Senators Object To Treatment Of Employee Unions

     From the Baltimore Sun:

Maryland’s U.S. senators say the Social Security Administration is demonstrating “hostility towards its workforce” in the way it is implementing recent executive orders signed by President Donald J. Trump.

Trump signed the orders in May with the stated goals of promoting accountability, rooting out poor performers and negotiating union contracts more advantageous to taxpayers and the federal government.

But labor groups have characterized the orders, which reduce the time available for union business, as an attack on long-held civil service protections.

The Baltimore-based SSA has gone beyond the orders’ reach and is trampling workers’ rights, Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin said in a letter Thursday to acting commissioner Nancy A. Berryhill and other officials. ...

The Argument For Trump's Order On Federal Employee Unions

     From Bob Gilson writing for FedSmith:

I admit to fascination at the statements made by many union representatives in response to recent Executive Orders addressing their use of government time, space, equipment, and services.

When the Civil Service Reform Act went into effect in 1979, no one on either side of the aisle in either house on the Hill or down the street on PA Avenue would have seen as remotely possible the complete payment of all employee/union representatives, some getting 100% of their work time doing union work. Also incredible in 1979 would have been the current practice in many Agencies of paying for all union communications, computing, office space, meeting space and other costs. ...

     Gilson goes on to detail the facts that some union money has been used to pay for a lobbyist (a pittance by D.C standards) and that union dues have paid for only a fraction of the union's true operating costs. It's directed specifically at the union local that represents most Social Security employees. It's a harshly anti-union piece but there's certainly an argument to be made in favor of Trump's order on federal employee unions.

LTD Industry Take On Social Security Subcommittee Hearing

     People like me who represent disability claimants may think that we're the only ones interested in how the Social Security Administration handles appeals of disability claims but that's not right. Some non-profits are interested but so are insurance companies handling long term disability (LTD) benefits.  LTD is generally reduced because of Social Security disability benefits received giving the LTD insurers a huge interest in the adjudication of Social Security disability claims. The more claims get approved, the less their liability.

     Allison Bell has written an article summarizing what took place at this week's hearing before the Social Security Subcommittee, apparently for people in the LTD industry.

OIG Report On Milwaukee Field Office Closure

     There's been a controversy over the closure of a Social Security field office in Milwaukee. The Office of Inspector General at Social Security has done a Congressional Response Report on the situation. According to the report, advance warning of the office closure was given to local leaders. It sounds like the major reason the office was closed was the crime rate in the area.

Reinstating Recon Unpopular

     From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

In an effort to reduce its massive backlog of disability determination appeals, the Social Security Administration plans to reinstate an additional step in the appeals process for Pennsylvania and nine other states.

Social Security officials say the extra step — called reconsideration — would create a more uniform system across the country and help the administration reach its goal of resolving disability appeals within 270 days. Critics have said it could have the opposite effect, possibly lengthening the appeals process.

“While some people might get a decision sooner under reconsideration, for others this step is effectively a rubber stamp of the initial decision,” Rep. Sam Johnson (R., Texas),  who serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Social Security subcommittee, said during a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday. “It simply further delays their hearing with an administrative law judge.” ...

Union Stands Behind Suspended Employee

     From the Albany Times-Union:

Union members rallied outside the Social Security Administration office Wednesday in support of a union official who painted words on the building's windows protesting what the workers contend are Trump administration moves to curtail union representation and activity for federal employees.

Adam Pelletier, a claims representative and union grievance chairman, issued the protest in washable paint on the building at 500 Federal St. on July 1 and was placed on paid administrative leave on three weeks ago.

“We’re totally behind his right to speak out. He’s just the catalyst for us to be here,” said Pedro “Pete” Aviles, an SSA employee in Schenectady and president of American Federal Government Employees Local 3343, which covers most SSA offices upstate. ...

Your Get Out Of The Appeals Council Jail Free Card

     I said in an earlier post that I thought that because of the Supreme Court decision in Lucia v. SEC that the Appeals Council might as well go ahead and remand virtually all the cases it has pending. Another attorney at my firm pointed out to me the reason why they have little choice, as long as a Lucia objection has been filed with the Appeals Council. They can’t realistically raise the objection that you failed to raise the issue before the ALJ because in Lucia v. SEC itself (slip opinion at 3), the objection was only raised before the Securities and Exchange Commission itself after the ALJ decision. Theoretically, one could say that issue was never considered by the Supreme Court but that's theoretical rather than an argument Social Security is at all likely to raise. Social Security can’t say that its ALJs are different from the SEC's ALJs since the Solicitor General memo has conceded that they aren't.

     If you've got a case pending at the Appeals Council and you haven't already filed a Lucia objection, you'd better do so right away. Like today.

61,000 Unprocessed Appeals!

     Here is something that I was unaware of from the testimony of Lisa Eckman who is Co-Chair of the Social Security Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), an umbrella organization of non-profits involved in helping the disabled, at today's House Social Security Subcommittee:

In March 2015, SSA updated its electronic appeals system. The new system involved a “single submission” practice in which appeals were only processed when applicants completed lengthy forms not required by SSA’s regulations. These additional requirements were poorly communicated, leading to more than 61,000 people filing regulatorily compliant appeals that went unprocessed. SSA decided in early 2018, after several years of advocacy from CCD member organizations and other groups, to re-contact these claimants. Over 28,000 of these appeals are now being processed, some of them several years after they should have been, and more will be processed soon. Although we appreciate SSA’s efforts, we remain concerned that the iAppeals system still requires more information than the regulations require and that SSA has no plans to change this. The agency’s position is that because the paper process complies with regulations, it is acceptable to have an electronic process that violates them. This faulty reasoning deprives tens of thousands of claimants of due process.