Charles, this was hilarious - especially for those of us who remember the show. How insightful of you to reinforce in comedy what we as practioners truly expect the tragic end results will be when ALJs are required to produce extraordinary amounts of paperwork without proper staffing and administrative support. I hope others besides those of us in the trenches see your cartoon!
"the Inspector General stated that in fiscal year (FY) 2006, 502 of the 895 fully available ALJs processed fewer than 500 cases."
If 393 ALJs can do at least 500 cases there is no reason the rest can't do 500. CAs, BAs, SRs, CRs all have to produce a certain amount of work or the manager is going to be on their case, but God forbid SSA asks the high and mighty ALJs to produce.
The Lucy video would be more accurate if it showed 895 lines and 393 were running fine and 502 were letting the line back up.
Just because 393 ALJ's decide that they can offer due process by closing 500 cases per year (probably by not fully reading the files and by not ordering adequate development) doesn't mean that all ALJ's should do so. I choose not to be a clerk. I was hired to offer due process, not to be a file processor.
"I was hired to offer due process, not to be a file processor."
OK so how many should an ALJ produce at a minimum? 400, 300, 50, 5?
I have worked in the government for 33 years and at all kinds of jobs and I can tell you that if someone is doing half the work as everyone else they are either goofing off or can't do the job.
This last post asking what the "acceptable minimum" production level is raises a critical point. Common sense tells us that there is such a level. Below some number, you're either unable or unwilling to do the work. The question is, who should determine that number. I would suggest that it would be wise for the ALJs themselves to do it. The union would logically be the vehicle, but it's pretty inept. Some sort of peer group, with or without SSA offialdom's support, needs to do this. Soon. ALJs...you don't want GAO, OIG and/or Woodlawn doing this to (ooops, for) you.
6 comments:
Charles, this was hilarious - especially for those of us who remember the show. How insightful of you to reinforce in comedy what we as practioners truly expect the tragic end results will be when ALJs are required to produce extraordinary amounts of paperwork without proper staffing and administrative support. I hope others besides those of us in the trenches see your cartoon!
"the Inspector General stated that in fiscal year (FY) 2006, 502 of the 895 fully available ALJs processed fewer than 500 cases."
If 393 ALJs can do at least 500 cases there is no reason the rest can't do 500. CAs, BAs, SRs, CRs all have to produce a certain amount of work or the manager is going to be on their case, but God forbid SSA asks the high and mighty ALJs to produce.
The Lucy video would be more accurate if it showed 895 lines and 393 were running fine and 502 were letting the line back up.
Just because 393 ALJ's decide that they can offer due process by closing 500 cases per year (probably by not fully reading the files and by not ordering adequate development) doesn't mean that all ALJ's should do so. I choose not to be a clerk. I was hired to offer due process, not to be a file processor.
"I was hired to offer due process, not to be a file processor."
OK so how many should an ALJ produce at a minimum? 400, 300, 50, 5?
I have worked in the government for 33 years and at all kinds of jobs and I can tell you that if someone is doing half the work as everyone else they are either goofing off or can't do the job.
This last post asking what the "acceptable minimum" production level is raises a critical point. Common sense tells us that there is such a level. Below some number, you're either unable or unwilling to do the work. The question is, who should determine that number. I would suggest that it would be wise for the ALJs themselves to do it. The union would logically be the vehicle, but it's pretty inept. Some sort of peer group, with or without SSA offialdom's support, needs to do this. Soon. ALJs...you don't want GAO, OIG and/or Woodlawn doing this to (ooops, for) you.
I cannot get the link to work...has the file been pulled from the website?
Post a Comment