From Joe Davidson writing for the Washington Post:
President Trump's recent executive orders are a serious assault on federal labor organizations, but it is taxpayers who could become collateral damage.
Consider the Social Security Administration (SSA), which deals more directly with clients than most. It is on the front lines of the Trump-union clash, because officials there are enforcing his commands more aggressively than management at many agencies. Three orders issued in May sharply cut the time available for union officials to represent the workforce, restricted their ability to bargain collectively and sped the firing of federal employees. Another order, issued last week, would diminish administrative law judges, most of whom decide Social Security disputes involving recipients.
While the federal workforce and its representatives are the target of the orders, Social Security beneficiaries could be the victims, warned Max Richtman, president and chief executive of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. He said the impact on them is pretty direct and dramatic. Calling agency employees so dedicated, he said that when they re faced with a pretty hostile employer in the government executive in particular, their ability to perform their central duty is undermined and that will lead to a detrimental impact on Social Security beneficiaries. ... [I]mplementation [of the President's orders] is more like imposition and has been done with a vengeance, according to Witold Skwierczynski, president of AFGE's National Council of SSA Field Operations Locals. SSA followed the Trump administration's executive order guidance with gusto, joy, and clear purpose, he said.
But the administration s gusto and joy is a bummer for Social Security employees and that could be a drag for Social Security recipients.
Richtman and Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works and chair of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition, cited the effect of Trump's actions on employee morale and the resulting impact on service.
Altman is particularly concerned about Trump s order that devalues administrative law judges (ALJ) by eliminating all but the most minimal requirements for new hires. Additionally, they would be selected by agency heads without first being vetted by the Office of Personnel Management as was the procedure. That makes the process more vulnerable to politicization. ...
Good. Federal positions should not be unionized. Don't like it work in the public sector.
ReplyDelete@9:35
ReplyDeleteFederal employees/positions are the PUBLIC SECTOR. Regardless, there is no reason unions should not be in both the Public and Private Sectors. Workers everywhere should have the right to collectively bargain concerning important issues which directly affect their work. But for UNIONS, the American Middle Class as we have come to know it, would not exist. Unfortunately, all the alt-right Republican attacks on unions, and supply side economics they have continued to push in recent years has done nothing but DESTROY the Middle Class via income inequality. The gap between the rich and poor has never been greater post WWII. Without unions, American workers would never had decent wages, a safe work environment, etc.
I am not saying unions are perfect. Obviously, they have experienced their fair share of problems and corruption over the years just like other bureaucratic institutions. Nevertheless, many of us would NOT have the degree of quality living today BUT FOR UNIONS. The continued union bashing by your ilk and Republicans MUST STOP!
Everyone I've talked to in my office is glad to see this happen. The only people who are concerned are the ones who have underperformed for years and have been hiding behind the Union. This was a needed change.
ReplyDeleteThis is step one to stripping our benefits. Without union protection, you’ll get the other crap they want to do. Namely PTO. Ask contractors about PTO. It sucks. It means people coming in sick and getting you sick. Good times! I’d like to see lazy people kicked to the curb too but not this way.
ReplyDeleteI shed no tears for the union that has protected poor performing employees who victimized the public and other employees because of their low quality work, lack of timely action, and selfish, rude and discourteous behavior. And no tears for management that tolerated or mirrored these actions either because of a go along/get along attitude or due to their own years of seeing and learning what is "acceptable" performance.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, AFGE brought this entirely on themselves. To say that they have been uncooperative to the point of downright disruptive through the years isn't an understatement.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if a Democrat is elected in 2 years, he/she will simply undo all this and revert to what was previously the status quo.
And, if a Russian is elected in 2 years, they'll all be thrown in the gulag.
lol @ 9:35
ReplyDeleteSuch a low effort troll they couldn't even get their terminology right.
It's kind of telling that the weak national leadership cadre responsible for letting SSA's IT, training and retention efforts dissolve into a weak mush are leaping at a chance to break the union. It's almost as if they're looking for a scapegoat for closed field offices, zero public advocacy for higher budgets, and almost a decade of temporary/interim leadership.
Baltimore's mission statement is "oh god, keep us out of the newspapers". It's kind of amazing what mediocrity you'll tolerate when your biggest criteria is not making waves.
So 11:54 we should have unions because a hundred years ago they did things? So the lack of middle class is due to lack of unions and not on a changed economy that has grown past manufacturing to information and services? So a lack of unions now will lead us back to child labor and unsafe open machines with people falling into meat grinders? You think the Modern fat and lazy American is going back to a 70 hour week of danger and sweat! They sue companies for far less than that on a regular basis!!!
ReplyDeleteGovernment jobs are not private sector, how in the world do you equate that? They have Federal hiring guidelines, a Federal Pay Scale (GS stands for Government Service) the pay difference between GS and private sector for the same job, plus generous benefits packages not available through most private sector positions clearly separate federal work from private sector.
Unions are last century, time to move on.
@7:46 who must be a shill for the union, this is 9:35 and I was a TII and TXVI CR and was forced to be part of the useless union. I watched out union rep do nothing but "union business" three days a week as the other CRs drowned. But he did fight for better toilet paper and kept on an employee that in the last 7 months had more days of union meetings with management than days on the floor. I stick by it, find the same deal in the private sector if you do not want to work for the government and no federal employee unions.
ReplyDelete@7:46 This is so true "Baltimore's mission statement is "oh god, keep us out of the newspapers". It's kind of amazing what mediocrity you'll tolerate when your biggest criteria is not making waves."
ReplyDeleteThe agency hasn't had adequate leadership in so long that mediocrity looks like excellence.
@10:28
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood why I discussed “Public” versus “Private” Sector. I was replying to the Commenter above me @ 9:35, who opined, “Federal positions should not be unionized. Don’t like it, work in the Public sector.” I responded by immediately noting Federal positions/employees are the PUBLIC Sector. @ 9:35 got it wrong, and I made the correction.
With regard to whether Public Sector positions should be unionized, I stand by what I said in my initial comment @ 11:54. I fully disagree with your analysis and comparisons of Public Sector pay and benefits versus the Private Sector.
First, you are delusional if you seriously believe Federal/Public Sector employees will hold onto their benefits without the unions. Mark my words, they will go down the drain quicker than you can say, “Go.”
Second, all Public Sector Pay is NOT BETTER than Private Sector Pay. Take SSA-OHO, for example. Non-Professional GS employees such as the CT’s, SCT’s, etc., are extremely well paid. Many have only a high school education, while others have varying stints to 4 years of college. These individuals also have the potential to become a GS 11/12 Paralegal Specialist. Attorneys, OTOH, are NOT paid nearly as well as the Private Sector, or even in comparison to Attorneys at other Agencies, even though they are required to maintain an active Law License with all the costs, including CLE, plus they have 7 years of college education and a Professional Degree. Many also have large student loan debts they incurred to obtain a Professional Degree. The most recent CBO investigation of Public versus Private Sector Pay and Benefits reached the same conclusion, i.e., that those with Professional Degrees in the Public Sector are paid considerably LESS than those in the Private Sector.
All the wonderful things Unions obtained for workers over the years can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Be careful what you wish for.
"Attorneys, OTOH, are NOT paid nearly as well as the Private Sector, or even in comparison to Attorneys at other Agencies, even though they are required to maintain an active Law License with all the costs, including CLE, plus they have 7 years of college education and a Professional Degree. Many also have large student loan debts they incurred to obtain a Professional Degree. The most recent CBO investigation of Public versus Private Sector Pay and Benefits reached the same conclusion, i.e., that those with Professional Degrees in the Public Sector are paid considerably LESS than those in the Private Sector."
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why I'm glad to see the union get scrutinized. The way the attorneys are treated is insane. You've got paralegals making more money than attorneys who are required to pay their own license fees, bar dues, CLEs... It's insane. We've got a union that does not represent us. The paralegals are more concerned with working at home and no dress code because they know they make more money than they ever would somewhere else. But the union gets them these benefits at the determinate of the attorneys.
@5:58
ReplyDelete4:56 here. I totally agree with you that the unions, particularly AFGE, have NEVER represented the Attorneys at OHO well. I found it incredibly frustrating. Further, when I had a legitimate issue and spoke with the union about filing a grievance, they refused to help me in any way, and I was a dues paying member of several years! I had no choice but to go the EEOC route. I cannot tell you how many times a part of me wishes I had never paid those dues. I was a OHO Attorney an Senior Attorney close to 30 years.
One has every right to inquire why I still support the Public Sector unions. First, not all Public Sector unions fail to represent Attorneys well, as those associated with OHO do. Secondly, I was raised in a part of America where unions were dominant, and my families Head of Household was a union member and advocate. This person now draws a retirement pension run by the union which he contributed for many years. But for the unions, my family, and many others like mine in the area where I was raised, would not have the quality middle class lifestyle they have today. In college, I also had some classes which got into the history of unions in America, the struggles, the problems and corruption on both sides, and what work conditions were like before unions. All of this was a very eye opening experience.
The reason I continue to support unions in general, whether Public or Private, is because I fear without their support, workers may very well lose many things/benefits they have come to take for granted. For example, gutting the unions associated with OHO may very well result in a marked reduction, if not total loss, of paid time off, flex time, telework in any form, just to name a few. Thus, every time a part of me regrets having paid those union dues and the poor treatment I received in return when I needed the union, I remind myself of PTO, flex time which only began about the time I started with OHO, etc. Unions are far from perfect, but I fear without them, workers will have no protection from abusive Managers, and may very well lose many things they take for granted today. As I said before, be careful what you wish for.
Not all attys graduate at the top of the class and there is a reason that they were doing admin law and hoping to pop into a fed position with SSA.
ReplyDeleteAs for them making less, then they are stupid. They should be working in the private sector making more, if they have the skill to do so and just because they made a choice about higher education and took out loans is no reason they should be paid more. Got my MS, 7 years of school. ZERO STUDENT LOANS. I had to join the military and serve to get a leg up but I did it. After a 164 on the LSAT I decided it was a poor decision to pursue a law degree, the dollar cost averaging did not work out in favor of success.
You have the right to make poor decisions, you have the right to practice in a low paying field, you have the right to whine about it, but you don't have a right to my respect or sympathy or use my tax dollars to support a union. They get paid the same as a person doing the same job all day but the rep isn't doing the governments business all day, they are stealing wages.
Don't like it, go chase some more ambulances, sue a drug company, take on some personal injury cases and get you a big ole cowboy hat for your commercials on late night cable tv!
@11:00
ReplyDeleteWell, la de da for you! I worked my AXX off all through college and law school. Student loans were the ONLY way I could afford to go to school. My family did not have financial resources to fully pay for my college education. They did the best they could. When I started college at age 18, I wasn’t into math and cost benefit analysis of the extent to which it was worth it for me to get a college degree vis a vis the job market and average salaries. Few at age 18 were, especially in my generation. I also sought a college degree for knowledge and enlightenment. As a female, few well paying occupations existed then, unless one earned a college degree. I am proud of what I accomplished; paid off my student loans years ago, and yes, it was a struggle at time; and always worked.
You come off sounding like an arrogant, pompous, “AXX” in your remarks. One can only hope you are NOT associated with OHO or a Senior Management Official, Congressmen, member of the Administration, or simply an arrogant Republican or Libertarian, but I fear you are. It is arrogant individuals with pretentious attitudes like yours who are responsible for driving unions in general, and OHO/SSA Disability Appeals Process, in particular, into the ground.
Your negative views of Attorneys who work for OHO is completely unwarranted. I worked with many fine Attorneys at OHO during my career. They were anything but the bottom of the barrel in the legal profession - To the contrary, just the opposite. Go read some threads on the ALJ PROBOARDS website where many of the commenters are existing ALJ’s and OHO Attorneys, along with successful Attorneys and State/Local Judges, etc. Then, come back and tell me they are the bottom of the barrel in the legal profession.
With regard to pay and earnings, you apparently never grasped the fact that those who graduate in the middle of their law school class make the most money on average, while those who graduate at the top are more likely to become law school professors, academics, and higher level Federal and State judges.
As a career OHO Attorney, I was troubled there were Paralegal Specialists with only HS or some college education, who made more than the Attorneys. In my era, they also got first choice of office space due to seniority with SSA. Several could not write worth a hoot, and Idid not like being tasked to try to train the worst of the worst. I cannot tell you how many hours my time was waisted doing the impossible, when I could have been writing. This, my friend, was a huge waste of taxpayer money! These people were not qualified and should have never been promoted to a writing position. They did not even have to pass a writing test then, and that wasn’t too long ago. They were automatically promoted from entry level clerk all the way to Paralegal Specialist. I do fault the union, and AFGE in particular, for that.
Your intimation OHO Attorneys, including me, are low life’s who could never work as an Attorney anywhere else; are not very knowledgeable; and, at beast, could only chase ambulances, or wear cowboy hats on late night TV is preposterous, woefully ignorant, and uninformed. As I said earlier, I hope you are not with OHO, but I suspect you are, and this is very unfortunate for all of us.
If the paralegals do the same complexity of files as attorneys they should get the same pay. The question, however, is whether the paralegals actually get complex files that warrant getting comparable pay to attorneys.
ReplyDelete@9:54
ReplyDeleteNo, the question is whether the Paralegal Specialists do the same QUALITY of work. If we take your assertion the Paralegal Specialists do the same complexity of work, then why are Attorneys REQUIRED to maintain an active Law License with all the associated annual fees and CLE requirements? Clearly, there is a distinction here, and this is exactly what the CBO study found. My numerous years as an AA and SAA at OHO is the decisions written by the Paralegal Specialists, generally, are not the same quality, and they typically are not assigned more complex cases, such as District Court Remands, particularly where the ALJ is affirming or issuing a PF decision, Cessation’s, or non-disabilty cases. When those cases were assigned to them, I often got the Remands, and by this time, the case was an absolute mess to write.
I will never forget only a couple of years ago, I was assigned a Remand of an Overpayment case originally written by a Paralegal Specialist. The only thing the Paralegal Specialist did was fill in a couple of blanks on the DGS writing program, and left the ones out they could not answer. There was no body of the decision. No facts, Procedural History, Hearing Testimony, or references to any Exhibits or evidence. The decision was completely non-sensical and an embarrassment to SSA. What’s shocking, is the ALJ signed it, presumably, without reading it. You know, NUMBERS, NUMBERS, NUMBERS is the ONLY thing that ever matters at OHO. What’s worse, this particular Paralegal Specialists NUMBERS, or quantity of decisions written, was off the chart compared to any other decision writer. Thus, this person was given the highest monetary Performance Award several years in a row. Because of Seniority, they also got first choice of office space, furniture, etc. Had all the decision writer’s performed this “sh*tty” quality of work, we would have been fired. Due to favoritism, this person got promoted into Management. Yet, we wonder why OHO is not more efficient. Quality matters, folks, and the buck has to stop somewhere.
In my many years with OHO, the buck stopped with the Attorney decision writer’s. These cases would have been so much quicker and easier to write the first time around. But, by gosh, we have to pay those Paralegal Specialists the same salary as an Attorney, and the ONLY thing that matters is NUMBERS, NUMBERS, NUMBERS, quality be damned. During the many years I was an Attorney at OHO, I rewrote hundreds, if not thousands, of these types of cases. This is real waste of taxpayers money.
Some Paralegal Specialists, particularly those with a college degree, or significant college course work, write favorable and straight forward affirmations well, and are good workers. Thankfully, OHO is better screening all decision writer’s now with writing tests, etc. The Paralegal Specialists were not tested, or screened, when I was with OHO. Their promotions were automatic and usually based on seniority with SSA. Thus, I firmly believe there is a clear distinction in the complexity and quality of work performed by OHO Attorneys in contrast o Paralegal Specialists which is not appropriately recognized in terms of salary.
@9:54 I don't doubt the paralegals don't do the same quality of work. Unfortunately, many of them get paid as much or more than attorneys since they have been with the agency a long time and were promoted from within. They would not come close to getting the same salary in the private sector and are greatly overpaid. However, at least the agency seems to have slowed down the paralegal hiring. My guess is the agency is well aware of the shortcomings of paralegal writers and, hence, has greatly curtailed the paralegal analyst hiring. The agency really needs to stop putting so many folks who are not attorneys in management roles at OHO hearing offices as they aren't very helpful in those roles either.
ReplyDeleteSome digs at the cowboy hat fellow, whose new law firm logo actually has a cowboy hat in it. I'd point out that the cowboy hat guy was never a federal employee. Though lots and lots of his former associate attorneys are now ALJs and SAAs.
ReplyDelete"With regard to pay and earnings, you apparently never grasped the fact that those who graduate in the middle of their law school class make the most money on average, while those who graduate at the top are more likely to become law school professors, academics, and higher level Federal and State judges."
ReplyDeleteSo that leaves the bottom third to do what?