|
|
Post by hopefalj on Nov 8, 2021 21:21:54 GMT -5
Here a SWAG, not based on anything I have heard. Ever! ALJs are told to set up, say 40 telephone/video hearings a month and 10 in-person (to start). Over time, those numbers adjust as the in-person termination hearings get dismissed for no-show. Maybe it ends up 35 tele/video and 15 in-person. Max telework except for the in-person hearing days. Comments? Great in theory and makes a lot of sense. Therefore, little to no chance the PTB implement it. I am curious to see how OVHs are scheduled down the road, what objections can be made, etc. I can’t fathom abandoning the process and software, but more effort has had to be expended to get consent for the hearings and scheduling them versus just saying show up here at this time or else. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 8, 2021 22:17:28 GMT -5
Great in theory and makes a lot of sense. Therefore, little to no chance the PTB implement it. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 8, 2021 22:31:57 GMT -5
Here a SWAG, not based on anything I have heard. Ever! ALJs are told to set up, say 40 telephone/video hearings a month and 10 in-person (to start). Over time, those numbers adjust as the in-person termination hearings get dismissed for no-show. Maybe it ends up 35 tele/video and 15 in-person. Max telework except for the in-person hearing days. Comments? That’s exactly what I think will be the reality for a year. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 8, 2021 23:33:08 GMT -5
Here a SWAG, not based on anything I have heard. Ever! ALJs are told to set up, say 40 telephone/video hearings a month and 10 in-person (to start). Over time, those numbers adjust as the in-person termination hearings get dismissed for no-show. Maybe it ends up 35 tele/video and 15 in-person. Max telework except for the in-person hearing days. Comments? I dont see it, because I don't see the CSU's being that flexible. For arguments sake, let's assume 36 remote and 12 in person per month. This would mean each ALJ would have only two days a month on which a live hearing could be scheduled. So, if the rep isn't available on those two days? Then the hearing can't be scheduled. Same thing if a particular VE or ME is needed. I'd guess best case scenario is that ALJs will be expected to be in the office for all hearing days, but if it happens to work out that all of the hearings are remote the ALJ can request of the HOCALJ that they be allowed to do the day from home. But I should also note that I wouldn't expect that ratio to stay the same going forward. Right now there are staff members chasing claimants down to get them to consent to remote hearings. Once we are back in the office that will likely stop, so most unrepped cases will again be live. Plus- while reps may be amenable to the current set up (where they get to do hearings from their home or office), I wonder how many are going to continue to do so when it means they can be sent out to a NHC or a completely different office rather than appearing in front of the local ALJs? |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 9, 2021 8:42:06 GMT -5
nylawyer, you make some good points about scheduling. It’s going to be a mess. (Now off the hold hearings, with the first one having an interpreter, despite having asked many times not to schedule them in the first slot… throws the whole morning off.)
|
|
|
|
Post by carrickfergus on Nov 9, 2021 8:56:49 GMT -5
Lots of good ideas here. Imagine if TPsTB actually asked us for input. Or maybe they just lurk this board, and present ideas as their own and get a nice little bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 9, 2021 10:21:45 GMT -5
nylawyer, you make some good points about scheduling. It’s going to be a mess. (Now off the hold hearings, with the first one having an interpreter, despite having asked many times not to schedule them in the first slot… throws the whole morning off.) And, upon further reflection, there is actually a good reason for TPTB to not schedule all in person hearings for same day, in order to reduce the number of claimants/reps in the waiting room they may want to stagger in person cases followed by remote. Also allows for cleaning of hearing rooms. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 9, 2021 10:34:39 GMT -5
nylawyer, you make some good points about scheduling. It’s going to be a mess. (Now off the hold hearings, with the first one having an interpreter, despite having asked many times not to schedule them in the first slot… throws the whole morning off.) And, upon further reflection, there is actually a good reason for TPTB to not schedule all in person hearings for same day, in order to reduce the number of claimants/reps in the waiting room they may want to stagger in person cases followed by remote. Also allows for cleaning of hearing rooms. Agreed but how to get full docket scheduled if we are only in the office 1-2 days a week? Some ALJs schedule three days of hearings per week. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 9, 2021 12:48:46 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe this gives TPTB the excuse to take scheduling away from the ALJs entirely, and going forward you can only block out bad dates where you are taking leave, with agency making all other determinations as to times and dates for hearings.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 9, 2021 13:15:10 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe this gives TPTB the excuse to take scheduling away from the ALJs entirely, and going forward you can only block out bad dates where you are taking leave, with agency making all other determinations as to times and dates for hearings. Where is the dislike button? |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 9, 2021 14:51:18 GMT -5
Who knows? Maybe this gives TPTB the excuse to take scheduling away from the ALJs entirely, and going forward you can only block out bad dates where you are taking leave, with agency making all other determinations as to times and dates for hearings. Where is the dislike button? Done correctly, I could see where it might not be that bad. Done correctly, it would require a completely different mindset and approach, but (if done correctly) it could theoretically be an improvement over the current system. If done correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Nov 9, 2021 18:19:22 GMT -5
Where is the dislike button? Done correctly, I could see where it might not be that bad. Done correctly, it would require a completely different mindset and approach, but (if done correctly) it could theoretically be an improvement over the current system. If done correctly. Unfortunately, it would never be done correctly. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 9, 2021 21:23:36 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. Here's the problem with having possible in-person hearings every hearing day. TPTB would need to reduce scheduling in order to allow cleaning between all hearings, just in case everyone wants to show up. CSU would only be able to schedule a fraction of the number of hearings. A huge backlog will open up. Better to have separate days, so remote-only days can go with hearings back-to-back-to-back. By having a set-number of in-person-only days, then the postponed hearings can be reset to the next slot on one of those days.
The number of reps doing in-person-only will drop anyway as soon as they are offered. The proof is that while many claimants initially demanded in-person only, as the pandemic continued they started relenting and going remote.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Nov 9, 2021 22:23:15 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. Here's the problem with having possible in-person hearings every hearing day. TPTB would need to reduce scheduling in order to allow cleaning between all hearings, just in case everyone wants to show up. CSU would only be able to schedule a fraction of the number of hearings. A huge backlog will open up. Better to have separate days, so remote-only days can go with hearings back-to-back-to-back. By having a set-number of in-person-only days, then the postponed hearings can be reset to the next slot on one of those days. The number of reps doing in-person-only will drop anyway as soon as they are offered. The proof is that while many claimants initially demanded in-person only, as the pandemic continued they started relenting and going remote. Agree. So in a four hearing room office, two will hold in-person four per day while the rest of the hearing slots are virtual full days. This means in an 8 judge office you will come in for one four-hearing day once a month The other two hearing rooms will be for contract VHRs to monitor some of the virtual hearings to take the pressure off office staff. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Nov 10, 2021 16:23:55 GMT -5
Ponder this scenario:
An ALJ is scheduled for six hearings in a day. The 9AM, 11AM, and 1PM are in-person hearings. The 10AM, 12 noon and 2PM hearings are video or phone hearings conducted from the ALJ’s office at the HO. That gives the cleaning staff an hour between the in-person hearings to clean and sanitize the hearing room.
Don’t like the hearing start and end times? YMMV. But I doubt that turning over a hearing room with less than an hour between in person hearings is either possible or wise.
|
|
aboj
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by aboj on Nov 10, 2021 17:11:04 GMT -5
Interesting discussion. Here's the problem with having possible in-person hearings every hearing day. TPTB would need to reduce scheduling in order to allow cleaning between all hearings, just in case everyone wants to show up. CSU would only be able to schedule a fraction of the number of hearings. A huge backlog will open up. Better to have separate days, so remote-only days can go with hearings back-to-back-to-back. By having a set-number of in-person-only days, then the postponed hearings can be reset to the next slot on one of those days. The number of reps doing in-person-only will drop anyway as soon as they are offered. The proof is that while many claimants initially demanded in-person only, as the pandemic continued they started relenting and going remote. Agree. So in a four hearing room office, two will hold in-person four per day while the rest of the hearing slots are virtual full days. This means in an 8 judge office you will come in for one four-hearing day once a month The other two hearing rooms will be for contract VHRs to monitor some of the virtual hearings to take the pressure off office staff. Alternatively, they take those 4 hearing rooms and run 7 hearings in each, with the 2 in-person ALJs shuttling their laptop between 2 hearing rooms after every hearing so the previously used in-person hearing room can be cleaned while the VHR in there does a telephone hearing sitting in Lysol. It will work... just like it did for that poor kid growing up who always believed his friend who said the umbrella would work like a parachute off the back deck. Of course, I refuse to admit on a pseudoanonymous internet forum which of those young kids I was.  |
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Nov 10, 2021 20:21:06 GMT -5
The vast majority of these first in-person hearings will be the ones we have been trying to find for the last 19 months, or who are in pay status and refuse to show up. So scheduling them all may not be an issue, since they are not expected to show up.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 10, 2021 21:43:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by okthen on Nov 11, 2021 9:39:46 GMT -5
It is interesting to me when news and the Agency says “set to open in January.” I feel that is setting an unrealistic expectation with the public. I would wager is it very unlikely that the union will have an agreement in place on return to in office work that quickly. I would bet it’s more likely that discussions go to impasse. So if the Agency actually sticks by its word to negotiate with the unions, it could be quite a while before the offices are actually back with all components. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 11, 2021 12:44:01 GMT -5
It's my understanding (but I could very well be wrong) that the initial return will be management non-union types only. (Both for OHO and FO's)
|
|
