David Weaver, a former Social Security official, has written a piece for The Hill urging that incoming Social Security Commissioner O’Malley do something about the agency’s reliance on occupational data that is more than 40 years old in making determinations on disability claims.
I can only guess at what has been going on behind the scenes. My guess is that the agency would love to rely upon contemporary occupational data, as long as it doesn’t change who gets approved and who gets denied. They’re particularly terrified of using data that leads to more claims being approved. My strong suspicion is that updated data would show that too many claims are being denied. Am I being unfair to those involved at Social Security? Maybe, but they always have the option of giving a coherent explanation for all the delay. Instead, they keep everything top secret. Who wouldn’t have dark suspicions about what’s been going on?
12 comments:
When DOL began updating the DOT SSA opted out of participating. Huge error.
I agree about relying on ancient occupational data no longer relevant to the current world of work to make disability determinations. We should definitely get rid of the grid rules.
The grids aren't too bad, but someone needs to explain them to the DDS. They don't need to spend a year on an unskilled 60 year old disabled claimant.
And I am tired of explaining why my claimant can't be a silver wrapper or toll taker.
To 10:07
Having started working at the SSA writing decision in 1977, before the "grid rules" and sequential evaluation you need to understand that the prior methods of decision making yielded much the same results but were, by today's standards, inconsistent and incoherent. That is why the rules were adopted.
The reality is that in today's world, the numbers of unskilled jobs is vanishingly small and for those with limited physical ability, particularly allowing no more than sedentary work, basically not existing in significant numbers.
Grid or no grid, updated information or not, these individuals cannot work at SGA level.
@10:07
I've read articles criticizing the grid rules. They tend to be written by people affiliated with organizations that have a political goal of cutting Social Security, and not to weather fact and logic checking very well. Stuff like Stephen Hawking proves the grid rules were wrong, instead of let's do real research before asking to change things. Another good one is people are living longer so lets move the age brackets...as if living longer changes the effects that the passage of years has on a body and mind's ability to function competetively in a workplace.
With all the technology available and flexible work hours for so many positions, I think it might be a double edge sword. Be careful what you wish for.
@1:02
Technology available means higher skill requirements and flexible work hours is uncommon in unskilled positions even today. Wal-mart doesn't let cashiers work from home or punch the clock only when they feel up to it. And in an office setting, work from home maybe, but still not flexible.
I think the Grid is ageist. Basically it says older people cannot learn new things. So you are actually supporting this with a government policy.
11:56 is right. Unskilled sedentary jobs do not exist in significant numbers in the national economy and not at all here in the south. There was a fish hook plant that had those jobs, but it closed years ago. We are not addressing the problems faced by unskilled, poorly educated disabled individuals under age 50.
There are disabled people who can do medium work but not for much over 15 hours a week.
On another topic, as someone pointed out earlier, is it fair to make janitors work longer because bankers are living longer?
Or a plate stacker.
@1:44
Lol! I remember trying to stifle laughter at a hearing when the VE said my claimant with an aversion to showers could be a candy spreader.
Post a Comment