TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM H. YOUNG ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO submitted to the Postal Regulatory Commission regarding USPS Five-Day Delivery Request:
My name is William H. Young. I submit this testimony on behalf of Intervenor National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO (“NALC”), which serves as the collective bargaining representative of a nationwide bargaining unit of city letter carriers employed by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). I served as NALC’s President from 2002 to 2009.
In November 2006, during the last round of bargaining between NALC and USPS for a new collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”), NALC made an offer to USPS that included a package of proposed savings. In its offer, NALC proposed a separate workforce of letter carriers to delivery mail on Saturday, with all other letter carriers working only on weekdays.
Under NALC’s proposal, the Saturday letter carrier workforce would have been composed in part of letter carriers who had retired from delivering mail full-time but who wanted to continue to work for USPS one day per week. NALC believed that there was a substantial number of retirees who might be interested in such a Saturday-only position.
Under NALC’s proposal, to the extent Saturday positions remained available after retirees were hired, the Saturday workforce would have consisted of new hires hired from the USPS hiring register who agreed to take a position delivering mail one day per week until fulltime positions with USPS became available.
Under NALC’s proposal, the retirees in the Saturday workforce would have been paid at Step O pay under the CBA. However, USPS would have saved a substantial amount employing them since they were already retired; USPS would not have needed to make pension or retiree health contributions on their behalf. USPS would also have saved a substantial amount employing new hires who worked on Saturdays only. These new hires would have earned entry-level Step A pay under the CBA so long as they were part of the Saturday workforce. Moreover, under NALC’s proposal, these new employees would not have been entitled to pension, health, annual leave and other benefits.
NALC estimated that its proposal would have saved USPS several hundred million dollars annually, assuming that the new Saturday workforce were composed half of retired letter carriers and half of new hires. During negotiations, NALC shared this savings estimate with USPS and USPS did not dispute it.
Although NALC’s proposal would have substantially reduced the cost of Saturday deliveries, USPS did not accept it.
A separate part-time workforce to deliver mail only on Saturdays would make dropping Saturday deliveries easier down the road. A future interest arbitrator could expand this dumb idea to other days.
How would PTFs get more hours under this plan? It would clearly eliminate the T6 position and reduce PTF hours. It makes absolutely no sense from a union point of view, which makes it amazing that the previous union president actually proposed it. Honestly, if anyone can explain how this would be good for any NALC union member other than non-T6 full time regular carriers, I really would like to hear it.
I think this is a good idea. I know of a lot of poeple that would like to retire but just aren’t quite there yet. I think this would give them the incentive to retire, without really retiring. The rest of the positions would be filled with PTF’s and TE’s so they wouldn’t be out of a job either, they might even get more hours under this plan. And I know they are talking about hiring just one day a week employees but every one knows that the supervisors would use and abuse them more than just that one day. Take another look at this one please…
Just because some of you would not work just one day per week, it does not mean others would not. What kind of childish thought is ” feeding a family with 300 per week.” give me a break. there are many people that would welcome the supplemental income. It was agreat idea. personally i have spoken with many retired, or soon to be retired letter carriers, and they love the idea. 300 per week is 1200 per month; not bad for 4 days of work.
Giles H,
How do you feel about someone who starts a sentence with, “Yeah, well”? How do you feel about someone who uses the plural word, “ravings” to describe a single occurance? Lastly, how do you feel about someone who uses the singular pronoun “someone” while using the plural predicate “Them”?
Why don’t you try focusing more on the message rather than focusing on minor grammar issues?
Just as I picked apart your comments for picking apart the writer, someone can also pick apart my picking apart your picking apart the writer.
Again, it is the message, man: Not the delivery.
Hey Giles, it was your union that thought this one up. Not management…lol
Oh, management has such lovely plans for carriers. I remember the posters where I used to work that explained how carriers were to deliver medical supplies in the event of a nuclear attack; currently management is volunteering all the carriers (but not their own lazy asses, of course) to deliver vaccines and antibiotics in case of an epidemic or chemical-biological attack. It’ll work real well, too: I’d guess their survival rate at less than 50%, just from the local criminals hijacking the medical supplies once they found out that the carriers would have them. But management always puts the safety of its employees first, right?
Having retirees deliver on Saturdays is just so stupid an idea that only the highest-paid Elephant Plaza executives could have thought of it, between making sweetheart deals with companies they have a financial interest in and using their staff for their personal business.
After working 40 years I’m going to retire and work for less pay on the very day I hate to work
Yeah I can feed my family on one day a week, carring 40lb no matter what the weather. They will be lining up for this one…lol
Funny that so many people have a better Idea for saving the PO like this union one…
And you think they are smarter than management….that’s a laugh. Mailman you are right. Let see how many would curtail their mail till saturday. I am not saying all, but some would take advantage of these employees and so would the management. What do you think will happen when your station is going to be short during the week. Violation of the N.A. or L.M.U.
the post office did not accept the offer because management did not come up with the idea! management only cares about killing the post office and walking away with millions!
Who does he think would take a job for 1 day a week? Maybe that’s his schedule.You need as many carriers on Saturday as any other day, and there aren’t enough retirees for that. As for new hires, how’s $300 a month sound? And you must be available or you’ll be fired. They’d quit after 2 weeks and get a real job. Bill Young is the NALC’s Potter.
Obviously “Harry” Potter is looking to destroy the p.o. He has some other agenda for it. And once I retire in 2 months as a 29 year veteran carrier, why in the heck would I want to go back part-time? When mgmt. treats us like crap now, imagine how they would treat a part-time work force. Would NOT want any part of that mess!!!
Bill Young’s offer as President of the NALC was sound and forward thinking. The fact that the Postal Service did not accept shows that there was already another agenda in place that had nothing to do with the best interests of the Postal Service.
I believe that it is time to look at the leadership of the Postal Service and to seriously examine the direction that “Doomsday” Jack Potter has taken the Postal Service.
Is he trying to save the Postal Service or destroy it?
That john potter statement is not true. He would never give away a box of doughnuts.
I will accept your offer Mr. Young on one condition.That all full time letter carriers resign and become part time carriers instead. I’ll even throw in a box of doughnuts
What would have happened to all the T-6 and the PTFs that have been working for years? Most of the PTF are working around 40 hours. They would all be out of jobs.
Yeah, well, when someone uses “Would Of” instead of the proper “Would’ve” or “Would Have” I reserve the right to consider them functionally illiterate and discount anything they follow it with as the ravings of an idiot. Sorry, but that’s the way I see it.