8,000 Jobs To Be Eliminated In Next Two Years?
From
NorthJersey.com (emphasis added):
The Social Security Administration (SSA) field office at 201 Rock Road in Glen Rock [New Jersey] will be closed permanently as of Friday, Sept. 23.
SSA area director Dean Frank told the Glen Rock Gazette that the local operation will be absorbed by the agency's Hackensack field office at 22 Sussex St. He said local employees are being transferred to the Hackensack location....
The office closure is aligned with ongoing cost consolidation efforts in response to recent funding cutbacks by Congress and the heightened need to reduce operating costs. Frank said the Glen Rock closure will save the agency an estimated $3 million over a 10-year period. ...
According to an SSA representative to the American Federation of Government Employees [a union which represents most Social Security employees], the budget action [planned by Republicans in Congress] could result in additional office closings, layoffs and furloughs in fiscal 2012, with up to 8,000 jobs eliminated in the next two years.
8 comments:
As usual, the union's comment doesn't address the issue at hand. No employees are being laid off in the office consolidation. Consolidation is a long-overdue initiative and should be seriously considered on a nationwide basis; it's a relatively painless way to cut costs.
Consolidation reduces services and access to benefits. Consolidated offices staffs are further reduced afterward, and the beneficiary population in the expanded service area of the remaining office(s) are disadvantaged.I have seen it a dozen times. To say it is a painless cost-saving measure is disingenuous at best, and downright dishonest at worst.
consolidation is not ideal but it's not the agency's fault that congress gives us inadequate funding.
8,000 jobs could easily be lost over two years with a firm hiring freeze and normal attrition. Attrition may even increase if people get fed up with deteriorating working conditions.
A1127: If the Postal Service can close offices, why can't SSA? There are hundreds of small, rural SSA resident stations as well as redundant urban branch offices that don't justify their existence. I've managed both rural offices and urban ones--and know the costs of operating these facilities. If by "disadvantaged" you mean some people may have to drive farther when they want in-person service, you're correct. But with increasing use of the Internet and teleservice, it's hard to justify the amount of brick and mortar structure SSA has now. Not disingenuous nor dishonest--just realistic.
Of course, management never believes that rank-and-file employees are needed--it is management, after all, that gets all the work done. Let's examine that--teleservice will substitute, right--how about an office with 30,000 beneficiaries in its service area and one person to answer the phone from 9 am to 3:30pm? People can't get through, have to drive 20 minutes--then 45 minutes- soon an hour, and no walk-in interviews because not enough staff? How about internet--can't do SSI right off the bat, and every T-2 case needs to be reviewed by a human, but most will not be, just cleared as-is, how are we doing so far? How about folks mailing in reports of change or other evidence--comes in to the mailroom, may be picked up by a cr in a day or two, put in a pile with mail that's been collecting for weeks or months cuz no time to do it. Solved that--consolidate with another office--take those piles and put'em with more piles in the other office--problem solved yet? Then folks retire and not replaced--more, bigger, older piles not yet done. Fewer people to review internet claims or answer the phone or take walk-in interviews. Appointments are 3-4 weeks out. Everybody has to have an appointment, soon no appointments available--drive an hour.....
A7:28, you're talking about staffing, not facilities. My point isn't about staffing. I know that SSA is undermanned, and I agree with you. I'm just saying that having an overabundance of buildings isn't helping the agency with operating costs. I'm also saying that by taking a "business approach" (horrors!)to the number of structures, with the attendant security and infrastructure costs examined, the agency could save some money in a strained budgetary climate.
Yes, we're "overmanaged" in a lot of areas, but getting rid of management alone isn't going to do the trick. Allocate staff where it's needed, and on a nationwide basis, not on an Area or Region basis. Close small outposts that aren't worth the infrastructure costs. Pay relocation for the affected employees and/or offer early retirements and buyouts. Point here is that there are a lot of things SSA management could do (but probably won't, sadly) to cut costs without drastically affecting service.
If you knew (and maybe you do) how much the agency spends on its stupid "one size fits all" approach to security, facility management, and the like, we'd probably have a lot of common ground.
I understand what you're saying, but the catch is that, when facilities merge, the staffing continues to shrink. when buildings close, they are gone forever and the staffing once contained in them is gone, as well. Many offices look as thought they are too small to stay open efficiently, but that is because their staffing has been artificially decreased. As SSA's presence in communities fades away, so does the perceived importance of SSA within those communities. The logical conclusion of all this is a few super-offices in each region, the internet and teleservice centers(God help us). How can public support of SSA be maintained when it becomes as anonymous and faceless as tech support call centers in India?
Post a Comment