The Chairman of Social Security's Occupational Information Development Advisory Committee (OIDAP) has posted an interesting statement on OIDAP's website suggesting that Social Security and OIDAP may be starting to get the message that not everyone trusts them. Here is a brief excerpt:
Give me a break.
No matter how wonderfully scientific the data collection is, there is every sign that OIDAP and Social Security are determined to make decisions before, during and after data collection to assure that the scientific data is presented in such as way as to conform to Social Security's desires to support current policies. Stuffing the data collected into categories such as "Sedentary", "Light" and "Medium" is an inherently imprecise business that requires many judgment calls. The agency seems to want to be certain that there is no one like the Department of Labor who can say "Stop" when it makes judgment call after judgment call in one direction. This has happened before even with the Department of Labor involved. See above. Nothing whatsoever that OIDAP has done would give the least bit of assurance that they have any other plan.
OIDAP's critics are convinced that the U.S. labor market has changed dramatically and that these changes seriously undercut current Social Security policies. The cognitive demands of work have gone up and there are far fewer manufacturing jobs. This should lead to changes in Social Security disability determination such that more claims would be approved but OIDAP's critics believe that Social Security and OIDAP are determined to prevent such changes and may even want to manipulate the data to support denying more claims.
There have been many signs that OIDAP members have been looking way outside their charter to find ways that Social Security can deny more claims.
The OIS [Occupational Information System] project faces a variety of misconceptions that could inhibit its rapid development. Foremost, the OIS’s development is scientific. Because the elements of its development are not tangibly put into test tubes, this premise is often missed or minimized by stakeholders. The OIDAP’s advice and recommendations to SSA for the development of the OIS hinge upon the importance of good science, the scientific process, and scientific integrity as cornerstones.So the response to the criticism of OIDAP is to claim to be scientists seeking neutral facts.
Give me a break.
No matter how wonderfully scientific the data collection is, there is every sign that OIDAP and Social Security are determined to make decisions before, during and after data collection to assure that the scientific data is presented in such as way as to conform to Social Security's desires to support current policies. Stuffing the data collected into categories such as "Sedentary", "Light" and "Medium" is an inherently imprecise business that requires many judgment calls. The agency seems to want to be certain that there is no one like the Department of Labor who can say "Stop" when it makes judgment call after judgment call in one direction. This has happened before even with the Department of Labor involved. See above. Nothing whatsoever that OIDAP has done would give the least bit of assurance that they have any other plan.
OIDAP's critics are convinced that the U.S. labor market has changed dramatically and that these changes seriously undercut current Social Security policies. The cognitive demands of work have gone up and there are far fewer manufacturing jobs. This should lead to changes in Social Security disability determination such that more claims would be approved but OIDAP's critics believe that Social Security and OIDAP are determined to prevent such changes and may even want to manipulate the data to support denying more claims.
There have been many signs that OIDAP members have been looking way outside their charter to find ways that Social Security can deny more claims.
1 comment:
I'm not sure that reflecting the changes in the work force mean more allowances. Right now there is work deemed semi-skilled, maybe even skilled that traditionally "unskilled" workers can do. The current system does not take into account that many of these "skills" are in daily use by people who use computers and smart phones and participate in Facebook, Twitter, and message boards.
A few years ago, we had to train workers to use Outlook and Word, now we get workers with similar educational backgrounds who complain that the training is stupid and a waste of their time.
An HR person at a very large employer recently told me about their effort to bring automation in equipment and inventory tracking to their plant floor. The suits at the corporate tower were opposed because their workforce had too many people with only a high school education or less. He surveyed the workers about computer skills they had from their personal use of technology and found that 81% would require no training or less than a day of training to handle the requirements of the automation. They succesfully rolled out the effort and enjoyed a nice productivity boost.
If the acquisition of these skills is accounted for the increase in allowances may not be as large as many suspect.
Post a Comment