OSHA Fines USPS Mail Facility in Vermont $420,000
OSHA Fines USPS Mail Facility in Vermont $420,000
Federal labor officials say they’ve cited a Vermont postal facility for a half-dozen safety violations and will seek $420,000 in fines.
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration says worker complaints at the U.S. Postal Service’s processing center in White River Junction led to an inspection in January that found employees were exposed to deadly electrical hazards.
OSHA says untrained or unqualified workers did work on live electrical equipment without proper safety measures
Burrus: Mailers Want To Cut Postal Employees Wages At Least $18,000 Yearly
Burrus Update #13-2010, July 29, 2010
Competing Interests, Diverging Views
In many Updates and editorials on postal issues, I have criticized the influence of large mailers on the USPS — even while acknowledging that they provide much of the volume that makes it possible for the Postal Service to maintain its national network and provide middle-class employment to more than 600,000 Americans. I have frequently pointed out that the interests of these large mailers generally run counter to those of postal employees.
While some union leaders have joined forces with the mailers to achieve narrow legislative objectives, and others speak in favor of partnerships, I have counseled APWU members that the large mailers and postal workers have competing agendas.
A case in point involves the Postal Service’s recent proposal to raise the price of stamps. An association of large mailers, the Affordable Mail Alliance, vehemently opposes the rate hike and filed a protest with the Postal Regulatory Commission, which must consider the USPS proposal.
The mailers’ motion vividly exposes the lack of respect they have for postal employees and the collective bargaining process. A casual review of the document [PDF - see pages 50-62] reveals their callous desire to punish postal workers for the Postal Service’s financial difficulties — difficulties the mailers inadvertently fostered by promoting the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. The PAEA imposed crippling financial obligations on the USPS — obligations that are responsible for the Postal Service’s current predicament. To compensate for their colossal mistake, the major mailers wish to penalize postal workers.
In lieu of an editorial describing my reaction to this vicious attack, I invite postal employees to read the motion and draw their own conclusions.
Exercising Influence
The Affordable Mail Alliance, along with other organizations representing large mailers, influences postal policy by lobbying and applying significant resources to shape legislation. They hope to set the tone for the USPS-APWU contract negotiations scheduled for later this year.
While the opinions of these mailers are not dispositive, it is important that postal workers and their unions understand the power they have on matters affecting postal employment. The opinions expressed in this filing are a frontal attack aimed at eliminating collective bargaining as the vehicle for establishing the terms of employment in the United States Postal Service.
The major mailers wish to amend the law so that the Postal Service would have the unilateral right to set wages and benefits, leaving employees with only one option: Accept it or quit. This is the model the large mailers use with their employees; as they generated billions of dollars in profits from worksharing alone, their employees had no vehicle to demand an appropriate share. It would be interesting to review the salaries of the executives in the companies that form the Alliance and compare them with the salaries of postal employees.
The Alliance asserts that postal wages, benefits, and conditions of employment constitute a pay “premium” of more than 33.9 percent over other workers. Their “analysis” is based on USPS figures that suggest that total postal “compensation,” which includes both wages and benefits, averages more than $80,000 per year.
To put the mailers’ conclusion in context, they believe the wages of bargaining unit employees should be cut by at least $18,000 per year, with corresponding reductions in healthcare, life insurance, leave, and other benefits! The reduction they suggest would represent a loss of approximately $700 each bi-weekly pay period.
Yet the July 26 edition of Business Mailers Review, a newsletter prepared by a representative of the mailers — the very mailers who take exception to the results of free collective bargaining — reported on a study that showed mailers reaped $10.7 billion in “profits” from workshare discounts in 2008 based upon the postal costs avoided. With tongue in cheek, I ask, if postal wages were reduced arbitrarily, would the mailers suggest that workshare discounts should be reduced to the arbitrarily set “cost-avoidance” rate?
The Sides
For those members and observers who have not identified the sides in this struggle, on one side we have the employees who have organized into groups (unions) that are committed to playing by the rules of democracy, negotiating the terms of employment, and resorting to binding arbitration when voluntary agreement cannot be reached. On the other side are the mailers, whose profits are affected by postal employee wages and benefits. These mailers believe in capitalism and democracy — as long as “democracy” excludes the opportunity for workers to have a meaningful voice in their place of employment. The mailers would prefer to eliminate collective bargaining entirely, but if they are forced to accept the process they favor a law that would guarantee the outcome.
I encourage postal employees to closely examine the Alliance’s document to enhance their understanding of the forces engaged in this struggle. Please note that the Alliance analysis is not craft specific. The mailers’ efforts are not targeted to a specific group of postal employees, such as clerks, letter carriers, mail handlers, etc: Their goal is to quench their insatiable thirst for profits at the expense of all postal employees.
The indecent pay and bonuses many CEOs receive do not seem to bother the Alliance; however, they put each advance by working people under a microscope for after-the-fact comparison.
William Burrus
President
EEOC Annual Report On USPS Workforce Fiscal Year 2009
From EEOC: This report covers the period from October 1, 2008, through September 30, 2009 and contains selected measures of agencies’ progress toward model EEO programs.
Targeted Disabilities
As of September 30, 2009, USPS employed 5,372 (0.76%) Individuals with Targeted Disabilities (IWTD). In order to have met the federal 2% participation rate goal, 14,158 IWTD were needed. This represents a decrease of 482 employees from FY 2008 and a decrease of 794 employees since FY 2005. The participation rate for FY 2008 was 0.77% and for FY 2005 was 0.88%. Over the 5-year period USPS had a net decrease of 0.12% in employees with targeted disabilities.
EEO Complaint Processing
I. Counseling
USPS timely processed 99.5% of the 17,054 pre-complaint counselings (without remands) completed in FY 2009.
II. Bases of Complaints Filed
The bases of alleged discrimination most often raised were: (1) Reprisal; (2) Disability (Physical); and (3) Age. Of the 5,659 complaints filed at USPS, 1,283 contained allegations of race (Black/African American) discrimination, 570 contained allegations of race (White) discrimination, 128 contained allegations of race (Asian) discrimination, 17 contained allegations of race (American Indian/Alaska Native) discrimination, 757 contained allegations of color discrimination and 2,533 contained allegations of disability discrimination.
III. Complaint Processing Times
Of the 3,014 completed investigations, 99.2% were timely. USPS’ average time for completing an investigation was 113 days. Of the agencies completing 25 or more investigations, the Tennessee Valley Authority had the lowest average of 100 days.
USPS’ average processing time for all complaint closures increased from 238 days in FY 2008 to 243 days in FY 2009. The government-wide average was 344 days.
IV. Costs
USPS agreed to pay $840,044 for 4,584 pre-complaint settlements, of which 433 were monetary settlements averaging $1,940. USPS expended a total of $4,541,324 for 3,014 complaint investigations, for an average expenditure of $1,507.
USPS agreed to pay a total of $5,631,795 plus other benefits for 598 complaint closures through settlement agreements, final agency decisions, and final agency orders fully implementing AJ decisions. For complaint closures with monetary benefits, the average award was $9,418.
See Report on USPS Workforce Composition
USPS In California To Post Combined City Carrier-Clerk Duty Assignment?
Filed under: APWU, letter carriers, NALC, postal, postal news, usps
USPS has notified a Local California APWU President of its intent ( it appears that the assignment has already been posted) to post a “combined full-time assignment” , consisting of six (6) hours of carrier duties and two (2) hours of clerk duties. The Postal Service has proposed to post this job as a City Carrier Craft assignment under the jurisdiction of NALC.
Here is a breakdown of the duties:
Manual Distribution, Breakout and Spreading: 1:59,
Office Time 1:16 and
Street Time: 4:45.
The Full-Time assignment also has a “scheme” attached along with qualifications necessary to be awarded the job.
Excerpts of the letter from USPS to the Local California President:
This is to inform you of my intent to utilize the provisions of Art 7.2A of the National Agreement to create a full-time assignment by combining duties from different crafts. The reason for establishing the combination assignment is to provide maximum full-time employment and provide necessary flexibility.
Attached you will find a copy of the combination assignment to be posted. This bid job will be designated to the NALC represented craft.
Senator Says Panel will block USPS Proposal to drop Saturday Mail delivery
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - The Senate panel that oversees the budget of the U.S. Postal Service will not consider cutting mail delivery to five days per week, Senator Jon Tester announced today.
Tester used his position as a member of the Senate Financial Services Appropriations Subcommittee to push for continued Saturday service, because people who live in rural areas rely on Saturday delivery for essential deliveries like medications, newspapers, and checks.
The USPS was considering a proposal to stop Saturday delivery service to homes and businesses in an attempt to cut costs. But Tester said the move would amount to relatively small savings and cost hundreds of jobs in Montana alone.
“Folks in rural and frontier communities often rely on their Saturday mail to bring them the things they need to live,” Tester said. “Unlike in urban areas where folks can walk down the block to the local drug store, many Montanans live long distances from the nearest pharmacy or newsstand. Getting mail six-days per week is part of what keeps rural America strong and thriving.”
Testers said the decision to keep Saturday service is part of the Senate’s Fiscal Year 2011 Financial Services Appropriations Act, which the full Appropriations Committee will vote on Thursday.
Tester said as a child, he remembered hearing from a 93-year old woman about her life experiences and how important rural mail service was to her. The woman told Tester that she had lived through two world wars and the invention of the automobile, airplane and spaceflight. She said that after all of those experiences, the thing she was most thankful for was reliable rural postal delivery service.
Tester is a powerful advocate for rural postal services. In recent years he pushed the USPS to keep open post offices in Kinsey and Black Eagle, and to maintain postal delivery service in Martin City.
source: Senator Jon Tester press release
South Dakota Rural Letter Carrier Sentenced To Probation for Mail Theft
July 26, 2010
Sioux Falls, SD
US Attorney Brendan V. Johnson announced that a Yankton man charged with mail theft was sentenced on July 26, 2010, by US District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Brandon G. Novak, age 42, was sentenced to three years of probation and 40 hours of community service. Brandon G. Novak was indicted for five counts of theft of mail by postal employee by a federal grand jury on February 2, 2010. Novak was a full-time United States Postal Service employee, having been so employed since 1996. Novak was a rural mail carrier assigned to deliver mail on Rural Route 7 in Yankton, South Dakota. Between July 1, 2009, and October 15, 2009, Novak came into possession of correspondence and other mail items intended to be conveyed by the United States mail. Included within this correspondence and mail were items containing gift cards and coupons. On several occasions, Novak would take out store coupons and gift cards from mail and use them to buy personal items for himself. He pled guilty to one count of theft of mail on May 5, 2010. This case was investigated by the Office of the Inspector General – United States Postal Service. Assistant US Attorney Dennis H. Holmes prosecuted the case.
source: United States Attorney’s Office for the District of South Dakota
Postal Maintenance Employees To Split Almost $92,000 For USPS Subcontractor Work
This is a summary of Regular Panel Arbitrator Andrew M. Strongin’s decision in case H06T-1H-C 08374323 regarding the Postal Service’s decision to subcontract the disassembly, transport, and installation of a Low Cost Tray Sorter from Cincinnati, Ohio to the West Palm Beach P&D. The Union contended that the work was subcontracted without the prerequisite “due consideration” of the five factors of Article 32.1.A of the National Agreement, and asked that all affected employees be made whole[1]. The Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance by ruling the Postal Service failed to give due consideration to the five factors of Article 32.1.A of the National Agreement, and that a make-whole award was appropriate. He found the Service’s repeated and continuous failure to provide relevant remedial information to the Union up to and including the date of hearing, and the lack of evidence that such information could be provided at arbitration that the remedy shall be measured by the only currently available evidence, which is the Maintenance Manager’s estimate of the subcontractor’s labor cost, as contained in his belated Article 32 analysis.
In requesting a make-whole remedy, the Union emphasizes that it timely sought from the Service, but even to date has not been provided, information relevant to the cost of the subcontract and the number of hours worked by the subcontractor’s employees. Based on the Service’s failure to provide the requested information, the Union argued that the appropriate measure for a make-whole remedy is the only evidence that exists in the record, which is the Service’s own estimate of the labor cost as set forth in Goodrich’s belated Article 32 analysis, or the lump sum of $91,580.00, to be divided between all affected employees.
Ruling for the Union the arbitrator correctly reasoned:
Ordinarily, a make-whole remedy in a subcontracting case would turn not upon the estimated labor cost of a subcontract, but instead on some measure of actual damages. Arbitrators differ over the question whether such actual damages should be measured, for example, by the subcontractor’s labor cost or by the number of hours devoted by the subcontractor to bargaining unit work, whether at straight time or overtime rates. In cases where evidence of actual damage is not available or is difficult to discern, it is not uncommon for questions of remedy to be returned to the parties for settlement. See, e.g., Case No. H7C-NA-C 36 (Mittenthal 1993) (“It may not be easy to construct a money remedy or to identify the injured employees. But the parties have been confronted in the past by remedy problems every bit as complicated as this one and they have been able through hard work and imagination to fine a mutually acceptable solution.”). . . Appropriate respect for the proper functioning of the grievance procedure generally, and the process for requesting and providing relevant information specifically, counsels in favor of an award of the estimated labor costs ($91,580.00) to be divided among all affected employees. The Service’s desire to limit the amount of the make-whole award is understandable, but the Service cites no contractual authority or arbitral precedent for limiting the award to the difference between the hours worked by bargaining unit employees during the time of the subcontracting, and the total hours they could have been required or allowed to work under the Agreement at that time. The Arbitrator rejects as inadequate that proposed measure of damages. Full employment of available employees generally is not a defense to subcontracting violations under the parties’ Agreement and related arbitral precedent with which the Arbitrator is familiar, and it bears noting that such a limitation on a make-whole remedy would permit the Service to violate Article 32.1 with virtual impunity in any facility where employees are fully occupied.
Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director
American Postal Workers Union
Arbitration Decision: USPS Failed to Give Full Consideration To Employee’s Request For Voluntary Transfer
An arbitration decision sent out by Gary Kloepfer to APWU Union officers and members.
This is a summary of Regular Panel Arbitrator Andres M. Strongin in case H06T-1H-C-08255189 regarding the Postal Service denial of an employee’s request for voluntary transfer. The arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance; he ruled the Postal Service violated grievant’s right to request a transfer under Article 12.6 of the National Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Transfers by virtue of its failure fully and fairly to consider his work, safety, and attendance records.
The grievance protests the June 11, 2008, denial of grievant’s request to transfer from West Palm Beach to the Miami P&DC, due to an unacceptable attendance record. The Union claimed that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of Article 12.6 and the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Transfers.
The Union contended that the Service’s denial of grievant’s transfer request was arbitrary and capricious in violation of Article 12.6 and the Transfer MOU, which requires the Service to give full and fair consideration to transfer requests such as grievant’s. The Union emphasized that there is no evidence to support the Service’s consideration of any factor other than grievant’s attendance, and that even that factor was insufficiently considered in light of Suarez’s admitted failure to consider anything beyond the raw numbers on the Form 3972′s.
The arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance; in so doing he noted:
Given the facts of this case, the language of the Transfer MOU provides a natural starting point for the analysis to follow. As the MOU provides at Section D, Suarez, as the gaining installation head, was required to give full and fair consideration to grievant’s work, safety, and attendance records. While Suarez obviously is entitled to conduct his own evaluation of those records, the provision of the MOU requiring the losing installation head to be fair in his evaluation, effectively requires the conclusion that the record on which Suarez’s “full and fair consideration” is to be based, must include consideration of the losing installation’s evaluation, which itself must be “full and fair.” . . . . the Service’s inability to demonstrate any consideration of grievant’s work and safety records would require judgment in favor of the Union. As the Transfer MOU and both parties’ citation to arbitral precedent makes clear, the Service is required to consider all three factors – work, safety, and attendance – even if its decision ultimately is based on only one. As the Transfer MOU and related cases make clear, perfection is not the standard for consideration of transfer requests.
Gary Kloepfer
Assistant Director, Maintenance Craft
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
note: the title of this summary was created by PostalReporter as Mr. Kloepfer had a different title in his email.
USPS Contract Postal Unit Closes After Losing Too Much Money On Operations
JAMAICA BEACH, Texas — Post office customers will have to buy their stamps at a new place today — in a van parked behind city hall — because contract postmaster Quinton Biggs said he no longer can afford to subsidize his deal with the U.S. Postal Service.
He closed his in-store sales unit for good at noon Saturday after losing “about $50,000″ on its operation.
Another contributing factor in Biggs’ decision to quit was a limit in the number of stamps he could sell any one customer.”I could not sell to anyone who wanted more than the limit because I had to sign an affidavit that I would not split the sale into amounts below the limit,” he said.”So grocery stores and other customers that buy big quantities had to go into Galveston for their stamps.
Full Story: KHOU-TV
USPS To Conduct Two-Part Survey Of Employees and Customers
From the National Association Of Postmasters of the United States (NAPUS)
President Bob Rapoza received on July 20, 2010 a notice from the Postal Service that they will conduct a two-part survey of the employees and customers. The survey is intended to gain insight into people’s perception of the Postal Service brand and how the organization has impacted them. The Postal Service will solicit input from two different groups of 500 randomly selected Postmasters. Employee participation is voluntary. The research will be conducted through two surveys: The first will begin approximately July 26 and is expected to conclude by August 6. The second will begin approximately September 20 and is expected to conclude by October 1.