|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 4, 2022 15:32:54 GMT -5
I can confirm that reassignment inquiries went out for atleast one office today.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 9, 2022 10:42:19 GMT -5
So has no one heard of any others? That seems odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Jan 9, 2022 18:25:05 GMT -5
Was this an inquiry about one of the offices on the list that was sent out about 2 months ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 10, 2022 8:34:33 GMT -5
No. Different office not in that list.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 10, 2022 11:02:59 GMT -5
I have five cities on my list, and did not receive any inquiries for them recently. As always, though, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you get yours before we reopen.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 10, 2022 12:12:44 GMT -5
Call me crazy (I know, you already do!), but here's an idea. Since labor and management are trying to negotiate in-person hearings, and yet overwhelmingly remote hearings are still likely for a long time, if not forever, why not do a survey of everyone on the transfer list, as part of a deal to resume in-person hearings?
Survey question: Of the cities on your list, which one would you definitely transfer to now if offered?
Immediately offer transfers to those cities unless the losing office would have no net judges after transfers (or less than some minimum). Evaluate ALJ staffing levels afterward and then make a second wave for people who couldn't get the first choice but had a low-staff city on the transfer list.
Then close out the transfer list and start it over.
What would this do? First, keep a lot of ALJs from retiring because they have been ready to move for years but have been unable to do so. Second, get ALJs where they want to be in exchange for in-person hearings. Third, eliminate the decades-long camping out on the list. The incentive for management is to make sure there are enough judges for in-person hearings and get union buy-in for limited in-person hearings. The incentive for the the union is to have a big wave of transfers for those who have been waiting.
Thoughts? Comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 10, 2022 13:29:02 GMT -5
I have five cities on my list, and did not receive any inquiries for them recently. As always, though, I’m keeping my fingers crossed that you get yours before we reopen. Thank you! I have five cities on my list as well. Three of which I’d definitely accept without thinking about it. Five plus years is a long time to wait. As to Jagvet’s suggestion, I love it. But I’m in favor of anything that gets people where they want to be. Especially now that so many of us are covering hearings for other offices, why not? |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 10, 2022 16:59:36 GMT -5
Call me crazy (I know, you already do!), but here's an idea. Since labor and management are trying to negotiate in-person hearings, and yet overwhelmingly remote hearings are still likely for a long time, if not forever, why not do a survey of everyone on the transfer list, as part of a deal to resume in-person hearings? Survey question: Of the cities on your list, which one would you definitely transfer to now if offered? Immediately offer transfers to those cities unless the losing office would have no net judges after transfers (or less than some minimum). Evaluate ALJ staffing levels afterward and then make a second wave for people who couldn't get the first choice but had a low-staff city on the transfer list. Then close out the transfer list and start it over. What would this do? First, keep a lot of ALJs from retiring because they have been ready to move for years but have been unable to do so. Second, get ALJs where they want to be in exchange for in-person hearings. Third, eliminate the decades-long camping out on the list. The incentive for management is to make sure there are enough judges for in-person hearings and get union buy-in for limited in-person hearings. The incentive for the the union is to have a big wave of transfers for those who have been waiting. Thoughts? Comments? I've suggested something similar, that the union should seek to identify who the ALJs are who are truly looking to get moved to a specific location ASAP and see if there isn't a way to get that done. Appeal to the membership's sense of camaraderie and ask that only those who are looking to get back to their homes and families raise their hands, as opposed to those who are just keeping retirement options open or are like me and might want to try and knock a few minutes off their commute. Maybe it will turn out there are hundred of ALJs who would need to be moved and there is no practical way to accommodate everyone. But maybe there just isn't that many. I've said it before- at this point they haven't hired in a long time, so anyone who was hired with the intent to get transferred ASAP has likely put down some roots and may no longer wish to move on. |
|
|
|
Post by dorothyparker on Jan 10, 2022 18:44:58 GMT -5
I can confirm that reassignment inquiries went out for atleast one office today. Any word on which office or Region was solicited? |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 10, 2022 20:01:20 GMT -5
I've suggested something similar, that the union should seek to identify who the ALJs are who are truly looking to get moved to a specific location ASAP and see if there isn't a way to get that done. Appeal to the membership's sense of camaraderie and ask that only those who are looking to get back to their homes and families raise their hands, as opposed to those who are just keeping retirement options open or are like me and might want to try and knock a few minutes off their commute. Maybe it will turn out there are hundred of ALJs who would need to be moved and there is no practical way to accommodate everyone. But maybe there just isn't that many. I've said it before- at this point they haven't hired in a long time, so anyone who was hired with the intent to get transferred ASAP has likely put down some roots and may no longer wish to move on. That “knock a few minutes off their commute” might well knock me out. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jan 10, 2022 20:11:30 GMT -5
Honestly, a transfer list is entirely unnecessary. Just make sure the PTB are required to offer a transfer into a particular office to the line judges before you can add a new hire off the register (or whatever a new process’s list is). Send out inquiries to all the ALJs for interest with the 5-day response window. On day 6, offer the position to the ALJ with the oldest SCD. If the person then changes their mind, don’t let them accept another transfer for 2 years or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 10, 2022 20:39:51 GMT -5
I disagree. I’ve been sitting on the transfer list forever hoping to get back to my home. Other judges in my class or a year or two before have already had a transfer to get closer to home but they have a older SCD. Why do they get preference again?
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 10, 2022 21:55:19 GMT -5
I agree with tripper . Although I don't like the transfer list, it was held out as a way to have fairness and it was bargained with the union. The only way they could eliminate it would be to at least go through one last time and let people know that it is the last. Someone sitting on Honolulu or San Fran might finally fish or cut bait. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 11, 2022 14:53:37 GMT -5
Really hard to say what the transfer process should look like without knowing the medium and long term future if phone and video hearings. If we are moving a model where the majority of hearings are being done remotely, the we are also likely looking at a future with a lot of office consolidation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 12, 2022 20:30:24 GMT -5
Really hard to say what the transfer process should look like without knowing the medium and long term future if phone and video hearings. If we are moving a model where the majority of hearings are being done remotely, the we are also likely looking at a future with a lot of office consolidation. I felt a great disturbance in the force as if dozens of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced it was as if the offices in NY, SF, and LA were all consolidated into old strip malls in the suburbs..... |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Jan 12, 2022 20:59:14 GMT -5
Really hard to say what the transfer process should look like without knowing the medium and long term future if phone and video hearings. If we are moving a model where the majority of hearings are being done remotely, the we are also likely looking at a future with a lot of office consolidation. I felt a great disturbance in the force as if dozens of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced it was as if the offices in NY, SF, and LA were all consolidated into old strip malls in the suburbs..... Suburbs? I was thinking more like Bozeman. |
|
|
|
Post by tripper on Jan 12, 2022 22:12:31 GMT -5
Our offices are located in many different types of buildings/locations and I’ve worked in several. I think the most inaccessible (once you get within a 1/4 mile) are offices in federal buildings in urban settings. I’ve always thought this was ridiculous when we serve a community often experiencing mobility challenges. Assuming a claimant can get there, a “strip mall” location is a lot easier to navigate. No LONG security lines, huge building and paid parking many blocks away.
But if it’s all video and phone this won’t matter so much anymore. Which may also implicate locality pay?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jan 12, 2022 23:11:13 GMT -5
I felt a great disturbance in the force as if dozens of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced it was as if the offices in NY, SF, and LA were all consolidated into old strip malls in the suburbs..... Suburbs? I was thinking more like Bozeman. I actually think the fact that all of the NHCs aren't located in second hand Costcos on the outskirts of Albuquerque and Memphis is a mismanagement of government funds. No need for locality pay. One in the Mountain and one in the Central time zones. Nice enough cities that you can retain staff and judges. Bozeman sounds lovely but it is kinda pricey and a little remote for a lot of people. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on Jan 13, 2022 11:11:42 GMT -5
Suburbs? I was thinking more like Bozeman. I actually think the fact that all of the NHCs aren't located in second hand Costcos on the outskirts of Albuquerque and Memphis is a mismanagement of government funds. No need for locality pay. One in the Mountain and one in the Central time zones. Nice enough cities that you can retain staff and judges. Bozeman sounds lovely but it is kinda pricey and a little remote for a lot of people. I predict one large central hearing office in Grand Junction Colorado for all video hearings. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Jan 13, 2022 11:22:57 GMT -5
Senator Robert Byrd tried to move all federal agency HQ offices to West Virginia and succeeded getting some moved to Harpers Ferry. Now that they need Sens. Manchin and Sinema's votes, don't be surprised if half of the video hearings are in Harper's Ferry and half are in Phoenix!
|
|
