|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Oct 27, 2021 9:43:31 GMT -5
I saw this and wondered how much traction this would get as I thought there was a difference between the quota system between the two agencies. I thought the IJ quotas were an actual performance quota with employment retention consequences while SSA/OHO's quota was to qualify for telework. No telework=no quota problem. Am I reading this right.
(And I am making no here comment about the ability to actually get through 50 cases a month or the growth of file size, as I know what those files look like as I review them too. Just the comparison of the two quota systems).
|
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 27, 2021 16:50:33 GMT -5
The 500 to 700 alone is absurd when you realize that there is no account for leave. An individual could take 26 days of leave as well as the 12 weeks (60 days) of paternity/maternity leave (I know I'm only 45 and my wife can still have babies and we're somewhat considering it (because ya know 5 kids just isn't enough:) ). If I do that, then I'll be expected to still schedule about 18 Hearings a week because I'm not allowed to take maternity/paternity leave (or any kind of leave for that matter) without still being expected to do the exact same amount of cases as some newbie judge who only gets 2 weeks of leave for the year. If you ask me it is bigoted (it punishes people who want to have children). AND leadership can't say "well we'll make an exception for paternity leave but not regular leave." If it applies to sick/surgery leave or it applies to paternity/maternity leave then it has to also apply to normal leave...you have to exclude ALL forms of leave from the equation.
Also just absolutely ignorant is the whole business model. They pay us judges $185,000 a year to look at an entire file without any assistant/law clerk. I could do 700-800 cases a year if they just gave me a $80,000 a year law clerk to create every single one of my File Review Notes for me. INSTEAD I do every single file review from scratch with basically no assistance. COULD YOU IMAGINE if a partner at a law firm got paid $500,000 to read every deposition and research every area of law and then they paid the associate $125,000 a year to write the court brief using all of the partner's research. That law firm would go out of business. But since we're the Federal Government we can have an assbackward business model fleecing the American taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars and no one cares.
|
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Oct 27, 2021 17:05:48 GMT -5
The 500 to 700 alone is absurd when you realize that there is no account for leave. An individual could take 26 days of leave as well as the 12 weeks (60 days) of paternity/maternity leave (I know I'm only 45 and my wife can still have babies and we're somewhat considering it (because ya know 5 kids just isn't enough:) ). If I do that, then I'll be expected to still schedule about 18 Hearings a week because I'm not allowed to take maternity/paternity leave (or any kind of leave for that matter) without still being expected to do the exact same amount of cases as some newbie judge who only gets 2 weeks of leave for the year. If you ask me it is bigoted (it punishes people who want to have children). AND leadership can't say "well we'll make an exception for paternity leave but not regular leave." If it applies to sick/surgery leave or it applies to paternity/maternity leave then it has to also apply to normal leave...you have to exclude ALL forms of leave from the equation. Also just absolutely ignorant is the whole business model. They pay us judges $185,000 a year to look at an entire file without any assistant/law clerk. I could do 700-800 cases a year if they just gave me a $80,000 a year law clerk to create every single one of my File Review Notes for me. INSTEAD I do every single file review from scratch with basically no assistance. COULD YOU IMAGINE if a partner at a law firm got paid $500,000 to read every deposition and research every area of law and then they paid the associate $125,000 a year to write the court brief using all of the partner's research. That law firm would go out of business. But since we're the Federal Government we can have an assbackward business model fleecing the American taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars and no one cares. Totally agree on the numbers. It is a horrific amount of work usually resulting in time worked off the clock to accomplish it, which is not supposed to be done, but happens anyway, which proves the point about the amount of work it is. I frankly hope that the IJ's move does result in something good for SSA ALJs. But my concern was that from my understanding the IJ quota is an actual quota that effects retention. As presently constituted the SSA quote effected telework eligibility, a benefit. My concern was that AALJ was comparing grapefruit to oranges and it wasn't going to come of much. At the very least it would be helpful if there was an acknowledgement that while as written it's just a telework quota, but the actual effect of not hitting 50 a month carries over into other parts of the job such as promotions, transfers, etc., even if the policy is not written as such. Maybe this will make that happen, but I'm not holding my breath. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 27, 2021 17:23:02 GMT -5
The 500 to 700 alone is absurd when you realize that there is no account for leave. An individual could take 26 days of leave as well as the 12 weeks (60 days) of paternity/maternity leave (I know I'm only 45 and my wife can still have babies and we're somewhat considering it (because ya know 5 kids just isn't enough:) ). If I do that, then I'll be expected to still schedule about 18 Hearings a week because I'm not allowed to take maternity/paternity leave (or any kind of leave for that matter) without still being expected to do the exact same amount of cases as some newbie judge who only gets 2 weeks of leave for the year. If you ask me it is bigoted (it punishes people who want to have children). AND leadership can't say "well we'll make an exception for paternity leave but not regular leave." If it applies to sick/surgery leave or it applies to paternity/maternity leave then it has to also apply to normal leave...you have to exclude ALL forms of leave from the equation. Also just absolutely ignorant is the whole business model. They pay us judges $185,000 a year to look at an entire file without any assistant/law clerk. I could do 700-800 cases a year if they just gave me a $80,000 a year law clerk to create every single one of my File Review Notes for me. INSTEAD I do every single file review from scratch with basically no assistance. COULD YOU IMAGINE if a partner at a law firm got paid $500,000 to read every deposition and research every area of law and then they paid the associate $125,000 a year to write the court brief using all of the partner's research. That law firm would go out of business. But since we're the Federal Government we can have an assbackward business model fleecing the American taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars and no one cares. Your 2nd paragraph I couldn't agree with more. Heck, if a paralegal went through every case and actually truly organized the files in a useful manner (removing all duplicates, sorting treatment by provider in date order) even without any actual analysis-that alone would greatly increase my productivity. As for your first paragraph- in my experience when you take paternity leave or other long term medical leave you aren't expected to make up the cases. While I have many problems with the current quota at SSA, I really can't get worked up over the idea that the amount of service time isn't being factored in Sure, if you've got 20 years you are earning extra annual time, but on the other hand shouldn't you be able to work faster than a newbie judge? (At this point I don't think there actually are any ALJs in their first three years of service- I believe the last hire was now over 4 years ago?) I would concede an ideal system should factor in when people take time off, particularly if you take a week or more, but I for one would settle for something less than ideal as long as it was an improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Oct 27, 2021 21:31:47 GMT -5
Regardless of experience or speed, it also depends where the ALJ is hearing cases. Cases in states with access to healthcare like CA or even expanded Medicaid like KY have huge files compared to the hardcore red states where it’s the emergency department if you’re poor and sick.
Hopefully, Melissa and Matt will have success getting rid of these ridiculous scheduling requirements during the contract negotiations. Godspeed!
Lastly, if you wants your own attorneys who report to you and will not only draft your decision but do you file review, apply to one of the NHCs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 27, 2021 22:06:03 GMT -5
I refused to meet the mandated per-month number of scheduled hearings. I knew that would mean I could not telework. So…some harping from several HOCALJs, with threats of a “scheduling order.” In 9.8 years of ALJ service, I never received one of the threatened “scheduling orders.” The ONLY repercussion in nearly 10 years of service, was that I could not telework. The powers that be are essentially toothless and full of hot air. FDR was right: The only thing to fear is fear itself.
I worked hard, but I did not pander to TPTB.
Everybody IS teleworking now. They can’t take that away from you as of right now. Later on, when things return to normal—whenever that is, the only leverage they have is to forbid you from teleworking. If you can resign yourself to not being able to telework, you are golden. Consequently, IMHO, you should only schedule the number of hearings you are comfortable doing, provided you’re working hard and that number is “reasonable.” If you use leave you’ve accumulated, then simply schedule fewer hearings that month. What can they do to you, really?
YMMV, of course. I’m retired now, anyway.
Respectfully, Tony
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Oct 28, 2021 7:30:27 GMT -5
Everybody IS teleworking now. They can’t take that away from you as of right now. Later on, when things return to normal—whenever that is, the only leverage they have is to forbid you from teleworking. If you can resign yourself to not being able to telework, you are golden. Consequently, IMHO, you should only schedule the number of hearings you are comfortable doing, provided you’re working hard and that number is “reasonable.” If you use leave you’ve accumulated, then simply schedule fewer hearings that month. What can they do to you, really? They can take away telework. I live almost two hours from my hearing office. Five years after appointment I’m still waiting for a transfer. One consequence of this is that I cannot take a long vacation out west next year as it would be extremely difficult to make up the hearings missed during my leave. I can’t overstate the impact losing telework would have on my quality of life. |
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Oct 28, 2021 8:58:31 GMT -5
Telework shouldn't be tethered to production standards, but there needs to be some reasonable expectation of output. Outside of the current situation where we lack the receipts (which I think will not last much longer), IMO ALJs who routinely issue 250 dispositions per year are doing it wrong and are the poster boys and girls for those who believe that we shouldn't be under the APA umbrella.
But the expectations should be based on objective factors tailored to the office, and should be couched in the number of dispositions per days worked. I've done exactly this in my past life as a judge and manager of judges at the state level. To the point made above by NYLAWYER, baby judges should mature within 3-5 years, and I disagree that an ALJ who has earns leave at the 15 year point has the ability to effectively churn through a 2000 page F section faster than a 5-10 year veteran.
AND of course giving ALJs the ability to schedule their own dockets in a meaningful manner would be helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Oct 28, 2021 10:12:01 GMT -5
I was a few dozen dispositions above 500 in fiscal year 2019 and at end of March 2020 I was on pace for almost exactly the same for fiscal year 2020 before the COVID poop hit the fan. This placed me in the top 3rd of all ALJs in the nation for dispositions during that timeframe. Working at this pace gave me time to clear ALPO/EDIT at a speed that put me in the top 25% of ALJs in Avg. Processing Time (per How Am I Doing). AND during that period, My Remand Rate was also in the top 25-33% in the nation. My guess is that if we were to have a metric that took into account where you ranked in a combined Dispositions/Avg. Processing Time/Remand Rate, I'd be in the top 10-15 percent of ALL ALJs. I'm not saying that to toot my own horn but, rather, just to demonstrate that scheduling 600 decisions a year isn't the be all/end all. We should have a quality/quantity balance that adequately affords our Claimants Due Process. I do all of this scheduling 11 cases per week 47 weeks of the year (5 weeks of vacation). So I schedule 517 cases but still get more than that even with Postponements. I do this with about a dozen withdrawal/death dismissals a year and 2 dozen Senior Attorney Recommended OTR Fully Favorables that never go to scheduling. Explain to me why that portrait of an ALJ is not worthy of telework but if I scheduled 12 Hearings a week and took only 2 weeks of vacation a year I WOULD be worthy of telework?  My guess is that by taking away the extra file review time and post-Hearing cleanup, I'd instead rank in the bottom half of ALJs in the nation in Avg. Processing Time and Remand Rate...is that a good tradeoff as far as Leadership is concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 28, 2021 10:18:52 GMT -5
Everybody IS teleworking now. They can’t take that away from you as of right now. Later on, when things return to normal—whenever that is, the only leverage they have is to forbid you from teleworking. If you can resign yourself to not being able to telework, you are golden. Consequently, IMHO, you should only schedule the number of hearings you are comfortable doing, provided you’re working hard and that number is “reasonable.” If you use leave you’ve accumulated, then simply schedule fewer hearings that month. What can they do to you, really? They can take away telework. I live almost two hours from my hearing office. Five years after appointment I’m still waiting for a transfer. One consequence of this is that I cannot take a long vacation out west next year as it would be extremely difficult to make up the hearings missed during my leave. I can’t overstate the impact losing telework would have on my quality of life. Perversely, the Agency has a clear disincentive to assign judges to an office close to where they live. My second two offices were close to home. So, being able to telework was relatively unimportant to me. But when the Agency assigns a judge to an office some distance from their home, the Agency knows they can squeeze that judge to schedule the mandated number of hearings. As Tripper says, being able to telework, in some cases, can greatly affect one’s quality of life. The folks in Falls Church recognize this. It’s a conspiracy. Respectfully, Oliver Stone |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Oct 28, 2021 11:18:48 GMT -5
I was a few dozen dispositions above 500 in fiscal year 2019 and at end of March 2020 I was on pace for almost exactly the same for fiscal year 2020 before the COVID poop hit the fan. This placed me in the top 3rd of all ALJs in the nation for dispositions during that timeframe. Working at this pace gave me time to clear ALPO/EDIT at a speed that put me in the top 25% of ALJs in Avg. Processing Time (per How Am I Doing). AND during that period, My Remand Rate was also in the top 25-33% in the nation. My guess is that if we were to have a metric that took into account where you ranked in a combined Dispositions/Avg. Processing Time/Remand Rate, I'd be in the top 10-15 percent of ALL ALJs. I'm not saying that to toot my own horn but, rather, just to demonstrate that scheduling 600 decisions a year isn't the be all/end all. We should have a quality/quantity balance that adequately affords our Claimants Due Process. I do all of this scheduling 11 cases per week 47 weeks of the year (5 weeks of vacation). So I schedule 517 cases but still get more than that even with Postponements. I do this with about a dozen withdrawal/death dismissals a year and 2 dozen Senior Attorney Recommended OTR Fully Favorables that never go to scheduling. Explain to me why that portrait of an ALJ is not worthy of telework but if I scheduled 12 Hearings a week and took only 2 weeks of vacation a year I WOULD be worthy of telework? My guess is that by taking away the extra file review time and post-Hearing cleanup, I'd instead rank in the bottom half of ALJs in the nation in Avg. Processing Time and Remand Rate...is that a good tradeoff as far as Leadership is concerned. I have to say, having more dispos than hearings scheduled- I am pretty sure that is not the norm. (Even pre-COVID) I had a fairly high dismissal rate (again, pre-COVID), but not of cases that were never scheduled. Maybe a couple of late requests for hearings (but I mostly granted those). And the SA reviews in my office are also done well after the cases are scheduled. But, really, isn't that the point- each office is very different and any blanket expectation is ridiculous. The size of the files is just the most obvious and most easily quantifiable variable (and to my mind, really not the most significant). How many no shows, how many unrepped, quality of reps/staff/writers, along various other factors about the claimant pool (very different job in an office with a lot of veterans versus an office with a lot of workers comp claims versus an office with little medical care available to the indigent). I agree that there does need to be some minimum level of expectations as to performance, but those expectations have to be based on the reality of doing the job. |
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 28, 2021 12:32:38 GMT -5
The 500 to 700 alone is absurd when you realize that there is no account for leave. An individual could take 26 days of leave as well as the 12 weeks (60 days) of paternity/maternity leave (I know I'm only 45 and my wife can still have babies and we're somewhat considering it (because ya know 5 kids just isn't enough:) ). If I do that, then I'll be expected to still schedule about 18 Hearings a week because I'm not allowed to take maternity/paternity leave (or any kind of leave for that matter) without still being expected to do the exact same amount of cases as some newbie judge who only gets 2 weeks of leave for the year. If you ask me it is bigoted (it punishes people who want to have children). AND leadership can't say "well we'll make an exception for paternity leave but not regular leave." If it applies to sick/surgery leave or it applies to paternity/maternity leave then it has to also apply to normal leave...you have to exclude ALL forms of leave from the equation. Also just absolutely ignorant is the whole business model. They pay us judges $185,000 a year to look at an entire file without any assistant/law clerk. I could do 700-800 cases a year if they just gave me a $80,000 a year law clerk to create every single one of my File Review Notes for me. INSTEAD I do every single file review from scratch with basically no assistance. COULD YOU IMAGINE if a partner at a law firm got paid $500,000 to read every deposition and research every area of law and then they paid the associate $125,000 a year to write the court brief using all of the partner's research. That law firm would go out of business. But since we're the Federal Government we can have an assbackward business model fleecing the American taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars and no one cares. The VA system is close to what you describe. AA (GS-11-GS-14) does the initial file review and evidence tab, and then does a decision draft, to include the initial assessment of the disposition (can ask VLJ questions if necessary). VLJ reviews and edits before signing (or, sometimes, sending back for revisions). Each VLJ has about six or seven attorneys writing for him/her. Goal for the VLJs (not a technical quota) is higher than for attorneys, but they are more of a reviewer and "approver" than an in-the-weeds researcher. Of course, some do choose to do substantial revisions (it's the VLJ's name on the decision, of course), but it's an individual call. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Oct 28, 2021 21:27:16 GMT -5
(At this point I don't think there actually are any ALJs in their first three years of service- I believe the last hire was now over 4 years ago?) While I do not have exact numbers at my fingertips (I bet someone on here does), there was a somewhat larger class in late 2016, a smaller class in early 2017 and a more typical large class in late 2017. Add the 3 together and it is something in the 250 range (without digging through old posts or digging out the old Big Chief tablet and stubby pencil), although I could be 10 - 12% off either way. While there have certainly been a few losses from those cohorts, I suspect those 3 classes make up around 1 in 5 of our current corps of ALJs. That stat alone is amazing. |
|
|
|
Post by nappyloxs on Oct 28, 2021 23:04:36 GMT -5
Everybody IS teleworking now. They can’t take that away from you as of right now. Later on, when things return to normal—whenever that is, the only leverage they have is to forbid you from teleworking. If you can resign yourself to not being able to telework, you are golden. Consequently, IMHO, you should only schedule the number of hearings you are comfortable doing, provided you’re working hard and that number is “reasonable.” If you use leave you’ve accumulated, then simply schedule fewer hearings that month. What can they do to you, really? They can take away telework. I live almost two hours from my hearing office. Five years after appointment I’m still waiting for a transfer. One consequence of this is that I cannot take a long vacation out west next year as it would be extremely difficult to make up the hearings missed during my leave. I can’t overstate the impact losing telework would have on my quality of life. You should not be deterred from taking a vacation. If I recall correctly, ALJs do not have to schedule 50 cases per months. They must provide an average of 50 hearings slots per month for a 6-month period. Ultimately, it is the CSU that schedules the cases, not the ALJ. It should not be on the ALJ, if an ALJ takes a vacation, makes up for it the next month by offering 60+ hearing slots, and the CSU is unable to schedule those slots. Plus as others have mentioned, we are on full-time telework independent of any scheduling requirements. Lastly, there are plenty of ways to meet the 50 a month average if needed. Ultimately, the 50 hearings per month should not deter you from living your life as that would not do the agency, public, or you any good. |
|
aboj
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by aboj on Oct 29, 2021 16:38:16 GMT -5
Come on, man! There is no "quota." There is only a goal. A metric, perhaps. Now, failing to attain this goal may subject one to removal of certain privileges otherwise available (i.e., telework). But let us not go calling this a quota. That is just plain goofy talk. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by hamster on Oct 29, 2021 19:00:01 GMT -5
Come on, man! There is no "quota." There is only a goal. A metric, perhaps. Now, failing to attain this goal may subject one to removal of certain privileges otherwise available (i.e., telework). But let us not go calling this a quota. That is just plain goofy talk. :-) Wait! I thought you said it was only a GOAL!  |
|
