|
|
Post by Gaidin on Dec 25, 2021 22:25:28 GMT -5
TPTB will never require anything of claimants. No vaccines, testing or masks. This is the dilemma that keeps OHO from resuming hearings. And what if they tried? What happens WHEN the first claimant takes off a mask? Drag them out by the hair? Not going to happen. I'd give you a thumbs in agreement JV but I don't want anyone to think I like the situation. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Dec 25, 2021 22:32:14 GMT -5
Our union regional VP sent an update that the HOCALJs will not start their limited in person hearings until March. So I would presume that the rest of us won’t be returning any sooner than April or May, if then. I think Omicron May cause the reopening to slow down too. Personally I think a condition of an in person hearing be that Al persons in the room (claimant and rep included) be fully vaccinated and wear N95s, which is something they are not requiring. March 3rd to be exact. Those hearings we're noticed week before last. They aren't doing more than 3 or 4 in person hearings a day and there is an hour between them. The current status as near as I can tell is that us line judges won't be returning until things are negotiated out with the Union. Since the agency and the union haven't signed off on the contract I suspect the return to work is still a ways out as well. I think May is a reasonable guess. April feels either to optimistic or pessimistic depending on your view point. The notice requirements just create too many barriers. |
|
|
|
Post by Ready-Now! on Dec 26, 2021 7:19:36 GMT -5
TPTB will never require anything of claimants. No vaccines, testing or masks. This is the dilemma that keeps OHO from resuming hearings. And what if they tried? What happens WHEN the first claimant takes off a mask? Drag them out by the hair? Not going to happen. , I agree with the dilemma you outlined. Like you, I do not like it but it is a truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 26, 2021 9:12:20 GMT -5
TPTB will never require anything of claimants. No vaccines, testing or masks. This is the dilemma that keeps OHO from resuming hearings. And what if they tried? What happens WHEN the first claimant takes off a mask? Drag them out by the hair? Not going to happen. I'd give you a thumbs in agreement JV but I don't want anyone to think I like the situation. No need to drag them out by the hair. No need to do anything but explain that a mask is required, and if he persists in not wearing it, the hearing will be rescheduled for a date sometime in the future. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Dec 26, 2021 11:43:16 GMT -5
I'd give you a thumbs in agreement JV but I don't want anyone to think I like the situation. No need to drag them out by the hair. No need to do anything but explain that a mask is required, and if he persists in not wearing it, the hearing will be rescheduled for a date sometime in the future. Pixie The problem I'd anticipate will be those who wear a mask, but not correctly (not covering nose and mouth). And those who claim a medical inability to wear a mask with no supporting documentation. The claimants who just absolutely refuse to wear a mask won't make it past security and thus won't be the ALJs problem. But, no, vaccines will never be required of the claiamnts. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Dec 26, 2021 12:05:54 GMT -5
There is some suggestion that the best face covering against Omicron is an N-95 particulate respirator. www.cnn.com/2021/12/24/health/cloth-mask-omicron-variant-wellness/index.htmlYou can buy N-95’s on Amazon. However, if the masks are employer-supplied N-95s and are required by the employer to be utilized, what of the OSHA requirements regarding fit testing? www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.134AppAOn a different note, can someone explain to me why an in-person hearing where everyone is masked from the nose down is better than a video hearing where you can see the claimant’s entire face and the claimant can see the ALJ’s unmasked face? I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the benefits of an in-person hearing over an MS teams hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 26, 2021 22:42:34 GMT -5
On a different note, can someone explain to me why an in-person hearing where everyone is masked from the nose down is better than a video hearing where you can see the claimant’s entire face and the claimant can see the ALJ’s unmasked face? I am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the benefits of an in-person hearing over an MS teams hearing. Dear friend pumpkin, You are trying to ascribe logic. I got a ticket a year ago which I am contesting and was told by that court that in-person hearings were suspended because of COVID. My case would go to a judge and I would be told whether I was guilty or not guilty. I'm still waiting. I have no earthly idea why claimants can insist on in-person hearings. Many claimants are immunity-compromised. Mask compliance can be difficult. Many people lower their masks to talk. That's absurd. Anyway, I don't see the unions pushing for in-person. Bottom line--probably not before summer. |
|
|
|
Post by seaside on Dec 27, 2021 8:27:12 GMT -5
No need to drag them out by the hair. No need to do anything but explain that a mask is required, and if he persists in not wearing it, the hearing will be rescheduled for a date sometime in the future. Pixie The problem I'd anticipate will be those who wear a mask, but not correctly (not covering nose and mouth). And those who claim a medical inability to wear a mask with no supporting documentation. The claimants who just absolutely refuse to wear a mask won't make it past security and thus won't be the ALJs problem. But, no, vaccines will never be required of the claiamnts. Not wearing a mask correctly is not wearing a mask. |
|
|
|
Post by marathon on Dec 27, 2021 8:58:59 GMT -5
The problem I'd anticipate will be those who wear a mask, but not correctly (not covering nose and mouth). And those who claim a medical inability to wear a mask with no supporting documentation. The claimants who just absolutely refuse to wear a mask won't make it past security and thus won't be the ALJs problem. But, no, vaccines will never be required of the claiamnts. Not wearing a mask correctly is not wearing a mask. We “affectionately” call those “chin diapers.” |
|
|
|
Post by Baymax on Jan 1, 2022 19:32:12 GMT -5
I wonder what would happen if an ALJ demanded that all claimants and reps for in person hearings wear N95 masks and show proof of vaccination before letting the claimant into the hearing room or going on the record.
While it’s not agency policy, I don’t think such a “standing order” of sorts would be unreasonable or not justified.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 1, 2022 21:40:06 GMT -5
I wonder what would happen if an ALJ demanded that all claimants and reps for in person hearings wear N95 masks and show proof of vaccination before letting the claimant into the hearing room or going on the record. While it’s not agency policy, I don’t think such a “standing order” of sorts would be unreasonable or not justified. While I generally like the idea (I don't see why the vaccination status of a claimant could be concealed-we know about every embarrassing medical condition), I don't think vaccine status of reps or others could be compelled. Also, easy cases for Appeals Council to reach its remand quota without bothering to read the determination (not that they do all the time anyway). |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 2, 2022 12:19:49 GMT -5
I wonder what would happen if an ALJ demanded that all claimants and reps for in person hearings wear N95 masks and show proof of vaccination before letting the claimant into the hearing room or going on the record. While it’s not agency policy, I don’t think such a “standing order” of sorts would be unreasonable or not justified. You can’t require reps to give you briefs or to stop jamming hundreds of pages of dupes in the record per standing order. Good luck trying to require masks and vaccinations for them to show up in the hearing room via standing order and absent an agency requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jan 4, 2022 10:55:02 GMT -5
From today’s union newsletter
“We know you have a lot of questions about our physical return to the office. The status on the return to the office remains unchanged – the Agency and the AALJ are still negotiating the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will govern our return. Please be reassured that there is no imminent return to the office because the parties are still in discussions. “
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 4, 2022 13:16:14 GMT -5
This issue will be the real test for the Acting Commissioner. Will she favor claimants and reps by pushing in-person hearings soon (not terminations since those are generally unrepped)? Will she favor the unions which do not want in-person? My SWAG is that soon, she and the unions will reach an agreement with an announcement that in-person hearings using line judges will resume, but not for a long time (I had earlier predicted June or July, but now I'm saying September with who-knows-how-many variants are ahead).
I don't see protracted negotiations or unilateral implementation, as Commish will want to appear more pro-union than her predecessors and they will want to show support for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Jan 5, 2022 15:52:44 GMT -5
I believe things will be finalized around May/June and that in-person hearings will resume October 1st, give or take a month.*
This isn't based on any hard data, just a gut feeling.
*Do not make any plans or incur expenses based on statements by Ace Midnight. Offer not valid in Connecticut.
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 17, 2022 17:23:35 GMT -5
As per union email, agreement has been reached, with May 4 as first date for return to office.
Initial month is for volunteers only; beginning in June all ALJs return (absent a qualified medical condition).
Start dates are soft at the moment, since agreement must be reached with all unions.
ALJs only required to be in office when scheduled for in person hearing. Otherwise, can continue to telework, and the 2 hour rule remains suspended.
I don't see anything suggesting that there will be any break between hearings for cleaning, so I assume the in office hearings will follow your usual schedule. The agreement does require plexiglass barriers and air filtration systems- I personally have some doubts about the effectiveness of the latter in some of our hearing set ups, but I have an open mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 17, 2022 18:48:51 GMT -5
My first quick read is this sounds OK. What do you all think?
|
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 17, 2022 21:32:09 GMT -5
My first quick read is this sounds OK. What do you all think? Sounds ok. I would like to know if there is any plan to clean hearing rooms between hearings. I would have also preferred an agreement that acknowledged that not every hearing office is the same in terms of the physical structure of the building and the population being served, and that local conditions may require some offices to at times shut down as needed. |
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Jan 17, 2022 21:53:47 GMT -5
My first quick read is this sounds OK. What do you all think? Sounds quite reasonable. Things should be mostly under control by May at the current pace. I look forward to going back to the office then. |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Jan 17, 2022 22:06:53 GMT -5
As per union email, agreement has been reached, with May 4 as first date for return to office. Initial month is for volunteers only; beginning in June all ALJs return (absent a qualified medical condition). Start dates are soft at the moment, since agreement must be reached with all unions. ALJs only required to be in office when scheduled for in person hearing. Otherwise, can continue to telework, and the 2 hour rule remains suspended. I don't see anything suggesting that there will be any break between hearings for cleaning, so I assume the in office hearings will follow your usual schedule. The agreement does require plexiglass barriers and air filtration systems- I personally have some doubts about the effectiveness of the latter in some of our hearing set ups, but I have an open mind. For the record, re union agreements,unless something changed over weekend, nteu and agency reached agreement earlier this month. So I think that means only Afge is left(assuming they have not reached agreement)? |
|
