|
|
Post by mercury on Jul 14, 2021 0:50:56 GMT -5
With respect, it sounds like you’re moving the goalposts re: reasons people disliked Saul. To your substantive points, many agencies had telework waiting periods of a year. To my knowledge no one blamed that on Saul, nor did they the imposition of quotas, so that’s a straw man. Beyond that, I’m not an ALJ, just a wannabe, nor do I work at SSA anymore, so I’ll leave the rest for those more in the know. You made my point stronger. Saul was doing what other agencies were doing, and the IG audit was done two years before Saul became commissioner. OCALJ, the careerists, make OHO policy and the politicians take the blame. Like most careerists in management, they assume their subordinates take advantage of things like telework and resist it. Saul didn't set 500 hearings a year. Saul didn't start the humiliating paper timesheets or WEBTA. Nor did anyone here say he did those things. That straw man has been thoroughly beaten. I can blame him for the disastrous CBAs and hypocrisy regarding telework. As for the latter, saying other management assumed workers abused telework doesn’t make it so, nor does it make them the politically accountable head of the agency with responsibility for setting the agency’s tone. He didn’t play by the rules this administration set and now he’s gone. I hope for my colleagues’ and superiors’ (including yours) sake that whoever replaces him is much more friendly to employees and their exclusive representatives under the law, the Unions. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 14, 2021 16:23:59 GMT -5
The straw man is pretending that life before Saul (June 17, 2019) was great and the last two years a dark age in SSA history. In November 2019, the FLRA found this: AALJ alleges that the agency’s officials attempted to intimidate union leaders by threatening discipline against them for engaging in union activity that is protected in federal statute. The threats were subsequently reported to then-acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Nancy Berryhill, but SSA officials then minimized the union’s concerns at a subsequent meeting, according to AALJ President Melissa McIntosh.
In fact, Judge McIntosh made a good faith attempt to get Saul to reverse the Hemphill-era hostility by suspending contract negotiations. It didn't work, and Saul was no better than Hemphill. If mercury thinks Saul was the start of anti-ALJ animus, it's just not true. While there may be changes from a new commissioner, and I hope there are, the problems come from the top careerists and the refusal of political appointees from either party to change the culture. |
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Jul 14, 2021 16:37:55 GMT -5
The straw man is pretending that life before Saul (June 17, 2019) was great and the last two years a dark age in SSA history. In November 2019, the FLRA found this: AALJ alleges that the agency’s officials attempted to intimidate union leaders by threatening discipline against them for engaging in union activity that is protected in federal statute. The threats were subsequently reported to then-acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Nancy Berryhill, but SSA officials then minimized the union’s concerns at a subsequent meeting, according to AALJ President Melissa McIntosh. I don’t think anyone said labor mgt relations before Saul were great. The issue is that he brought it to the next level by directing or ignoring the way Collective Bargaining was performed under his watch resulting an arbitrator finding bad faith - which is pretty rare. He promoted or awarded those responsible for that fiasco which leads me to believe he agreed with the way they conducted themselves. I think it was you, if not I apologize, who said not much will change. I agree with that but my conclusion is that is a win for the independence of ALJ’s given what we faced under Saul. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 14, 2021 23:53:37 GMT -5
mercury commented on "The Vice Grip Tightens" thread four years ago (Hemphill era): thankful1
Forum Elder
*****
May 15, 2017 at 3:43pm
TPTB are now telling judges, whether they telework or not, that they will be required to schedule 50 cases a month, or face a directive ordering them to do so. So I guess the non-quota is becoming a quota. Same quota for everyone, regardless of vacation time that you've accrued, or the average size of the file in your office, or any other number of factors that apparently have no bearing on scheduling.
In other news, the already-high morale is shooting through the roof!
Listen to Everyone, Follow No One.
mercury
Forum Legend
******
May 15, 2017 at 4:30pm
The beatings will continue until morale improves, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jul 15, 2021 0:35:36 GMT -5
I think we all can handle or should be able to handle 50 cases when we have them. The union is in a strong position and may be able to get that number lowered to 45 but my thinking, contrary to most on our board, is we should be lucky to have 50 cases a month. It’s a reasonable number, we are all professionals that can handle our case loads and most importantly, id rather have 50 than 30 and face the possibility of RIFs. Just saying…
|
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Jul 15, 2021 6:30:27 GMT -5
I think we all can handle or should be able to handle 50 cases when we have them. The union is in a strong position and may be able to get that number lowered to 45 but my thinking, contrary to most on our board, is we should be lucky to have 50 cases a month. It’s a reasonable number, we are all professionals that can handle our case loads and most importantly, id rather have 50 than 30 and face the possibility of RIFs. Just saying… Well I think logically we would face a greater chance of a RIF at 50 then 30 (you need less bodies if each individual is pumping out more widgets). One of the issues with 50 a month is that it applies EVEN if you take leave that month. Which means you have to schedule 60-65 a month to offset months with leave in it. I think 40-45 is more reasonable, I hit the targets (pre-COVID) but that means I have to work credit time, credit time that more often than not I end up forfeiting. Given the size of my files it is impossible for me to conduct 14 hearings a week by only working 40 hours. I have enjoyed being able to spend more time on my cases during COVID as well as spending more time on edits. I truly believe my work product has improved significantly. My 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Jul 15, 2021 7:23:06 GMT -5
I think we all can handle or should be able to handle 50 cases when we have them. The union is in a strong position and may be able to get that number lowered to 45 but my thinking, contrary to most on our board, is we should be lucky to have 50 cases a month. It’s a reasonable number, we are all professionals that can handle our case loads and most importantly, id rather have 50 than 30 and face the possibility of RIFs. Just saying… I think that varies widely based on office and file size. Contrary to TPTB’s thinking, ever office and every judge (and every claimant) are not fungible widgets. Bean counter justice has been the scourge of the agency for some time, yet they continue to double down on it. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Jul 15, 2021 10:45:54 GMT -5
The only thing Saul did (or didn't) do that was not hostile to ALJs was to not appeal the arbitrator's recent finding that the agency negotiated with the AALJ in bad faith and thus ordered the entire contract to be re-negotiated. However, based on all his other actions I do not assign a pure motive to that, and think it might have been a strategic decision. Or perhaps just embarrassed and didn't want to further publicize the fact that bad-faith bargaining on the part of the agency was found at least 3 times under his leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jul 15, 2021 16:45:49 GMT -5
Hey I understand not every file is the same and some offices have much bigger files depending on their location and Medicaid expansion. At the same time, it’s 50 scheduled hearings not hearings held and a hearing day when I hear all cases is the exception. Lastly, my office is in the high middle with case size.
I think it’s about separating the wheat from the chafe as I will readily admit it’s impossible to read every word of every file. However, we are all experienced enough to differentiate which records must be closely scrutinized verses which may be skimmed.
Finally, maybe it’s my perspective of a trial practice where you worked until the work was done regardless of whether it was 40 hours or 60 hours. I think having so much leave that you have to over schedule some months is a good problem to have and something that most attorneys would not complain about. I’m just saying we have really great jobs and should count our blessings.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 15, 2021 19:33:26 GMT -5
The straw man is pretending that life before Saul (June 17, 2019) was great and the last two years a dark age in SSA history. In November 2019, the FLRA found this: AALJ alleges that the agency’s officials attempted to intimidate union leaders by threatening discipline against them for engaging in union activity that is protected in federal statute. The threats were subsequently reported to then-acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Nancy Berryhill, but SSA officials then minimized the union’s concerns at a subsequent meeting, according to AALJ President Melissa McIntosh.
In fact, Judge McIntosh made a good faith attempt to get Saul to reverse the Hemphill-era hostility by suspending contract negotiations. It didn't work, and Saul was no better than Hemphill. If mercury thinks Saul was the start of anti-ALJ animus, it's just not true. While there may be changes from a new commissioner, and I hope there are, the problems come from the top careerists and the refusal of political appointees from either party to change the culture. So, apparently the union and agency are at impasse over return to the office. I realize Saul only left last week, but if things are going to being changing I have at least one idea on where to start. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jul 16, 2021 9:11:41 GMT -5
So, apparently the union and agency are at impasse over return to the office. I realize Saul only left last week, but if things are going to being changing I have at least one idea on where to start. I think it should be "unions" (plural), but since in-person hearings seem like the first big hurdle, the AALJ is likely the lead on that specific issue for that reason. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 16, 2021 17:22:01 GMT -5
If the union email is accurate, the union is in agreement on returning to the office for hearings. It's non-hearing days that appear to be the issue.
At least that's how I read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Jul 22, 2021 8:20:52 GMT -5
If the union email is accurate, the union is in agreement on returning to the office for hearings. It's non-hearing days that appear to be the issue. At least that's how I read it. I don’t think that is accurate. I think both the Agency and Union have agreed to continue TW on non-hearing days. The hold up is when does that end. The Agency wants the RTW TW plan to end when the workplace safety protocols are removed (e.g. when the pandemic is over). The union wants it to be permanent - I think it’s feeling is that we have done it this way long enough that this is a change in work conditions. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jul 22, 2021 8:50:44 GMT -5
If the union email is accurate, the union is in agreement on returning to the office for hearings. It's non-hearing days that appear to be the issue. At least that's how I read it. I don’t think that is accurate. I think both the Agency and Union have agreed to continue TW on non-hearing days. The hold up is when does that end. The Agency wants the RTW TW plan to end when the workplace safety protocols are removed (e.g. when the pandemic is over). The union wants it to be permanent - I think it’s feeling is that we have done it this way long enough that this is a change in work conditions. Anyone have insights on where agency is going with nteu on this issue? |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Jul 22, 2021 10:10:35 GMT -5
Sauls Op/Ed to WSJ was worded in a way that made it sound as though his team was pursuing everyone returning to the office full time.
“After pandemic-related restrictions were lifted across the country, I asked SSA workers to return to their offices to serve the American people better. To paint this as antiworker serves labor leadership’s interests, not the interests of those who rely on the Social Security Administration.”
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 22, 2021 12:35:40 GMT -5
Lack of open field offices is devastating for pensioners and disability claimants. OHO is not as significant a problem for SSA.
|
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Jul 22, 2021 16:49:58 GMT -5
I don’t think that is accurate. I think both the Agency and Union have agreed to continue TW on non-hearing days. The hold up is when does that end. The Agency wants the RTW TW plan to end when the workplace safety protocols are removed (e.g. when the pandemic is over). The union wants it to be permanent - I think it’s feeling is that we have done it this way long enough that this is a change in work conditions. Anyone have insights on where agency is going with nteu on this issue? No insights. But what good is an Internet forum if not for rank speculation. Most hearing offices have one hearing room set up with sneeze guards and whatnot. Seems like possibly limited in-person hearings could take place at some point, but that seems like skeleton crew situation, which would not mean writers coming back. Probably voluntary basis too if I had to bet. Remember, the Biden Executive Order called on Agencies to negotiate with Unions over RTW. AALJ is at impasse with the Agency over RTW. I don’t know where other unions stand, but I would guess there are similar stances amongst all the unions. Without an Impasse decision, it would technically be breaking the law to bring people back (unless the EO is rescinded). Not that not following the law has stopped the Agency in the past, but would be an odd look for the new Commish to do that. |
|
