|
|
Post by johnthornton on Nov 16, 2024 11:22:29 GMT -5
I am waiting for someone to tell what value the Regional offices add to our process. We have four judges in Region 4 who hear no cases but just do....whatever they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Topperlaw on Nov 16, 2024 11:43:59 GMT -5
I am waiting for someone to tell what value the Regional offices add to our process. We have four judges in Region 4 who hear no cases but just do....whatever they do. This This This. I think especially as AI improves, less and less Administrators will be necessary. For instance, caseload balance would be a breeze. Just have a computer program in place that moves cases around seamlessly based on office need. The program would know how many ALJs per office and how many decision writers. There'd be no Emails back and forth between office, region, an headquarters. Ai would just recognize which office had too many cases, which office had too few, and the cases would be moved. |
|
|
|
Post by Top Tier on Nov 16, 2024 12:03:38 GMT -5
Playing devil's advocate here (pun intended), but putting aside how it is going to potentially cause us "pain" due to increased work and/or change in work/life balance; isn't there a large grain of truth to the maxim that the administrative state is inefficient and bloated? I know that I started as an ALJ pre-covid, coming from the private sector, and have been somewhat appalled at the number of govt. employees that a) cannot do their jobs but have been kept because nobody wants to do the work to fire them/battle with the union/deal with HR, b) assume that their work/life balance and working conditions are a sacred blessing passed from on high (extremely generous sick time use policies, federal holidays and early quits, incentive awards or cash and time for basically doing your job), and c) are redundant and could have their positions combined with others to create efficiencies and save money.Our office management staff has been reduced drastically (by over 65%), with no loss of efficiency, which just goes to show that it was horribly overstaffed to begin with - isn't that true throughout government? I know it is easy to say that as a "recent" outsider, but the lack of any profit motive or need for efficiency seems to create a burgeoning class of bureaucrats that seem to exist only to multiply and "protect their turf." I want that handled, downsized, etc. so that there are more of my tax dollars available to use for things that government is supposed to do, like national security (and yes, the military is one of the worst offenders - the number of general officers today per troop/sailor/soldier has doubled from the Vietnam era and is 4 times that of WWII - and their perks/staff/costs have bloated even further). To be clear - I am talking about reducing actual bloat and inefficiency - not gutting departments because you disagree with them politically - that is pure bull pucky. Just my 2 cents....I have my popcorn in hand....proceed with the obligatory castigation of the man who said the emperor has no clothes...  Sounds like you're suggesting that SSA should make ALJs draft their own decisions so they can fire all the decision writers. Now that IS efficiency and would definitely reduce the actual bloat and inefficiency. ALJs wouldn't even need to waste their time promulgating decision writing instructions anymore. Heck, they probably should just go head and schedule their own hearings too. That would save everyone a ton of time. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Nov 16, 2024 22:30:01 GMT -5
As for telework- I guess that depends on how many OHO offices took advantage of the opportunity to reduce their foot print and save tax payers money. I have been predicting for some time though that if telework conditions continue that office consolidation is almost certainly going to start to happen. It's cute you think SSA, let alone OHO, has any meaningful say in building stuff aside from enumerating some of the interior/exterior requirements. The buildings, leased and owned, are GSA's domain, my friends. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Nov 16, 2024 22:39:29 GMT -5
I guess the quirk there is that SSA would have to go to MSPB to determine if good cause existed to fire you (as an ALJ). I can’t pretend to know what would happen there, but “the agency violated our CBA and it’s being litigated” might not equal good cause? I dunno. It’s not my area of expertise, but sitting ALJs, at least for now, have to have a ruling from the MSPB before they get removed, which differs from regular GS folks, who don’t get a hearing until after the adverse action has occurred. [/quote] Yes. If all of the retirement eligible judges who don't want to return to the office based on an unlawful directive decided to decline to do so, the agency would face a real problem. Rather than retiring, we can stand on the contract and let them suspend us and try to remove us. During that extended time period, we get full pay and full benefits. If we win, we get reinstated. If we lose, we just retire like we planned to do anyway. The agency can't replace us while the litigation is ongoing. I assume the agency would consider this scenario before it too such a stupid course of action. [/quote] This is, in my experience reviewing ALJ bias complaints, that too many of you ALJs fail to grasp. You're essentially untouchable. Unless you get a DWI or barricade yourself and some hostages in your house, they aren't doing anything more than harassing you with directives and training. Maybe they reprimand you and take your telework. That's it. You really need to realize your power and use it more when MGMT does things you think are wrong, because when I was there it seemed like only the jerks had figured this out (while they sat on admin leave for years waiting for MSPB to finally give SSA the go ahead to terminate). |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on Nov 16, 2024 22:43:36 GMT -5
Unless you get a DWI or barricade yourself and some hostages in your house, they aren't doing anything more than harassing you with directives and training. Maybe they reprimand you and take your telework. That's it. Anyone else read this three times before realizing DWI (in this context) meant driving while intoxicated? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Nov 17, 2024 7:16:43 GMT -5
Unless you get a DWI or barricade yourself and some hostages in your house, they aren't doing anything more than harassing you with directives and training. Maybe they reprimand you and take your telework. That's it. Anyone else read this three times before realizing DWI (in this context) meant driving while intoxicated? I read it as DWPI at least four times. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Nov 17, 2024 8:23:09 GMT -5
I’ll play Angel’s advocate.
Before even opening the books, one of the two efficienators has already said 1.5 million jobs should be cut. There’s only 2.2 million civilian employees. So 75% right off the top. Seems maybe a bit extreme.
One of these efficienators is known for, among other things, requiring his employees to sleep on the factory floor to accomplish production goals. He also has massive conflicts of interest as his companies have billions in government contracts, and what do you want to bet that most of the vaunted efficiencies will be achieved by getting even more of them?
Let’s be real, anything that is done on a computer can be done more cheaply and probably more “correctly” (in the view of auditors), by AI. The only value an ALJ brings to the process is to be the human face of an otherwise banal government process, with the goal of reassuring the applicant that someone - an actual person with emotions and lived experience - is listening to them, hears them and understands their position. Literally people have told me at hearing, “I know I’m going to lose but I feel vindicated that someone has heard me.” AI can’t give you that. But outside of that, nothing we do can’t be done by AI. And do the efficienators think that the value of a human face is worth the considerable expense over AI? Likely not.
We’ve all kind of known that and expected AI integration as a production tool, which may reduce the total number of employees needed but was not an employee replacement per se. But in the view of the efficienators, why not just replace OHO with AI? Great thing about AI that human staffing struggles with is that it can scale up or down on demand. Got 500 cases a year? Great. Got 500,000? still great. No need for additional employees and all the work of getting them, firing them, etc.
Of course, big big picture, discretionary spending is only 25% of the budget, so these moves wouldn’t really translate into savings the average person would notice or move the needle on the debt problem. But they weren’t intended to do that. Also, releasing 1.5 million employees would add significantly to the current 7 million people unemployed, and instantly double the amount of unemployment insurance claims. That might be bad.
All I’m saying is it’s all fun and games until the Tesla robot is emptying out your desk while reminding you that practicing in the area of law that you have any recent experience with for the next two years is a impermissible conflict of interest and criminal offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on Nov 17, 2024 8:31:34 GMT -5
Apropos of nothing- desktops still have their use. Some websites have functionality that can only be used by the desktop versions of these sites. For example, on Amazon, you can only look up archived orders from a desktop. There’s also areas in returns, reporting lost deliveries, etc that can only be accessed by the desktop version of Amazon. At least that’s why I still have a desktop! I think you can access the "desktop" version of Amazon on a laptop. Just not on a mobile device like a phone or iPad, unless you have a mobile browser that supports a desktop view (like Firefox for example). The nomenclature is confusing here, I admit, but many websites have a mobile version for phones and tablets and a desktop version for "real" computers (desktop or laptop). But I'm a lawyer not a computer person so what do I know. I do think desktops still have value, in that you get more computing power for your money compared with a laptop. In my defense, I am old and forget things. |
|
|
|
Post by prescient on Nov 17, 2024 8:37:12 GMT -5
I’ll play Angel’s advocate. Before even opening the books, one of the two efficienators has already said 1.5 million jobs should be cut. There’s only 2.2 million civilian employees. So 75% right off the top. Seems maybe a bit extreme. One of these efficienators is known for, among other things, requiring his employees to sleep on the factory floor to accomplish production goals. He also has massive conflicts of interest as his companies have billions in government contracts, and what do you want to bet that most of the vaunted efficiencies will be achieved by getting even more of them? Let’s be real, anything that is done on a computer can be done more cheaply and probably more “correctly” (in the view of auditors), by AI. The only value an ALJ brings to the process is to be the human face of an otherwise banal government process, with the goal of reassuring the applicant that someone - an actual person with emotions and lived experience - is listening to them, hears them and understands their position. Literally people have told me at hearing, “I know I’m going to lose but I feel vindicated that someone has heard me.” AI can’t give you that. But outside of that, nothing we do can’t be done by AI. And do the efficienators think that the value of a human face is worth the considerable expense over AI? Likely not. We’ve all kind of known that and expected AI integration as a production tool, which may reduce the total number of employees needed but was not an employee replacement per se. But in the view of the efficienators, why not just replace OHO with AI? Great thing about AI that human staffing struggles with is that it can scale up or down on demand. Got 500 cases a year? Great. Got 500,000? still great. No need for additional employees and all the work of getting them, firing them, etc. Of course, big big picture, discretionary spending is only 25% of the budget, so these moves wouldn’t really translate into savings the average person would notice or move the needle on the debt problem. But they weren’t intended to do that. Also, releasing 1.5 million employees would add significantly to the current 7 million people unemployed, and instantly double the amount of unemployment insurance claims. That might be bad. All I’m saying is it’s all fun and games until the Tesla robot is emptying out your desk while reminding you that practicing in the area of law that you have any recent experience with for the next two years is a impermissible conflict of interest and criminal offense. Just have IMAGEN & Insight review the record and determine the decisional outcome. ChatGPT to draft the decision. Unhappy claimants can appeal to district court. No need for DDS, OHO or AC. Look at all the savings! |
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on Nov 17, 2024 8:47:50 GMT -5
Playing devil's advocate here (pun intended), but putting aside how it is going to potentially cause us "pain" due to increased work and/or change in work/life balance; isn't there a large grain of truth to the maxim that the administrative state is inefficient and bloated? I know that I started as an ALJ pre-covid, coming from the private sector, and have been somewhat appalled at the number of govt. employees that a) cannot do their jobs but have been kept because nobody wants to do the work to fire them/battle with the union/deal with HR, b) assume that their work/life balance and working conditions are a sacred blessing passed from on high (extremely generous sick time use policies, federal holidays and early quits, incentive awards or cash and time for basically doing your job), and c) are redundant and could have their positions combined with others to create efficiencies and save money. Our office management staff has been reduced drastically (by over 65%), with no loss of efficiency, which just goes to show that it was horribly overstaffed to begin with - isn't that true throughout government? I know it is easy to say that as a "recent" outsider, but the lack of any profit motive or need for efficiency seems to create a burgeoning class of bureaucrats that seem to exist only to multiply and "protect their turf." I want that handled, downsized, etc. so that there are more of my tax dollars available to use for things that government is supposed to do, like national security (and yes, the military is one of the worst offenders - the number of general officers today per troop/sailor/soldier has doubled from the Vietnam era and is 4 times that of WWII - and their perks/staff/costs have bloated even further). To be clear - I am talking about reducing actual bloat and inefficiency - not gutting departments because you disagree with them politically - that is pure bull pucky. Just my 2 cents....I have my popcorn in hand....proceed with the obligatory castigation of the man who said the emperor has no clothes... That is interesting. Was there a commensurate reduction of ALJs in your office? My understanding is that management staffing ratios in an office are generally tied to the number of ALJs on duty. |
|
|
|
Post by manunited77 on Nov 17, 2024 11:29:42 GMT -5
The goal is to eliminate the administartive state. My guess is they be fine with DDS at the state level handling disability claims and eliminating the whole federal component all together. The process will be slow some agencies and quick for others like EPA, etc. I'm guessing we will be the slow one. They've already established that in the beginning it will be painful for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmy224 on Nov 17, 2024 13:32:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 17, 2024 22:05:45 GMT -5
It's cute you think SSA, let alone OHO, has any meaningful say in building stuff aside from enumerating some of the interior/exterior requirements. The buildings, leased and owned, are GSA's domain, my friends. Not so. In 2014-16, I was actively negotiating with GSA on a move/space reduction for a different federal regional office. There were sign-offs they needed from me and a couple of times I refused until they came to terms. Ultimately, GSA wins, and we got less space, with office-sharing, cone-of-silence conference rooms, and so on, but it was an Obama administration OMB policy that drove the process and GSA is required to negotiate with the tenants. We did get some significant changes even if the end product was a general disaster. This is where the HODs come in. They must honcho the lease negotiations. |
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Nov 17, 2024 22:12:15 GMT -5
I find the discussion about judges refusing this or that directive amusing. "They can't replace us because of Clause 27.x.b.i.i of the CBA." Fuhgeddaboudit, friends. Refuse something and you could be toast. Are you old enough to remember this?
1981 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The PATCO Strike of 1981 was a union-organized labor strike of air traffic controllers (ATCs). Following a decade of successful strikes in other industries, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) declared a strike on August 3, 1981, demanding higher wages and more benefits. Despite 13,000 ATCs striking, the strike ultimately failed, as the Reagan administration was quickly able to replace the striking ATCs. As a result, PATCO was decertified, and the decline in labor unions in the United States increased.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenq on Nov 18, 2024 14:23:08 GMT -5
Yep, sometimes doing the right thing has hard consequences. Particularly during the more...unusual, I'll say, periods. Note that most all those folks eventually got their jobs back and that the move is seen by most people as a terrible act here in the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Nov 18, 2024 16:49:37 GMT -5
I find the discussion about judges refusing this or that directive amusing. "They can't replace us because of Clause 27.x.b.i.i of the CBA." Fuhgeddaboudit, friends. Refuse something and you could be toast. Are you old enough to remember this? 1981 Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization strike From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The PATCO Strike of 1981 was a union-organized labor strike of air traffic controllers (ATCs). Following a decade of successful strikes in other industries, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) declared a strike on August 3, 1981, demanding higher wages and more benefits. Despite 13,000 ATCs striking, the strike ultimately failed, as the Reagan administration was quickly able to replace the striking ATCs. As a result, PATCO was decertified, and the decline in labor unions in the United States increased. Wouldn’t there be a distinction between engaging in an illegal strike and using judgment to refuse to comply with a directive? Haven’t some directives been found to violate law and/or the CBA? |
|
|
|
Post by thankful1 on Nov 18, 2024 16:50:40 GMT -5
Martin O’Malley peaced-out.
|
|
|
|
Post by manunited77 on Nov 18, 2024 16:51:03 GMT -5
Well the Commissioner just resigned. I wonder how many other senior execs leave before 2025? I think that effectively puts everything on hold, especially ALJ hiring. We have no budget and no leader...is this a sinking ship?
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Nov 18, 2024 18:57:38 GMT -5
Well the Commissioner just resigned. I wonder how many other senior execs leave before 2025? I think that effectively puts everything on hold, especially ALJ hiring. We have no budget and no leader...is this a sinking ship? Not that this addresses the budget issue, but could an Acting Commissioner not sign the appointments? DOL is in the process of an ALJ hire, and they have an Acting Secretary right now (and have for over a year). She was confirmed as Deputy Secretary, though. My Google machine tells me that the Deputy Commissioner of SSA position is vacant. This means there are no Senate-confirmed appointees? Maybe the General Counsel? |
|
