USPS: Combination Carrier-Clerk Duty Assignment Cancelled
Tarzana, CA Postmaster Shawn White has notified Local APWU President Richard “Ski” Kwiatkowski that the Combination Carrier-Clerk duty assignment posted on July 27, 2010 has been cancelled:
“This is to inform you that the combination bid assignment #70445772 has been cancelled and will not be re-posted at this time.”
Previous article posted July 28, 2010:
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.
Two Congressional Panels Approve Bills to Continue Six-Day Mail Delivery
Two Congressional Panels Support Six-Day Service
APWU Web News Article 074-2010, July 30, 2010
Two congressional panels voted on July 29 to approve spending bills that would require the Postal Service to continue to provide mail delivery six days per week. The two bills — one in the Senate and one in the House — still have a long way to go before they could become law, however.
“These are important steps, but we must clear many more hurdles in order to stop the Postal Service from eliminating Saturday delivery,” said APWU Legislative & Political Director Myke Reid. “The full Senate and House would have to approve the bills, and then the two versions would have to be reconciled to resolve any differences between them.” Spending bills are traditionally very difficult to pass, he said.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 18-12 to approve a spending bill for Fiscal Year 2011 that would prevent the U.S. Postal Service from reducing mail delivery from six days to five. The House Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee voted by voice.
On July 28, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, announced that he had persuaded the members of the Senate panel to reject the USPS proposal. Sen. Tester explained the importance of six-day mail delivery to rural America.
“Folks in rural and frontier communities often rely on their Saturday mail to bring them the things they need to live. 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.”
The bill notes the crucial role of six-day service. It says, “The Committee believes that six-day mail delivery is one of the most important services provided by the Federal Government to its citizens. Especially in rural and small-town America, this critical service is the linchpin that serves to bind the Nation together.”
APWU: Arbitrator Denies Union’s Challenge To USPS Two-Tour Initiative
Arbitrator Issues Decision in Dispute Over Two-Tour Initiative
Arbitrator Das denied the union’s grievance challenging the Postal Service’s two-tour initiative. Das accepted the Postal Service’s argument that “Article 3 of the National Agreement grants the Postal Service the authority to unilaterally adopt and implement the … initiatives at issue, without further bargaining with the Union.” He cited language in Article 3 that states the Postal Service “‘shall have the exclusive right’ to ‘assign … employees,’ to ‘maintain the efficiency of the operations entrusted to it’ and to ‘determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted.’” Das also cited a 1977 national award in which Arbitrator Garrett stated that the Postal Service isn’t obligated “to engage in ‘collective bargaining’ as to whether or how it should exercise its authority under Article III of the National Agreement.” In addition, he referred to a 1973 national award in which Arbitrator Gamser stated that the right to change tour complements “appear[s] [to be] specifically reserved to Management under Article III of the Agreement as well as dictated in enabling legislation, Section 1001 of the Postal Reorganization Act.” (USPS #Q06C-4Q-C 09051867; 7/27/2010)
Click here for a summary and copy of the decision
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
USPS In California To Post Combined City Carrier-Clerk Duty Assignment?
Filed under: APWU, NALC, letter carriers, 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.
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.
Should APWU Reverse Its Decision To Boycott USPS Voice of the Employee Surveys?
From the American Postal Workers’ Union ‘Ask the President’ on Voice of the Employee Surveys:
Question:
I would like the National Executive Board to reconsider its stance on participation in Voice of Employee surveys.
Here is my reasoning: Management releases their “findings” and states something to effect that 63 percent of those participating gave a favorable response. That may be true, but it is very misleading because the good members of the APWU have boycotted and not voiced our opinions.
I believe that if APWU members honestly answered the questions, management might discontinue the VOE. I believe that if the National Executive Board reconsidered its position on boycotting the VOE and formulated a plan to tell the truth about what is happening in many facilities across the nation, the true voice of the employee would be heard.
Michael, Local 7038, Tri-County Ohio Area Local
President Burrus:
Thank you for communicating with my office and sharing your views about the APWU position on participation in Voice of the Employee surveys.
The union decided to boycott the surveys because postal management used selective responses to justify regressive contract proposals.
The views of employees are critical in the workplace, but the union is responsible for hearing the opinions of all employees and speaking with one voice on their behalf.
Union meetings provide an excellent forum to discuss issues and resolve contradictions among workers. They offer an opportunity to set goals and voice complaints. When there are differences of opinion, union members have the opportunity to resolve them democratically and establish the union’s official position.
When we begin collective bargaining in September, the union will have to contend with management proposals that counter our demands. Management’s improper use of the opinions of individual employees would only serve as a distraction.
Thank you for your concern about your employment and your support for your union.
July 22, 2010
Facts Don’t Lie: Chart Shows True Picture of Postal Service’s Financial Health
Burrus Update 12-2010, July 21, 2010
In a series of recent Updates for union members, I have pointed out that the Postal Service’s current financial difficulties are the result of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which imposed on the USPS the onerous burden of pre-funding future retiree healthcare liabilities — in amounts exceeding $5 billion annually over a 10-year period.
Despite the accuracy of my Updates, numerous articles and editorials in the mainstream media have reported somberly on the Postal Service’s desperate financial situation. My response has been that USPS deficits are directly linked to the pre-funding issue, and do not accurately reflect the relationship between postal revenue and expenses related to providing mail service.
A USPS chart [PDF] confirms my analysis: It shows that from 2001 through 2008, minus the pre-funding requirement of the PAEA, the Postal Service experienced a cumulative surplus of more than $14 billion.
This record refutes the screaming headlines that the Postal Service’s financial situation is in need of major surgery if the USPS is to survive far into the future. The chart clearly rebuts the leading sentence of virtually every media report about the Postal Service’ proposed rate increase and the future of mail.
It does not take a genius to look at the true picture of postal finances and conclude that despite the diversion of hard-copy communication and the worst recession in 60 years, the Postal Service has performed admirably. The deficits of 2007 and beyond directly correspond to the future healthcare funding obligation, period.
William Burrus
President
Union Praises House Bill To Restore USPS Financial Stability
APWU Web News Article 069-2010, July 19, 2010
The APWU is praising a bill introduced by Rep. Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), which is designed to restore financial stability to the Postal Service. The legislation (H.R. 5746) would modify the formula for funding the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), and would rectify overpayments to the CSRS by the Postal Service ranging from $50 billion to $75 billion.
“I urge APWU members to contact their U.S. representatives immediately and ask them to co-sponsor this important legislation,” said union President William Burrus.
The bill (The United States Postal Service’s CSRS Obligation Modification Act of 2010) would alter the methodology used to determine the allocation of costs for retirement benefits between the federal government and USPS. Under current law, the costs are disproportionately split between the two, to the disadvantage of the Postal Service.
The USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded in a January 2010 audit that the Postal Service had overpaid approximately $75 billion for employees who spent part of their career working for the old Post Office Department before the USPS was established. An independent study performed by the Segal Group, which was commissioned by the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), likewise found that the current methodology was not “fair and equitable,” but concluded that the disparity was between $50 billion and $55 billion.
H.R. 5746 would require the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to conduct a review to determine whether the USPS has overpaid CSRS; if OPM determines that the USPS has overpaid, the surplus would be transferred into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits fund. This provision would lessen the severe burden imposed on the USPS by the requirement in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) to “pre-fund” future retiree health benefits.
The pre-funding requirement, combined with the economic downturn, has prompted the Postal Service to propose severe cutbacks in service, such as closing stations and branches, consolidating installations, and eliminating Saturday mail delivery.
“This bill could go a long way to alleviating the Postal Service’s financial difficulties,” said Legislative and Political Director Myke Reid. “We urge union members to get active right away in support of this legislation.”
The House subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia, which Lynch chairs, may vote on the bill as early as July 21.