|
|
Post by chris on Oct 8, 2007 21:00:43 GMT -5
Is there any advantage to joining the union?
Any disadvantage?
Thanks,
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer on Oct 9, 2007 20:17:20 GMT -5
One advantage is that the union will represent you in a grievance.
A disadvantage is that you may have to "explain" actions with which you don't agree (if you have to ask...!).
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 9, 2007 20:31:33 GMT -5
Advantage: There is power in numbers.
Disadvantage: A few dollars per month in dues.
|
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Oct 10, 2007 11:19:44 GMT -5
Is there any advantage to joining the union? Any disadvantage? Thanks, Chris For judges, the union has acquired work at home and a transfer list. These alone should be enough. Also, the dues can pay for grievances and for defense against charges from the agency. AALJ, as an assocition, also won a case in district court that banned the use of quotas for judges. Those small dues can also pay for lawsuits, some of which I don't agree with, but I do undestand that there can be vital litigation, such as the agency arbitrarily making line judges "supervisory ALJ's" to kill the union. In my office we once had a HOCALJ order judges not to travel the last week of the month in direct contravention of the regulation. The union won that grievance. On the other hand, you can not band together and have no work at home, be transfered at the whim of managment , travel or hear cases on dates and times selected by management and have no support when the agency out of nowhere decides you are not producing enough cases or are paying too many cases (yes, they did this once in the so called Belmon review). The agency could also put you into a cubicle with a headset to do telephone hearings. Judge's offices have been unilaterraly reduced in size in the past -- only the threat of the union, which has an impass panel decision on this, prevents such action, or at least makes it probable the union would win a grievance. As you might imagine, our office is strongly union :) While I certainly don't agree with all the NEB's decisions, especially on certain litigation, I support the union. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 10, 2007 17:20:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the good info aljsouth. I hope I am in the position next year to have to make the choice.
Just out of curiosity, why did a HOCALJ order judges not to travel the last week of the month?
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Oct 10, 2007 18:06:09 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, why did a HOCALJ order judges not to travel the last week of the month? Chris Not sure but one possible reason is because the HOCALJ wanted the judges in the office to sign decisions. You will find that 75% of the decisions you sign in a month are given to you during the last week of the month. If the ALJ is not there, the HOCALJ needs to sign the decisions for him/her. |
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 10, 2007 18:47:03 GMT -5
The HOCALJ can only sign reversal decisions. Only the deciding judge can sign affirmations.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooligan on Oct 10, 2007 19:12:32 GMT -5
Judges have very little voice in operations. The union is that voice. Without the union, ALJs are more vulnerable to abuse.
Having said that, I agree that the voice has been mostly ineffective, and in some cases counter productive. My view is that if the people representing us are wrong on issues, we each need to speak up, participate and make the effort to make things right. By abstaining or not participating, we will never be able to make changes to make things right. The union is flawed but it is our best chance to address our concerns. I urge each of our new judges to consider joining the union and help make it more effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnthornton on Oct 10, 2007 19:14:36 GMT -5
The HOCALJ can only sign reversal decisions. Only the deciding judge can sign affirmations. I don't believe that is true. A judge can authorize the HOCALJ to sign both reversals and affirmations. I do. |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Oct 10, 2007 19:20:31 GMT -5
The HOCALJ can only sign reversal decisions. Only the deciding judge can sign affirmations. Under Hallex, the HOCALJ can sign off on anything the ALJ granting the authority wants the HOCALJ to sign off on. As a practical matter that is usually only fully favorable decision, but the rules clearly allow for more. And the authority is supposed to be in writing. |
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 10, 2007 20:02:33 GMT -5
The HOCALJ can only sign reversal decisions. Only the deciding judge can sign affirmations. On what authority do you base this statement? Please believe me when I say I am not arguing. I just want to know the rule, if it exists, so I will not violate it. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by odarite on Oct 10, 2007 20:17:31 GMT -5
"I-2-8-40. Administrative Law Judge Conducts Hearing but Is Unavailable to Issue Decision
When an ALJ has approved a final decision draft but is unavailable to sign the final decision, the ALJ's signature, with the ALJ's approval, may be affixed to the decision."
|
|
|
|
Post by barkley on Oct 10, 2007 20:20:38 GMT -5
I am an agency attorney and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to join the AALJ, particularly those former staff attorneys who make it to ALJ. Yes, the union has gained some positive benefits for the ALJs such as the work at home, but management does not distinguish between union and non-union ALJ, so any ALJ gets the perks the AALJ negotiates. Job security is not an issue for ALJs, so I am not sure how much of a benefit the right to representation is. (And doesn't the union have a legal obligation to represent anyone in its class?)
The troubling thing about the AALJ is the level of hostility it's leadership shows to the staff attorneys. I don't want this to degenerate into the argument on the prior board about the quality of the staff attorneys, but at least some are excellent attorneys. Anytime SSA has made an effort to make better use of the attorney staff, the AALJ has been the strongest opponent. The suit filed this past summer indicated that agency attorneys are not only incompetent but also unethical and therfore not qualified to become ALJs. This assertion is a slap not only to current staff attorneys but also to the many fine ALJs who were previously staff attorneys. I don't see how those ALJs can stand to see the union dues come out of their checks.
|
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 10, 2007 20:36:49 GMT -5
I am an agency attorney and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to join the AALJ Why join? I was under the impression that I had to be a member to place my name on the Transfer Request List or have access to the Transfer Request List. Now, I am on the list and hoping to relocate in the near future as a result. By the way, the AAs and SAs in my office do good work. Glad to have them. So, joining the union does not mean agreeing with everything they might say, do, or file in court. |
|
|
|
Post by kingfisher on Oct 10, 2007 20:41:47 GMT -5
"I-2-8-40. Administrative Law Judge Conducts Hearing but Is Unavailable to Issue Decision When an ALJ has approved a final decision draft but is unavailable to sign the final decision, the ALJ's signature, with the ALJ's approval, may be affixed to the decision." Thanks Odarite. I thought I had read such language previously.  |
|
|
|
Post by learnedhand on Oct 10, 2007 21:03:52 GMT -5
What about AVID?
|
|
|
|
Post by workdrone on Oct 12, 2007 15:40:24 GMT -5
I knew once I caved and posted - I'd never keep my mouth (fingers) shut! haha Welcome aboard and hope you enjoy this as much as the rest of us regulars. ;D Nice post, btw! |
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 12, 2007 16:31:34 GMT -5
FedROs sign their decisions electronically via the decisionwriting tool that was built for them which interfaces with the electronic folder. THe decision is linked to the assigned decisionmaker and no changes can be made to the document unless the decisionmaker "unsigns" it.
However, for this to work as intended (i.e., verification of vital information included by the drafter), the ALJ would have to actually READ the decision. In my former life as an HO attorney adviser, my experience was that not every ALJ read every decision that closely with an eye to verifying dates, etc. It really should be more than just a confirmation that, "yeah, I really did mean to pay this case."
|
|
