work. That’s a few very short steps away from “essential” for a vaccination. I have not been in the office and will not be back until next year (I have a lot of use it or lose it leave). I saw this little gem today talking about EEOC and the vaccine: news.yahoo.com/u-agency-says-employers-tread-204052822.htmlFrom article (maybe folks happy working from home and want to keep status quo decide not to take vaccine?): Workers who refuse to be vaccinated because of medical conditions or religious beliefs cannot be excluded from the workplace, the EEOC said, unless an employer finds that there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation. Working from home, wearing a mask or being reassigned to a more secluded work area could all qualify as reasonable accommodations, depending on the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 16, 2020 23:41:01 GMT -5
Prediction: ALJs with 600 dispositions will be vaccinated. ALJs with under 200 will be given placebo.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Dec 17, 2020 1:28:15 GMT -5
The judges in my district have requested priority for themselves, counsel, and staff in the judiciary. I guess it makes sense since jails and prisons are a hotbed of infections.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Dec 17, 2020 6:56:34 GMT -5
Thanks for my morning chuckle!
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 17, 2020 11:22:07 GMT -5
Who is not asking for priority? I have a feeling that all these "priority requests" will be ignored. It only complicates distribution. CDC has guidelines and each state has already established priorities, and the logistics chains are already in motion.
That said, I am delighted and amazed that the so-called experts who said the vaccines would take much longer were wrong. Let us hope and pray that an end is in sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Dec 17, 2020 12:07:29 GMT -5
Who is not asking for priority? ... Just to be clear, I was not asking for any priority. I would suspect many gov't employees (not just SSA) who provide in-person services should possibly be given priority. No idea, tho, how to handle to issue of unvaccinated public. I think telephone and video tribunals have been a reasonable effort, but I would hope I am not alone in suspecting some due process and privacy concerns. And this applies to tribunals other than SSA hrgs. Finally, I do not welcome the proposals to conduct video from home. IF video is going to be required, I see no reason why ALJs ought not be allowed to conduct them from the office. IF video is important for SSA hrgs, vaccinating ALJs to allow office access might be more efficient than stumbling through a jury-rigged system from home. Of course, no one asked me. If they had, old people in institutions (vets or not) would be well at the back of the line. |
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Dec 17, 2020 12:25:35 GMT -5
It's also a good sign because everyone asking for priority indicates that a lot of people are actually willing to take the vaccine!
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 17, 2020 14:44:37 GMT -5
Who is not asking for priority? ... Finally, I do not welcome the proposals to conduct video from home. IF video is going to be required, I see no reason why ALJs ought not be allowed to conduct them from the office. IF video is important for SSA hrgs, vaccinating ALJs to allow office access might be more efficient than stumbling through a jury-rigged system from home. Of course, no one asked me. If they had, old people in institutions (vets or not) would be well at the back of the line. I absolutely agree. In fact, I think TPTB should require telephone hearings. Period. It's working well. bowser might not agree to go that far, but I don't know why Falls Church and Baltimore want the video. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Dec 17, 2020 22:55:43 GMT -5
ssa is apparently soliciting people to come into the office to handle non-portable work. That’s a few very short steps away from “essential” for a vaccination. I have not been in the office and will not be back until next year (I have a lot of use it or lose it leave). I saw this little gem today talking about EEOC and the vaccine: news.yahoo.com/u-agency-says-employers-tread-204052822.htmlFrom article (maybe folks happy working from home and want to keep status quo decide not to take vaccine?): Workers who refuse to be vaccinated because of medical conditions or religious beliefs cannot be excluded from the workplace, the EEOC said, unless an employer finds that there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation. Working from home, wearing a mask or being reassigned to a more secluded work area could all qualify as reasonable accommodations, depending on the circumstances. Wow. I had a conversation about this a few months ago. There are going to be 1000s of reasonable accommodations to work at home full-time, including from ALJs. Just a thought, but ALJs and DWs aren’t coming back to office anytime soon. If/when Team hearings actually start happening, it will still be at telework. Why? To my minion knowledge, there have been no plans whatsoever of redesign in hearing rooms. However, we had to provide information about reception and other areas. These posts are interesting. Agency is going to risk having ALJs come to office to hold video hearings that could just as easily be held from telework? Union would flip out. ALJs will file reasonable accommodation requests by 100s. Then there are worker’s comp concerns. Too much liability. ALJs are essential workers and deserve vaccine, although most have not been to office since March? Telephone or video hearings are going to be required? Isn’t there a regulation providing claimants the right to opt out? I actually respect those who want to return to office, but it is not safe and won’t be for months. I am in the office every week, sometimes several days per week. It is not worth the risk! When I am in the office, there are less than 20 people in the entire building and I am in a fairly large government building. What people fail to understand is that many of the hearing offices are in buildings with other occupants, so those companies or agencies also have employees in the building. You are going to share elevators, touch door handles, etc. You cannot screen for this virus either. It is not like the virus knows when you go to work and conveniently decides to present symptoms the night before or an hour before you go to work. You can start feeling symptoms at any hour or you have no symptoms at all. Plus, the vaccines do not stop you from catching and spreading the virus to others either. There are people who need the vaccine well before OHO. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Dec 18, 2020 10:40:44 GMT -5
Ah no. I just saw an article about how the junior senator from KY was able to scuttle a bill to protect the PII about judges after that USDC judge’s spouse and son were murdered by a disgruntled attorney. I think they could care less about protecting us from covid if they refuse to protect our addresses so we can avoid being shot answering the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowser on Dec 18, 2020 12:11:16 GMT -5
... If/when Team hearings actually start happening, it will still be at telework. Why? To my minion knowledge, there have been no plans whatsoever of redesign in hearing rooms. ... Please explain. What redesign of hrg rooms is needed for me to sit there by myself and conduct hrgs, while the hrg monitor, clmt, rep, VE all participate from remote locations? |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 18, 2020 12:45:25 GMT -5
Ah no. I just saw an article about how the junior senator from KY was able to scuttle a bill to protect the PII about judges after that USDC judge’s spouse and son were murdered by a disgruntled attorney. I think they could care less about protecting us from covid if they refuse to protect our addresses so we can avoid being shot answering the door. Senator Rand Paul was the victim of a violent attack, and he wanted the bill to cover many other federal officials. The sponsors refused. It's not that he doesn't care. The sponsors (Booker and Menendez) didn't care.
If you read the bill, you would see that it would have only applied to Article III judges, not ALJs.
The ACLU and others had First Amendment concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Dec 20, 2020 18:40:40 GMT -5
Thought it was Rand Paul's neighbor who attacked him over general animus? Or was that another member of congress?
|
|
|
|
Post by aljhopefully on Dec 20, 2020 19:21:30 GMT -5
Thought it was Rand Paul's neighbor who attacked him over general animus? Or was that another member of congress? He was, but a separate incident occurred when protestors in DC surrounded Rand Paul and his wife while they walked down a street, even pushing down a police officer who attempted to lead them to safety. |
|
But I wondered if other judges or court officials might be given priority, to allow tribunals to more rapidly return to normalcy. Yes, I understand that claimants/litigants/etc will likely not receive priority, but allowing ALJs back into the offices would at least relieve some of the hassles related to trying to prepare to conduct video hearings from home.
