From KOAT:
The democratic representative was accompanying a 90-year-old woman to an appointment.
She wanted to stay incognito - to see first-hand how the office is handling requests. In the past, Lujan-Grisham has criticized the local Social Security Administration for not offering a drop-off zone at its new downtown location.
After an hour wait with the elderly woman, she said they got help but then got an alarming surprise.
“Two armed officers show up, tap me,” Lujan-Grisham said during an interview with KOAT-TV Friday. “They challenge me about my access, they challenge me about my right to be there.”
She said she told them like any citizen, she has a right to be there because it’s a public building, but they persisted.
“They ask me to leave where I am,” Lujan-Grisham said. “They want to escort me and have a conversation with me.”
After a few more minutes, Lujan-Grisham said the officers booted her from the building.“It was purposeful, it was deliberate,” Lujan-Grisham said.
She’s spent the last day trying to get an explanation from the Social Security Administration and from Federal Protective Services, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, with no luck.
No one from either agency returned phone calls and emails KOAT either on Friday. ...
29 comments:
Pretty incoherent as she tells it...
So, I am imagining this scenario. Middle aged white woman comes into the DO with a 90 year old woman. they take a number and after a wait of about an hour, they get to see someone and resolve whatever problem the 90 year old woman has.
After that, middle age woman sits back down in the waiting area. At some point, the contract security officer notices the woman just sitting there and asks if she has an appointment or some other reason to be there. Woman announces that since this is a public building, she has a right to be there and that who she is or what her business is is none of their business.
Security guard returns with backup and says they would like to speak with her outside the lobby and at some point thereafter, tell her to leave and escort her out of the building.
I have no personal knowledge of what went down, but if the above is even close to the actual events, you have a situation where the Congresswoman was being a privileged jerk and a security guard over-reacting instead of getting a supervisor, or really someone with a brain, to intervene.
Privileged jerk? Really?
You don't know what happened, so you decided to make up a story to insult her for performing imaginary acts?
There's an automatic assumption that no privileged jerks are having to lower themselves by actually showing up at a public office--only the plebes have to do that. If she truly was a privileged jerk she would not be getting treated that way. This attitude that American citizens can be hassled or even shot by authorities for exercising there right as US citizens to be in a public space doing no wrong or harm is un-American as hell. Since the political/media witch hunt started I've heard numerous stories from folks in my state that they were for all effective purposes turned away because the were hit with so much discouragement and scorn at some of the rural serving SSA field offices around the metropolitan area I live in.
I am so happy that a member of Congress has had a chance to witness what is going on in the Agency. Her experience is the rule, not the exception. From top management on down to District Managers and Hearing Office Directors, the password is "adversarial". They are rude and condescending to everyone, employees, claimant's, outside counsel, and some vendors. A cultural change needs to take place because Social Security is no longer a friendly or even safe place to be. If it wasn't for the claimant's, SSA would not exist. If it wasn't for the employees doing their jobs, management would not be able to get the job done. If it wasn't for outside counsel, we would be farther behind than we already are. If it wasn't for vendors, we would not be able to get our work done, but contracting out is not a great solution. Unfortunately, we are numbers driven at all levels and that destroys just about every chance for true public service to be accomplished.
As for the contract guards, most of them are very nice on a personal level, but management gives them full authority to be rude and authoritarian with the claimant's and, sometimes believe it or not, the employees. Management uses the contract guards like their personal bit bulls. Again, contracting out is not a great solution. It does not save money and the Agency loses control.
The unfortunate thing is that this rude behavior is passed down to the employees who then treat members of the public rudely.
Every Senator or Congressperson should go or send someone incognito to see what really happens at District Offices and Hearings Offices. It is not pretty. Management does not give one iota about the public we serve, only about numbers. If they did care about the public, there would be handicap parking, public transportation and easy access to all facilities. It is truly disgusting.
My advice is to hold congressional hearings and make the Agency make rank and file employees who volunteer (not who are hand picked) available for testimony before Congress with the Agency picking up the tab for all expenses. What an eye opener that would be. It will never happen.
I think the most likely scenario is that she came in with a 90 year old with a question, thinking she knew the answer in advance when she did not. She started railroading the interview as a third party (thinking she was helping when she was only disrupting), and was asked to leave so the rep could assist the claimant without interference.
8:29 even if your facts are correct (and I doubt the are), are you saying that is how we should treat members of the public who don't understand our byzantine rules and procedures?
Ask questions on behalf of a loved one and be shown the door? Really?
I'm fascinated, please go on.
@9:54 Sometimes people do need to be escorted when they are not listening and only causing a distraction. Also, there is a reason there are congressional inquiries that go through management. Do you not think it inappropriate for a member of congress to go into a Social Security office to ambush a random service rep with a congressional inquiry? I'd say it's beyond the pale in terms of a lack of professionalism and downright childish on her part.
10:53
I think that it was a wonderful idea that she went in there incognito so that she can see what really goes on instead of a well orchestrated buff job put on by management.
If a member of the public does not understand what is going on, we, as public servants have a duty to try to explain to them what is going on. I realize that sometimes we are dealing with unstable claimants, but that is when we should show even more compassion and understanding, not call security. Further, I doubt very highly that this congresswoman wad acting inappropriately. Asking difficult questions, maybe, but that is why we are there.
I blame it all on the piss poor middle management that upper management routinely badgers over numbers.
Yes, there is a reason why congressionals go through management. It is to save management's a$$ when they have royally screwed up. I should know, I have handled many a congressional and at much higher levels than a DO. I know how to ride the bull $hit train with the best of them, but I really tried to help the claimant's when I did it. I was also pretty good at covering our a$$ as well. I find it disgusting when I see what is passing for public service these days. But I am an old timer and no one who is anyone really cares what the old timers think.
I do feel bad for the random claims rep because they are going to pay the brunt of this bill when they are only probably reflecting what they have been told to do by management in the manner in which they are treated by management.
Believe me, Wells Fargo has nothing on us when it comes to improper behavior. Disgusting.
I have a mental related disability When I went to the disability office, I always took a friend as a witness. I did this the first time based on the hostile attitude I had encountered on phone calls! When you go to SSA office to try and get answers you have failed to obtain on phone calls .The first thing you see are armed guards! My friend and I (as anyone would) were shocked! We were not in a facility where armed guards should be patrolling! There were no vast sums of money to be guarded! There was no large crowd! There were no convicts or people in handcuffs to guard! We realized the armed guards were there to guard us! Why would the SSA feel there was a reason to have people with guns in a govt building where disabled(citizens that need public assistance) people were seeking help. We could not try and steal anything, there was nothing to steal. We were only there to get help, yet here were people with guns!It suddenly became obvious that the SSA did not want to actually help disabled citizens, but would do almost anything to hinder their them from getting help! Up to and including men with guns!!! I am researching when this act took effect and why someone had made the decision to protect it's officer with guns!! Now this is when it made sense! They (SSA) did not want to help me, they needed protection that would include murdering me if I asked questions that they did not want to answer!! AND I ENDED UP ASKING THAT QUESTION I GUESS, because me and my friend had a guard stand behind us the whole time we were asking the "clerk" questions!! Phoenix As office Sept. 2009. I was scared and intimidated and will never forget it!!!
@ 1:02 AM. Sometimes the public gets loud and rowdy and guards are necessary. There was an office in CA that was taken over by a woman w/ a gun (in 1992) before there were guards at that facility. Guards are supposed to be there for the safety of the employees and the public.
BRAVO, 11:31PM!
Having ALJs threatened with being killed or worse by claimants who have been denied benefits or those that think they can come in and intimidate their way to getting what they want - is why there are guards. Just like at every Federal building.
There is really no excuse for this, none. It exemplifies the sordid state of SSA at this time. Perhaps the congresswoman should speak with her cohorts and look at funding and management. But suspect this will go nowhere until this commissioner goes.
9:01
Yes, we have had ALJs threatened before.
While that is never appropriate, I would say anyone who threatens an ALJ meets a listing.
The problem is that our "adjudicators" at the lower levels are programmed to deny. Unfortunately, some of our ALJs drink from the same well. The result can be an unstable claimant who is frustrated by a system that treats him/her poorly and denies the claim that they are disabled when every facet of their life indicates that they are unable to cope with the pressures of just life, never mind the pressures of competitive employment.
Again, it is in those situations that we should show more understanding and compassion, not call security and encourage them to act as pit bulls.
We are so numbers driven that we have turned into a farce.
I say put Elizabeth Warren on the case.
AMEN, 11:17AM!
For you youngsters, a bit of history. Prior to 9/11/01, we never had guards at the local field offices, nor were there any at hearings. IMMEDIATELY after 9/11, guards magically appeared at hearings and local offices. Since it was so immediate, it appears to have been government paranoia that ALL federal facilities were now under attack.
With the long waits now, I understand that some members of the public, especially those with mental impairments might become difficult. I wonder if there has been a study done to determine actually if constant guards are needed, or if a response team would be all that's needed.
In reply to 3:23: I worked for the SSA (at WNPSC and in field offices), for over 30 yrs, starting in 1967. We had guards (and in some offices, metal detectors) in the field offices long before 9/11. They were necessary to protect both visitors to the offices and employees. I saw more than a few weapons brought in by visitors to the office.
Anon 1:39. Good point. "From top management on down to District Managers and Hearing Office Directors, the password is "adversarial"
Exactly. The hearings are adversarial even though it is not supposed to be an adversarial process. The local SSA offices are adversarial. It is basically the U.S. citizens vs. the SSA.
The SSA is just a glorified insurance company. No better (and probably much worse) than other insurance companies like AFLAC, car insurance companies, etc. But you would think since the customers (U.S. citizens) are forced to pay into this system there would be some minimum level of service.
It does not have to be this way.
Modesto,ca office treated me unfair...yelled at me and stuff as well I cryed its not fair how the workers talk to you..not the guards in my situation the workers behind the desk they kept trying to make me fill out paper work that I had already did 2 times prior and my analysts had it already than my analyst sent the same thing out and I told hem I did the medical part already than he apoligized ...they need the feds to over look ssi
Armed guards came to us in 1997 when disability became unavailable to alcoholics and drug addicts. There were lots of cessation matters and some unhappy folks. Usually the guards are pretty nice. My difficulties have been with the recent experiment of having blind people work in the district office. It took more people to help them and it was frustrating to me, a claimant's rep, to have to explain what they were and weren't seeing. SSA requires original documents for many things; otherwise I do most things by fax and phone.
After many visits and phone calls. I would say that SSA workers are nice about 2 in 10, including the guards. The SSA offices are run with people who need a course in treating the people who go in there with manners and respect & compassion instead of being rude, condescending and lying. The employees of the SSA forgot how they get their paychecks, that if it weren't for the mandatory FICA taxes, none of them would have a job. Public Service to people over all is disgraceful as if they were all trained by Trump.
Absolutely no factual evidence as to what happened on that day, yet people just guess and make statements regarding assumptions. You know what they say about assumptions.
My experience with SSA staff at both the district office level, ODAR level, and with our Area Director's office has been the same as it is with individuals in other businesses in the community. There are a few discourteous individuals in the mix but the vast majority handle their job appropriately. The bad apples can certainly skew one's view of the agency as a whole. Perhaps if the level of bad actors is a bit higher at SSA (I have no factual basis to believe this to be true), it can be attributed to the difficulties they are facing because of a lack of resources. Hopefully the Congresswoman will see things from that perspective, and challenge her colleagues to provide SSA with the funding it requires to do its job efficiently and not just blame the folks at SSA for being rude.
9:53 AM The difference is that in the private sector when you treat people poorly, they generally find someone else to do business with. Any smart business doesn't allow their employees to treat people in this way. Exceptions to this is when the business has a virtual monopoly in an area, where people have no other choice (such as health care). My experience is that you are much more likely to deal with "bad apples" when dealing with government, but there are always exceptions.
5:47
Also note it is infinitely more difficult to fire in the gov't world than in the private sector. Some companies attrite the bottom x% of performers every year. If only...
1:36, if only... you'd never see any benefits paid.
@1:02
There was a murder in the Sacramento CA Social Security office in 2000. The unarmed guard was shot and killed.
There are incidents in Social Security offices often that require the local and/or federal police to be called. There are arrests that happen at Social Security offices. I would not bring my 87 year old mother to a Social Security office unless there was no other solution.
Post a Comment