The Social Security Administration has issued its Annual Statistical Supplement,
a huge compendium of all the stats the agency keeps and is willing to
share with the public. Here's a table from the Supplement that may surprise some.
Number of SSA employees and percentage with selected characteristics by grade, September 30, 2014
| Characteristic | All grade levels | GS 1–4 | GS 5–8 | GS 9–12 | GS 13–15 | SES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | ||||||
| Total a | 64,838 | 343 | 18,151 | 33,923 | 10,538 | 147 |
| Percentage of total | ||||||
| Women | 66.5 | 59.8 | 69.0 | 70.4 | 56.3 | 42.9 |
| Minorities | 51.7 | 60.9 | 60.7 | 52.6 | 38.4 | 35.8 |
| Black | 28.9 | 33.8 | 36.9 | 27.4 | 22.6 | 23.1 |
| Hispanic | 14.9 | 16.3 | 16.6 | 16.6 | 8.1 | 6.8 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 6.3 | 9.6 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| American Indian/Alaska Native | 1.3 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| Employees with targeted disabilities | 2.0 | 10.5 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
19 comments:
Oh yeah, SSA/ODAR really hires and/or retains employees with targeted, or any other disabilities. Check out the stats. The Agency has an absolute retched reputation for its handling of disabled employees or potential hires. (See Jantz, et. a.l., v SSA, class action disability case which took more than 10 years of litigation and the Plaintiffs got precious little when all was said and done).
In the event an SSA/ODAR employee has the guts to request more than a trivial reasonable accommodation, they can expect delay after delay in obtaining a decision from management, probable prolonged litigation, and regardless of the eventual decision on their reasonable accommodation request, they will forever be a target by management to be forced out the door via illegal prohibited personnel practices at the earliest opportunity.
Sad, but true.
I agree wholeheartedly with 3:03. SSA/ODAR management is truly dishonorable. I am aware of one high level ODARite who admitted in deposition that he/she didn't even know what a prohibited personnel practice is. What was actually meant was, he/she just didn't care about such trivialities.
I'm not exactly sure which disabilities are "targeted," the incidence of those disabilities population-wide, and SSA/Fed Gov't's goals for hiring people with those disabilities.
But I would like to point out that women and minority representation is across the board--from lowest to highest grades--significantly higher than proportional population representation, indicating the Agency is doing a very good job of maintaining diversity in those respects.
@ 11:17AM,
The list of "Targeted Disabilities" can be easily found through even the most rudimentary Internet or library searches. What's more, the very Agency which administers the most major disability program in the nation, SSA/ODAR, should not only know these, but set an example for employers throughout the country. Sadly, SSA/ODAR managers and the highest Agency officials have repeatedly demonstrated they lack such knowledge and could careless regardless.
Your diversity arguments are also suspect insofar as the Agency routinely engages in reverse discrimination favoring minorities over Caucasians. Not only do the stats above support this, but I have witnessed it first hand over and over for 3 decades.
what you call "reverse discrimination," the Supreme Court, Congress, and a ton of other folks call "an attempt to partially undo centuries of mistreatment and disadvantagement that continue to this day for large groups of people."
It's strange that you are so upset by the incidence of those with targeted disabilities as employees in SSA, a subset of disabilities that are not too common in the population at large (i.e., I suspect the ratio of SSA employees with such disabilities and the population at large isn't too out of whack), indicating you desire a significantly-higher-than-overall-proportion ratio of such employees, while you cry about the overrepresentation of other disadvantaged groups. Very strange, indeed...
@2:38 PM very well said.
@ 2:38 & 3:00PM,
Oh please, give me a break. "Reverse discrimination ... An attempt to undo centuries of mistreatment ... that continue to this day ...". Just how long should this continue? Even your US SUPREME COURT appears to be backing away from this. Regardless, I cannot but help notice you do not deny Reverse discrimination is very much present and alive and well throughout the entire SSA/ODAR chain of command. What, prey tell, makes this OK? The answer: Absolutely NOTHING. Yet, the extent to which it exists within the Agency is uncanny.
Your argument about disability discrimination also does not pass muster, ie, the smell test. Comparing the percentage of disabled individuals who are able to work with reasonable accommodation to the percentage of minorities has no basis in law, and in no way justifies your minority employee stats in contrast to the extremely low percentage of disabled employees working at SSA/ODAR, let alone Caucasians.
What's worse, is you sound just like management. Clearly, you have learned nothing from the Jantz, et al, class action case, or the countless other EEOC cases brought by Agency employees who have been illegally targeted by a management culture which operates on the assumption that disability and reverse discrimination will not only be tolerated, but accepted by the powers that be. In other words, a manager who illegally targets a disabled, or even a Caucasian employee, will not only be protected by their superiors, but rewarded with bonuses and promotions This is especially true when a minority manager engages in such illegal prohibited personnel practices. Even you do not deny it, and I have personally witnessed this numerous times.
Bottom Line: You do not have a leg on which to stand.
SES category is interesting. How does this compare to the percentage of each category in the U.S. population at large? Women are about 50 percent of the population, but in SES, only 43 percent. Blacks are about 13 percent of the population, but SES is 23 percent blacks. Not sure what it means. Aren't there studies showing that managers have an unconscious bias toward hiring & promoting people who are culturally similar to themselves. Maybe it's just that same ol' thing at play except the demographics of the people at the upper levels doing the hiring have changed.
It's more interesting for the categories left out -- like age.
It would be interesting see these criteria applied to the 1400+ ALJs at ODAR.
Yes, there are studies which show managers do tend to have an unconscious bias toward hiring and promoting people who are culturally similar to themselves. Moreover, the demographics of the people at the highest levels in SSA/ODAR heavily leans African-American, as you pointed out.
I concur with you that AGE, a category left out, is something which would be very interesting to consider. From what I have observed, especially since Obama's push for Feds to hire more millenials, is an increasing number of Federal employees in their 50's and early 60's being targeted to be forced out the door prematurely via illegal prohibited personnel practices engaged by managers, the same as with employees with disabilities, and this is the case not only at SSA/ODAR, but throughout the Federal government.
Yes, very interesting, indeed.
"Clearly you have learned nothing from Jantz"
I think you might need to reread the filings and opinions from that case; you're advocating for basically the opposite of what was held.
Also, SSA and the Fed Gov't generally are committed to diversity in the workplace, but are not allowed to break the law. So SSA goes out of its way to do outreach, etc. that brings more disadvantaged groups to the application, etc. processes. However, once decisions start being made, race, age, etc. have no part in the process.
I know it's a little difficult to parse out (I'm really not being facetious here), but that's what the gov't is doing here--making the effort to ensure as many disadvantaged groups as possible know about jobs/promotions/details/etc. but then ignoring all factors save for ability for the job (save for vets preference and some other random things like it) once it's actually time to make personnel decisions. Sometimes managers fail at the latter for a variety of reasons, but that's at least how it's supposed to work.
This is hardly diversity. It is reverse discrimination, nepotism and empire building.
Exactly.
@2:26PM intimates we have learned nothing from the Jantz case and should go back and read the pleadings and opinions from the case is not only an insult to the Class Action Plaintiffs in the case, but to the regular attorney readers of this blog. What it does reveal, and this is no doubt coming from a top SSA/ODAR (HR?) official/manager is how clueless you are. Your assertions about the Jantz disability discrimination case against SSA/ODAR are in error.
You state, “… SSA and the Fed Gov't generally are committed to diversity in the workplace, but are not allowed to break the law. So SSA goes out of its way to do outreach, etc. that brings more disadvantaged groups to the application, etc. processes. However, once decisions start being made, race, age, etc. have no part in the process.”
The last sentence is not correct and is inconsistent with the Federal Civil Service Merit System Rules, numerous other Federal statutes pertaining to discrimination and prohibited personnel practices. It is not true that once decisions are made by SSA/ODAR, or any Federal Agency, for that matter, they no longer have to take disability, sex, age, race, etc., into consideration for the remainder of the process.
I could not help but also notice you indicate SSA/ODAR and other Agency officials are not allowed to break the law? While this is obviously true this is not the reality at SSA/ODAR. Certainly, you are aware of the number of Plaintiffs in the Jantz case, and the number of other employment, prohibited personnel practice, and whistleblower claims filed by Agency employees over the past several years.
The concern which must be addressed is that it is extremely rare that Agency managers and top officials complicit in the illegal employment actions are ever held accountable. Moreover, the taxpayers are the ones who end up footing the cost of what is often prolonged litigation.
I'm being naïve, but when will it ever be about selecting the best qualified person for the job, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc.? For the majority of my career at SSA my supervisors have been minorities. I have heard blatant statements from managers responsible for hiring, concerning not hiring employees over a certain age. I, too, would love to see a similar break-down by age.
@1:02 PM - The taxpayers end up footing the bill in other ways. When less qualified people are promoted, especially to positions where they are decision makers, it often means that decisions made are not optimal, projects are delayed, employee morale problems, etc. I've had employees (even minorities) who worked for me who have been upset when they continue to see me (a non-minority) passed over for promotions by less qualified individuals.
@ 7:36PM and 7:52PM,
I fully concur with both of you. Your assertions are consistent with mine, an SSA and ODAR employee of 3 decades.
Post a Comment