Obama: Mail Carriers To Deliver Medical Countermeasures
Executive Order — Medical Countermeasures Following a Biological Attack
ESTABLISHING FEDERAL CAPABILITY FOR THE TIMELY PROVISION OF MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES FOLLOWING A BIOLOGICAL ATTACK
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to plan and prepare for the timely provision of medical countermeasures to the American people in the event of a biological attack in the United States through a rapid Federal response in coordination with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments.
This policy would seek to: (1) mitigate illness and prevent death; (2) sustain critical infrastructure; and (3) complement and supplement State, local, territorial, and tribal government medical countermeasure distribution capacity.
Sec. 2. United States Postal Service Delivery of Medical Countermeasures. (a) The U.S. Postal Service has the capacity for rapid residential delivery of medical countermeasures for self administration across all communities in the United States. The Federal Government shall pursue a national U.S. Postal Service medical countermeasures dispensing model to respond to a large-scale biological attack.
(b) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security, in coordination with the U.S. Postal Service, within 180 days of the date of this order, shall establish a national U.S. Postal Service medical countermeasures dispensing model for U.S. cities to respond to a large-scale biological attack, with anthrax as the primary threat consideration.
(c) In support of the national U.S. Postal Service model, the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Defense, and the Attorney General, in coordination with the U.S. Postal Service, and in consultation with State and local public health, emergency management, and law enforcement officials, within 180 days of the date of this order, shall develop an accompanying plan for supplementing local law enforcement personnel, as necessary and appropriate, with local Federal law enforcement, as well as other appropriate personnel, to escort U.S. Postal workers delivering medical countermeasures.
Sec. 3. Federal Rapid Response. (a) The Federal Government must develop the capacity to anticipate and immediately supplement the capabilities of affected jurisdictions to rapidly distribute medical countermeasures following a biological attack. Implementation of a Federal strategy to rapidly dispense medical countermeasures requires establishment of a Federal rapid response capability.
(b) The Secretaries of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, within 90 days of the date of this order, shall develop a concept of operations and establish requirements for a Federal rapid response to dispense medical countermeasures to an affected population following a large-scale biological attack.
Sec. 4. Continuity of Operations. (a) The Federal Government must establish mechanisms for the provision of medical countermeasures to personnel performing missionessential functions to ensure that mission-essential functions of Federal agencies continue to be performed following a biological attack.
(b) The Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security, within 180 days of the date of this order, shall develop a plan for the provision of medical countermeasures to ensure that mission-essential functions of executive branch departments and agencies continue to be performed following a large-scale biological attack.
Sec. 5. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 30, 2009.
Un-Merry Christmas For 27-Year Postal Employee Fired After Failing Window Training
Postal Employee Fired 5-Days Before Christmas
Just an overview of the letter below:
The Walnut Creek (CA) Post Office changed 16 mail processing jobs of the most senior employees to window/distribution clerks (Sales, Service & Distribution Associates). The employees were told after becoming senior bidders on the re-posted duty assignments that passing window training will be a requirement in order to retain their jobs.
The fired employee was not awarded any of the re-posted duty assigments as the senior bidder until two days (November 20, 2009) after she was given a “Notice of Removal” on November 18, 2009 for failing to meet the qualifications of her position. She attended window training during the week of October 19-23, 2009.
Briefly Postal Employees are scheduled for window training if in part: (1) Employees are PTFs (2) Full-Time Regular senior bidders on duty assignments with window duties. None of the aforementioned reasons applied to this employee. The employee according to the contract was still considered an unassigned mail processing clerk with no requirement to pass window training.
Management has taken the position that employee “volunteered” for window training and failed so her removal from the Postal Service effective December 20, 2009 still stands. The employee’s 27 years of service means nothing but a number.
The letter below is from Postal Employee Surbjit Khatkar:
In the beginning when my supervisors xxxx and xxxx asked if anybody wanted to go for window training , nobody volunteered. As no one wanted to go, I volunteered first, and they agreed to send me for SSA window training. That time I had no bid assignment and never received any notification that I was a senior bidder on any bid assignment. I started my training on Oct. 19, 2009 while I received my notification for bid (MO-50B) assignment on Nov. 20, 2009.
No one explained that if I did not pass the test, I will be removed from Post Office. If I had known such a harsh consequence of not passing the exam, I could have waited for my turn (I was the senior of employees awaiting window training).
I did not know that taking the window exam required a sufficient computer knowledge. I’ve worked in mail processing my entire postal career. I had to ask for help from instructor to show me how to use computer/ mouse to write my answers at appropriate places, while my clock was still ticking. Shockingly, I did not pass the exam, absolutely due to lack of computer knowledge.
Most shocking and disgraceful thing is that after performing my job in an excellent way for 27 years, I did not get even second chance to pass this exam; while in the past, 6-7 people in my facility had been granted second and sometimes third chances to pass the window training exam.
I volunteered to help management and this is how they repay me?
Thanks!
APWU: Is The OIG Workers' Comp Fraud Campaign Scamming USPS?
Who’s scamming who?
The USPS Office of Inspector General recently launched a “Workers’ Compensation Fraud Campaign.” In typical OIG fashion, one of its strategies involves demonizing injured workers by having an actor posing as a postal employee cheerfully brag about cheating the Workers’ Comp program.
No one, of course, should be permitted to cheat the injury-compensation system. The system exists to provide benefits to employees who have sustained legitimate injuries while on duty. But OIG ignores the fact that less than 0.3 percent of the tens of thousands of Postal Service employees who get hurt while on the job are ever found guilty of defrauding the system. In fact, OIG’s most recent semi-annual report acknowledges that they had arrested only 18 people for claimant fraud. It’s simply unwarranted and unacceptable for the OIG to create a national campaign that smears injured workers by implying that so many are trying to scam the system.
One has to wonder whether it’s the OIG itself that is guilty of scamming the USPS . In Fiscal Year 2009, the OIG was appropriated $239.3 million in Postal Service funds from which, at its own admission, OIG “commits significant resources toward identifying claimants who defraud the system.”With well over 99 percent of the injured workforce proving to be honest and lawful regarding Workers’ Comp, how can OIG — an agency that is also responsible for combating waste and abuse — be exonerated from the very obligations it is commissioned to uphold?
Protect Yourself
Workers’ compensation fraud is a serious crime. Admission of guilt and actually being found guilty are one and the same: Offenders are branded as criminals.
Upon conviction, offenders are subject to repayment of benefits, fines, jail time in a federal facility, and removal. All too often, it is a simple lack of understanding as to what constitutes fraud that can place an employee in peril. So, as the OIG presses on in its campaign against injured workers, it is important to remember that the medical restrictions that apply at work also apply during personal life, i.e., at home, while shopping, driving, taking care of personal and family matters, and during recreational activities. The rule of thumb is that if you can’t do it at work, you can’t do it anywhere.
It is also important to remind employees to work within their restrictions. If physical capabilities have improved or worsened, employees should get their doctors to document the change in restrictions. Additionally, doctors who permit activities for therapeutic reasons should also include this information — along with the treatment rationale — in the employee’s medical record.
Disclosure and Your Rights
Treating physicians should be made aware that they are not required to disclose any information regarding a medical condition to OIG agents unless there is a court order requiring such disclosure.
If confronted by OIG agents, it is important for employees to know their rights. Many agents are on a mission to prove their worth, and they can be conniving. Employees are entitled to have a representative present and should remain silent until they have consulted with their steward or legal counsel — even when they are certain they aren’t guilty of any wrongdoing.
During investigatory interviews, union representatives may attempt to clarify facts and information, ask the purpose of an interview, or help an employee articulate a response or explanation.
When there are legal issues that need to be addressed, and/or an employee is the subject of a criminal investigation, it is absolutely appropriate for the employee to remain silent and to decline to sign any statements or fill out any forms until after legal counsel has been consulted.
APWU Industrial Relations Director Greg Bell has written two very informative articles detailing the rights of employees when they are confronted by Postal Inspectors or OIG agents. The articles first appeared in the Nov./Dec.2005 and May/June 2006 issues of this magazine and can be found in their entirety on the Industrial Relations Web pages.
APWU Sues USPS To Halt Closure Of Philly L & DC Until Dispute Over AMP Study Is Settled
The National and Local APWU Unions have jointly filed suit against USPS to stop closure of Philadelphia Logistics and Distribution Center . Below are excerpts of the dispute:
In this case, the Unions have filed a grievance challenging the decision by the Postal Service to terminate operations at the Facility, located in Swedesboro, New Jersey
and return the building to its landlord, Liberty Partners Trust, by the March 31, 2010, the effect of requiring the reassignment of several hundred employees who have been working at the Facility, such transfers to become effective on February 13,2010. Affected employees are subject to reassignment to different types of work and to work that is up to 500 miles from Swedesboro, New Jersey. The Unions assert that the Postal Service is required by both the National Agreement and by federal law to conduct a study, called an Area Mail Processing study, (“AMP”) to determine whether it is in the interests of the Postal Service, and in the public interest, to terminate operations in Swedesboro. The Postal Service claims that it has a right to cease operations at the Facility without performing an Area Mail Processing study.
In this suit, the Union is asking the Court to order the Postal Service to maintain the status quo until an arbitrator can resolve the parties’ dispute over the need for an Area Mail Processing study. The Union is seeking to expedite the processing of its grievance in this case so that it can be arbitrated at the earliest possible date — as soon as there is an arbitrator from the parties’ arbitration panel available to hear it. Read more
Postal Mail Handlers Union Signs Settlement On National Reassessment Program
The National Office of the NPMHU recently signed a settlement with USPS management concerning the National Reassessment Program (NRP), which is being used by the Postal Service to re-evaluate all limited duty and rehabilitation positions held by mail handlers and other postal employees who have been injured on the job.
Throughout the negotiations, the NPMHU has held the position that the Postal Service’s use of the term “necessary work” in the NRP unduly and unreasonably restricts the types of duties and assignments that must be made available to mail handlers and other employees injured on the job. We are pleased to report that the settlement reached by the National parties deals directly with this issue. In particular, the settlement has three major components:
First, the settlement addresses the NPMHU’s contention that the Postal Service has been using the NRP to implement a new “necessary work” standard for the creation and continuation of limited duty and rehabilitation assignments. The parties have agreed that “[t]he NRP has not redefined or changed the Postal Service’s obligation to provide limited duty or rehabilitation assignments for injured employees.” The parties also have agreed that ELM Section 546 “has not
been amended and remains applicable to all pending grievances.” It is important
to note that ELM Section 546.142 refers repeatedly to “adequate work” and “adequate work available” as the governing standard.
Second, the settlement deals with the Union’s contention that the Postal Service was using the NRP to develop new criteria for assigning limited duty.Again, the parties agreed that “[t]he Postal Service has not developed new criteria for assigning limited duty,” and that “[i]njured employees will continue to be assigned limited duty, in accordance with the requirements of ELM 546 and 5 C.F.R, Part 353.”
Third, the settlement specifically addresses the potential impact of the NRP on employees assigned light duty under Article 13 of the National Agreement. On this issue, the parties agreed that “[e]mployees on existing non-workers’ compensation light duty assignments made pursuant to Article 13 . . . will not normally be displaced solely to make new limited duty or rehabilitation assignments unless required by law or regulation.”
The parties further agreed that all grievances concerning the NRP, which have been held pending the outcome of this National-level dispute, will be processed through the appropriate grievance and arbitration procedure. If you have a question about NRP implementation, you should contact your Local Union representatives.
USPS Reports Loss Of $255 Million In November 2009
The US Postal Service filed its November 2009 (unaudited) preliminary financial report yesterday with the Postal Regulatory Commission. USPS reported a net income/ loss of $255 million. The total Fiscal Year to year loss is $476 million ($221 million for the month of October) .
Mail volume was down across all classes except shipping services with an overall total decrease of 4.0% but revenue was up by 0.9%. First class mail volume was down by 3.3% (195 million few pieces) but first class mail revenue was up by 1.3%.
The Postal Service continues to reduce its workhours with Mail Processing and Customer Services/Retail showing the highest reduction of 15.1% and 11.7% respectively.
See Full Report via Postal Regulatory Commission web site
Connecticut District Court Dismisses Postal Clerk's Sexual Harassment Suit
Postal Clerk failed to seek help through EEOC and submit claim to USPS Torts Claim Coordinator prior to filing lawsuit
According to the lawsuit: Guy Johnson, a postal clerk in North Stonington, CT. claims stem from a number of allegedly harassing incidents at work beginning in March 2007. In March and June of 2007, a supervisor, Kay Lautenheiser allegedly sexually harassed Johnson on the basis of his sexual orientation and gender. Johnson sought assistance from his supervisor William Boordsen, but Boordsen refused. In his complaint Johnson claims that in or about August 2007, Boordsen reprimanded Johnson when he discovered that Johnson had sought help through the Equal Employment Office (EEO). Around that same time Boordsen changed Johnson’s starting time for work and removed Johnson’s fan, even though he allegedly knew Johnson’s medical condition required a cool environment. Johnson then filed a complaint with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; however, the Commission refused to review the matter, asserting that it did not have jurisdiction.
In 2008, Boordsen and Lautenheiser allegedly continued their harassing behavior by removing items Johnson needed for work, breaking his glasses, hiding his mail, making comments about his sexuality, utilizing other offensive language, and spreading false rumors about his sexuality. These actions resulted in Johnson’s suspension from work as well as loss of leave and sick time because he was unable to work.
Also in 2008, Boordsen issued an order that required Johnson to seek medical assistance . In 2009, Boordsen and Lautenheiser allegedly made numerous statements to Johnson and others that they were going to “get rid” of Johnson or get him fired. Johnson claims that as a result of this pattern of alleged harassment and intimidation he experienced several medical issues.
On July 17, 2009, Johnson , filed a complaint against his supervisor, William Boordsen , in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London, alleging violations of “Title VII, the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA), tortious interference with contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and failure to supervise.” Boordsen removed the action to Connecticut District Courtt on July 27, 2009. Boordsen was then replaced as the defendant by John E. Potter, the Postmaster General,. The Postal Service submitted a request to dismiss the case.
The Postal Service argued that Johnson’s Title VII claim for employment discrimination should be dismissed because he failed to exhausted his administrative remedies.
Although Johnson’s complaint alleges that in August 2007 Boordsen reprimanded Johnson for seeking assistance through the EEO process, Johnson did not provide any evidence that he sought such assistance or when he sought such assistance. Additionally, in Johnson’s prior action against the Postal Service concerning discrimination by Boordsen and Lautenheiser, (which was dismissed on June 5, 2009) the District Judge found that Johnson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and dismissed Johnson’s Title VII claim against the Postal Service.
The Postal Service also argued that Johnson’s tort claims should be dismissed because none of the complaints were directed toward the Tort Claims Coordinator in St. Louis, as required under the regulations.
Therefore on December 17, 2009, the District Court dismissed the case.
Appeals Court Upholds Demotion of California Postmaster
Robert Di Paolo appeals a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) sustaining his demotion from the position of Postmaster to Supervisor in the Lincoln Post Office, Sacramento District, Pacific Area. The demotion was based on four charges: (1) inappropriate stamp purchases, (2) receipt of alcohol on postal property, (3) failure to follow instructions, and (4) inappropriate use of information technology.
In his brief to this court, Mr. Di Paolo raises several challenges to each of the four charges. Although some of Mr. Di Paolo’s arguments are persuasive as to the severity of each charge individually, they do not refute the administrative judge’s ultimate conclusion that all four charges, when considered together, justify the penalty imposed. Because the penalty imposed was demotion, as opposed to removal from service, the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) need not show that Mr. Di Paolo was unfit to serve or supervise. The USPS need only show that the totality of the four charges establishes that Mr. Di Paolo’s performance did not comport with the exemplary level of responsibility associated with the position of Postmaster. Because the USPS met this burden, we agree that Mr. Di Paolo’s demotion promotes the efficiency of the service. We therefore affirm the decision of the MSPB.
US Court of Appeals For the Federal Circuit
Mr. Di Paolo has served in the USPS for over twenty-eight years. He acquired the position of EAS-21 Postmaster of the Lincoln Post Office in 2005. After around two years of service as Postmaster, Mr. Di Paolo was demoted to EAS-17 Supervisor of Computerized Forwarding Operations Services. Mr. Di Paolo challenged this adverse action before an administrative judge. Although the administrative judge accepted some of Mr. Di Paolo’s arguments, he sustained at least in part the four charges against Mr. Di Paolo and found that demotion was an appropriate penalty. Mr. Di Paolo then petitioned for review before the MSPB. The Board agreed with the administrative judge and affirmed the USPS action. Mr. Di Paolo now appeals to this court. We have jurisdiction over the appeals from the MSPB pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703. Read more
PostalReporter News Blog Will Be Down For a Few Hours
PostalReporternews.com will be making some changes to the blog so hold all of your comments until tomorrow morning.
Thank You!
Shirley L. McLennan, APWU Clerk National Business Agent Dies
Shirley McLennan, American Postal Workers Union, National Business Agent, Clerk Division, Cincinnati Region
McLennan, Shirley L. (BAUCOM),66 of Louisville, passed away December 24, 2009 at Norton Healthcare Pavilion after a long battle with cancer with her loving family by her side.
She was employed as a National Business Agent with the American Postal Workers Union based in Dayton, OH.
She was a loving mother, grandmother, sister and friend to many. She was a 24 year survivor of breast cancer and a strong advocate for breast cancer awareness.
She is preceded in death by her mother; Marian Baucom, grandson; Austin McLennan and brother; Gary Baucom.
She is survived by her children, Jeffery and Tony McLennan, and Lisa Veteto (Jim); grandchildren, Alex, Erin, Mary, Zoe and Matthew; brothers, Jack (Dana) and Bo Baucom; sisters, Fleta Casey, Peggy Merriman, Carol Masden (David) and Geraldine “Gerri” Parker (Terry).
A celebration of Shirley’s life will be held noon Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at Arch L. Heady & Son Funeral Home and Cremation Services, 3601 Taylor Blvd.,(Louisville Kentucky) with burial to follow in Resthaven Memorial Park. Visitation will be from 4-8 p.m. Monday and 2-8 p.m. Tuesday.
Expressions of sympathy may be made to KPWU Scholarship Program, P.O. Box 35457, Louisville, KY 40232.
source: PostalReporter reader