|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jul 28, 2023 13:59:02 GMT -5
It appears that any ALJ RIF’d by OMHA, if that ever were to happen, would likely be offered a position at SSA.
Thanks to the new contract the ALJ job has become outstanding! I thought I would be retiring this year but I am staying around a bit longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Burt Macklin on Jul 28, 2023 16:30:27 GMT -5
Looks like it’s actually in a different section for ALJs. Reduction in Force. The proposed rule amends the ALJ reduction in force (RIF) regulations currently described at 5 CFR 930.210. When implementing a reduction in force, the provisions in this section are a supplement to the RIF provisions in 5 CFR part 351 that have separate provisions for the treatment of competitive service and excepted service positions. The existing rule, which references part 351, makes clear that competitive service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that apply to competitive service employees and that excepted service ALJs are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 351 that apply to excepted service employees. The proposed amendment establishes procedures for placement assistance for ALJs reached in an agency's reduction in force for those in both the competitive and excepted service. Under the proposed changes, an agency is required to establish an administrative law judge priority reemployment list and provide consideration to ALJs on its administrative law judge priority reemployment list before it may consider candidates on its regular employment lists, with certain exceptions. www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/21/2020-17684/administrative-law-judges“proposed amendment” Did this get adopted / approved? |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Jul 30, 2023 11:39:30 GMT -5
It appears that any ALJ RIF’d by OMHA, if that ever were to happen, would likely be offered a position at SSA. Thanks to the new contract the ALJ job has become outstanding! I thought I would be retiring this year but I am staying around a bit longer. My office had one ALJ delay retirement by about two years because telework made it easier to stay. Another who had said was going out end of 2021 is still around and hasn't mentioned retirement since then new contract was ratified. I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer. |
|
|
|
Post by ssaogc on Jul 30, 2023 14:34:34 GMT -5
It appears that any ALJ RIF’d by OMHA, if that ever were to happen, would likely be offered a position at SSA. Thanks to the new contract the ALJ job has become outstanding! I thought I would be retiring this year but I am staying around a bit longer. My office had one ALJ delay retirement by about two years because telework made it easier to stay. Another who had said was going out end of 2021 is still around and hasn't mentioned retirement since then new contract was ratified. I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer. Absolutely. I have incredible control over my work life balance now due to the absence of a one hour commute each way on majority of days. And the cut throat management and labor relations completely changed with the new administration took over. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Aug 1, 2023 16:59:23 GMT -5
"I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer."
The chances of reps requesting more in-person hearings is between slim and none. So many of them don't even want Teams hearings. Until the agency allows the judges to ban telephone hearings except in limited circumstances, we are looking at a very reduced number of in person hearings scheduled. I currently have one to two in person mornings per month.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 2, 2023 11:24:39 GMT -5
"I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer." The chances of reps requesting more in-person hearings is between slim and none. So many of them don't even want Teams hearings. Until the agency allows the judges to ban telephone hearings except in limited circumstances, we are looking at a very reduced number of in person hearings scheduled. I currently have one to two in person mornings per month. Lots of reps in our office are requesting in person hearings. Your experience isn't universal. I do agree that the agency should grant us the right to deny a request for a telephone or VTC hearing. |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Aug 2, 2023 12:26:31 GMT -5
"I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer." The chances of reps requesting more in-person hearings is between slim and none. So many of them don't even want Teams hearings. Until the agency allows the judges to ban telephone hearings except in limited circumstances, we are looking at a very reduced number of in person hearings scheduled. I currently have one to two in person mornings per month. Lots of reps in our office are requesting in person hearings. Your experience isn't universal. I do agree that the agency should grant us the right to deny a request for a telephone or VTC hearing. Glad to hear that. The smart reps should always have wanted their claimants to be seen in person. I have been fighting with limited success to try to convince reps to at least schedule in Microsoft Teams. Do you know what some of the reps tell their clients to justify phone? "You look too good. If the judge sees you, he will find you look good enough to work. Better go with a telephone hearing." |
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Aug 2, 2023 12:29:46 GMT -5
Lots of reps in our office are requesting in person hearings. Your experience isn't universal. I do agree that the agency should grant us the right to deny a request for a telephone or VTC hearing. Glad to hear that. The smart reps should always have wanted their claimants to be seen in person. I have been fighting with limited success to try to convince reps to at least schedule in Microsoft Teams. Do you know what some of the reps tell their clients to justify phone? "You look too good. If the judge sees you, he will find you look good enough to work. Better go with a telephone hearing." This is a comment on the website about the new rules for scheduling:
The proposed rule certainly has potential to improve on current practice, primarily because it creates an opt-out process for audio and video hearings and provides a deadline for opting out (but see my separate comment), in contrast to the current process, which requires opting in to audio and video hearings and allows claimants and representatives to disrupt hearing schedules by raising objections to audio and video hearings at any time.But the proposed rule does not go far enough. If the current administration is serious about mitigating climate change and practicing fiscal responsibility, the agency should take this opportunity to consider minimizing its carbon footprint and reducing the hearing operation’s costs by eliminating in-person hearings. A basic cost-benefit analysis would show the costs of in-person hearings are enormous, and the benefits are minimal, if any. Offering in-person hearings requires the agency to buy and maintain office space throughout the country and requires ALJs, hearing office staff, claimants, representatives, and hearing reporters to travel to hearing offices. Maintaining a large office presence and requiring hearing participants to travel generates carbon emissions and other pollution, and it costs taxpayers money. Eliminating in-person hearings is a unique win-win opportunity—most climate solutions involve increased costs, but this one reduces costs. Eliminating in-person hearings would also provide the agency with an advantage in recruiting and retaining personnel, and balancing workloads, by removing the need for personnel to be tied to a particular geographic location.
Eliminating in-person hearings would not decrease the quality of service provided by the agency. The hearing operation’s experience over the past three years shows the number of claimants who want in-person hearings is vanishingly small. The overwhelming majority of claimants have opted in to telephone and OVH hearings, and in the relatively rare instances in which claimants have objected to telephone and OVH hearings, most of these objections have been raised at the eleventh hour for the apparent strategic advantage of postponing hearings without showing good cause, not because the claimants truly felt the need for in-person hearings. For the small number of claimants who do feel the need to be seen in addition to being heard, the availability of video hearings satisfies that need. There simply is no good reason for the agency to continue to offer a hearing modality that is expensive, environmentally destructive, and unwanted by all but a tiny minority of participants. www.regulations.gov/comment/SSA-2022-0013-0008 www.regulations.gov/document/SSA-2022-0013-0001/comment |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Aug 3, 2023 11:00:23 GMT -5
"I suspect that unless reps start wanting more in-person hearings that we will see ALJs staying longer." The chances of reps requesting more in-person hearings is between slim and none. So many of them don't even want Teams hearings. Until the agency allows the judges to ban telephone hearings except in limited circumstances, we are looking at a very reduced number of in person hearings scheduled. I currently have one to two in person mornings per month. I’m getting more represented in-person hearings that aren’t cases that were stuck in the bucket during early COVID. Opt-outs filed in February of this year. Obviously local reps not MegaLow Mart representatives. |
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Aug 3, 2023 11:11:57 GMT -5
Lots of reps in our office are requesting in person hearings. Your experience isn't universal. I do agree that the agency should grant us the right to deny a request for a telephone or VTC hearing. Glad to hear that. The smart reps should always have wanted their claimants to be seen in person. I have been fighting with limited success to try to convince reps to at least schedule in Microsoft Teams. Do you know what some of the reps tell their clients to justify phone? "You look too good. If the judge sees you, he will find you look good enough to work. Better go with a telephone hearing." I wouldn’t go so far as saying reps should always want in-person hearings. In person hearings risk bias based on looks or apparel. The infamous squirm test that basically favored a fidgety person over the person sitting still. As an individual with some chronic issues, during flare ups I try to remain completely still to avoid exacerbating pain. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaidin on Aug 4, 2023 18:58:07 GMT -5
I prefer in person hearings because I like the in person interaction and the opportunity to assess the claimant's demeanor but I don't think it particularly sways my decision making one way or the other. The squirm test and similar "techniques" are ridiculous. You might as well measure a claimant's skull or conduct a palm reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by arkstfan on Aug 5, 2023 14:04:40 GMT -5
I prefer in person hearings because I like the in person interaction and the opportunity to assess the claimant's demeanor but I don't think it particularly sways my decision making one way or the other. The squirm test and similar "techniques" are ridiculous. You might as well measure a claimant's skull or conduct a palm reading. I once had a hearing with the worst actor in history. The person's exaggeration of pain was laughable. Claimant was a frequent flier. Medical records supported the RFC from the last hearing and there had been a change in age category that directed a finding. One of the rare times I was aware of the instinct to judge the person not the impairments. I personally enjoy meeting the claimants and chatting with reps, it makes the job more enjoyable. I refused to take VTC hearings before Covid. I'll drive over creation to hold in-person, I was that convinced it was important. There are hearings where it makes a difference and is in the best interest in the government or the claimant to have been in person. After Covid, I think I overestimated how valuable in-person hearings are to getting the right answer. I hope they remain in the playbook and every representative will act in the claimant's best interests and choose the manner of appearance best suited for the case. |
|
