I love this. A deep-dive into the actual goings-on of an American institution. So many people have strong opinions on the disability system, but have no idea how it works. Please, continue doing work like this. It's necessary.
As a worker bee long subject to the “1-3-5” type eval, my theory is that by giving mostly 3s: 1) it justifies not giving raises and 2) keeps employees in line by battering our self-esteem.
Oh, but if you treat these bullshit evals as the bullshit they are, and say something like, "whatever, just let me get back to work after you decide I only get the minimum raise." You will be labelled a heretic.
If you fail to be impressed by this lazy and unproductive style of management, you'll be on the shit list.
I know replying to myself is lame, but in the American public school system, which is where most of us peons are trained to do these drone jobs and then die grey and miserable, indoctrinated to work until expiration in a tiny cubicle, there is still some kind of vague accountability. Like, unless I don't really understand algebra, I won't pass 7th-grade algebra. Unless I cheat.
So there are "A's, C's, and F's," but no B's or D's? There's no room for ambiguity in the line of judgment? It has to be impassible.
Once you get into the "real world" of "adult work," that all goes away. Whether you are an "A," "C," or "F" is all dependent on how much the boss likes you personally and how much time they want to spend writing personnel evaluation reports instead of sucking their own boss's cock so they can be a "1" and not a "3."
Russian writers wrote extensively about this phenomenon during the Soviet period, but they were always more honest and braver than Americans. Maybe they thought they still had something to lose that was worth fighting for.
performance evaluations are just as skewed as income. The lower the income, the harder to get 5 star evaluations. The higher the income, 5 stars are just rubber stamped. This is true in the corporate world. Bonuses are for the masters. Everybody else can suck it.
So true. I work for a not-for-profit company that absolutely runs itself like a typical for-profit. This year, a lot of emphasis was placed on us as employees to write detailed self-evaluations with enough justification to warrant getting higher than a 3. The hidden subtext is that this gives management leeway to not rate their employees higher because no matter how much or what you write, it's not enough. What's worse is that if someone is lucky enough to work for a manager who actually gives a damn and is willing to rate higher, Total Rewards (the HR department at our company that controls employee compensation) will come back to them and say that their team is skewing the bell-curve for ratings and force them to adjust their employees' scores.
Even more chicanery related to this process:
- The formula used to calculate merit increases. It takes into account not only the score from an individual's performance evaluation, but also where they sit on the pay scale for their pay grade. The closer someone is to the mid-point of the pay scale (which is the market rate), the lower their percentage pay increase will be. Two people can be at the same pay grade and get the same exact score on their evaluation, but the one who is lower on the pay scale will get a higher percentage increase in pay. In theory, this is supposed to help those who are performing well but who are on the lower end of a pay grade's scale by accelerating them to the mid-point quicker. In reality, it just penalizes those (few) who are adequately compensated or remain with the company for any length of time.
- Bonuses. Managers and above are on a completely different bonus plan than the rest of the company. The long and short of it is this - those on this bonus plan receive a much larger percentage of their salary as a bonus payout than the core bonus plan the worker bees are on. This management bonus plan is also insulated from poor company performance. Without divulging too much, a few years back there was uncertainty related to federal legislation passed that caused a loss in revenue in one division. To make up some of the loss, the bonus payouts for the core bonus plan were significantly reduced - 1/2 to 2/3 less than past payouts. The management bonuses? Those only saw a dip of 1 to 1 1/2 percent.
Replacing the SSA with basic income would be huge win. So much wasted time and expense to prove or disprove that people need a little money to live on.
Are you suggesting, then, that no disability claims would exist? If you think that is realistic you've not been paying attention. No way are "activists" going to settle for that sort of level playing field.
No idea what activists might think, what I can say is that the person I know on SSI (my adult daughter) gets about $600 / month and that is for full disability. So if she was getting $1000 / month instead without all the hassles that would sure be an improvement.
I grew up with two guys who tried, very hard, to scam the system.
One friend came out as gay when we were both about 18.
He then started on a long journey of fake suicide attempts.
He'd eat a bunch of pills then call the paramedics.
Each "attempt" got him locked up for observation. I believe it was 30 days,
He'd get out, wait awhile, & then repeat.
His goal was to be declared mentally unable to work.
After about 35 suicide attempts he succeeded.
He won a fairly large cash settlement which he blew in about a month on heroin.
The idiot would literally buy heroin for the junkies in the neighborhood so he'd have someone to shoot up with.
After the money ran out his new junky buddies weren't quite so friendly anymore.
Within a few weeks my buddy had finally mastered suicide.
He hung himself in a neighborhood park during an eclipse.
Another friend impregnated his girlfriend.
In an effort to avoid child support payments he literally went to the library to look through psychology books in order to figure out how to be declared mentally incompetent enough to receive benefits yet not be institutionalized.
After years of doctor's appointments & psychotropic meds he didn't really need he began to believe he actually was mentally incompetent.
To me it seemed like it would have been much easier to just take responsibility &, oh I don't know, grow the fuck up.
Insightful work, Matt. As an Australian, this has all the relatable empathy of a personal interest story but vigorously applied to the many people of a large, critically important bureaucracy. Keep 'em coming, please. I'd happily have this in even longer form.
The SSA review system outlined is awfully similar to what I and others I know experienced with Defense Contracting work. Managers always deflect pointed questions around performance, raises, and layoffs. Great article to write about such a mundane administration IMO.
In 2013 This American Life did a story about what happened after welfare reform: a bunch of former welfare recipients switched to being "disabled." The cost of welfare decreased (to much self-congratulation among politicians), and "welfare reform" was touted as a great success.
As someone who deals with loads of people attempting to get SSDI or have SSDI, the standard line I hear is that the average person is denied 3x before they get approved. This makes the market for lawyers working to secure benefits pretty strong, they get roughly 1/3 of the backpay if/when SSA finally gets approved. Great read!
I can attest to the truth of this. I have a friend on SSDI. She was initially turned down when she applied. She has a legitimate disability that makes it impossible to have a full time job. She spends 30+ hours a week getting debilitating treatment simply to stay alive. After being denied on her first application, she got a “big shot lawyer” and was eventually granted disability by the court after an appeals process that took almost two years. Two years in which she was unable to work and earn any income. Along the way she learned that, apparently, “everyone’s” initial disability application is denied. She eventually won her appeal and received a disability payment. She struggles to live on just over $1000 a month but thank God for that at least. This is an interesting topic that few “normal” people know about and bears further attention!
I love this. A deep-dive into the actual goings-on of an American institution. So many people have strong opinions on the disability system, but have no idea how it works. Please, continue doing work like this. It's necessary.
SSA probably deserves a long form investigative piece, even this short one is ridiculously interesting to read.
As a worker bee long subject to the “1-3-5” type eval, my theory is that by giving mostly 3s: 1) it justifies not giving raises and 2) keeps employees in line by battering our self-esteem.
Oh, but if you treat these bullshit evals as the bullshit they are, and say something like, "whatever, just let me get back to work after you decide I only get the minimum raise." You will be labelled a heretic.
If you fail to be impressed by this lazy and unproductive style of management, you'll be on the shit list.
This is the entire federal bureaucracy. I'm not making the argument that private enterprise is any better, it's just an observation.
where are the 4s and the 2s, is my question
I know replying to myself is lame, but in the American public school system, which is where most of us peons are trained to do these drone jobs and then die grey and miserable, indoctrinated to work until expiration in a tiny cubicle, there is still some kind of vague accountability. Like, unless I don't really understand algebra, I won't pass 7th-grade algebra. Unless I cheat.
So there are "A's, C's, and F's," but no B's or D's? There's no room for ambiguity in the line of judgment? It has to be impassible.
Once you get into the "real world" of "adult work," that all goes away. Whether you are an "A," "C," or "F" is all dependent on how much the boss likes you personally and how much time they want to spend writing personnel evaluation reports instead of sucking their own boss's cock so they can be a "1" and not a "3."
Russian writers wrote extensively about this phenomenon during the Soviet period, but they were always more honest and braver than Americans. Maybe they thought they still had something to lose that was worth fighting for.
performance evaluations are just as skewed as income. The lower the income, the harder to get 5 star evaluations. The higher the income, 5 stars are just rubber stamped. This is true in the corporate world. Bonuses are for the masters. Everybody else can suck it.
So true. I work for a not-for-profit company that absolutely runs itself like a typical for-profit. This year, a lot of emphasis was placed on us as employees to write detailed self-evaluations with enough justification to warrant getting higher than a 3. The hidden subtext is that this gives management leeway to not rate their employees higher because no matter how much or what you write, it's not enough. What's worse is that if someone is lucky enough to work for a manager who actually gives a damn and is willing to rate higher, Total Rewards (the HR department at our company that controls employee compensation) will come back to them and say that their team is skewing the bell-curve for ratings and force them to adjust their employees' scores.
Even more chicanery related to this process:
- The formula used to calculate merit increases. It takes into account not only the score from an individual's performance evaluation, but also where they sit on the pay scale for their pay grade. The closer someone is to the mid-point of the pay scale (which is the market rate), the lower their percentage pay increase will be. Two people can be at the same pay grade and get the same exact score on their evaluation, but the one who is lower on the pay scale will get a higher percentage increase in pay. In theory, this is supposed to help those who are performing well but who are on the lower end of a pay grade's scale by accelerating them to the mid-point quicker. In reality, it just penalizes those (few) who are adequately compensated or remain with the company for any length of time.
- Bonuses. Managers and above are on a completely different bonus plan than the rest of the company. The long and short of it is this - those on this bonus plan receive a much larger percentage of their salary as a bonus payout than the core bonus plan the worker bees are on. This management bonus plan is also insulated from poor company performance. Without divulging too much, a few years back there was uncertainty related to federal legislation passed that caused a loss in revenue in one division. To make up some of the loss, the bonus payouts for the core bonus plan were significantly reduced - 1/2 to 2/3 less than past payouts. The management bonuses? Those only saw a dip of 1 to 1 1/2 percent.
Replacing the SSA with basic income would be huge win. So much wasted time and expense to prove or disprove that people need a little money to live on.
Are you suggesting, then, that no disability claims would exist? If you think that is realistic you've not been paying attention. No way are "activists" going to settle for that sort of level playing field.
No idea what activists might think, what I can say is that the person I know on SSI (my adult daughter) gets about $600 / month and that is for full disability. So if she was getting $1000 / month instead without all the hassles that would sure be an improvement.
I just filed an appeal for a family member two days ago. What great reading.
Great job Matt keep it up
Good article but this is an Article I court, not an executive court.
Just want to add to those saying that this is a great read, love this stuff. Actually reminded me of DFW's Pale King
Of course, there's also the scammers.
I grew up with two guys who tried, very hard, to scam the system.
One friend came out as gay when we were both about 18.
He then started on a long journey of fake suicide attempts.
He'd eat a bunch of pills then call the paramedics.
Each "attempt" got him locked up for observation. I believe it was 30 days,
He'd get out, wait awhile, & then repeat.
His goal was to be declared mentally unable to work.
After about 35 suicide attempts he succeeded.
He won a fairly large cash settlement which he blew in about a month on heroin.
The idiot would literally buy heroin for the junkies in the neighborhood so he'd have someone to shoot up with.
After the money ran out his new junky buddies weren't quite so friendly anymore.
Within a few weeks my buddy had finally mastered suicide.
He hung himself in a neighborhood park during an eclipse.
Another friend impregnated his girlfriend.
In an effort to avoid child support payments he literally went to the library to look through psychology books in order to figure out how to be declared mentally incompetent enough to receive benefits yet not be institutionalized.
After years of doctor's appointments & psychotropic meds he didn't really need he began to believe he actually was mentally incompetent.
To me it seemed like it would have been much easier to just take responsibility &, oh I don't know, grow the fuck up.
dystopic
Insightful work, Matt. As an Australian, this has all the relatable empathy of a personal interest story but vigorously applied to the many people of a large, critically important bureaucracy. Keep 'em coming, please. I'd happily have this in even longer form.
The SSA review system outlined is awfully similar to what I and others I know experienced with Defense Contracting work. Managers always deflect pointed questions around performance, raises, and layoffs. Great article to write about such a mundane administration IMO.
In 2013 This American Life did a story about what happened after welfare reform: a bunch of former welfare recipients switched to being "disabled." The cost of welfare decreased (to much self-congratulation among politicians), and "welfare reform" was touted as a great success.
As someone who deals with loads of people attempting to get SSDI or have SSDI, the standard line I hear is that the average person is denied 3x before they get approved. This makes the market for lawyers working to secure benefits pretty strong, they get roughly 1/3 of the backpay if/when SSA finally gets approved. Great read!
I can attest to the truth of this. I have a friend on SSDI. She was initially turned down when she applied. She has a legitimate disability that makes it impossible to have a full time job. She spends 30+ hours a week getting debilitating treatment simply to stay alive. After being denied on her first application, she got a “big shot lawyer” and was eventually granted disability by the court after an appeals process that took almost two years. Two years in which she was unable to work and earn any income. Along the way she learned that, apparently, “everyone’s” initial disability application is denied. She eventually won her appeal and received a disability payment. She struggles to live on just over $1000 a month but thank God for that at least. This is an interesting topic that few “normal” people know about and bears further attention!