Many of the concerns of Teleservice Center management are those we share with SSA management in our local community-based field offices---adequate staffing, sufficient resources, and reasonable, attainable goals, for example. However, there are some concerns that are specific to TSC management due to the inherent structure of our 800# system. With nation-wide service delivery, higher supervisory ratios, and integrated telephone systems, there are concerns that require our Agency’s attention.

First and foremost is the immediate need to upgrade the Supervisors and Management Support Specialists in the TSCs. The issue of comparable compensation for comparable work is one that deserves swift attention and correction. It is difficult to explain to a supervisor who manages a unit of 25 to 40 employees that they would be paid a higher grade if they only worked in a field office. They might have far fewer employees under their supervision, but they would be paid a higher salary. It is equally difficult to explain to Management Support Specialists who work in a TSC that their peers in the field office are paid at a higher rate. Although the span of supervision and the requirements of these positions are at least comparable to the FO positions, unfortunately the pay is not. Additionally, this disparity in pay creates a lack of clear career paths for these TSC management employees. Often vacancies are advertised at a lower grade than they really are so that these employees can qualify for the vacant positions.

Another major, long-term concern of TSC management is the service observations of TSRs. The lack of a clear and consistent policy seriously impedes management’s ability to address a very basic issue, courtesy. Through the years, the service observation policy has prevented us from adequately addressing TSR performance in this critical area of service delivery. By limiting supervisors in their right to listen to public calls without first informing the TSR, we weaken their authority and deny them an essential management tool. In addition, the fact that the Aspect telephone system does not randomly select agent calls has further degraded our ability to perform Tier II service observations. Although there are still some limited methods to address TSR discourtesy, they are more onerous for managers. In a nutshell, the current policy places limitations on TSC management that undermines the service afforded our calling public.

Much has been said about the decline of quality in the processing of SSA workloads. Some say we push so hard to achieve a quantitative objective, that the qualitative aspect doesn’t take a back seat, it’s not even in the vehicle. Since we do few formal reviews these days, most of these rumblings are, of necessity, anecdotal.

So when we come face to face with the recent findings from the review of the Special Disability Workloads (SDW), we move past the feeling that something is not quite right and find conviction. The results should serve as a five-alarm wake-up call on this subject.

The SDW error rate was shocking. It’s a given these cases are complex. But the issues are not new ones. Protective filings, work after onset, etc. have been around for years. Admittedly they were concentrated in these cases, but considerable guidance did accompany these cases.

The error rate on the SDW cases should be taken as an opportunity to take a hard look at some issues and how they impact such quality issues. Have we become so enamored of meeting such and such clearance percentages by the end of each quarter that we have, as an organization, relegated payment accuracy to the optional category? We do not believe that for a minute but do find frustration in our natural tendency to define what needs to be tracked by relative ease of tracking, not by its relative impact on the customer.

Has our view of quality been skewed permanently by de-layering? Without sufficient numbers of management personnel, substantive workload reviews are replaced by streamlined processes and appraisal systems that simply represent what is possible with dramatic cuts in management, and hence stewardship.

The SDW cases are somewhat unique in the amount of adjudicative time each requires for appropriate consideration and handling. Staffing being what it is in the field, substantial chunks of "quality time" are rare in the face of swiftly mounting priorities elsewhere.

The tandem issues of management and staff insufficiency in field offices are, we believe, displayed in marked relief by our current efforts to come up with a special approach toward this workload.