|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Oct 23, 2021 23:59:10 GMT -5
May this be a precursor to a return of the Register, a return of AM, and a 100 plus ALJ hiring from SSA from a new cert in May 2022. you’d think, however… A bipartisan bill to return ALJs to Comp Service is sitting in Congress with no movement in several months. So who knows |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Oct 24, 2021 8:38:23 GMT -5
May this be a precursor to a return of the Register, a return of AM, and a 100 plus ALJ hiring from SSA from a new cert in May 2022. I doubt it. I think that given the revival of the transfer list, TPTB want to offload a bunch of end-of-the-line ALJs and let the survivors transfer to balance out the eventual in-person caseloads whenever those resume. If they were hiring, they would not have offered early-outs to ALJs. When the smoke clears, retirements happen, transfers stabilize and in-persons fully resume, then they might hire, but they might not have to. |
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Oct 24, 2021 11:49:41 GMT -5
I had to read the email twice because I thought I missed the cash buyout portion. There does not seem to be one. In a prior federal agency they always seem to come with buyout cash between $10K and $40K. Yes, if you already meet the requirements to retire and I have for a few years, this is an offer that means nothing to you, but some may fit within this offer and be ready to go back to a different job or retire early. I will retire on my own terms at my own time, sometime between 67 to 70. I resemble this remark. |
|
|
|
Post by hapi2balj on Oct 25, 2021 6:27:35 GMT -5
I'm under CSRS (offset, because I left fed employment for a while) and have no idea what the last two sentences under "Age, Service..." mean. I don't think I have quite 20 years anyway, although I'm well old enough to retire, but as of now plan to work at least another 4-5 years. Hopefully from home!
|
|
|
|
Post by someconcerns on Oct 25, 2021 16:48:41 GMT -5
May this be a precursor to a return of the Register, a return of AM, and a 100 plus ALJ hiring from SSA from a new cert in May 2022. If you mean a new cert from an OPM register, I think you're off by about 3-5 years. As I understand it, they would have to create a new testing process from scratch (including all of the research and groundwork that goes into it), then proceed through the entire process of vacancy, stages of testing, cert., then agency selection process off the cert. Meanwhile, currently other agencies are hiring ALJs using their own processes. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Oct 26, 2021 1:34:58 GMT -5
As the self proclaimed board pessimist i do not believe the Agency is interested in hiring ALJs as long as DC Terri is in charge. No hiring in four years even though they could have. AAJ regulation for them to hold hearings approved and ready to use. And now they encourage ALJ attrition via early outs.
They are waiting for the caseload to go back up not have enough ALJs and then say we can immediately hire AAJs and put them to work. The 100 percent telework model being used by VA fits well into this plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Oct 26, 2021 6:21:12 GMT -5
The timing for the early retirement offer seems odd.
There may be more ALJ‘s receptive to an early retirement offer if they allowed the transfer/reassignment process to play out. Perhaps ALJ Mike Mike is thinking, “if I don’t get the transfer to Honolulu, then I will retire.”
There may be more ALJs receptive to an early retirement offer if the agency set a date certain for return to in-person hearings. Perhaps ALJ David David is riding out the maximum telework and intends to retire the moment he is required to return to the office for hearings.
Finally, there may be more ALJs receptive to an early retirement offer if it came with a separation incentive. ALJ Susan Susan is eligible to retire with the combination of age and federal years of service. However without a financial incentive that would allow her to pay her kid’s last year of college/pay off credit card debt/close out a HELOC/take that dream vacation to Italy, Susan Susan decides to work a while longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Oct 27, 2021 6:48:11 GMT -5
May this be a precursor to a return of the Register, a return of AM, and a 100 plus ALJ hiring from SSA from a new cert in May 2022. If you mean a new cert from an OPM register, I think you're off by about 3-5 years. As I understand it, they would have to create a new testing process from scratch (including all of the research and groundwork that goes into it), then proceed through the entire process of vacancy, stages of testing, cert., then agency selection process off the cert. Meanwhile, currently other agencies are hiring ALJs using their own processes. as it currently stands, I don’t think this is correct. As I noted in another thread, the bill to move ALJ hiring back to the competitive service is still sitting in House committee. Thus, there is nothing to stop SSA from posting an opening on USA Jobs asking for resumes, proof of bar licensure, and answers to questions related to SSA work experience, then choosing the top 100 to interview virtually. trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-4448-administrative-law-judges-competitive-service-restoration-act/2137964/ |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 27, 2021 7:18:52 GMT -5
But where is the need for hiring when for the next three months the average scheduled per ALJ is under 30 cases? And that’s the average. I have full dockets so many judges are hearing far fewer cases. Early outs make sense; new hiring does not.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Oct 27, 2021 9:37:30 GMT -5
But where is the need for hiring when for the next three months the average scheduled per ALJ is under 30 cases? And that’s the average. I have full dockets so many judges are hearing far fewer cases. Early outs make sense; new hiring does not. I am the eternal optimist, but I agree. My point is only that given that competitive hiring for ALJs is not on the fast track to coming back, SSA can theoretically hire quickly if it needs ALJs in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by someconcerns on Oct 27, 2021 10:53:09 GMT -5
If you mean a new cert from an OPM register, I think you're off by about 3-5 years. As I understand it, they would have to create a new testing process from scratch (including all of the research and groundwork that goes into it), then proceed through the entire process of vacancy, stages of testing, cert., then agency selection process off the cert. Meanwhile, currently other agencies are hiring ALJs using their own processes. as it currently stands, I don’t think this is correct. As I noted in another thread, the bill to move ALJ hiring back to the competitive service is still sitting in House committee. Thus, there is nothing to stop SSA from posting an opening on USA Jobs asking for resumes, proof of bar licensure, and answers to questions related to SSA work experience, then choosing the top 100 to interview virtually. trackbill.com/bill/us-congress-house-bill-4448-administrative-law-judges-competitive-service-restoration-act/2137964/Got it; I agree that currently SSA should have the power to hire ALJs. Whether it chooses to exercise that power is another matter. I believe the union opposes hiring outside of an OPM process, but that might leave the agency without new judges for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Oct 29, 2021 23:57:23 GMT -5
Could it be that this isn't driven by ALJ needs at all? The early out is agency-wide. Most people who work for SSA - and thus most people who will take this offer - aren't ALJs, they're field office employees. The strategy and timing of the offer is probably focused on them; ALJ retirements are just a small collateral effect. Maybe the question to ask is, why were ALJs carved out of the last early out? - not why were they included in this one?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 30, 2021 8:04:54 GMT -5
But where is the need for hiring when for the next three months the average scheduled per ALJ is under 30 cases? And that’s the average. I have full dockets so many judges are hearing far fewer cases. Early outs make sense; new hiring does not. Where is this statistic available? Does it break down by region? My own hearing slots for Novemeber and December were filled up. January has not been, although there is still time for additional cases to be added. This is also a deceptive time for stats because with the holidays I am sure a lot of ALJs take at least a week of vacation, if not more. But 30 is such a low number. And if some ALJs (such as yourself) are doing 50, and if others (such as myself) are well over 40, then does that mean there are offices where the ALJs are only hearing 20-25 hearings per month? |
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 30, 2021 9:23:00 GMT -5
All of my hearing slots are filled, and have been since COVID, except when things were shut down for the approximately two weeks or so in March 2020.
Looking ahead I thought maybe things were slowing down as I noticed some empty slots in January and February, but nope. In checking HACPS there were the "missing" cases.
If there is an average of 30 cases across the country, there is no good reason for it.
After all, aren't centralizing the scheduling units supposed to create "efficiency"? When filling slots, they know if they will be by telephone/video. If they are not in person, they could be heard almost anywhere in the country, barring some time zone constraints.
Efficiency is great, provided it doesn't harm due process. But, this isn't even working efficiently.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 30, 2021 10:38:14 GMT -5
But where is the need for hiring when for the next three months the average scheduled per ALJ is under 30 cases? And that’s the average. I have full dockets so many judges are hearing far fewer cases. Early outs make sense; new hiring does not. Where is this statistic available? Does it break down by region? My own hearing slots for Novemeber and December were filled up. January has not been, although there is still time for additional cases to be added. This is also a deceptive time for stats because with the holidays I am sure a lot of ALJs take at least a week of vacation, if not more. But 30 is such a low number. And if some ALJs (such as yourself) are doing 50, and if others (such as myself) are well over 40, then does that mean there are offices where the ALJs are only hearing 20-25 hearings per month? It’s on the How MY doing report. Yes broken down by office, region, nation. And I’ve been watching it for months - this is not due to holidays. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 30, 2021 11:55:55 GMT -5
Where is this statistic available? Does it break down by region? My own hearing slots for Novemeber and December were filled up. January has not been, although there is still time for additional cases to be added. This is also a deceptive time for stats because with the holidays I am sure a lot of ALJs take at least a week of vacation, if not more. But 30 is such a low number. And if some ALJs (such as yourself) are doing 50, and if others (such as myself) are well over 40, then does that mean there are offices where the ALJs are only hearing 20-25 hearings per month? It’s on the How MY doing report. Yes broken down by office, region, nation. And I’ve been watching it for months - this is not due to holidays. If some offices have ALJs doing almost twice as many cases as other offices, and have for months, then thay should absolutely have been addressed. And frankly the union should have been screaming about it. At a time when every hearing is being done remotely, there is absolutely zero reason to allow that kind of disparity. But I wonder if there may not be at least some other partial explanation for the data. Because that seems way too extreme for TPTB to let stand. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 30, 2021 12:18:44 GMT -5
It’s been going on for months. I know of offices in my region where they’ve had half dockets for a long time while I haven’t since the very beginning of the pandemic. I am perplexed why the union isn’t all over this. Of course I am personally so afraid to lose TW that I plow ahead with awful, difficult dockets scheduled by people who clearly aren’t thinking of how we really do our work (or would like to, under better circumstances).
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Oct 30, 2021 14:26:50 GMT -5
Ummmm, Mr Obvious here....
I don't think it's judges who are ultimately responsible for large swaths of judges having a dearth of hearings while other judges have plenty...
Just sayin'
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Oct 30, 2021 20:51:59 GMT -5
Management typically focuses on three things at SSA: micromanaging the hell out of people; making things as inefficient as possible; and making themselves look good. The management in offices whose judges have had full dockets throughout have little interest in sharing cases. Why? Because if they have full dockets and other offices’ judges don’t, their offices will be big producers, thus making the local management look good for promotions down the line. The union can scream as much as they want, but they’ll be screaming into the void.
We’re in the single easiest time in our history to spread cases around the country and effectively eliminate the backlog aside from those we can’t schedule, but it’s not being done in the name of self-interest over public service.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Oct 30, 2021 22:34:35 GMT -5
Maybe I'm naïve, but I used to do 50 (and lately CSU only schedules 40 in our office) because claimants need hearings, not because some judges do 25 and some do 70. I don't care what anyone else is doing. Trying to stay in my own lane.
|
|
