A little context:

I am a Medi-Cal eligibility worker. Medicaid in other states. Anyhow, when a mother who has active benefits gives birth, the child is considered "deemed eligible", and is added to the case.

The mother is only required to give the name, date of birth, gender, place of birth, and place of residence to add the baby. That's IT.

Further, our rules specifically state that the mother is not required to provide tax household information (information generally needed for medicaid under ACA rules). Since the mother is not required to provide this when adding her baby, I don't ask it.

That said, for years now, I've been getting cited with errors for not getting this information. And every. single. time... that error is successfully rebutted because I am correct, and they are not.

So now, instead of citing an error they know will be rebutted, they've taken to including it as a "note". A note can be productive, when advising on something needed that wouldn't count as an error. This is what they've done here, however there are issues.

Granted, it's not a "big deal" to ask for the information, but it is, in the bigger picture, IMO.

1. I refuse to ask people for anything they aren't required to give.

Period.

2. The spirit of this rule is simple: making it as simple as possible for the mother to add her child.

That child is given a full year of benefits. Full stop, regardless of what happens. If the case gets discontinued, the child is covered for the full year. This information is information we will follow up on at the next re-determination anyways.

3. As much as possible, I refuse to allow them (resource, management, etc) to exercise imagined authority, because they WILL run with that shit.

So no, they don't get to pull that shit with me.


Anyhow, this is the note, and my rough draft response:

"If you are on the phone with the customer already, it does not hurt to ask the tax household of the DE baby being that they are on the phone already. It is not required to be reported to add a de baby and we still process without, but as workers, if there is anything we can verify at the time of speaking with the customer, we should be doing it to avoid having to request verification later. If the customer doesn't know , then that's fine but we should try to gather all information possible. ( for future reference )."

******

For future reference: This has been addressed countless times, over the course of years, and it seems that since you all have finally accepted you can't actually cite me with an error for following the handbook rules on this, you've now taken the tact of creating a note for this.

This is petty, unnecessary, and counterproductive. It's not that the Tax HH status is not required to complete an Add Baby action, it's that the parent is not required to provide this information. This is an issue that has, again, been addressed multiple times when you guys were attempting to cite this as an error, and multiple times those errors were successfully rebutted with handbook citations.

At this point I consider this to be harassment, and the next time I get this, on this issue, without a change in the handbook, I will file a formal HR complaint, and contact my union representatives on the issue. I am following the rules and I will NOT request information from the parent that they are NOT required to provide.

This is over-verifying, and no amount of rationalizations on the part of the resource department will change that.

The fact that I continue to have to respond to this very same issue over and over again is tiring and unnecessary, as I am abiding by the rules. Changing it to a note doesn't change that.

If this is an issue, change the handbook. What you do not get to do is create phantom policies based on your personal preferences of what you would like me to do If I get this again, I will file a formal HR complaint on everyone involved, because I can show this being a consistent issue over the course of years, and this creates unnecessary work and stress and I will no longer tolerate it.

**********

Thoughts? I may pare it down, or not send it at all.

But it could make for an interesting OKP discussion

I have no opinion on the wording of your reply. Or, rather, I loved it dearly and think it's assertive and completely appropriate in calling attention to their nonsense - but I've been in contingent employment for too long and have basically lost my spine so I can't really be helpful.

Still, love what you're doing here. Very cool.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

you've addressed it numerous times before and they're still tripping. give them all those words.

Y'all buy those labels, I was born supreme

It seems like there is a reason why she wants it done a certain way, even though it isn't technically a requirement. She's not asking you to do anything illegal, unethical, or outside of your job duties.

I don't know...based on what's written, it just doesn't seem like something worth fighting over

An employee just fighting to fight. As the originator stated himself, it is not a big deal
To ask this information, so why not just do it?

prototype

stand ur ground, believe in urself,
believe in love, prepare urself for love, remove the negativity from ur life, and accept the love u kno u deserve

>An employee just fighting to fight.

You're objectively wrong about that.

I'm an employee choosing not to allow someone to exert an imagined yard's worth of the inch of actual authority they have.


As the originator stated
>himself, it is not a big deal
>To ask this information, so why not just do it?

I explained that there are bigger picture problems with this.

Do you think it's wise and beneficial for me to condition myself to allow people yo exert authority over me that they do not have?

Because I can name specific instances where doing what they're asking would be a detriment to myself, but doing what I do has zero consequences for anyone.

Because wherever there is room for interpretation, they seemingly always take the interpretation that is to the detriment of the worker. Why would I allow them more power than what they actually have?

If, when they cite me with a valid error, it's because I did something that was not in accordance with the rules, how is it remotely reasoable to expect me to also abide by unwritten, unofficial personal preferences of people with zero power to enforce that?

Turn off the message board gimmick for sixty seconds and us your rational, real-world mind. Do you *really* think that's reasonable?

I've done this job for 11 years, and going off the beaten path can very easily turn into something much bigger than anticipated. There are reasons we need to stick to the rules as outlined.

1. My boss isn't telling me to do it one way or another.

2. We have rules, handbooks hundreds of pages. My job is to apply these rules.

3. When our cases are reviewed, they are reviewed based on whether or not our actions were justified by those rules. If my actions are not in accordance with those rules, I get errors that count against my stats.

4. When I send a rebuttal, I have to cite the exact rule that explains why the error is wrong.

They cannot arbitrarily make up rules based on their wants. This is why I win every single rebuttal on this issue. This is not debatable. If what they wanted mattered at all in the the real world of this workplace, I wouldn't win every rebuttal on this issue, would I?

People have things they *want* done a certain way, but they do not get to impose or enforce their wants. I am subject to the rules within the handbook of the programs I work, no the personal preference of resource.

That can get away with these sorts of personal policies because too many people just go along with it. If you're cool with people exerting imaginary authority over you, do you. Enjoy, I guess.

>If you're cool
>with people exerting imaginary authority over you, do you.
>Enjoy, I guess.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

I'm glad you've got union protections in this case, and that informs my response here a little bit. But I think you're making an important point regarding them harassing you for something that isn't required.

I'd personally add a note about the invasiveness of that type of question if it's not currently required, but that's just me. If it's none of your business at the time, it shouldn't be asked.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

is the call recorded. you can ask in the call, something like "you are not required to provide this information, but my boss requires that I ask anyway. If you don't know it's okay, it will still get processed."

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

But even if it isn't recorded, I'm petty and anti-authority so I'd selfishly rather he call them out directly than just skirt the issue by inputting "unknown" or whatever even though he didn't ask haha.

----------------------------------------

"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415

>is the call recorded. you can ask in the call, something like
>"you are not required to provide this information, but my boss
>requires that I ask anyway. If you don't know it's okay, it
>will still get processed."

prototype

stand ur ground, believe in urself,
believe in love, prepare urself for love, remove the negativity from ur life, and accept the love u kno u deserve

What's good reason is there to do that?

And no, satisfying someone's personal preference does not constitute a good reason.

I tend to shy away from escalating a situation. So I would either ignore the note or pretend to try and comply... I'm very passive aggressive... LOL!

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

If you need any help, don't. Hesitate to ask.

Assuming it's legal. Is it?

Because I think they would've made it official policy by now if they could.

Your response will either kill the idea entirely or motivate them to finally put it in the handbook, once and for all.

But I'd personally just ignore it since it doesn't have any teeth behind it... it may have been harassment back when they were dinging you for it but now it's just an annoying suggestion that can be easily ignored rather than a implied threat.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

Trying to condition people into requesting and being provided information that’s not required….

BUT….

Personally….I’d tone the letter down a bit and remove all emotion and anything that could be considered a personal attack. Keep it 100% clerical.
Some of the word and phrases you chose (petty, tact, “you guys”, harassment, phantom policies, stress, tolerate) would seem to trigger the party you’re addressing to be even more aggressive with their tactics rather than falling back.

You’ve got 11 years under your belt and I’m assuming a good work reputation…keep that. Let the rules and what’s written vindicate you…simply point those out and keep it moving. Keep a canned response and either send it to them every time it’s brought up….or keep a log and remind them every quarter.

With these types of situations you HAVE to stay extremely factual and take all of the emotion out of it. What you have above is a great starting point, to get everything out there. Then you sleep on it, and go back to edit and remove the emotion and tone to stay factual. If needed you can send to someone else you trust for feedback (which you've already done here.)

The way this is currently written they will then focus on all of the tone - saying you are creating a hostile environment, are difficult to work with, etc. and at that point your original intent will be lost. Depending on your relationship with your actual manager you could have an open conversation with them in which you are more transparent about how you feel in addition to the facts - getting into the implications of what they are doing in asking people for information that isn't required.

If you send that email as is, what could end up happening is that they DO make a policy of people in your role having to ask for information even though the requirement isn't on the side of the mother receiving benefits. Stuff like that happens often in jobs - for example employees being required to ask a customer to complete a survey even though not required on the customer side.

Try to rewrite leaving out the you vs them tone. Respond to the letter of the law as it exists now and state that on that basis the note is unnecessary unless the law has changed. Don't give them grounds to respond to your emotions. It's not about you. It's about working in the best interests of the parents and children.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

but maybe that is exactly what it is.. lol

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Don't give them any notice.

This won't make a difference - they are hell bent on making you get the information.

So it is harassments - just trust the union over HR or these people.

Or simply ignore it.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection