CRFB is officially bipartisan and has Democrats as well as Republicans on its board. However, it is closely affiliated with Pete Peterson who seems to have cutting Social Security as his primary goal in life. Peterson has huge wealth to support his mania.
The book has been out for a month or two but has not been promoted, probably because there's little in the book that would actually bring about cuts in Social Security disability or which is practical.
The book is a mishmash with each chapter by a different author or group of authors. For the most part, I'd say that few, if any, of the authors have ever met a Social Security disability claimant or recipient. It seems to mostly be "blind people describing an elephant" or perhaps describing how they would build a better elephant. I think that if the authors of this book had to actually try to help real, live Social Security disability claimants that they would be likely to say "Who knew disability could be so complicated?"
One of the most important types of recommendation in the book is for "early intervention" to prevent disability. Roughly speaking, the idea is that if people can receive "early intervention" of some type after they become sick or injured, that reliance upon disability benefits can be avoided. I have no idea how this would work. I have no idea what the "early intervention" would consist of. More important, I'm pretty sure the authors don't have much idea how this would work or what the "early intervention" would consist of. I see no reason to believe that such "early intervention" would help any significant group of people. One of the authors is at least honest enough to tell us:
One of the most important types of recommendation in the book is for "early intervention" to prevent disability. Roughly speaking, the idea is that if people can receive "early intervention" of some type after they become sick or injured, that reliance upon disability benefits can be avoided. I have no idea how this would work. I have no idea what the "early intervention" would consist of. More important, I'm pretty sure the authors don't have much idea how this would work or what the "early intervention" would consist of. I see no reason to believe that such "early intervention" would help any significant group of people. One of the authors is at least honest enough to tell us:
What is clear to me from all three papers in this section is that there is neither completed research nor an evidence base upon which to enact nationwide early intervention or work support programs. Additional study and evaluation will be needed to generate this evidence; certainly before making changes to the SSDI program.However, even this statement assumes that such evidence would be forthcoming if the "additional study and evaluation" is done. I think there's strong reason to doubt that.
There already is a good deal of "early intervention" in workers compensation cases, at least where I am. All I've seen from that is heavy-handed pressure on claimants to resume work, even for brief periods of time, not because the injured person achieves any long term benefit but because it helps the employer's insurance company limit what it has to pay. I've seen no evidence that it has done anything to reduce reliance upon Social Security disability benefits. If there were such evidence, I think one of the authors of this book would be touting it.
Otherwise, the book makes recommendations such as eliminating reconsideration, introducing some sort of government representative at hearings, encouraging private long term disability insurance, performing more continuing disability reviews, time limited disability benefits, partial disability benefits and changing the definition of disability. I'm not going to bother to discuss any of this since none of it could possibly be adopted at this time or at any foreseeable time in the future. Yes, for example, doing away with reconsideration would be nice but it would cost a lot of money since far more people would request hearings and hearings are more expensive so it's not going to happen. If you really think this is possible, you fail to understand the problems that Social Security has in getting enough money to continue its current operations much less more money to fund a more expensive version of its operations.
Overall, when I read this book, I keep thinking the authors are nothing more than amateur dilettantes whose "advice" to Social Security policymakers is no more valuable than the "advice" I might give to the head coach of an athletic team I follow.
Nice review, wasn't expecting you to say anything good about it. Personally I have not read it and have not intention to read it. SSA is an ever smaller part of my life as I have primarily moved on to better things to focus on. But I am interested, since you see no merit in any suggestion what you view to be the answer. I would also like to see where you would take the money from, because the answer you give will be to get more money. So if we get more employees for SSA, CRs, SRs, ALJs, SA, and support staff where do you intend to cut to get the money? What programs reduce dependence on SSDI and how do we implement them?
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen in government just picking apart a program or idea is very easy but making a program or idea better and functional in the real world is very hard. I haven't seen many ideas here in the last few years that would actually make a damn bit of difference to handling the problem.
One of the reasons more people are relying on SSD is that state Workers' Compensation benefits/systems are inadequate. Injured workers become the responsibility of the taxpayers rather than the employers and insurance companies. If the Federal Government really wants to save SSD money, they could enact guidelines for benefits, due process, legal representation to insure injured workers are taken care of by the insurance companies, instead of being dumped on the SSD system.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the cost of Administrative waste? Take former Atlanta ROCALJ Garmon finally being removed from his job for labor management violations. But, instead of retiring, or stepping into a line ALJ position, top Agency officials found it necessary to placate him by placing him in an even higher paying Management position, such as OLMER, no less, in Headquarters at Falls Church, VA.
ReplyDeleteIf this were not enough, these same top Agency Management Officials engaged in political maneuvering and posturing in order to relocate an entire ODAR Hearings Office close to Garmon's home in Alpharetta, GA, solely to placate him, because he did not want to physically leave the Atlanta Region in order to work from his New position in Falls Church, VA, after he was removed from his ROCALJ position for misconduct and wrongdoing and labor management violations.
Anyone with half a brain knows Alpharetta is a horrible location for an ODAR Hearings Office. It's very difficult for claimants to reach via public transportation. Yet, our highest level Agency Manager's and leaders believed it was more important to cow-tow to Garmon, even at a cost of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to relocate an entire Hearings Office, not too mention thousands of dollars more to pay him an even higher salary, and additional litigation costs he could potentially cause the Agency to incur by placing him as an Executive in OLMER, of all places!
No need to worry, however, as that's now been solved. You see our top Agency Management and leadership subsequently promoted Garmon further up to Deputy Chief ALJ!
Millions of dollars in taxpayers money have been wasted catering to Garmon in these recent top Administrative decisions alone. Certainly, much more money than a SSA disability claimant who may have engaged in some sort of fraudulent act. Yet, there has been no investigation of this Administrative waste, fraud, and abuse. Why? Administrative waste caused by poor top Agency Management decisions like this are responsible for millions and millions of dollars of waste in taxpayers money. Yet, these individuals are never held accountable. This is madness. It is insane. All top Agency Management Officials responsible for such conduct must finally be held accountable.
Rocky Sighting!!!
ReplyDeleteThe book came out over a year ago. You blogged about the underlying meeting on 8/4/15 and the initiative several times in 2014 and 2015.
ReplyDeleteYou know what early interventions would help reduce the disability applications? Medical treatment so that untreated hypertension doesn't result in listing level strokes or untreated diabetes doesn't result in amputations or dialysis or untreated schizophrenia doesn't result in homelessness. If we had decent health care for all in this country, there would be fewer people applying for disability and fewer still being awarded disability.
ReplyDelete9:34 never read the review and he's a prime example of the blind describing an elephant.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Garmon was "a bad dude or lady" As Trump might have called it. It's a pathetic agency with downright corrupted from the top !
ReplyDelete@12:59 thanks! I was a bit unclear, I read the review, I did not read the book. Posting from a phone is never a good idea!
ReplyDeleteAs far as being a prime example, thanks again, while I am sure you meant it as a snarky insult, at least you are reading my work. Have a most pleasant and productive day!!!
@9:34 stated, "I would also like to see where you would take the money from . . . So, if we get more employees . . . and support staff, where do you intend to cut to get the money?"
ReplyDeleteI would substantially cut the multiple, unnecessary Managers. At Headquarters, many of the "Deputy Commissioners," "Assistants to Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners," and numerous other high paying, fancy titled Management positions who often perform similar, if not duplicative, tasks should be eliminated. Perhaps for every 3 such positions, 1 should be eliminated along with their Assistants and staff. Further, it should be mandated that only attorneys can perform the fancy titled positions which pertain to the disability Hearings portion of SSA.
I would eliminate the Regional Offices, as they serve no realistic, useful purpose. Many of the positions in the Regional offices are merely extensions of the same from Headquarters.
I would markedly reduce the number of Manager's in ODAR Hearings Offices. In many of these offices, there are anywhere from 2-4 Group Supervisors performing the same job as the Supervisory Attorney one performed. Further, many are non-attorneys in Management positions supervising Senior Attorneys and Attorneys, and hound everyone, including ALJ's over numbers. This is useless garbage on so many different levels, I do not even know where to start. First, the non-attorneys are paid the same salary as the attorneys. Some have little more than a HS education. In what universe does this make sense? Get rid of these individuals through attrition, RIF's for non-attorneys, etc. In the future, there should only be one Supervisory Attorney in each Hearings Office. This person should only be managing all the attorneys.
Reduce the GS-14 HOD position back to the GS-11 grade it was before the 2000 reorganization. This individual would be responsible for management of support staff other than attorneys. If you decide to keep the HOD at the GS-14 grade, then only attorneys should be HOD's.
A great deal of money could also be saved by hiring and using attorneys more in the Hearings process, which would reduce the number of ALJ's needed. Attorney salaries are far less than ALJ salaries, so there would be considerable savings over the long run. I would reinstate the original Senior Attorney Program as it began in 1995 before the Agency began chipping it off but by bit. Create a Hearings Officer position for which only experienced Senior Attorneys can perform with a GS-14/15 pay grade, which is still cheaper than paying ALJ level salaries. The Hearings Officers would hold hearings in the ODAR Hearings offices.
In addition, I would eliminate the Reconsideration level entirely, and require everyone at the DDS level to perform their jobs thoroughly and correctly when determining Initial Claims, especially physicians and psychologists. Demand better quality work at the Initial level.
I would also seriously consider eliminating the AC. If you decide not to eliminate the AC, demand accountability and do not allow mere rubber stamping if decisions.
All of these things would be an excellent start. Then, hire some basic support staff.
3:18
ReplyDeleteYour plan is problematic for a few reasons, but let me just pick a glaring one:
The Social Security Act and subsequent Supreme Court case law require at least some decisions to be issued by ALJs. Good luck Congress doing something as big as amending the Act in this climate in the foreseeable future. Unless, of course, those two Circuits find ALJs improperly appointed and the Supreme Court or President Trump doesn't bail them out. I suppose in that wild scenario SSA would be forced to implement some sort of at least temporary attorney adjudicator role for ODAR dispositions.
I have more time than I thought, so I'll address another one that will never happen. While I agree the AC is way too big and that so many of its attorneys would be better served writing decisions than sending them back to us, you will never get rid of it. Of course, this is because the Federal District Courts want nothing to do with that explosion of workload that would land at their doorsteps.
The return to a HOM at GS-11 or even GS-12 or GS-13 with one Supervisory Attorney at GS-14, as well as your desire to see ODAR management filled with attorneys will never happen. While I agree in theory that this would be good--we are a large court, after all, so why not put those with the legal background who appreciate the delicacies of legal process in charge? Ain't gonna happen. Operations is way larger than ODAR, and they control this agency. Hell, they're even slowly taking over DCDAR. Operations folks do not have the appreciation for legal nuance like due process and constantly chide ODAR for being so slow and for the AC for being completely useless; they will never change that framing. Further, the unions would never allow that change because it would serve to push grades of (non-attorney: read the overwhelming majority of street-level) staff down after they worked so hard to push them up. I notice you seem to imply no more paralegal writers and other paralegal positions in Region. Same thing--union won't allow that because it chokes off non-attorney ladder to the ranks of management.
Two more for the road: I agree the regions could be phased out if you made HQ more robust, but that just won't happen. Each region is big enough to successfully fight for its continued existence, and--at least at ODAR--HQ has done such a poor job of keeping up with what the Regions do, they don't want the headache of having to step in and take over all of that because it would be a ton of work. Literally HQ established goals, divied up the money, and then basically let the Regions do their thing. It would be a huge undertaking to just remove them and take over.
Finally, we won't get rid of Recon. In fact, we are removing the 10 prototype states, no? I hate to be cynical, but I think it's because every level of appeal results in cases that aren't appealed. Fewer cases for ODAR, and DDS can obviously do more dispositions for less money.
So that's it. The SAA stuff might could happen, not sure why they won't do it. And there definitely are significantly too many SES and GS-14 - GS-15 management positions in HQ and to a lesser extent the regions. But that will never end because every DC thinks they need 15 other fancy SES folks to help them solve all the world's problems up in the ivory tower.
There are way too many management positions at all levels of ODAR. Why so many management positions with so many folks teleworking? IT's a waste of taxpayer money. And why have managers at ODAR who are not attorneys? You definitely get more for your money with attorney managers who not only can handle the day to day stuff but also legal issues. Leting non-attorneys have HOD jobs and supervisor jobs is downright inefficient.
ReplyDeleteThe non-attorney writers should never be paid more than the attorney writers because they cannot handle the more difficult cases that entail true legal analysis.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Operations even allowed to control the disability hearings process? You are correct, operations folks do not care about legal nuances, and this is the very reason they should absolutely have no role in any part of disability hearing process. Why can't some high authority step in and mandate operations folks cannot have any control or decision making authority concerning the disability portion of SSA? The reason the operations folks have so much control at the present is because no one in the Ivory Tower in Falls Church has ever had the balls to stand up and speak about what is best for the disability hearings process.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, this is a real problem at SSA/ODAR. I observed for many years only like minded favorites be selected for higher level management positions. The reason this continues is because the top bosses do not wish to have others in their inner circle who would dare question their judgment, decisions, ideas, etc. To the contrary, employee engagement is not something which has ever been encouraged by the top bosses. Where all think alike, no one thinks at all. Aggressively changing this dynamic at the highest levels of SSA/ODAR, would go a long way to changing and improving management of the disability hearings process if the Agency.
As for eliminating non-attorney decision writers and managers, you should explain to the unions you are not required to provide a career ladder for these individuals. After all, these are Hearings offices. If any group is deserving of a career ladder in Hearings offices, it is Attorneys, but you have never provided a career ladder for them. Last time I checked, the attorneys pay union dues just the same as non-attorneys, yet the unions have never complained you did not provide a career ladder for them. Thus, I do not buy your arguments concerning the non-attorneys. The bottom line is if a non-attorney wishes to advance in a career, there are all kinds of colleges and universities they can attend to further their education. They can go to school just like the attorneys have done. This is a Hearings process, and legal nuances do matter and cannot be ignored. Moreover, there is an abundance of attorneys seeking work these days, so it's not as though you would have difficulty finding them, plus you are already paying the non-attorneys the same salary as attorneys. For these reasons, you should eliminate the non-attorney decision writers and managers through attrition, buy outs/early outs, RIF's, or simply not replace them with non-attorneys when they leave.
Frankly, you give the impression your hands are tied in many respects, but I do not believe they are tied any where near the degree you intimate.
From a purely economic and efficiency standpoint it behooves SSA/ODAR to eliminate the non-attorney jobs. The fact is that attorneys give you more your money. Paying non-attorneys more than attorneys is foolish and economically unwise. The non-attorneys at ODAR would not come close to getting paid in the private sector what they get paid at ODAR. That tells you how grossly overpaid the non-attorneys are.
ReplyDeleteInstead of creating some artificial career path for non-attorneys the non-attorneys should get a college degree or advanced degree to further their careers. I know someone who did just that by going to law school later in life to further their career. At least they earned the career promotions and weren't artificially promoted based upon a created career path that serves to waste taxpayer money.
ReplyDeleteODAR, the law schooled and non-law schooled employees are mostly lazy, heartless, narcissistic, ignorant and tax-wasting bunch of sorry bureaucrats that to shit down ODAR is just a consolation prize for our nation's taxpayers!!!
ReplyDeleteIt isn't so much that Operations folks are directing ODAR from their positions in Operations. That is a big piece--our acting COSS is an Operations lifer and is currently treating ODAR in a not so good way, and plenty of other people in senior management positions are also Operations types with similar feelings toward us.
ReplyDeleteBut more than that, Operations folks are BECOMING ODAR folks. You've got long-term Operations folks coming into ODAR field offices as GSs and HODs from OS and ADM/DM positions, and they bring with them in these new roles their Operations mindset. Our current DC is way more Operations than she ever has been DCDAR. Again, the Operations culture change is happening from within and I fear the speed at which the takeover is already happening is too fast to stop at this point. Hence, for example, the obsession with co-locating ODAR field offices and DO/FOs. You bet your bottom dollar one of the big end games there is to consolidate management (and guess which side would be higher up and more heavily represented...) between ODAR and Operations in these combined shops.
And you are absolutely incorrect that it is not the agency's job to provide a career ladder for all its employees. That's actually a huge obligation SSA has, and it can get in actual hot water from sources that aren't the unions if it does not do a good job of creating ladders into positions higher than GS-8 for people without law degrees in one of its main DC-level components.
I hope my fellow attorneys and the ALJs are ready for what's coming. With Operations folks at the helm, you can kiss ever getting remotely close to the old 4.5/1 staff/ALJ ratio ever again goodbye. There will probably be cockamamie attempts to turn decision writing into a fully automated process, like they tried with the eBB decisional piece (that was recently scrapped, lol)--"if we can just make the ALJs put enough of the findings and other pieces of the decision in their instructions and transfer those into a document, well then writing a decision could turn into just pressing a button!"
The only group with enough clout to help stem this tide is the ALJ corps and union, but unfortunately they are too busy going to the mat over how being made to clock in and out or move cases out of ALPO within ten years is a fundamental encroachment on their precious judicial independence to see the real problem looming on the horizon.
All I'm saying is just get ready to be expected to move more cases with fewer staff.
Some of the proposals I read in the book could improve things if done well but would require a long term commitment, likely by more than one Commissioner working towards the same goal.
ReplyDeleteAs one who has reviewed hundreds of ODAR decisions written by attorneys, non-attorneys and even ALJs - I have observed that it may not necessarily be the education but rather the skill and understanding of the writer. I've seen a lot of garbage written by attorneys and a lot of excellent legal analysis by non-attorneys. Perhaps it was a mistake to hire non-attorneys to write decisions in the past - but they aren't anymore.
ReplyDeleteSimilar thoughts about managers - although a good manager or executive in any organization does not need to have the technical skills of those she/he leads. A well established fact among government and non-government organizations worldwide. Unfortunately - lawyers and doctors are usually the worst in accepting such leadership.
while Mr. Hall and others may not like any of the proposals and analyses in this and other reports - they do serve an invaluable purpose:
ReplyDeleteanalysis of many alternatives or what if's to the current system - so that decisionmakers may see what might be possible.
the bottom line - is that the current situation is not working effectively and to just keep dumping more money and people into the status quo - is not the answer.
You do realize that there is a whole lot more to the agency than just ODAR don't you?
ReplyDeleteof course.......
ReplyDeletehowever - ODAR is the expensive and ineffectively managed part of SSA with the highest rate of decisions not supported by actual law and regulations.
Interventions that could prevent disability?
ReplyDeleteSome sort of medical coverage system where people are treated for chronic conditions early enough to prevent disability would be a start.
Medical services for injured workers that is independent of the workers comp provider who isn't interested in the long-term prospects of the injured worker.
Training programs to divert people into jobs that are less demanding that standing all day reaching up pull the innards out of poultry so they might be employable in work they can still do (if they had the skills).
@6:47AM:
ReplyDeleteThe reason the disability Hearings process of SSA is in the unprecedented, disasterous mess it is now with no innovative ideas as to how it should move forward, is because of all the non-attorney Operations and DO folks who have been promoted into all levels of management. I singlehandedly observed some of these so called Managers destroy an entire Hearings office in very short order years ago. This office never recovered from the mass destruction they inflicted. Before these unqualified individuals were placed in these Management positions, ODAR/OHA was a very collegial, professional, pleasant environment in which to work. As soon as these unqualified, so called Managers came aboard, they destroyed all of this, and replaced it with punitive, outdated, top down, my way or the highway Management policies which not only destroyed my Hearings Office in short order years ago, but these ineffective, inefficient Management policies have permeated and intensified to the point today where they have all but destroyed the entire disability Hearings process of SSA.
These former, non-Attorney Operations and DO folks turned so called Managers in the disability hearings components of SSA do not have the appropriate technical skills, abilities, or educational backgrounds to be in these power Management positions. Further, they have no legal skills, abilities, or advanced educational background. What's worse, from what I have personally observed, they could care less about legal nuances. While you mentioned our COSS is a former Operations person, I believe this is wrong. I have nothing against her, but the bottom line is that it is very apparent and obvious she is not an Attorney, and it's clear to those of us who are Attorneys, that an Agency experienced seasoned Attorney or ALJ must be the minimum requirements to hold this position.
I in no way agree with your assertion you are required by "law" to provide a career ladder for employees in the lower GS grade levels. Please cite this law, because I cannot believe something so preposterous exists. If it is in a CBA, then for heaven's sake tell the unions enough already and do not agree to it any longer. The bottom line is someone who starts at a lower GS grade with little more than a HS education, should not reasonably expect to have a career ladder advancing them all the way up to and beyond what a professional Agency attorney is paid. This is just plain Nuts! There is a point at which there can be no further "natural progression" up a career ladder without the appropriate educational background. For example, it was not a "natural progression" for former support staff who once typed my dictation as a SA, to unconditionally be promoted all the way up to Paralegal Specialist, let alone to GS or HOD, unless they obtained a Law degree and license along the way. In what universe does this make any sense? Then, they become my Supervisor? WT-?
The bottom line is the Operstions and DO folks are not qualified to hold Management positions in the disability hearings components is SSA and must be removed. Our leaders in Falls Church must take an aggressive stand on this issue. I do not care if your superiors are former Operations or DO people. For heavens sake, show some balls and do what needs to be done, and that is only Agency experienced Attorneys or ALJ's are required to hold any Management positions in the disability hearings components of the Agency - Period. Perhaps the best way to accomplish this, and clearly what must be done, would be to divide SSA, and make the disability hearings components and processes of the Agency completely separate. We must take action if we are going to save the Agency from itself.
I didn't say a law required advancement, but internal policies and various initiatives that are bigger than SSA do.
ReplyDeleteNancy Berryhill is very much an operations person. That's literally the only component she has worked for (aside from temporary details, I guess) up until being the DC for operations and then assuming the role of COSS. Read her bio, sheesh. Did you mean Teri? Yeah, I know she was with ODAR under Glenn at some point, but most all her mgmt. career has been on the Operations side. And her background, education, and that experience have given her much more the "operations mindset" than the ODAR one.
Charles--what happened to the post about the attorneys destroying ODAR and now are doing the same with the FOs? Thin skinned...
ReplyDeleteWill Michael Astrue please come to the front office and please bring David Hatfield with you.
ReplyDeletesay what you want but these two men could put odor on the right track again enough with these clowns currently running things
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree. These clowns like Nancy B. are ignorant as well as arrogant...they'd look the other way as a way of encouraging ODAR and the field offices are turning into a racial nightmare train loaded with bigotry and then bigotted majority and the lesser majority population. freewheeling their way against Muslims, Asians, Native Americans,, and the LGBT employees within the agency. This is not the best of time for these Minority employees.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above, but this is how I would put it because a a retired former union's shop steward, who believes in true fairness and equal diversity, I know exactly why the Democrats are not in power now and possibly for a long time to come because they've always used the old the minority in the majority "race card". Yet, in this election, most other groups of voters finally saw through them!
ReplyDeleteJust like all of the Regional OCREO and HR components at SSA such as the ones in Dallas, Atlanta, or Boston, their typical thinking is that it is acceptable to allow racial bigotry to go unchecked the way they like it.
True examples: it is ok to overlook an African-American female supervisor who keeps picking on a male Muslim-American employee. Or, it is more than fine for a straight male white supervisor to harass an Asian-American gay male employee. Or, it is even better to have a Spanish male District Manager to pick on an older female employee with Native-American ancestry. Or, it is trendily fine for a female Mexican-American supervisor to bully an older white male employee. Finally, it is just ok for an Asian-American female Assistant District Manager
to constructively demote another Asian-American male employee.
All these true frightening stories told are not enough for one to throw in any support for the "drain the swamp concept" yet, but it would surely raised enough anger for calls to have leadership changes and serious staff overhaul at those components within SSA. After that, some type of disciplinary actions for those who are accountable!!
I fail to see any fairness in the taxpayers paying people who are not lawyers the same as lawyers.
ReplyDeleteOver in the field of medicine there are actual cost savings taking place because advanced practice nurses can do many of the things a MD or DO can do but does not get paid the same to perform those services.
Larger law firms use paralegals to provide services to the client at a cheaper rate.
If the Social Security bean counters knew how to count those beans, they would provide the taxpayer with some cost savings when they hire non-lawyers to do the "paralegal" tasks.
Is it cost effective to not put the name of a SSA employee when receiving correspondence from the SSA? Just curious as to who to address when disagreeing with their answers for any type of denial. The same would go for trying to get information on oneself's records! Is this part of the SSA process to save money?
ReplyDeleteMillions of injured workers forced onto SSDI & SSI because the employer with their 3rd party insurer gets away with not paying for the total disabilities cause on the job for over 3 decades. SSA/Medicare quite involved to let this go on & to give offsets too. Thanks to unions & Dems (I belonged to both for many many decades), the injuries & illnesses are listed under somatoform, ( all in your head) and neither WC or the govt will ever pay for the injured and ill worker to get better much less train them for new paying jobs..All part of the plan to cut cut and cut costs.
ReplyDelete