Jul 27, 2016

Tape Your Conversations With Social Security?

     Laurence Kotlikoff, writing for Forbes, recommends that you tape your conversations with Social Security because "you do not want to be powerless in facing Social Security’s bureaucracy when it is your word against theirs and tens of thousands of dollars hang in the balance."
     What do you think?

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

One might want to inquire if their state requires two party consent to record conversations before taking this advice.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't recommend attempting to tape your ALJ Hearing as this is a big no-no and can get people in trouble..

Anonymous said...

@ 9:11 AM

Please read Hallex I-2-6-52. An ALJ may grant a claimant's request to make a private recording of the hearing. I certainly would not recommend doing it surreptitiously.

Anonymous said...

Have an Android cell phone? Use the Automatic Call Recorder APP. It works great and then you can transfer the file to your PC.

Anonymous said...

Calls to the local office have a recording that says "this call may be recorded or monitored." Not like it matters,because even when social security is wrong, it is still the citizen's fault.

Tim said...

What is the point of asking SSA anything if their answers are so often wrong and you pay the price? You might as well pay an expert who you could sue if they are wrong!

Margaret Kibbee said...

It doesn't mean much unless you have it in writing. Every ten years or so an ALJ will verbally approve you but send a written denial.

Ricardo333 said...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/07/17/why-you-should-tape-conversations-with-social-security/#7d4105d356a7

Anonymous said...

If there is an error that can be corrected, misinformation, then Social Security should correct it. If the person says you are going to get $500 a month when it really should be $200, tough luck on that. It's not like a grocery store where they will give you the better deal.

Anonymous said...

State law may prohibit this without consent of both parties. I would encourage people to take notes, as carefully as they can, of the name of the person you are talking to, the date and time of the conversation, and as carefully as possible, the substance of the conversation. That may help in certain circumstances, like when you are trying to prove that you are innocent of something or were mislead by an SSA employee. Confirming things in writing may also work if the employee is at a District Office. As for recording an ALJ hearing those hearings are recorded and a qualified representative can download the hearing recording, if done within a short time after the hearing.

Anonymous said...

I love super secret SSA employees who refuse to disclose a first name. Ok, thanks Ms. Jones, I'm sure I'll be able to get in touch with you once I rely on your words and they turn out to be completely false.

Anonymous said...

Why do you need a first name if you have the last name? I don't give out my first name. It's not a secret, I'm just not friends with you so you don't need it. I don't call the claimants by their first names. I call the Mr, Ms, Mrs whatever. If by chance someone else has the same last name, wouldn't the first initial suffice?

Knowing someone's first name won't help you prove misinformation...trust me. The union will protect those people no matter what details you have.

Anonymous said...

Unless you have an operator number, I need your first name because there are sever Ms. Jones.

The Union may protect you, but I still have the right to know which Ms. Jones I am dealing with. A specific operator number is also acceptable.

Anonymous said...

I work in an office in a town of about 100,000 folks. I run into claimants now and then. All have been pleasant encounters. But a couple of CRs have had claimants come to their homes to ask them questions. It's not too hard when you have someone's full name, especially if it is just a bit different, to find where that person lives. Regional Commissioners have taken their names off of letters for that reason. It's much less likely they will be harassed than it is for someone in a local office. ONe employee had a claimant come in with a snake. Another time a woman came in with a rifle back before we had a guard. Manager was trapped in her office, everyone else got out but it required a SWAT team to get the situation resolved peacefully. So last name is all you get from me--sorry.

Anonymous said...

3:04 am, 10:13 pm here

I absolutely understand your safety concerns and that is why operator numbers or some other such device should be implemented. It is hard to believe that SSA has not instituted such a device already, but then again--its not.

Anonymous said...

That is total garbage. It's the same people who won't provide a first name who say it's against policy to give out an extension either.

Anonymous said...

...and that is wrong. Extensions are provided all the time. Everyone in the agency can get anyone's extension. I give out people's extensions daily...not first names though.

And the 800# operators give out their first name and not their last unless they changed that since I was there. We didn't have "operator #'s" but they do have office codes and units. Again, even if you know that info, no one be able to do much.

I have coworkers who will use other people's unit codes to send work through do it doesn't look like they did it. The government is full of that crap and the union just sits back and protects these workers. It really is a frustrating experience to say the least.

Anonymous said...

I understand ALJ's allegedly hate being recorded by reps or clmts, but I cannot understand why or how they would defend themselves in Court. After all, what expectation of privacy is there?

Anonymous said...

Assume Forbes is talking about mostly recording the SSA on phone calls and maybe in the local SSA office. All for that. But check your individual state recording laws make sure it's a 1-party consent state. Here in California is 2-party so it's a no-no without consent.

As for recording ALJ hearings. Not exactly sure why this is needed. Usually the recording of the hearing is pretty accurate. Do not see why an ALJ would object to recording a hearing if they want to be transparent.