GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Bills would boost leave and retirement benefits for administrative judges

• 81890
  

  CFW may have a little knowledge, which can be dangerous in making generalizations.

  A variety of federal agencies employ ALJs to render administrative decisions in three basic types of cases: "benefits" (like social security disability cases); "regulatory" (deciding disputes concerning penalties for alleged noncompliance statutes and implementing regulations); and "enforcement" (imposing sanctions, monetary penalties or injunctive relief for alleged violations of statute or regulation).

  Many of the "benefits" cases are non-adversarial. However, the "regulatory" and "enforcement" hearings are mostly adversarial, with multiple parties represented by counsel. The cases that go to hearing tend to be at least 2 to 3 full days on the record. The decisions typically require considerable factual analysis and legal research. They follow precedent, and the ALJ opinions may become precedent, unless overruled on appeals by a federal circuit court.

  The ALJs in my agency decide only "regulatory" and "enforcement" cases. All the hearings are adversarial. The ALJs are on duty and accessable at least 40 hours per week, either in the office or on travel for a hearing.

  Judgejj Posted July 6, 2009 9:58 AM
• 81869
  

  Heaven fobid an ALJ might have to make due on his or her current six figure salary, and leave time according to the general schedule (considering most - not all but most - only "work" 4 or 5 hours per day anyway). Executive branch ALJs do NOT have the same workload and responsibilities as judicial branch federal judges, and should not be compensated and benefited to the same extent. ALJ hearings are non-adversarial and deal with a much narrower range of issues that are not really that complex compared to the issues faced every day by real federal judges. The issues require little, if any, research time and the concept of "precdedent" is all but non-existent in ALJ proceedings. Bottom line, it is not that hard of a job. But I guess the snobs at the top of every branch take care of the snobs at the top of the other brances (and if I were an ALJ I'd probably join the chorus and say "more money, more time off?? Damn the economic depression, I deserve it."

  c

  cfw Posted July 6, 2009 7:28 AM
• 81072
  

  Jeez, why don't we just add decision writers to this too? Then, just let them all stay home and draw their pay. All us Grade 8's will just make up for them. But then, there would be no change, would there?

  anonymous Posted June 23, 2009 8:54 PM
• 80932
  

  "They may have worked a grand total of 4-5 hours [per day]." If this is true for some, you have a point. However, the fix is not to attack benefits, but to get-rid of the non-performers. Managers need to manage. If people are not doing their jobs, they need to get fired.

  "(CSRS should be brought back for everyone!)" This, is not a bad idea! However, let's update it with TSP and Social Security.

  "Once again the rich get richer and the working slob gets screwed." Work is work my friend. Just because you cannot do what an ALJ does, it does not mean an ALJ does not work.

  ALJ Avenger Posted June 22, 2009 11:01 AM
• 80871
  

  Give them anything in return for mandatory retirement age.

  Jo Kerr Posted June 20, 2009 9:24 PM
• 80556
  

  As if the AJs needs more reasons to be even more arrogant and think themselves more superior.

  OPMRetiree Posted June 17, 2009 8:07 PM
• 80500
  

  What was left unsaid is that under the plan, administrative law judges will increase their contriubtion by 1% in absolute terms. Taking into account actuarial factors arising out of the fact that many ALJs are appointed late in their careers, this bill will be very low or even no extra cost to the taxpayers. It will be evaluated by the Congressional Budget Office to confirm this assertion.

  Scott Williams Posted June 17, 2009 12:46 PM
• 80486
  

  "Supporters said it was designed for judicial officials who don't join government service until relatively late in their careers -- making it harder to build up retirement annuities."

  There is soo much wrong with this picture it's disgusting. Why are we even considering bumping up retirement benefits for anyone? They are lucky they even have the opportunity to recieve a pension. And furthermore, due to their choice to join the government late in their career, the taxpayers have to make up for their lower retirement benefits?

  al Posted June 17, 2009 12:01 PM
• 80364
  

  All federal judges should be available 24/7. They should be required to be "on the bench" for a normal eight hour day. They are civil servants under one of the federal pay systems (CSRS or FERS). Why should their retirement benefits be computed differently than other civil servants?

  jfb Posted June 16, 2009 3:39 PM
• 80302
  

  In all my years dealing with Judges they come in late work for 2 hours go to lunch for a couple hours come back in for a couple and go home. They may have worked a grand total of 4-5 hours.

  When they are on duty unlike Agents and Attorney who must be accessable for the entire time of duty. The Judges are not. You can't call them or sometimes even fax them anything from 8 pm to 8 pm.

  Yet here they are getting pay and benefit boosts. Hey Mr. Politician most Agent and Attorneys come into their job later in life also. Some after a military, prior law enforcement or prior attorney career.

  Rooster5150 Posted June 16, 2009 11:15 AM
• 80238
  

  Anyone who sits in a position recommending and/or deciding what happens to federal employees pay and benefits (of any government agency) should have to be included in the very same system - very same multiplier - very same health and life insurance benefits - etc., etc., etc. Only then will our government make appropriate decisions about our benefits. After all, we DO pay our taxes just like any other law-abiding American taxpayer. If they remain outside of our retirement systems (CSRS should be brought back for everyone!), then our system should have increased benefits over theirs. Then we might see the playing field begin to level out for everyone.

  CJ Posted June 16, 2009 8:24 AM
• 80223
  

  If this bill passes do we know at what time frame the increase in calculation would be. It stated that the calcualtion would be on 20 years service. For those low grade employees that have 30 plus years the .5 increase you help expecially if it was on the last years of service.

  We would wish they would use it on all the years if the employees were a grade 7 or below. Many of US (that includes me) have over 30 years and have to continue to work because we are CSRS and cannot draw our Social Security after we retire.

  Is there any talk of repealing the offset & windfall.

  Thanks

  Thelma McClure Posted June 16, 2009 7:21 AM
• 80220
  

  Once again the rich get richer and the working slob gets screwed.

  CJ M Posted June 16, 2009 7:03 AM
• 80208
  

  Administrative Judges may get a boost in retirement benefits while Congressmen Boehner and Cantor propose to decrease Federal Employee benefits and increase the retirement age. Typical of Congress.......... Feds ALWAYS get the short end of the stick while the Legislature and Justices get all the perks.

  Dacs Better Posted June 16, 2009 1:56 AM