NNA joins alliance, files motion to dismiss postal rate increase proposal
The National Newspaper Association Monday joined a nationwide alliance of nearly 700 companies and associations calling for the Postal Regulatory Commission to promptly dismiss a request for a major postage rate increase.
The Affordable Mail Alliance, representing NNA members and many other mailers’ organizations, told the PRC today that the Postal Service must not be permitted to hike rates beyond inflation.
“Allowing the Postal Service to raise prices above the Consumer Price Index in this case would nullify the single most important safeguard for mailers and the public in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006,” AMA argues in its motion.
full story Wetumpka Herald
Former Oklahoma Postmaster Charged With Embezzlement
A Fort Gibson woman was charged late Monday with embezzling nearly $1,200 while employed as postmaster at the U.S. Post Office in Hulbert.
Prosecutors allege Galvan converted money orders and cash totaling $1,199.84 to her own use between April 1 and July 20.
An affidavit filed by Investigator David Hill states a money order for $450 cleared the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis, Mo., on June 30, when postal records showed the money order had not yet been sold by the Hulbert post office.
full story Tahlequah Daily Press
Postal Worker Fired For Using Profanity Loses Suit Against Union
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, issued a startling decision on June 16, 2010, in Jeunes v. Potter. The Court upheld the removal of a postal employee who “admits that he used profanity during a verbal altercation with a co-worker on October 26, 2007, conduct clearly proscribed by the zero tolerance policy.” The Court based its decision upon Connecticut District’s version of the zero tolerance policy, which bans “any type of vulgar language which would lead to a hostile workplace.”
Jeunes also filed suit against the National Rural Letter Carriers Association , arguing that the union had failed in its duty to represent him.
The US District Court for Connecticut has ruled in favor of the union. Here are some excerpts:
On October 26, 2007, while employed at the New Fairfield Connecticut USPS branch, Plaintiff had a verbal altercation with a co-worker on the work room floor. As a result, Plaintiff was placed on an off-duty status without pay on that date and terminated effective December 27, 2007. Plaintiff and Defendant dispute what exactly occurred on October 26, 2007. The USPS notice of removal informing Plaintiff of his termination states that several witnesses heard Plaintiff making vulgar and threatening remarks to a coworker and challenging him to a fight.
Plaintiff’s co-worker informed him of a package awaiting delivery on his route. The notice of removal alleges that Plaintiff responded to his co-worker with statements such as: “why you f***ing bothering me?” “what’s your f***ing problem,” “f***ing asshole,” f***ing pussy,” and “bring it on pussy.” (Def.’s Br. Summ. J. 4.) Plaintiff admits to making some of these comments but denies others. At least two other USPS employees who witnessed the incident signed statements confirming that Plaintiff used this language and threatened violence.
The USPS has a zero tolerance policy on violence, which states: “each and every act or threat of violence from this day forward will elicit an immediate and firm response that could, depending on the severity of the incident, include removal from the Postal Service.”
Prior to this incident, Plaintiff had been disciplined four times by the USPS. The USPS has previously sought Plaintiff’s removal for failure to disclose a criminal arrest on his employment application. In addition, in 2006, Plaintiff was suspended for seven days for poor attendance. In 2007, he was suspended for fourteen days for failure to follow instruction. In 2008, he was suspended for seven days for failure to be regular in attendance, unsatisfactory work performance and failure to follow instructions. Plaintiff also has a criminal record for assault and was arrested in 2005 in connection with a domestic altercation.
Plaintiff filed a grievance protesting his October 2007 off duty placement and November 2007 removal. He refused, however, to attend counseling through the employee assistance program, stating that the program “is for crazy people.” Defendant represented Plaintiff in his grievances through step three. However, after review by Mr. Anderson and general counsel, Defendant concluded that Plaintiff had no reasonable likelihood of success at arbitration.
On July 31, 2008, Mr. Anderson wrote Plaintiff informing him of Defendant’s initial decision and his right to provide additional information. Plaintiff provided no further information, but Mr. Anderson and the general counsel’s office reviewed Plaintiff’s file again after the twentyone day period. Both offices reached the same conclusion and Plaintiff’s grievance was withdrawn on August 25, 2008.
Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to summary judgment contains conclusory allegations that Defendant’s decision not to pursue arbitration was made in bad faith and was discriminatory. However, the record does not provide any evidence to support these allegations. In fact, the record reflects a reasoned, good faith decision on the part of Defendant and a Plaintiff unhappy with the outcome of his grievance but without a legal claim. It is clear that Plaintiff does not have an absolute right to arbitration either under the CBA or federal law.
Throughout the grievance process, Plaintiff was represented by Nate Gillotti. Plaintiff admits that he was satisfied by Mr. Gillotti’s handling of his grievance from steps one through three. Plaintiff’s only complaint regarding his representation is that “they didn’t take the case to arbitration.” Plaintiff offers no examples of discriminatory conduct or even negligent representation by his Union. Instead he states, “I just didn’t like the outcome.” When asked what Defendant could have done differently to fairly represent him, Plaintiff vaguely responded that the Union should have “fought better in these [prior] grievances I would have – – I wouldn’t be fired right now.”
Furthermore, the record reflects Defendant’s thorough and competent representation of Plaintiff’s claim. Defendant took witness statements, filed the appropriate grievance forms and wrote letters on behalf of Plaintiff. Defendant followed its usual procedures before deciding to withdraw Plaintiff’s grievance from arbitration. NRLCA Director of Labor Relations Anderson and NRLCA General Counsel Gan each reviewed all material relating to Plaintiff’s case. Based on the documentation, both offices made the reasonable determination that because of Plaintiff’s hostile and threatening behavior during the incident at issue, history of discipline, refusal to engage in counseling, criminal record and the zero tolerance policy, Plaintiff’s grievance had “no reasonable likelihood of success in arbitration.” Following this determination, Plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to provide the Union with additional information or arguments. Although Plaintiff did not provide any additional information, the file was still given a fresh and second look by both Mr. Anderson and attorney Jean Marc Favreau from the general counsel’s office. This fresh look did not result in a different conclusion and Mr. Gan recommended that the case be withdraw from arbitration.
Even taking this evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is nothing in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant acted arbitrarily, in bad faith or with discriminatory motives.
There is no question of fact for a jury to decide.
PMG Names New Chief Postal Inspector
PMG Jack Potter has named Guy Cottrell the 38th chief inspector of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. He begins his new assignment Aug. 1.
A 23-year postal employee, Cottrell has a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of New Orleans. He most recently served as deputy chief inspector, where he was responsible for USPS national security programs.
In 1987, Cottrell began his postal career as a letter carrier in New Orleans. In 1990, he became a Postal Inspector in the New Orleans Division, where he investigated internal and external mail theft in Louisiana and southern Mississippi. He has held a number of supervisory positions in various major metropolitan areas, including management of the Inspection Service’s Washington field office during much of the 2001 anthrax investigations.
In 2008, Cottrell was named inspector in charge of the Security and Crime Prevention/Communications group. In that position, he guided the Inspection Service toward a risk and management analysis platform and streamlined security-related programs. His group produced several internal and external security and crime prevention publications and videos and also created a new Postal Inspection Service website.
Cottrell also will serve as chairman of the Universal Postal Union’s Postal Security Group.
source: USPS News Link
Sen. Susan Collins: USPS Proposed Exigent Rate Increases Are Not Justified Under Law
Filed under: postal, postal news, postal reform, press releases, usps
Senator Susan Collins issued the following press release:
SENATOR COLLINS AGREES WITH ARGUMENTS IN MOTION TO BLOCK PROPOSED POSTAL RATE HIKES
Collins Backs Position taken by the Affordable Mail Alliance
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and author of the landmark postal reform law, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, issued a statement today in support of the Affordable Mail Alliance’s Motion to Dismiss the U.S. Postal Service’s proposed rate increases.
The Alliance filed its motion with the Postal Regulatory Commission, arguing that the Postal Service’s rationale for its proposed rate hikes does not meet the required criteria to use an exigent rate case – which would allow postal rates to exceed the annual price increase cap.
Senator Collins’ statement follows:
“As the author of the 2006 postal reform law, I completely agree with the Affordable Mail Alliance that the Postal Service’s proposed exigent rate increases are not justified under law.
“Let me be clear. The authority to increase rates under an exigent case can only be used in extreme and unforeseen instances – such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other events that would cause significant and substantial disruptions in service. The law was not meant to be used to remedy poor economic performance or to offset an ongoing marketplace trend, such as the increased use of electronic over traditional mail.
“In addition to not meeting the criteria set forth in the law, the exigent rate case is simply a bad business decision. Rather than help restore postal solvency, an exigent rate increase will worsen the Postal Service’s crisis by further driving down mail volumes and thus revenues. Such action will erode further the Postal Service’s already declining customer base. The Postal Service should be looking at initiatives that will increase volume and attract more consumers. These rate increases will do just the opposite.”
Direct Marketing Association Statement on Postal Service Rate Hike Request
Press Release
Washington, DC, July 26, 2010 — The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) and the DMA Nonprofit Federation (DMANF) today asked the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) to dismiss the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) request to increase postal rates by ten times the rate permissible by law. The petition was filed by the Affordable Mail Alliance, of which the Direct Marketing Association and the DMA Nonprofit Federation are supporting members. The Affordable Mail Alliance’s members are commercial and nonprofit organizations. Commercial mail accounts for 85 percent of the Postal Service’s revenues.
The Postal Service seeks to raise prices by an average of 5.6 percent — more than ten times the current rate of inflation — claiming as “exigent” circumstances the recession of 2008-2009 and electronic diversion of First-class mail. This action by USPS comes just three years after Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006, which was supposed to prevent rate increases that exceed the rate of inflation. USPS claims that there are “exigent circumstances” that necessitate an increase, and that one of those circumstances is the shift of mail to the Internet.
The motion filed by the Affordable Mail Alliance asserts that “the Postal Service’s most fundamental problem is not the Internet, or the recession, but a lack of effective cost control.”
“Businesses across the country have had to make difficult decisions due to the recent recession – tightening their belts, increasing productivity and in some cases, cutting their workforces as their revenue fell by 20 percent or more,” said Jerry Cerasale, DMA’s senior vice president of government affairs. “Because of this highly efficient management, many of those same businesses – including UPS and FedEx – have managed to return to profitability within a quarter or two. The Postal Service has not taken the same difficult steps. Instead, its unit costs rose by six percent in 2009 as prices fell across the economy. The Service has a lot more work to do to bring their costs under control before turning to its customers for yet another rate increase.”
In the motion, the Alliance holds that “raising prices above the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in this case would nullify the single most important safeguard for mailers and the public in PAEA. If the increases are approved, the central regulatory constraint of PAEA will be dead.”
Cerasale also said, “The things that Congress envisioned as ‘exigent circumstances’ were events like September 11th, Katrina, or the anthrax crisis. Mail shifting to the Internet and the economic downturn just don’t rise to the same level as those other events.”
The Affordable Mail Alliance includes charities, large and small businesses, American household names and the customers who use the Post Office every day – customers that will suffer if USPS successfully raises rates again.
For more information or to speak with a representative from the Affordable Mail Alliance, please visit www.affordablemailalliance.org.
Affordable Mail Alliance Calls on PRC to Dismiss Postal Service Rate Hike Request
Filed under: postal, postal news, press releases, rate increase, usps
Press Release
Wrong on the Law, Wrong on Policy, Wrong on the Economy, and Wrong on Jobs:
Washington, DC – The Affordable Mail Alliance (AMA) today called on the Postal Regulatory Commission to dismiss the Postal Service’s rate hike proposal filed on July 6, 2010. AMA’s motion argues that the rate hike violates the cost controls Congress put in law to protect consumers and that the Postal Service needs to cut costs and modernize rather than raise rates an average of ten times the rate of inflation.
“Allowing the Postal Service to raise prices above the Consumer Price Index in this case would nullify the single most important safeguard for mailers and the public in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (“PAEA”),” AMA argues in its motion. Senator Susan Collins (R‐ME), an author of the 2006 law, has already said the proposed increases do not qualify for an exception under the standards established by Congress.
The Affordable Mail Alliance (AMA) is a coalition of over 700 large and small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and associations of mailers that together account for a majority of the mail sent in the United States. Its members employ over 7.5 million workers and contribute nearly one trillion dollars to the economy each year.
The PAEA limits the average postal rate hike to inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).There is an exception to the CPI cap only for “exigent circumstances” when the Postal Service could not continue operating without overall price increases above the CPI. But this exception is intended only for “extraordinary or exceptional circumstances” that would leave the Postal Service short of funds to provide necessary services despite “the best practices of honest, efficient and economical management.” The AMA argues that the Postal Service has not met that test, pointing out:
• Economic downturns are a part of life. The ups and downs of economic cycles, like changes in the weather, are not “extraordinary” or “exceptional” circumstances.
• The trend toward internet communications away from mail has been taking place over the past fifteen years, giving the USPS years to prepare for the decline in volume. It hasn’t.
• While the recession, which began in December 2007, caused sharp declines in volume and revenue, competitors of USPS, such as FedEx and UPS, had comparable or even greater declines.
Those and other well‐run firms, made the necessary and painful cuts in operating costs and capacity to increase productivity. The USPS did not and its productivity has fallen.
“The result has been devastating,” the motion argues. “In Fiscal Year 2009, when prices in the overall economy actually declined, the Postal Service costs per unit of output increased by more than six percent. Had the Postal Service merely held its costs to the level of inflation in the general economy, the Postal Service would have made a profit in 2009.”
The AMA noted that businesses large and small and individuals across America have tightened their belts, cut their spending, and made painful choices due to accommodate challenging times.
“Now the Postal Service expects customers to pay the price for its refusing to do what its customers had to,” the AMA said. “For our organizations, the Postal Service’s unwillingness to do its part will mean the loss of thousands of additional jobs, further cuts to pay and benefits. This is an issue about investing for possible future growth or paying higher taxes in the form of higher postal rates. At this time of a shaky economic recovery, this is the functional equivalent of a tax increase on every American postal customer, whether individual or business. If this takes effect January 2, 2011, and American businesses and consumers will be spending more on postal services, there will be less money for investment, payrolls, and business growth.
“Punishing customers with higher prices is not the way to make the Postal Service solvent. In fact, without effective cost control, trying to make the Postal Service solvent through financial infusions will be like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in its bottom. The Postal Service will lurch from one financial crisis to the next. The American people will sooner or later have to pay, through higher taxes or higher prices.”
For further information, please visit www.affordablemailalliance.org
Click here for a copy of the Motion to Dismiss
Plan to scrap Saturday mail delivering angst
It’s not just letters, bills or greeting cards that Joan Sherman of Ronan brings to her postal customers on her daily 110-mile jaunt through rural Lake County. Try checks from cattle sales, prescription medicines, parts for farming equipment — even live chicks once.
She won’t be making those deliveries on Saturdays anymore if the U.S. Postal Service has its way.
Full story: Plan to scrap Saturday mail delivering angst | greatfallstribune.com | Great Falls Tribune.
Atlanta Postal Supervisor Stabbed, Hospitalized
ATLANTA (AP) — Atlanta police say a supervisor at a bulk mail center was stabbed and a co-worker is under arrest.
Police say the attack took place about midnight Sunday.
Full story: Atlanta postal supervisor stabbed, hospitalized : News : WFXL Fox 31.
Do Congress And PRC Agree On USPS’s Ability To Request An “Exigent” Rate Increase?
From Mailing Mailing Systems Technology via Postcom:
A question that’s top of mind for many mailers who went through the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) is, what does Congress think
about the recent USPS filing to the PRC of an exigent rate increase? Here are some things to consider on the legality of the filing (not the rates themselves) that
Congress may weigh in on.