|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 5, 2022 10:32:14 GMT -5
NHC judges are the first line supervisors for their attorney advisors, and in that capacity they do everything that other first line supervisors in OHO do for the employees that they supervise (assign work, approve leave requests, communicate agency information, assess performance through PACS, etc.). The agency also includes them as management for purposes of training and information dissemination. I have no idea what this article means when it says that their supervisory authority is a “mirage.” The question I have is were they made supervisors for the express purpose of denying these ALJs the right to join the Union? And do they have any say whatsoever in matters of policy or governance? And we all know that the answers are yes and no. My take as a SSA outsider and ALJ is that NHO ALJs should have the freedom of choice and that was taken away from them by creation of a false narrative. The LAST thing management wants to hear is that the ALJs have something to say. Wasn't the famous "Mother of the Union" (this is a Board quote of over ten years ago) heard to say that she, as a Deputy Commissioner or Chief ALJ (I don't remember) did not have to talk to the ALJs because they were not a Union? Has that sentiment really changed at SSA? |
|
|
|
Post by february on Jun 5, 2022 13:27:19 GMT -5
NHC judges are the first line supervisors for their attorney advisors, and in that capacity they do everything that other first line supervisors in OHO do for the employees that they supervise (assign work, approve leave requests, communicate agency information, assess performance through PACS, etc.). The agency also includes them as management for purposes of training and information dissemination. I have no idea what this article means when it says that their supervisory authority is a “mirage.” The question I have is were they made supervisors for the express purpose of denying these ALJs the right to join the Union? And do they have any say whatsoever in matters of policy or governance? And we all know that the answers are yes and no. My take as a SSA outsider and ALJ is that NHO ALJs should have the freedom of choice and that was taken away from them by creation of a false narrative. The LAST thing management wants to hear is that the ALJs have something to say. Wasn't the famous "Mother of the Union" (this is a Board quote of over ten years ago) heard to say that she, as a Deputy Commissioner or Chief ALJ (I don't remember) did not have to talk to the ALJs because they were not a Union? Has that sentiment really changed at SSA? I’m genuinely confused by what the supposed “false narrative” is here. Of course NHC ALJs don’t have any say in matters of policy or governance. Nor do GSs. Nor, frankly, do HOCALJs. Anyone who is surprised by this or who thinks the agency is somehow being deceptive just doesn’t understand how government agencies work. This is no different from other federal agencies where I’ve worked, nor is it really any different from a lot of large corporations. There are trade offs related to NHC ALJs being supervisors. On the one hand, they give up the ability to be members of the union. On the other, they get a lot more control over their dockets, have attorneys to do pre-hearing file reviews for them, and get more consistent work product in their decision drafts. Different ALJs may weigh those trade-offs differently, but I just don’t see any deception here. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Jun 14, 2022 0:21:19 GMT -5
I'm sure there is some variance between NHC offices and how different ALJs feel about their supervisory roles. I suspect some people coming from management positions where they had enormous control may view the NHC ALJs as managers in name only.
However, I know a couple of NHC ALJs and they do manage their writers and take part in other management duties. Should that preclude joining the Union I don't know. I'm not a labor and employment lawyer. What I do think is that disparaging these ALJs is unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on Jun 14, 2022 14:41:26 GMT -5
I'm sure there is some variance between NHC offices and how different ALJs feel about their supervisory roles. I suspect some people coming from management positions where they had enormous control may view the NHC ALJs as managers in name only. However, I know a couple of NHC ALJs and they do manage their writers and take part in other management duties. Should that preclude joining the Union I don't know. I'm not a labor and employment lawyer. What I do think is that disparaging these ALJs is unfair. Agreed. All disparagement should be reserved for real management.  |
|
|
|
Post by dwesq on Jun 14, 2022 14:52:40 GMT -5
NHC judges are the first line supervisors for their attorney advisors, and in that capacity they do everything that other first line supervisors in OHO do for the employees that they supervise (assign work, approve leave requests, communicate agency information, assess performance through PACS, etc.). The agency also includes them as management for purposes of training and information dissemination. I have no idea what this article means when it says that their supervisory authority is a “mirage.” The question I have is were they made supervisors for the express purpose of denying these ALJs the right to join the Union? And do they have any say whatsoever in matters of policy or governance? And we all know that the answers are yes and no. My take as a SSA outsider and ALJ is that NHO ALJs should have the freedom of choice and that was taken away from them by creation of a false narrative. The LAST thing management wants to hear is that the ALJs have something to say. Wasn't the famous "Mother of the Union" (this is a Board quote of over ten years ago) heard to say that she, as a Deputy Commissioner or Chief ALJ (I don't remember) did not have to talk to the ALJs because they were not a Union? Has that sentiment really changed at SSA? What exactly are NHC judges missing out on by not being in a Union? Are they treated any differently? Lacking any perks? Held to different production standards? |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 15, 2022 13:35:01 GMT -5
The question I have is were they made supervisors for the express purpose of denying these ALJs the right to join the Union? And do they have any say whatsoever in matters of policy or governance? And we all know that the answers are yes and no. My take as a SSA outsider and ALJ is that NHO ALJs should have the freedom of choice and that was taken away from them by creation of a false narrative. The LAST thing management wants to hear is that the ALJs have something to say. Wasn't the famous "Mother of the Union" (this is a Board quote of over ten years ago) heard to say that she, as a Deputy Commissioner or Chief ALJ (I don't remember) did not have to talk to the ALJs because they were not a Union? Has that sentiment really changed at SSA? What exactly are NHC judges missing out on by not being in a Union? Are they treated any differently? Lacking any perks? Held to different production standards? February's and your points are noted. I've been an ALJ for over 12 years. Some ALJs come from a background of being a prior supervisor, some haven't.Many of them are not particularly suited to being managers. In my discussions with other ALJs in numerous FALJC Conferences over the years I have yet to meet an ALJ who was a supervisor not admit that their agency, OMHA or SSA, put them in this position so they couldn't join a Union. To me, that smacks of artifice. I've never been in a Union so I don't know how to answer your question. However, it does force Management to listen to an assembly of Judges. We all see things from our perspective. If I were an ALJ in a small Agency, the Commissioners above me may know me and we may exchange work Ideas and sentiments. At OMHA and SSA that doesn't happen. Some ALJs think that by virtue of their position, they are big cheeses and management should listen to them. Many, like myself, aren't so enamored, so we don't care. |
|
|
|
Post by AAmillennial on Jun 29, 2022 7:53:18 GMT -5
I imagine most/all ALJs and AAs from the NHCs would agree their model is entirely different from typical hearing offices with a pool of DWs managed by GSs. The NHC is much more akin to a conventional judge-law clerk team, with regular communication and advisement on legal issues.
If the Agency truly wanted to improve the quality of decisions while maintaining numbers and also (gasp) potentially improve morale, they would adopt the NHC-model throughout and offer a route for a GS13 to be assigned to each ALJ. ALJs then get a steady stream of prehearing reviews, they can build a relationship with their AA and expectations of a decisional draft, and they have immediate access to an AA to bounce off legal issues. AAs would be able to better understand the contents of the file after doing a prehearing review while drafting the decision, they know the expectations/quirks of their supervising ALJ (no more interpreting vague DWI!), and the idea of a team atmosphere would be welcomed over sending a DOUT draft into the abyss without any feedback, good or bad. Not to mention the opportunity for 13 pay.
One can dream.
|
|
|
|
Post by superalj on Jun 29, 2022 9:18:18 GMT -5
I’m jealy of the NHC ALJs. Their own DWs? I sometimes consider changing my decision when my case is assigned to a weak DW. Prehearing reviews? That’s where the rubber hits the road as I spend the majority of my time reviewing huge files.
NHC ALJs can train their DWs and also review their performance so my humble opinion is they have the best ALJ job in the agency notwithstanding location.
|
|
