The Training Video and Why the O*NET Remains Important

An Introduction to New Social Security Ruling 24-3p for Vocational Experts is a must watch. Deputy Associate Chief ALJ David Pang is your host. Administrative Appeals Judge Patrick McGuire lends an assist. Neither judge expresses any accurate knowledge about the O*NET. But they carry the agency's water. Here is what SSA says about the O*NET:

O*NET is not generally usable per EM-21065-REV because the information has been grouped in a way that is not generally usable in the agency's adjudication process. 

 Tr. 40:44.  EM-21065-REV actually says:  

Occupational Information Network (O*NET) Information: O*NET does not define physical exertion requirements in a way that is consistent with SSA regulations (20 CFR 404.1567 and 416.967). O*NET instead groups lifting with activities that SSA rules define as non-exertional (e.g., climbing, stooping, and handling). Accordingly, the information in O*NET is not generally usable in our adjudication process.

Fair enough, the O*NET does not break down occupational groups by defining physical exertion requirements consistent with the sedentary, light, and medium paradigm. If a witness, claimant, or ALJ wants to determine the exertional levels of work in the national economy, the O*NET does not work. The O*NET does not group lifting activities with non-exertional activities such as climbing, stooping, and handling anymore than the Selected Characteristics of Occupations (SCO) does, it lists them separately. Under the broad heading of physical requirements, the O*NET has two categories: postural and exertional. Postural includes cramped work space; bending or twisting; climbing ladders scaffolds, or poles; keeping or regaining balance; kneeling, crouching, stooping, or crawling; and time making repetitive motions. Exertional includes sitting, standing, using the hands, and walking or running. None of those categories permit classification of strength. All of them give insight into the requirements of work. 

The question is beyond the exertion question, does the O*NET provide useful information to adjudicate claims for disability? Again, the answer there is "yes." Cognitive and mental demands includes, among other data points, contact with others, dealing with external customers, work with a group or team, duration of the work week, and work schedules (regular, irregular, and seasonal). 

The video contains a mock hearing with a hypothetical question that assumes "light work as defined in the regulations." That is light work as defined in 20 CFR 404.1567 416.697 -- not SSR 83-10. The hypothetical continues to limit the person to occasionally climbing ramps and stairs. No one can frequently climb ramps and stairs up to two-thirds of the day, not even a college athlete. Going up and down the stairs for 5.5 hours is a mountain climber, not a worker. The hypothetical limits the person to simple instructions. More about this later. Finally, the question describes a limitation to occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers. That's our focus for O*NET purposes.

Does the DOT describe interaction with supervisors and coworkers? No. Some witnesses will look at talking and hearing. Interacting with coworkers is not part of talking and hearing. Read the SCO Appendix C. Does the Occupational Requirements Survey use seldom, occasional, frequent, and constant to address workplace interactions? No. The ORS uses:

1. Constantly, every few minutes
2. Not constantly but more than once per hour
3. Not more than once per hour but more than once per day
4. At least once per day
5. Once per day or less often
6. At least once per week
7. Less than once per week including never

Contrast that with the O*NET description of contact with others. First, contact with others is defined:

How much does this job require the worker to be in contact with others (face-to-face, by telephone, or otherwise) in order to perform it?

Contact with others is synonymous with interaction. It is not working in proximity and rubbing shoulders. The O*NET separately describes physical proximity, "to what extent does this job require job tasks in close physical proximity to other people?" The categories for contact with others are:

1. Constant contact with others
2. Contact with others most of the time
3. Contact with others about half the time
4. Occasional contact with others
5. No contact with others

Those categories speak directly to the hypothetical question of "occasionally interact with supervisors and coworkers." Do you trust the local vocational witness with local experience or the national data gathering over that last 30 years of the Employment Training Administration, Department of Labor to inform this file and this limitation how many jobs require occasional or less contact (interaction) with others? The concept of administrative notice says what Labor says about the O*NET, 

Thus, if you are looking for current occupational information you should use the O*Net.

The O*NET also classifies work based on the importance of work with a work group or team. The data point provides greater insight into this question of interaction with supervisors and coworkers. 

The vocational witness identifies document preparer, cutter-and-paster, and cleaner housekeeper. Document preparer (249.587-018) and cutter-and-paster (249.587-014) are both resident in office clerks, general (SOC 43-9061). 

43-9061 - Office Clerks, General

Job Number Calculations
# of Jobs (OEWS 2023)	% Full-Time (O*NET 29.1)	# Full-Time
2,496,370	74%	1,847,314
# of Jobs	% SVP 2 (ORS 2023)	# SVP 2
1,847,314	33.7%	622,545
# of Jobs	% Sedentary (ORS 2023)	# Sedentary
622,545	81.1%	504,884
# of Jobs	% Occasional Contact with Others (O*NET 29.1)	# Occasional Contact with Others
504,884	2%	10,098

This snippet from an OccuCollect report combines 2.5 million jobs from the OEWS, reduces for 74% full-time work from the O*NET, looks at SVP 2 work from the 2023 ORS dataset, and uses the 2% contact with others from the O*NET. 

Are there 30,000 general office clerk jobs in all sedentary unskilled work with occasional contact (interaction) with others? Not according to Labor's data. How about light work? 

43-9061 - Office Clerks, General

Job Number Calculations
# of Jobs (OEWS 2023)	% Full-Time (O*NET 29.1)	# Full-Time
2,496,370	74%	1,847,314
# of Jobs	% SVP 2 (ORS 2023)	# SVP 2
1,847,314	33.7%	622,545
# of Jobs	% Light (ORS 2023)	# Light
622,545	14.9%	92,759
# of Jobs	% Occasional Contact with Others (O*NET 29.1)	# Occasional Contact with Others
92,759	2%	1,855

 We are still shy of 12,000 jobs total. Turns out that office work requires working with others. The 2% that do not have more than occasional contact with others are probably in the two-thirds of jobs are that skilled or semi-skilled. 

The O*NET informs the process and answers the question by  administrative notice. The sample examination is illustrative of just how ad hoc VW testimony really is. 

Back to housekeeping cleaner. Just 18% of maids and housekeeping cleaners have occasional contact with others resulting in 18,683 jobs. But that is not the killer. Standing and walking eliminates the light work as generally understood by the agency and witnesses -- six hours of a workday:

37-2012 - Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners
Percent of Day Standing

% of Day Standing	Percentile	# of Jobs
Total Jobs (OEWS 2023)	100%	836,230
87.5%	10%	83,623
95.0%	25%	209,058
100.0%	50%	418,115
100.0%	75%	627,173
100.0%	90%	752,607

No measured number of maid jobs stand/walk not more than six hours in an eight-hour workday.

I hope against reality that the Social Security Administration would set forth examples that are real, verifiable, and unquestionably reliable. But the examples the agency puts forward in this training video are exhibits 1, 2, and 3 of VW nonsense. The agency does not expect reliable testimony, it expects testimony that it can lean on to decide claims. Unrebutted garbage is substantial evidence.   

Saddened that we are faced with more nonsense. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, The Training Video and Why the O*NET Remains Important, California Social Security Attorney (January 28, 2025) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.