The abstract of Surveillance-system Monitors in the Work Force Kincaid Vocational and Rehabilitation Services in the Journal of Forensic Vocational Analysis:
A labor market survey was conducted to assess the responsibilities and skills of Surveillance-system Monitors as they exist in the current labor market. A tri-modal approach was taken. First, 58 job vacancy advertisements were reviewed to analyze the physical requirements of Surveillance-system Monitors as they exist in the labor market today, along with other factors that contribute to the skill-level of this position. Second, the position of Transportation Security Officer was reviewed via the job vacancy advertisement and job description video (accessed through the Transportation Security Administration website). Third, employers of Surveillance-system Monitors, and employees currently performing work as a Surveillance-system Monitor, were contacted at various establishments including colleges, hotels, and malls in the New Jersey and Texas State areas. The results indicate that the physical and cognitive requirements of Surveillance-system Monitors have changed significantly since the last major revision of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles in 1991. The essential functions of Surveillance-system Monitors now require use of others skills, longer training, higher aptitudes, and greater physical demands. The research conducted for this study returned a 0% prevalence of Surveillance - system Monitors as it is conventionally described in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.So what's the status of the DOT replacement? Is this reason it keeps being delayed the fear that there won't be any unskilled, sedentary jobs left? By now could there even be any other reason? This delay may not look too good if Democrats get control of the House of Representatives after the 2018 election and start asking questions and demanding documents.
17 comments:
I have the full article on my laptop that I take to hearings. It has already proved quite useful in cross examining vocational experts.
They don't want to update the DOT because that would ruin the fantasy that there are significant numbers of simple, routine unskilled jobs still in existence.
@1:24
Careful what you wish for. Solar energy system installer (DOT#637.261-030) from my research only exist in insignificant numbers as it was defined back in 1991. Updating the DOT cuts both ways. Still, I would be grateful to see microfilm document preparer, dowel examiner, and obviously surveillance system monitor be put to rest.
3:02- Solar energy installer has an SVP of 7. No where close to being unskilled.
@3:19
3:02 here. I did not mean to suggest that it was. My point was that jobs as performed change over time. Some of those changes could be to the advantage of claimants, whereas others might not. Solar energy system installer is an example I could see being found far less exertionally demanding, as it is defined as heavy, and far less skillful than required in 1991 due to changes in technology and the industry. But I could have been more clear.
I'm all for getting rid of the fantasy that there is a huge array of unskilled work out in the world. While we're at it, let's also get rid of the fantasy that someone that is 51, has light/SVP 5+ PRW, and doesn't have a severe mental impairment, is incapable of obtaining or performing sedentary SVP 3 or 4 types of jobs absent transferable skills. Let's also quit pretending that someone with a high school or college education and no significant mental restrictions can only be placed in unskilled work in the absence of past work or transferable skills.
If we're going to revamp the standards to reflect reality, the grid rules are about as fantastical as they come. We're no longer in a predominantly manufacturing economy like in the late 70s. The vast majority of Americans under the age of 55 are fully capable of adjusting to and utilizing technology and doing skilled tasks on a regular basis. Yeah, you can't just throw someone into an SVP 7 job, but the number of people incapable of obtaining and performing work as a telemarketer, receptionist, a light SVP 3 security guard, or other semiskilled work that requires temporary on-the-job training and has frequent openings is vastly overestimated by our antiquated grid rules.
@ 3:02. There is no evidence to suggest any S/2 jobs actually exist other than garbage VEs spout in hearings from a DOT that is clearly out of date. It's 2017, S/2 simply do not exist. I've worked at the DDS as an examiner and I've represented thousands of clients over the past several years, yet I have never had a claimant that actually performed a S/2 job. Not. One. Single. Time.
It was once explained to me that surveillance system monitor, the one where the only thing you do is look at the monitor while sitting, is a very limited job performed at only a few federal buildings throughout the country. Otherwise, that is done by a skilled person who does things in addition to surveying the monitor. But I too would like to see the last of the order caller (who does that anymore with the advent of computers?), the burr grinder, the ticket taker, and the photo finisher.
The presumption that someone aged 50 and limited to sedentary work is disabled is the biggest sham in the disability process. Massively bump up the grids by at least 5 years or even better eliminate them completely and analyze each claimant individually with no presumption of disability given age, education or work experience
Once had a case where the DDS said that the claimant could be a dowel inspector and that there were 35,000 of them in the state of Ohio - must be the world's center for dowel production.
@7:18 what would happen to the agency workload if they did as you suggest? Hundreds of thousands of claims would take longer to work up. With no increased staffing likely under this administration, the backlog would balloon. The agency desperately needs to expand ways to expedite favorable determinations, not reduce them.
@7:18
The biggest sham in the disability process is the presumption that the proceedings are non-adversarial.
@8:25
I don't think 7:18 has an issue with ballooning the backlog.
You are also ignoring the grids also direct unfavorable decisions, meaning eliminating them could result in an increase in unfavorable decisions, which 7:18 seems to be in favor of.
Receptionist positions are no longer as skilled as once required. In fact most any routine work using a computer is no longer as skilled as it was 20-30 years ago.
The regulations should incorporate some sort of Vocational Rehabilitation program. Just because one is unable to perform their PRW and is over the age of 50 or 55 should not be an automatic to receive benefits.
@1:55
The Regulations should equally require employers to make reasonable accommodations (RA's), and not allow the silly excuses so many employers, including ODAR, get away with by simply stating the RA would be an undue burden but not requiring them to demonstrate why. Employers are currently treated far too leniently in this respect.
Despite that article with labor market survey results being published in a peer-reviewed journal for vocational rehabilitation professionals last winter, how many VEs at hearings will still use the DOT description of surveillance system monitor without mentioning that it doesn't exist as described in the DOT anymore? How many ALJs will still deny claims based on that flawed information? I suspect many. Fertile ground for a class action, perhaps?
Post a Comment