SSA

  • |

    SSA’s Five-Day Workweek Plan Meets a Union Grievance

    ByMike Rotch

    At the counter, a calendar is not a service result

    You are holding your folder and trying to get help with Social Security. The agency announces a more uniform workweek. That may look tidy on a management chart, but it is not proof that the line will move faster, a call will be answered sooner, or a complicated question will be resolved. A five-day week is a schedule. Service is what happens to the person who needs help.

    SSA’s case for the change

    Federal News Network reports that the Social Security Administration plans to end alternative work schedules, including 4/10 and 5/4/9 arrangements, and move employees to standard five-day workweeks beginning November 16, 2026. SSA’s stated rationale is that staff should be available throughout the week to serve the public. That is a public-service goal. But stating the goal does not establish what customers will experience after the change.

    For someone seeking help, the useful question is not whether a schedule looks consistent from headquarters. It is whether the right help is available when it is needed. Those are not interchangeable measures, and a calendar cannot certify its own success.

    The union says the contract matters

    According to Federal News Network, the American Federation of Government Employees says the move repudiates contract provisions and has filed a national grievance. The 2019 SSA-AFGE collective bargaining agreement provides context for the dispute. It does not, by itself, settle the legal question, and this column cannot declare the change lawful or unlawful from the kitchen table.

    So there are competing positions: SSA says having staff available throughout the week serves the public; AFGE says the change conflicts with negotiated terms. A grievance is a challenge, not a final ruling. Neither side’s position establishes the eventual effect on people seeking help.

    Uniformity is not evidence

    The reporting does not establish what the change will do to wait times, access, staffing levels, or service quality. A more consistent calendar may sound like a fix, but sounding like a fix is not the same as delivering one. Changing schedules does not, on its own, tell us whether customers will get help sooner or whether their questions will be handled more effectively. Paperwork already has enough authority in people’s lives without pretending a new calendar is a customer-service result.

    Judge it by what people experience

    The November 16 start date gives the policy a clear marker, not a verdict on its effects. For the person waiting for an answer, the test is practical: is help available when it is needed, and does the service meet the need? The sources document an announced change, SSA’s rationale, and AFGE’s objection. They do not yet answer that customer-facing question. Washington can standardize a workweek in a memo. The public still needs to see what happens at the other end of the counter.

  • |

    SSA Deletes the Wrong Death, Forgets the Why

    ByHugh Jass

    I’m Hugh Jass, serious investigative reporter with absurd gravitas, and I have bad news and good news—both in the same envelope. The SSA “deletes the wrong death,” the beneficiary gets unfrozen, and everyone claps because the calendar finally stops yelling. Then the contradiction kicks in—because the system often deletes the outcome without keeping the reason, so the Evidence Screen (EVID) doesn’t explain itself. The document coughed; Exhibit A had a pulse; the fix still can’t prove how it learned.

    A reader seeing the article title will immediately understand why this article accompanies the piece because the phrase “deletes the wrong death” points to the correction, while “forgets the why” points to the missing documentation that makes the correction un-auditable.

    In an OIG review of incorrect-death corrections in a sample spanning Jan. 2020 through Dec. 2024, SSA corrected cases at a fairly healthy clip: 54% of the time, technicians made changes in line with policy. So the part that “works” definitely works. The part that doesn’t is the part that lets anyone else verify what happened next time.

    Here’s where the haunted paperwork starts: for 45% of the cases where the record was corrected, the technician didn’t document the reason the death was recorded/removed on EVID. Worse, in 61 of 78 cases within the review sample, there wasn’t even an EVID entry present—meaning the system’s own evidence door is left wide open, and then everyone acts surprised when accountability walks right through.

    And because government fixes love a sequel, the OIG also noted payment follow-through problems. In at least two cases, payment records weren’t updated to reinstate benefits for beneficiaries whose incorrect-death status had been corrected. That’s not a philosophical glitch—it’s the difference between “we changed the record” and “we fixed the life attached to it.”

    So yes: the SSA can correct an incorrect death posting. But if the “why” doesn’t live in EVID, the agency can’t show its work, future mistakes can’t be filtered, and the public is left with a transcript edit where the exhibits are missing. If you’re alive but the government’s records say you aren’t, you don’t just deserve a correction—you deserve receipts that stay filed after the clerical smoke clears.

End of content

End of content