|
|
Post by christina on Nov 12, 2021 9:35:02 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) That is what I’m thinking too since the rest of us have union cba issues going on |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Nov 12, 2021 10:39:28 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) No one really knows and no one seems to have any answers, just guesses. expect it to be zig zagging guidance like the dismissals, which I still do not understand. my belief is that ALJs will have to come in one day a week regardless of hearings just because |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 28, 2021 11:36:11 GMT -5
Do HOCALJs start to go into the offices this week? Anyone know any details about that?
Even assuming they are going in, I assume all hearings remain phone/video.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Nov 28, 2021 11:38:19 GMT -5
I wonder how the new Omicron variant may change things for the reopening.
|
|
|
|
Post by christina on Nov 28, 2021 14:31:45 GMT -5
Do HOCALJs start to go into the offices this week? Anyone know any details about that? Even assuming they are going in, I assume all hearings remain phone/video. I had impression and could be wrong they will return to office in January. I think headquarters big shots go back early December? |
|
|
|
Post by hopespringseternal on Jan 19, 2022 19:12:36 GMT -5
Bumping this up in light of the Commissioner’s after 5 pm email today. Anyone aware of the details? Any changes from what was originally anticipated?
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 19, 2022 20:46:32 GMT -5
That teaches me not to log off at 4:25.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 19, 2022 20:57:26 GMT -5
I think the MOU was pretty much everything being described in the other thread. The only new info was that now all unions have come to agreement.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Feb 7, 2022 15:24:45 GMT -5
New memo out today on return to offices and telework. Anyone care to opine?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 7, 2022 16:02:33 GMT -5
New memo out today on return to offices and telework. Anyone care to opine? I'm a little unclear on how the dates line up with the MOU. Does this mean the 30 day "voluntary" period for ALJs starts March 30? If so, then given that the MOU requires all hearings (including supplementals) to be on 75 days notice (which means at this point it is almost impossible to schedule an April case anyway) the whole voluntary month provision was a sham, it will have expired before any live hearings would have been scheduled anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 7, 2022 17:11:48 GMT -5
I saw an email about voluntary in-person hearings in May. Still no guidance about how many in-person days we should be scheduling for going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Feb 7, 2022 17:17:24 GMT -5
While informative and helpful, there was a lack of specificity (aka silence) on conducting in person hearings. My calendar shows upcoming HOCALJ and AALJ meetings. More will be revealed (read in a hopeful voice)
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas fka Lance on Feb 7, 2022 18:46:33 GMT -5
I think one of the issues in actually holding in person hearings has to do with a contract VHRs (not enough of them)
We can't keep using our staff to record (from home) for in person hearings because there would not be anyone to escort the claimants and reps to and from the hearing room if staff is at home.
It would be a huge security risk to have the judge to do so and the security guards can't leave their post to do so
Without sufficient numbers of contract VHRs they can't hold a significant number of in person hearings unless staff is in the office to fill in for missing contract VHRs
Bass-ackwards as that may be, it's my best guess as to how we arrived at today's email
|
|
|
|
Post by FrogEsq on Feb 7, 2022 18:59:00 GMT -5
I think one of the issues in actually holding in person hearings has to do with a contract VHRs (not enough of them) We can't keep using our staff to record (from home) for in person hearings because there would not be anyone to escort the claimants and reps to and from the hearing room if staff is at home. It would be a huge security risk to have the judge to do so and the security guards can't leave their post to do so Without sufficient numbers of contract VHRs they can't hold a significant number of in person hearings unless staff is in the office to fill in for missing contract VHRs Bass-ackwards as that may be, it's my best guess as to how we arrived at today's email I've been here long enough to follow your thinking ( SHIVER) and it certainly has a high probability to come up in those conversations. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Feb 8, 2022 11:00:57 GMT -5
I think one of the issues in actually holding in person hearings has to do with a contract VHRs (not enough of them) We can't keep using our staff to record (from home) for in person hearings because there would not be anyone to escort the claimants and reps to and from the hearing room if staff is at home. It would be a huge security risk to have the judge to do so and the security guards can't leave their post to do soWithout sufficient numbers of contract VHRs they can't hold a significant number of in person hearings unless staff is in the office to fill in for missing contract VHRs Bass-ackwards as that may be, it's my best guess as to how we arrived at today's email At our local local hearing office it is the contract security that escorts claimants to the hearing room. It has been that way for as long has I have been handling SS hearings (over fifteen years). So don't discount that as one of the options the agency is considering. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Feb 8, 2022 11:18:17 GMT -5
That's not going to work in all offices unless they start hiring more security.
For some offices that is going to mean the security guard leaving the waiting room unguarded completely for minutes at a time.
My guess is eventually agency works it out with stratcom, but they are going to have to either pay more per hearing or guarantee some set minimum per day, or both. (I would think the minimum would be a particular problem initially, since the plan involves leaving a huge gap between hearing slots and will predominantly involve scheduling hearings with claimants who are unlikely to appear.)
|
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Feb 8, 2022 12:18:38 GMT -5
I heard (through the grapevine—please keep in mind) that we didn’t contract with Strattcom to work on in-person hearings. Meaning, they didn’t necessarily agree to be in the same room with claimants etc. If this is true, I can see them asking for more especially with the lower number of hearings.
I am also curious about who is going to clean the hearing rooms in between hearings…
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Feb 8, 2022 13:02:23 GMT -5
Will in-person hearings be scheduled for any of a judges available hearing days?
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Feb 9, 2022 21:28:45 GMT -5
Stratcomm "made business decision" to prohibit its contractors from doing in person hearings. So the Agency is having to have high level "discussions" with all 3 groups. For my in person hearings that are upcoming in the next few months, our HOMS is going to be the VHR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Feb 10, 2022 6:24:08 GMT -5
I am also curious about who is going to clean the hearing rooms in between hearings… At our telework meeting yesterday, we were told claimants/reps would be responsible for wiping everything down before they left. |
|
