Union Remains At Odds With Social Security

      From Federal Computer Week:

President Joe Biden reversed much of his predecessor's workforce agenda in the first days of his administration via executive order, but unions at the Social Security Administration are unhappy with the pace of implementation of new policies. ...

The American Federation of Government Employees wants to return to the bargaining table over its 2019 contract. It was negotiated after Trump issued executive orders limiting official time, restricting union use of federal facilities and easing the process for firing poor performers, in 2018. ...

SSA finalized its review of the contract, identifying sections impacted by the rescinded orders, on June 23, said Mark Hinkle, an SSA press officer.

But AFGE officials say that the agency is conceding too little.

"It was devastating, actually, compared to what we expected. They pretty much ruled out everything," said Barri Sue Bryant, president of AFGE Local 2809, which represents employees at an SSA operations center in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and member of the SSA General Committee.

Official time, federal time spent on union business, is a top concern for the union. In its review, the agency broke that section of the contract into pieces, ruling that some parts had "minimal" or "moderate" "potential impact" from the repealed policies, while others weren't impacted at all, Bryant said.

SSA ruled that the number of hours of official time allowed were "minimally impacted," she said, while they ruled that restrictions for what activities are allowed on union time weren't impacted.

There's a temporary agreement in place on official time that restores it to levels closer to the 2012 contract. That lasts through Oct. 31, but it's unclear what will happen next. ...

The agency ruled that teleworking policies, another key priority for the union, weren't impacted. The agency curtailed teleworking in 2019. ...

They want a better relationship with us? We've got to have a new contract. It's that simple," said Ralph DeJuliis, president of AFGE Council 220, which represents 29,000 SSA employees in field offices and telephone service centers. ...

The agency is also working on plans for bringing the workforce back to the office and instituting post-pandemic workforce policies, although some SSA employees are already in the office.

"Our agency's planning process includes ongoing communications with employees across the agency and their representatives, as well as input from other stakeholders," Hinkle said. "We will meet labor obligations associated with these plans once they are approved." ...

Union officials also say that they haven't seen a marked difference in labor-management progress, despite the change in administration.

"The only thing that's different is their tone," said DeJuliis. "Now they go through the motions, but their actions, the bargaining that we've been to … they don't really agree to anything." ...

     I don't know if the courts will find that claimants have standing to challenge Andrew Saul's tenure as Social Security Commissioner but I'm pretty sure that the union does. Saul is certainly involved in the dealings with the union. The union would be in a good position to bring some legal action, perhaps declaratory judgment, concerning whether the position of a Commissioner of Social Security who can only be removed for cause is constitutional.

Not Necessarily High On My List Of Priorities For Social Security

      From CNBC:

A new bipartisan bill proposed in Congress would require the Social Security Administration to once again mail annual statements to everyone ages 25 and over who have paid into the system.

The bill, called the Know Your Social Security Act, was proposed on Thursday by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. They include Reps. John Larson, D-Conn., and Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., as well as Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Bill Cassidy, R-La.

The Social Security Administration since 2011 has only sent out paper statements on a limited basis. Those who still receive annual mailed paper statements include people who are ages 60 and up who are not receiving benefits and have not signed up for an online My Social Security account.

     Don't do this without giving Social Security more money to implement it. If you prioritize one thing without giving additional operating funds, you deprioritize others. The problem isn't that Social Security lacks the desire to send out annual statements; it's that they don't have the operating funds to do everything they ought to be doing. I don't think this gets through to these members of Congress. There's no elasticity left at the agency.

Doesn't "Program Integrity" Include Paying Benefits When Due?

      From an editorial by Mark Miller on Reuters:

Our worries about Social Security often focus on the program’s solvency issues, which threaten benefits if left unresolved. But right now, we face a more immediate challenge: how to fund the Social Security Administration (SSA) as it climbs out of the COVID-19 crisis so that it can serve the public efficiently and equitably.

Social Security’s customer service has suffered from more than a decade of budget cuts imposed by Congress, and its operating budget dropped 13% from 2010 to 2021, adjusted for inflation. Over that same period, the number of Social Security beneficiaries grew by 22%, SSA data shows. ...

Routine business, such as applications for retirement benefits and Medicare, have proceeded smoothly during the shutdown. But applications for disability benefits plunged over the past year at a time when in all likelihood the number of people eligible for benefits - and needing them - jumped. There also has been a sharp drop in applications for Supplemental Security Income (SSI), a benefit program for low-income, disabled or older people.

The field office closures are the likely culprit. ...

Social Security also has a problem in an area known as “program integrity.” In Congress, lawmakers typically use the phrase to refer to fraudulent benefit claims - and they have pushed the SSA over the past decade to crack down by earmarking a significant portion of the agency’s budget to program integrity activities.

Much of this activity has focused on removing people from the disability benefit rolls based on an assessment of medical improvement. Last year, Congress earmarked $1.6 billion for disability and other reviews - a whopping 12% of its overall administrative budget.

Next year, the SSA plans to increase medical disability reviews by 36%, and the number of SSI redeterminations by 23%, notes David Weaver, a former associate commissioner in Social Security’s Office of Research, Demonstration and Employment Support.

But we need a broader definition of “integrity” that includes benefits that should be paid - and are not....

Show Us The Numbers

      Social Security's budget justification for the next fiscal year included numbers indicating a big productivity decline at its Office of Hearings Operations (OHO) during the pandemic. I would guess that the agency has productivity indices for other components. If there are such productivity indices, it seems to me that the agency should release them to the public. I think they would be crucial information which should be used in making decisions on when and how Social Security reopens its offices. If they don't show productivity declines, the continuation of extensive telework is justified. If they do show productivity declines, agency employees and their unions shouldn't make a fuss when telework goes back to pre-pandemic levels or, at least if they do, they shouldn't expect much sympathy from others. However, even if field office productivity indices show no decline as a result of telework (which I doubt), the field offices must reopen to to the public. It's abundantly clear that there is a strong public demand for this level of service. The Social Security Administration exists to serve the public.

Full Retirement Age Is Already Too Damned High

     From Are Older Workers Capable Of Working Longer?, a study by Laura D. Quinley and Gal Wettstein of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:

The paper found that:

• The capacity to work to older ages is still increasing for high-education individuals and low-education Black women.
• However, no progress has been observed for low-education whites of all genders and Black men.
• As a result, large shares of those still working at age 62 will be incapable of working even two more years. 

The policy implications of the findings are:

• Raising Social Security eligibility ages may reduce the financial security of large segments of the population.
• These impacts will be particularly pronounced for Black men and low-education white individuals of all genders. 

How Much Should Be Done?

      From Fedweek:

An audit has illustrated issues that arose with the partial reopening of SSA field offices, including a lack of contact information on visitors and no guarantee that visitors who later learn they have the Coronavirus or have been exposed to it will report it back to the agency. ...

The audit found that on average, some 2,200 employees and some 1,600 visitors have been in the offices daily. However, the IG found that the agency “does not maintain contact information” for all visitors to those facilities nor for contractors such as security guards and cleaning staff. ...

     Does contact information matter if the employees coming to the field office are vaccinated? Aren't employees assuming the risk if they have refused vaccination? 

     I'm gotten to the point where I really don't care too much what happens to those who refuse vaccination except for that tiny number of people who have a genuine medical reason not to be vaccinated. There’s only so much we can do to protect people from their own folly.

Work Incentive Experiment Ended

      From an Emergency Message:

... This emergency message (EM) provides notification for field offices (FO), National 800 Number Network (N8NN), and processing service centers (PSC) that the Promoting Opportunity Demonstration (POD) will end for all participating beneficiaries on 06/30/2021. ... 

SSA began recruiting volunteers—who may be SSDI or concurrent beneficiaries—for the POD in January 2018. Recruitment continued through December 2018, resulting in a total enrollment count of 10,070 participants. The random assignment process placed POD participants into one of three groups: two treatment groups and one control group. Treatment group 1 and treatment group 2 members both received the $1 for $2 offset. Treatment group 2 members had their entitlement to benefits terminated if they experienced 12 consecutive months in full offset (that is, when their SSDI benefit is reduced to $0 for 12 consecutive months). Treatment group 1 members would not have their entitlement to benefits terminated even if they experienced 12 consecutive months in full offset. The control group did not receive the $1 for $2 offset. Control group member’s earnings were subject to current SSDI rules. ...

     No word on the results of this experiment although I think we'd have heard more about it if it had been a success. Really, how much success can one expect when you impose a 50% tax on gross earnings in addition to ordinary payroll taxes? There's just not much left for the worker. In any case, I don't think you could design an experiment that would work. You have to be so damned sick to get on Social Security disability benefits that we shouldn't be expecting any significant number of Social Security disability recipients to be returning to sustained work. The experiments are based on the fallacies that it's easy to get on Social Security disability benefits and that many on Social Security disability benefits get better over time.

     I'm not sure how this demonstration relates to the Benefit Offset National Demonstration (BOND).  If I remember correctly that was pretty much the same thing except it was supposed to run for ten years. It won't work either.

I See Dead People

      From a recent report by Social Security's Office of Inspector General (OIG):

... To identify and prevent payments after death, SSA established a program under which States can voluntarily contract with SSA to provide it death data to match against its records. Through Electronic Death Registration (EDR), States electronically submit death reports to SSA. If the decedent’s data match SSA records, SSA posts the State death information to its Numident file and terminates payments to deceased beneficiaries. In addition to EDR, SSA receives death information from other sources, such as family members and funeral directors.

We obtained data files that provided the personally identifiable information of approximately 7 million individuals Alabama, Georgia, or Illinois recorded as deceased between January 1978 and December 2018. We matched the data against SSA payment records and the Numident.

We estimate SSA issued approximately $79 million in payments after death to 1,127 beneficiaries and 4 representative payees who died in Alabama, Georgia, or Illinois between January 1978 and December 2018. Identifying and correcting these discrepancies will prevent approximately $14 million in additional improper payments after death over a 12-month period.

We also identified 53,486 non-beneficiaries who were deceased according to Alabama, Georgia, or Illinois records but whose death information was not in SSA’s Numident. Resolving these discrepancies will improve the accuracy and completeness of death information the Agency shares with other Federal benefit-paying agencies.

    I don't understand. Social Security is marking these people as dead when it receives notice from the states that they're dead but when OIG matches state death records with Social Security records, they find a number of people who are dead but who are not marked as dead in Social Security records. Social Security seems to be relying upon the same records as OIG but OIG finds more dead people. Is the problem at Social Security or is the problem with the data the states are providing Social Security? The report doesn't deal with this question although the answer seems to be crucial for preventing the problem from continuing.

     I'm sure that Social Security officials have asked themselves for years, "How did we get roped into the death master file business?" It's nothing but endless headaches. There's no obvious reason why Social Security should be doing this instead of some other agency. Many, many other agencies and private businesses rely on the death master file.