Support HR 2850 - ALJ Retirement Benefits

David Traver

I support HR 2850, and I hope you do too. Call your Congressional delegation today and say you support HR 2850 to provide for enhanced retirement benefits for administrative law judges.

Who should you call? Use this form to find your Congressional delegation's contact information: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

What are the issues?

Guest · Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject:

Have to disagree with you on this one, Mr. Traver. There may be agencies who need ALJs with a good deal more talent that could only come from offering higher benefits, but SSA is not one of them. At pay rates of $150K per year (give or take), and fine Federal benefits, SSA's ALJs are very well compensated for the adjudicatory work that they do. And most of the serious ones know it.

David Traver · Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:19 am Post subject:

That is not enough to draw top tier lawyers out of private practice. It is about $100,000 per year short. Hence the need for better retirement and increased pay.

Thanks for your nice reply.

Guest · Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject:

:lol: David, I really appreciate your support for this. This started when I was still active as an ALJ. The original bill was introduced, and all the ALJs went to work to make it a reality. It never got out of committee. Why? The Association decided to expend all their resources on the pay cap problem, and we all know how that turned out. It's too late to help me, which is OK, but it will be a major assist to the new ALJs coming on board. Thanks again.

Guest · Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 01:01 pm Post subject:

Ah, but Mr. Traver, why would "top tier" private attorneys want to become SSA ALJs? Every once in a while, a very competent private attorney does go through the tedious process and is selected. But after a short while on the job, they realize that they've made a mistake and go back to the private sector. It's a good, solid career, but it's also far from challenging and rather repetitious to boot. So again, I'd argue that the current pay and benefit scales do just fine in attracting able candidates. (First guest here, obviously, not the retired ALJ above.)

David Traver · Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 03:07 pm Post subject:

Guest · Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 04:53 pm Post subject:

Three points:

1. You are seeking to compensate ALJs who are already there who do not fit the criteria you wish to promote therefore giving these individuals a windfall they do not deserve.

2. The current salaries, not to mention the benefits, are competitive with what most state court judges receive and there is no evidence that there are not highly qualified people applying for the jobs. Indeed, we all know that there is a veteran preference and almost exclusively ALJs are being picked from the inside. There is a bias against private attorneys. That is unlikely to change.

3. You are not going to like this and you can do anything you like on your website, but I find your effort to "get the vote out" on this issue to be pandering to the ALJs.

David Traver · Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 05:10 pm Post subject:

Insider (Ret) · Posted: Thu Aug 26, 2010 08:53 pm Post subject:

Here's 2 cents from someone who fought these wars (ALJ hiring, pay, benefits, etc.) until a few years ago. First, the Veteran's preference issue is irrelevant to the legislation that DT is endorsing. It's a very separate can of worms, and would take hours to explain/debate here. The issue is what level of compensation (pay and/or benefits) is appropriate to ensure that there are qualified/capable people applying to become ALJs.

In terms of sheer numbers, it is clear that whenever OPM opens the ALJ register, a multitude of applications flood in, and OPM then finds hundreds (if not more) of people qualified to be Federal ALJs. Now, whether they certify the "right" people or not, whether OPM's standards are appropriate to SSA adjudicatory duties or not...well, there's wide disagreement on that. But there is no doubt that, from OPM's view, there is no need to increase either pay or benefits to ensure a pool of capable ALJ candidates. And that's important, because should this legislation ever be seriously considered, OPM will testify--against it. And while SSA would probably prefer a slightly different pool, SSA would most likely agree that there are sufficient numbers of "good" candidates at current pay/benefit levels.

So, is there a need to attract "super" candidates, the perhaps weary but still great lawyers that DT describes? I doubt it. Some agencies whose processes and laws are infinitely more complex may well need such super-stars. And they probably can't find them (or reach them on the register) via the OPM process. But what happens in the real world is that SSA (and CMS also) become the minor leagues for these agencies, who can and do troll for folks they'd like to promote to the big leagues.

In short (hah!), I think that the chances of this legislation becoming law are mighty slim. Indeed, in this economic climate where lawyers are often drawing unemployment benefits and where Federal pay scales are the envy of many, I'd guess that its chances are closer to none than slim.