|
|
Post by gazoo on Sept 5, 2022 20:32:12 GMT -5
Let’s hope that all this has been in the works for some time, and we’re only just hearing about it.
Let’s also hope that since ACOSS had time to send that dire email during her purported leave, she’s also had time to peruse and approve any new names submitted to her in the last few weeks.
Buckle up, looks like things will start moving soon. Good luck to all waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Sept 6, 2022 8:50:26 GMT -5
Each day going forward, just think, " Today could be the day!" September is already moving right along.
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it will last." - Willy Wonka (Said no ALJ candidate, ever).
|
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Sept 6, 2022 10:23:41 GMT -5
The question now is if they get additional funding to go to 40 or 50, how long would that process take? Would they notify the first 25 first or wait? Regardless- the fact that it may be more than 25 this go around is great news! I think they would wait. My thinking is that it is simpler to wait and notify all of the lucky applicants at the same time. Even if it takes several weeks to resolve the issue of additional hires, TPTB would still have time to make offers during the last week of the month. So they'll wait until that issue is resolved and they have a complete list of hires. Just my guess and I would be happy to be wrong. Generally speaking, it is probably safe to assume that TPTB do not put much if any weight on applicants' preference to learn the outcome as early as possible. I imagine they have other, more important things to balance and applicant preference about offer timing doesn't enter into the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Sept 6, 2022 13:48:59 GMT -5
National data shows that receipts daily per ALJ is up over dispos daily per ALJ by 0.10 in August (1.29 vs 1.19). Receipts outpaced dispos in July 2022 (0.01), Apr 2022 (0.04), Nov 2021 (0.03), and Oct 2021 (0.02). Prior to that, the last month receipts outpaced dispos was Dec 2016, which was also the last time receipts outpaced dispos by 0.10 or more.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Sept 6, 2022 15:45:48 GMT -5
National data shows that receipts daily per ALJ is up over dispos daily per ALJ by 0.10 in August (1.29 vs 1.19). Receipts outpaced dispos in July 2022 (0.01), Apr 2022 (0.04), Nov 2021 (0.03), and Oct 2021 (0.02). Prior to that, the last month receipts outpaced dispos was Dec 2016, which was also the last time receipts outpaced dispos by 0.10 or more. Curious to see if or how that changes (as well as APT*) with offices being reopened on a limited basis for in-person/VTC hearings the last month or two. I’ve had 30 such hearings scheduled with 4 people showing up. The other 26 were sent NTSCs. Guess what happens once 30 days runs on the NTSC for those folks… At some point, DDS will reduce their backlog to a more manageable level (maybe driven by that SAA cadre). That’s when receipts will likely increase in a meaningful manner. When I talk to reps in my area, I’m hearing of 5-8 month wait times for initial and reconsideration determinations versus me having hearing request times of 4-5 months this year. * APT is average processing time for those who don’t know |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Sept 6, 2022 15:54:50 GMT -5
we're gonna get 350k receipts this year. 350k/500 is 700. We have 1200 ALJs. Unemployment is still very low. Boomers are retired. This aint 2014-2017
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Sept 6, 2022 16:12:14 GMT -5
The question now is if they get additional funding to go to 40 or 50, how long would that process take? Would they notify the first 25 first or wait? Regardless- the fact that it may be more than 25 this go around is great news! I think they would wait. My thinking is that it is simpler to wait and notify all of the lucky applicants at the same time. Even if it takes several weeks to resolve the issue of additional hires, TPTB would still have time to make offers during the last week of the month. So they'll wait until that issue is resolved and they have a complete list of hires. Just my guess and I would be happy to be wrong. Generally speaking, it is probably safe to assume that TPTB do not put much if any weight on applicants' preference to learn the outcome as early as possible. I imagine they have other, more important things to balance and applicant preference about offer timing doesn't enter into the equation. Your assumption would be correct. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 6, 2022 17:31:16 GMT -5
we're gonna get 350k receipts this year. 350k/500 is 700. We have 1200 ALJs. Unemployment is still very low. Boomers are retired. This aint 2014-2017 I think you're partly wrong here. In that we aren't disposing of anywhere near 500 right now. After my first year I never missed 500 dispos. It will be a miracle if I get 300 this year. The way things are looking I won't get 500 next year either. I am not an outlier. I get the sense that we don't have the staff in most offices to work up a huge pile of cases. This isn't going to be like 2014 - 2017 you're right about that but this is going to be a huge pile of cases that we don't have the resources to work through like we could in 2016. How many folks have their clerks working as VHRs a day or more a week? |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Sept 6, 2022 18:22:03 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. Why are we hiring ALJs? Our existing ALJs don't even have enough work. Sure there's a backlog at DDS but it's not going to be an avalanche like 2014-2017. It's just going to fill out the workload for the existing corps. Demographics and the economy don't point to a need. If anything they over hired ALJs during the last backlog assuming you actually believe ALJs should be disposing of 500 per year. If Jay Powell can give us anything resembling a soft landing ALJs won't be disposing of 500 a year for a while. Arguably, ALJs and writers should be disposing of even more because unemployment is so low cases are much more likely to be favorable. If you can't get a job in this market you're probably pretty messed up. I've been writing a lot more favorables than normal. The ALJs I write for didn't change, the claimants did.
|
|
|
|
Post by theadjudicator on Sept 6, 2022 18:51:49 GMT -5
If I am not mistaken, NOSSCR indicated back in April 2022 that the backlog at lower levels was officially over 1 million cases. That # was about 30% higher when compared to 12/19. I have not heard whether the tally was accurate, but I am sure public data was used in its formulation. Between that, and the way the wind has been blowing from Regional QR and AC remands, the issue is not going to be the # of new receipts we get, but it will be trying to get rid of cases that are somewhere pending at the present time for one reason or another or another.  we're gonna get 350k receipts this year. 350k/500 is 700. We have 1200 ALJs. Unemployment is still very low. Boomers are retired. This aint 2014-2017 |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Sept 6, 2022 19:15:36 GMT -5
we're gonna get 350k receipts this year. 350k/500 is 700. We have 1200 ALJs. Unemployment is still very low. Boomers are retired. This aint 2014-2017 I think you're partly wrong here. In that we aren't disposing of anywhere near 500 right now. After my first year I never missed 500 dispos. It will be a miracle if I get 300 this year. The way things are looking I won't get 500 next year either. I am not an outlier. I get the sense that we don't have the staff in most offices to work up a huge pile of cases. This isn't going to be like 2014 - 2017 you're right about that but this is going to be a huge pile of cases that we don't have the resources to work through like we could in 2016. How many folks have their clerks working as VHRs a day or more a week? 100% agree. We have no contract VHRs. We have no one to work up cases. We have retiring judges. The back log is there - but just not where folks typically find it. And Recon decisions are taking 12 - 18 months around here. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 6, 2022 19:52:00 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. Why are we hiring ALJs? Our existing ALJs don't even have enough work. Sure there's a backlog at DDS but it's not going to be an avalanche like 2014-2017. It's just going to fill out the workload for the existing corps. Demographics and the economy don't point to a need. If anything they over hired ALJs during the last backlog assuming you actually believe ALJs should be disposing of 500 per year. If Jay Powell can give us anything resembling a soft landing ALJs won't be disposing of 500 a year for a while. Arguably, ALJs and writers should be disposing of even more because unemployment is so low cases are much more likely to be favorable. If you can't get a job in this market you're probably pretty messed up. I've been writing a lot more favorables than normal. The ALJs I write for didn't change, the claimants did. There are more cases at recon and initial phases each than have been there since at least 2002. My staff is working as hearing reporter in my hearings. They can't pull cases when they're doing that. Also retirements are happening. At least 3 of my classmates from summer 2016 have retired this year. 25 judges won't backfill retirements over the last 12 months much less build a bench. What's coming is going to put us on our heels for at least a few years and that assumes that the economy stays strong and long COVID isn't as debilitating as some people say. |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Sept 6, 2022 20:27:35 GMT -5
Yea we need a lot more low level staff agency wide but gs5-7 pay hasn't kept up with inflation.
A lot of these cases must have SGA. There's over 11 million open jobs. People are openly bragging about quiet quitting. The burger king is hiring ex felons for $15 an hour and they still can't keep the dining room open past 8.
They put in application during lockdown then went back to work upon reopening.
Long COVID is the new fibromyalgia
|
|
|
|
Post by operationalj on Sept 7, 2022 4:24:47 GMT -5
I think it would be a value-add to the American public to have enough ALJs that quality decisions and consistent training for ALL OHO employees could be sustained and pursued as a worthy outcome rather than just meeting the established annual disposition quota. Same for claimant's reps too. My perspective is that the Agency does not need an avalanche of claims to justify hiring and sustaining a sufficient number of ALJs and staff if properly serving the public is a priority. Anyone that has been around for a while knows, it's all cyclical - SSA claims, stock market, real estate - there are slow times and more demanding times.
In my firm, we don't prepare for the demanding times when times are demanding... we prepare for the busier times when we have enough time to breathe, reevaluate, hire, and train, which is during the slower times. I'm thinking don't wait to hire ALJs during the avalanche of claims but get ahead of the usual increase in claims...it's coming if it has not already begun.
|
|
|
|
Post by ARobeByAnyOtherName on Sept 7, 2022 7:09:50 GMT -5
The email says that without a funding adjustment, SSA will need to make difficult finding decisions and will likely have to freeze hiring and reduce overtime. My understanding was that this email was related only to operating under a CR (Continuing Resolution) and that there’s no issue with the actual FY23 budget (other than getting it approved and passed, which is no small feat). But my reading of the email is that the whole purpose of a CR is to “continue” at the same budget level as the year before, and SSA can’t do that without some serious belt-tightening, so we asked for $800 mill as part of THE CR. My understanding is that without the extra moola the belt-tightening would continue until the FY23 budget was passed, but that once it was (hopefully sooner rather than later), we would be back on track. I do understand that some years we can be well into and sometimes well through the FY before the budget is passed, but I just wanted to make sure that I understood the ACOSS’s email correctly that the extra money was requested for the CR and not the FY23 budget. ***What I’m actually wondering is what a denial of the $800 million would mean for FY23 ALJ hiring. I’m thinking it could forestall hiring under the CR but not under the FY23 budget, but is it possible that the lack of extra money under the CR could shift/revamp priorities for hiring under the FY23 budget? |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Sept 7, 2022 8:07:18 GMT -5
The email says that without a funding adjustment, SSA will need to make difficult finding decisions and will likely have to freeze hiring and reduce overtime. My understanding was that this email was related only to operating under a CR (Continuing Resolution) and that there’s no issue with the actual FY23 budget (other than getting it approved and passed, which is no small feat). But my reading of the email is that the whole purpose of a CR is to “continue” at the same budget level as the year before, and SSA can’t do that without some serious belt-tightening, so we asked for $800 mill as part of THE CR. My understanding is that without the extra moola the belt-tightening would continue until the FY23 budget was passed, but that once it was (hopefully sooner rather than later), we would be back on track. I do understand that some years we can be well into and sometimes well through the FY before the budget is passed, but I just wanted to make sure that I understood the ACOSS’s email correctly that the extra money was requested for the CR and not the FY23 budget. ***What I’m actually wondering is what a denial of the $800 million would mean for FY23 ALJ hiring. I’m thinking it could forestall hiring under the CR but not under the FY23 budget, but is it possible that the lack of extra money under the CR could shift/revamp priorities for hiring under the FY23 budget? It would mean that some folks go on some kind of furlough. It would not mean that they don't hire people they have budgeted for FY 22. This "dire" email is more or less the same email we get every year about this time. It's a little different but I don't know that isn't just the ACOSS having a different style. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Sept 7, 2022 8:22:47 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. Why are we hiring ALJs? Our existing ALJs don't even have enough work. Sure there's a backlog at DDS but it's not going to be an avalanche like 2014-2017. It's just going to fill out the workload for the existing corps. Demographics and the economy don't point to a need. If anything they over hired ALJs during the last backlog assuming you actually believe ALJs should be disposing of 500 per year. If Jay Powell can give us anything resembling a soft landing ALJs won't be disposing of 500 a year for a while. Arguably, ALJs and writers should be disposing of even more because unemployment is so low cases are much more likely to be favorable. If you can't get a job in this market you're probably pretty messed up. I've been writing a lot more favorables than normal. The ALJs I write for didn't change, the claimants did. Hiring at this point is “pre-actionary.” SSA watched the pending caseload rise to over 1 million in 2016/17 after it had spent the prior three years hiring ALJs. All of that hiring was offset by attrition. It took a drastic effort to eradicate that backlog—an effort that was assisted by a global pandemic. Since the high point, the ALJ corp has been cut by 25 percent, with an average attrition of 100+ per year since 2018. SSA can see the DDS backlog and I am sure the long-term effects of COVID makes them wary of an even bigger onslaught of cases. Not to mention, average processing time during 2016/17 maxed out at 633 days—that’s three months short of 2 years. At some point, it becomes a due process issue—one they hope to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by hillsarealive on Sept 7, 2022 8:49:53 GMT -5
It would mean that some folks go on some kind of furlough. It would not mean that they don't hire people they have budgeted for FY 22. This "dire" email is more or less the same email we get every year about this time. It's a lot different but I don't know that isn't just the ACOSS having a different style. I agree that we get something like this every year. It seemed strange to send it on a Friday at 6:09 ET though. That's the time of the week when you make announcements that you don't want people to read, but this didn't strike me as a buried story. Maybe they had to make some last minute wording changes. It does seem like the first line of the email didn't quite match the rest of it. |
|
|
|
Post by rightspeech on Sept 7, 2022 9:18:09 GMT -5
It's an inconvenient truth and yall are ignoring macro trends. Its not just the business cycle, back then boomers were the largest generation in a century they were in disability prime years. Unemployment was significantly higher and wages were significantly lower. Now, Gen X a small generation is disability prime years unemployment low, wages high. There can't be as many disabled people. Moreover, the agency believes that 1200 ALJs should be disposing of at least 600k claims per year. We got 350k this year, there's only 344k pending. Its not like DDS is suddenly going to release a million all at once. They are going to gradually come in and we are going to be able to dispose of them with our existing excess capacity.
Reality is theyre probably just trying to get all they can get under united government anticipating divided government and government shutdowns. We're gonna get CR through the mid term election. Then R gonna take the house. In the lame duck session R will claim they have a mandate and only pass another CR until new congress. In new congress youre gonna have a fight with possible/likely hiring freezes and shutdowns. We've seen this movie before.
They should be using this money to hire HCSS
|
|
|
|
Post by legallysufficient on Sept 7, 2022 9:47:05 GMT -5
I think the discussion started by Rightspeech is really starting to take us off the point of this thread and the April ALJ Hiring Announcement. Perhaps the policy discussions and discussion of economic trends relating to disability filings would be more germane for a separate thread. It seems like the tone is changing as a result of this discussion. Just my opinion.
On a more positive note, I absolutely think more ALJ's are needed and would contribute to more efficient case flow and due process protections, as alluded to by others previously. With the level of ALJ attrition alone and a lack of ALJ hiring in years, it would be hard for anyone to argue against hiring more ALJ's in the agency.
|
|
