It comes as no surprise but the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest union representing Social Security employees, has announced its support for the nomination of Martin O’Malley to become Commissioner of Social Security.
I think AFGE is under the impression of "SSA is at the bottom of the barrel currently," so it's only up from here. This could be true, this could not be true. But after multiple years of the current anti-union, anti-employee ACOSS, what do employees and AFGE have to lose? SSA is already ranked 17 out of 17 as the worst agency to work for, what are they gonna do, have another year at the bottom under O'Malley? Nothing new. Even if O'Malley makes SOME productive changes, it's still better than the current ACOSS making NO productive (arguably many BACKWARD) changes. If confirmed, O'Malley's tenure would only go until when Andrew Saul's term would have ended (2025 I think?). Not a lot of time to make meaningful, positive, long lasting changes, but if Biden wins a second term, O'Malley as Commissioner could be extended if he makes progressive changes for the agency. As a current employee, I am cautiously optimistic, but I am also of the mindset of "can't be any worse than the atrocious ACOSS right now."
"Multiple years of the current anti-union, anti-employee ACOSS"...lol.
We have telework almost everyday, the current union contracts are the most employee-friendly in history. What do you see as anti-union currently and what more are you hoping to get?
I attribute the dysfunction of SSA to staffing resources, poor hiring practices (not getting truly qualified talent often enough for a very difficult job), and the agency's insistence of playing nice with the union. We certainly will not become a better agency doing more things the union considers right. Getting rid of poor or underperforming employees is a ridiculous process. I blame agency fear of the union for much of the problem. But then again, is that the union or a management system that needs more resources, training, and backing? All I can confidently say is when management tries to have a backbone against poor performance or conduct, the guidance provided by LERS is almost always to treat the situation like these employees have done nothing wrong or only need more hand holding. With a little more gentle handling then surely some of these very poor employees will somehow be better.
You sound like an absolute pleasure to work with. The stick never works, the carrot always works. You have to make your people want to do a good job. What exactly is a poor performer? Have you actually tried to do their jobs as it is actually done now? Nothing is impossible if someone else had to do it.
As a retired SSA supervisor, I can say that the best (and probably only) way to get rid of a non-performer is to give them all the help they would require -- document it -- and then document that they couldn't do the job even with the help. It did work, but took a lot of tmie and effort.
When someone played the "discrimination" care, it took longer, but if well documented the action did take in the end.
Just ask any of the reps that post here regularly what a poor performer looks like.
I’m not the original poster, but if you wanna know from the inside what a poor performer generally looks like, here goes:
1. They sandbag at FEI. They call one number from the lobby for every 4-5 you call. 2. They answer the phones and hang up on people when they don’t know the answer. Sometimes they just don’t answer them at all. 3. Someone concurrently receiving T2 and T16 calls or comes in with a change of address and they only change the T2 because it’s easier and leaves the SSI unchanged (awesome). 4. They “pretend” to call their appointments but mark them as non-responders.
I could go on and on and on. It’s infuriating. These poor performers are not the same as new trainees who lack the proper training or experience. These are employees that know better, just don’t care and like previously stated…there’s not a whole lot that can be done about it.
9 comments:
That's one reason to oppose his nomination.
The union should not back him until they get some concrete promises to improve conditions for the bargaining unit
I think AFGE is under the impression of "SSA is at the bottom of the barrel currently," so it's only up from here. This could be true, this could not be true. But after multiple years of the current anti-union, anti-employee ACOSS, what do employees and AFGE have to lose? SSA is already ranked 17 out of 17 as the worst agency to work for, what are they gonna do, have another year at the bottom under O'Malley? Nothing new. Even if O'Malley makes SOME productive changes, it's still better than the current ACOSS making NO productive (arguably many BACKWARD) changes. If confirmed, O'Malley's tenure would only go until when Andrew Saul's term would have ended (2025 I think?). Not a lot of time to make meaningful, positive, long lasting changes, but if Biden wins a second term, O'Malley as Commissioner could be extended if he makes progressive changes for the agency. As a current employee, I am cautiously optimistic, but I am also of the mindset of "can't be any worse than the atrocious ACOSS right now."
"Multiple years of the current anti-union, anti-employee ACOSS"...lol.
We have telework almost everyday, the current union contracts are the most employee-friendly in history. What do you see as anti-union currently and what more are you hoping to get?
Where were you during the orange tinged years because they were awful for organized federal labor with SSA among the worst
I attribute the dysfunction of SSA to staffing resources, poor hiring practices (not getting truly qualified talent often enough for a very difficult job), and the agency's insistence of playing nice with the union. We certainly will not become a better agency doing more things the union considers right. Getting rid of poor or underperforming employees is a ridiculous process. I blame agency fear of the union for much of the problem. But then again, is that the union or a management system that needs more resources, training, and backing? All I can confidently say is when management tries to have a backbone against poor performance or conduct, the guidance provided by LERS is almost always to treat the situation like these employees have done nothing wrong or only need more hand holding. With a little more gentle handling then surely some of these very poor employees will somehow be better.
You sound like an absolute pleasure to work with. The stick never works, the carrot always works. You have to make your people want to do a good job. What exactly is a poor performer? Have you actually tried to do their jobs as it is actually done now? Nothing is impossible if someone else had to do it.
As a retired SSA supervisor, I can say that the best (and probably only) way to get rid of a non-performer is to give them all the help they would require -- document it -- and then document that they couldn't do the job even with the help. It did work, but took a lot of tmie and effort.
When someone played the "discrimination" care, it took longer, but if well documented the action did take in the end.
Just ask any of the reps that post here regularly what a poor performer looks like.
I’m not the original poster, but if you wanna know from the inside what a poor performer generally looks like, here goes:
1. They sandbag at FEI. They call one number from the lobby for every 4-5 you call.
2. They answer the phones and hang up on people when they don’t know the answer. Sometimes they just don’t answer them at all.
3. Someone concurrently receiving T2 and T16 calls or comes in with a change of address and they only change the T2 because it’s easier and leaves the SSI unchanged (awesome).
4. They “pretend” to call their appointments but mark them as non-responders.
I could go on and on and on. It’s infuriating. These poor performers are not the same as new trainees who lack the proper training or experience. These are employees that know better, just don’t care and like previously stated…there’s not a whole lot that can be done about it.
Post a Comment