|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Jul 24, 2021 8:26:18 GMT -5
Please tell me that a change back to allowing hardship transfers is in the works with new collective bargaining going on. Without the transfer list, the agency should have to at least allow ALJs with permanent problems to be afforded permanent solutions.
Can someone explain to me why ALJs can only get a hardship detail while attorneys and support staff can get a permanent hardship transfer. What AMAZING perk did ALJs get (during collective bargaining) that they didn’t have before in exchange for giving up hardship transfers. Did we get a raise? More leave? Also, what year did this take place? And who thought it was a good idea to treat ALJs more poorly than everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 24, 2021 12:49:34 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate- ALJ's are hard to replace and relatively limited in number. In the world that existed pre pandemic, it was a big problem when some offices lost even a single ALJ, so I could see where the agency wanted to limit the possibilities of that happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by someconcerns on Jul 26, 2021 13:17:19 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate- ALJ's are hard to replace and relatively limited in number. In the world that existed pre pandemic, it was a big problem when some offices lost even a single ALJ, so I could see where the agency wanted to limit the possibilities of that happening. I could be wrong, but I think it wasn't the agency but the prior union leadership that asked that hardship transfers not be in the contract. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jul 26, 2021 19:00:56 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate- ALJ's are hard to replace and relatively limited in number. In the world that existed pre pandemic, it was a big problem when some offices lost even a single ALJ, so I could see where the agency wanted to limit the possibilities of that happening. I could be wrong, but I think it wasn't the agency but the prior union leadership that asked that hardship transfers not be in the contract. Inconceivable. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jul 26, 2021 21:05:24 GMT -5
I could be wrong, but I think it wasn't the agency but the prior union leadership that asked that hardship transfers not be in the contract. Inconceivable. I think they might have wanted more flexibility to deal with hardship cases. |
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Jul 26, 2021 21:25:41 GMT -5
I believe someconcerns is correct. When I was researching this issue, I was told the prior union worried the agency would use the provision against us to send ALJs where needed. I cannot recall my source, but I do know it was someone who would know. Also—interesting that many of those who were on details as COVID was unfolding have been allowed to stay put. Indefinitely. Without a corresponding CBA provision. |
|
|
|
Post by TigerLaw on Jul 26, 2021 23:48:03 GMT -5
Just playing devil's advocate- ALJ's are hard to replace and relatively limited in number. In the world that existed pre pandemic, it was a big problem when some offices lost even a single ALJ, so I could see where the agency wanted to limit the possibilities of that happening. I could be wrong, but I think it wasn't the agency but the prior union leadership that asked that hardship transfers not be in the contract. You would be 100% WRONG!!!, as I have been here the entire time as a Union member and LAR! The Agency under the Deputy OHO (don't remember his name and don't care) and Chief Judge (Debbie Brice) have repeatedly tried to restrict the ability to transfer and only due to the previous Union Leadership did we win the right to transfer after 90 days in 2014, thanks to baglady (now a HOCALJ) and then under a hostile Labor environment, they agree to 150 days before transfer. But it is and always has been the current leadership that refused to work the transfer list. THAT WILL CHANGE over the next year, so you are 100% incorrect. Tiger! |
|
|
|
Post by someconcerns on Jul 27, 2021 8:33:51 GMT -5
I believe someconcerns is correct. When I was researching this issue, I was told the prior union worried the agency would use the provision against us to send ALJs where needed. I cannot recall my source, but I do know it was someone who would know. Also—interesting that many of those who were on details as COVID was unfolding have been allowed to stay put. Indefinitely. Without a corresponding CBA provision. This was my memory as well, but others obviously have a different opinion. [Edit]: it looks like TigerLaw is talking about transfers, not hardship details. In any even, regardless of who asked for the change from hardship transfers to details, it looks like the parties agreed in bargaining (i.e., it didn't go to impasse): www.flra.gov/node/77865 |
|
|
|
Post by TigerLaw on Jul 27, 2021 19:52:18 GMT -5
I believe someconcerns is correct. When I was researching this issue, I was told the prior union worried the agency would use the provision against us to send ALJs where needed. I cannot recall my source, but I do know it was someone who would know. Also—interesting that many of those who were on details as COVID was unfolding have been allowed to stay put. Indefinitely. Without a corresponding CBA provision. This was my memory as well, but others obviously have a different opinion. [Edit]: it looks like TigerLaw is talking about transfers, not hardship details. In any even, regardless of who asked for the change from hardship transfers to details, it looks like the parties agreed in bargaining (i.e., it didn't go to impasse): www.flra.gov/node/77865To think it was the Union's idea to limited the hardship details to nothing but a temporary 120 days is downright ridiculous, did they choose the battles that they were willing to die on, yes, but both transfers and hardship details have been a favorite area of Falls Church to restrict, but I see both areas swinging the other way in favorite of the ALJs! Just my opinion, but better that the idea that the Union folded on hardship details or transfers! |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 27, 2021 23:21:23 GMT -5
I don’t know who wanted what but I do know that during post follow up training session festivities about 10 years ago there was a discussion of hardship detail vs hardship transfer over pitchers and there was concern about the potential for abuse of such transfers and the probability of inconsistent application
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jul 28, 2021 7:21:36 GMT -5
I don’t know who wanted what but I do know that during post follow up training session festivities about 10 years ago there was a discussion of hardship detail vs hardship transfer over pitchers and there was concern about the potential for abuse of such transfers and the probability of inconsistent application Inconsistent application was a hallmark of the policy. |
|
