Congressman Issa Asks: Can USPS Survive Paying Higher Wages While Workload Decreases?
Filed under: Congress, politics, postal, postal employees, postal news, usps
On March 23, 2011, Rep. Darrell Issa (CA-R), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced “a full committee hearing on United States Postal Service (USPS) pay and benefits on April 5th. The Committee expects to hear from the Postal Service on their tentative agreement offered to their largest union, the American Postal Worker Union (APWU), last week. The agreement has yet to be signed.” “The Postmaster General, the President of the American Postal Workers Union, and two members of Postal Board of Governors are expected to testify.” The hearing will bed shown online at http://oversight.house.gov Read more
Federal Times: USPS To Cut 30,000 Postal Employees
Post_and_Parcel just tweeted
#USPS is not announcing plans next week to cut jobs by 30,000 this year. They’ve told us it is just 7,500, as announced previously.
According to Federal News Radio, Federal Times has found out about USPS plans to reduce the wordforce
In the Federal Times article:
The positions targeted, which will hit as many as 10 district offices and headquarters, include 3,500 administrative positions, 2,000 front-line supervisor and manager positions, and 2,000 postmasters.
Donahoe said the announcement will be part of a broader effort to trim postal ranks by 30,000 positions this year.
He said the Postal Service will use attrition and early retirement offers to reach that number. He said the Postal Service is still weighing whether to use buyouts as well.
He said that if the Postal Service resorts to using a buyout offer, it will be targeted and not organization-wide.
There is nothing really in the article that we did not already know from 2 months ago. Most of the VERs over the last 9 years have not “organization-wide.” Either craft or managerial groups were left out o the VER offers.
The Postal Service’s goal is to cut 30,000 employees overall for the year, said Federal Times editor Steve Watkins, breaking the news on Your Turn with Mike Causey.
USPS will also announce a drawdown of 7,500 positions on March 25 that include unoccupied positions, administrators, frontline supervisors and managers and postmasters, Watkins said.Federal Times found out about the plans after an editorial board meeting with Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe.
USPS Drops Policy On Direct Marketing Co-Branded Products and Services to Postal Employees?
Filed under: postal, postal employees, postal news, privacy, usps
The policy covered all Postal Service-sponsored direct mail marketing pieces that communicate a co-branded offer by direct mail using the employee mailing list and via other internal employee communications vehicles. “The employee mailing list is derived from the Postal Service employee master file, which is the complete home address database of all career and non-career, full and part-time employees. The direct mail piece must be co-branded. Mailings may only use the Postal Service brand identity or Postal Service brand, or be co-branded, as expressly provided for in the agreement between the Postal Service and the business firm, and as approved by the manager of Brand Equity and Design.”
USPS recently announced:
“Effective immediately, Management Instruction AS-333-2004-7, Direct Marketing and Co-Branded Products and Services to Employees, is obsolete.”
This “Strategic Business Initiatives Plan, Management Instruction – AS-333-2004-7″ was at the center of a lawsuit filed in 2007 by a 10-year employee in Seattle, Washington. Over 100 Postal Employees had “opted-in” to join the complaint by claiming their rights under the Privacy Act were violated. Many of the Postal Employees were unaware the Management Instruction existed or Postal Employees could “opt-out” of the initiative. The class action lawsuit was dismissed by a District Court judge in late 2009.
The lawsuit accused USPS of selling the personal information of its workers to credit card and other companies without consent:
Postal Employees claimed that USPS violated the Privacy Act by selling its employee master file, containing personal, private employee information, including “the complete home address database of all career and non-career, full and part-time employees.
According to lawsuit, the Postal Service’s disclosure of information is evidenced by the Postal Service’s “Strategic Business Initiatives Plan, Management Instruction – AS-333-2004-7,” a postal regulation that allows private corporations to submit competitive bids for co-branding and other types of marketing agreements using the employee master file. Postal Employees complained that all of this is done without the Postal Service employee’s approval, consent, or knowledge. They also argued that the Postal Service received more than $8.5 million in profit by selling its employee master file.
The Postal Service admitted that it engaged in direct marketing of co-branded products and services to its employees but their actions does not violate the Privacy Act. The Postal Service argued in part the lawsuit should be dismissed because (1) it is an improper challenge to a Postal Service regulation, i.e., the “Strategic Business Initiatives Plan, Management Instruction – AS-333-2004-7,” ; (2) it arises out of Postal Employees’ employment relationship with the Postal Service; and (3) there is no clearly defined independent cause of action for unjust enrichment under federal common law.
The court finds Plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the prohibition against challenging a Postal Service regulation by contending that they are not challenging the regulation itself, but the profits received from enacting the regulation, to amount to a distinction without a difference. The core of Plaintiffs’ claim against the Postal Services is its enactment and implementation of the Management Instruction. Accordingly, the court concludes that Plaintiffs’ claim of unjust enrichment is a direct challenge to the Postal Service’s Management Instruction – the regulation granting it authority to enter into the co-branding agreements – and therefore there is no waiver of the Postal Service’s sovereign immunity for this remaining claim. Accordingly, the court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim based on a Postal Service regulation.
For the reasons stated GRANTS the Postal Service’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 55). The court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ complaint against the Postal Service
Postal Workers Class Action EEOC Cases Against USPS
Filed under: eeo, legal cases, postal, postal employees, usps
The following are summaries of some class action EEOC cases pending and/or settled against USPS.
John Cyncar vs USPS
In the first class action case, complainant John Cyncar on April 30, 2001 filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., (Rehabilitation Act). Cyncar then moved to have portions of his complaint certified as a class action. He alleged, on behalf of the class, that the Postal Service’s Western Area Region violated the Rehabilitation Act when it treated qualified individuals with disabilities between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2002 differently and less favorably than non-disabled individuals with respect to benefits provided by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and that the Postal Service’s treatment of disabled employees with respect to the FMLA resulted in failure to accommodate their disabilities and the discriminatory issuance of disability related absences. An EEOC Administrative Judge certified the class and letters were sent out to 49,000 potential class members . The USPS denied that it violated the Rehabilitation Act, FMLA, or that it did anything wrong. Regardless, the parties agreed to settle this Case on Dec 22, 2010. The parties decided to settled this case due to in part that Phases of the litigation would possibly take up to 5 or 6 more years (the case was already 8 years old). Cyncar v. United States Postal Service.
The settlement provided that USPS will pay, in full settlement of all claims in this Case:
The total sum of three-million-eight-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollars ($3,850,000)
This sum is comprised of: (1) a Class Fund of two-million-seven-hundred-thousand-dollars ($2,700,000); (2) two-hundred-thousand-dollars ($200,000) as a Reserve, as described in Section 7.3 of the Global Settlement Agreement; and (3) payment of attorneys’ fees and costs to Class Counsel in the amount of nine-hundred-fifty-thousand-dollars ($950,000).
From the Class Fund of $2,700,000.00, the following amounts are allocated as follows:
a) $20,000.00 to Class Agent Cyncar for his efforts throughout the course of the litigation;
b) $3,500.00 per person for each of the eight members of the Cyncar Settlement Committee; and
c) The payment of $9,783.54 as reimbursement for costs contributed by Class members
A provision that unclaimed funds would be divided equally between the USPS and the Wounded Warriors Fund.
All amounts remaining in the Reserve after payment of all Administrative Costs would be divided among eligible class members on apro rata basis.
Next case
Diana Pevoteaux v. United States Postal Service
The proposed class complaint alleges that the agency discriminated against class members when medical information was posted in the eRMS and made available to all personnel with access to the system in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, it is alleged that the Postal Service is violating the Rehabilitation Act restrictions on the storage of confidential medical information by entering medical conditions and histories, including symptoms, diagnoses, or conditions, in the case comments section of FMLA Data Reports maintained in eRMS (Enterprise Resource Management System). It also alleged that the Postal Service is violating the Rehabilitation Act by disclosing this stored medical conditions and histories through eRMS to managers and supervisors who do not need the information to provide accommodations or to ensure medical restrictions are followed. This case is still pending.
Sandra McConnell vs USPS
A class action complaint for injured on duty postal employees was certified by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) on May 30,2008.
In the case of (Read article from February 17, 2009) Sandra McConnell, et al. v. United States Postal Service an AJ decision certified the following class:
All permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty employees at the U.S. Postal Service who have been subjected to the National Reassessment Process (NRP) from May 5, 2006 to present, allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The AJ certification decision recited evidence that the goal of NRP was to assign work to employees who had an approved compensable injury as determined by the Department of Labor.
Class members argued one or more of the following complaints:
1. NRP is a systemic attempt to abolish reasonable accommodations agency wide.
2. The agency’s alleged facially non-discriminatory policy is being applied in a discriminatory manner.
3. The process constitutes denial(s) of reasonable accommodation.
4. The process constitutes discrimination based on disability (physical/mental).
5. The process constitutes unlawful harassment and hostile work environment based on disability (physical/mental).
6. The agency unlawfully modified or terminated each person’s approved disability accommodations without cause.
7. The agency made its reassignment decisions improperly by, inter alia, failing to engage in the interactive process.
8. The agency applied the program discriminatorily both with regard to each individual and how the process was applied.
9. The agency’s actions are retaliatory for the individual’s protected conduct, in reporting injuries, filing worker’s compensation, and/or prior EEO activity.
10. The agency’s conduct violated its procedures and OWCP’s regulations and blatant failure to follow the agency’s own regulations is presumed to be motivated by retaliation and/or discrimination. This case is still pending.
Edmund Walker vs USPS
Edmond C. Walker, the class agent in the Walker class action, filed a complaint on August 19, 2002. Walker alleged that, since April 2000, the Postal Service discriminated against individuals with disabilities by:
1. Placing disabled individuals in permanent rehabilitation positions without engaging in the interactive process as required by law;
2. Restricting disabled individuals who are placed in permanent rehabilitation [sic] to limited work hours without any medical justification and without consulting the individual with a disability;
3. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to work the number of hours determined appropriate by the individual and his/her physician and which are available; and
4. Fail[ing] to allow individuals with a disability, who have been placed in permanent rehabilitation positions, to use assistive devices in the workplace to accommodate their disabilities, including but not limited to, electric scooters, notwithstanding that said assistive devices pose no threat to safety or inconvenient [sic] in the workplace.
This claim has been analyzed to include denial of overtime.
On December 12, 2003, an EEOC Administrative Judge issued a decision concerning the Walker class complaint. The Administrative Judge ordered the Postal Service to “identify all those pending complaints that raise the same issue as the Walker class complaint during the time frame encompassed by the Walker class complaint, January 1, 2000, to the present.” Unsure of status of this case.
There are several more EEOC class actions cases filed by Postal Workers which I will post at a later time.
Thousands Of Postal Employees To See Social Security Tax Decrease Starting January 7
Filed under: FERS, pay, postal, postal employees, postal news, usps
NEW TAX LAW
SOCIAL SECURITY EMPLOYEE TAX RATE DECREASES FOR 2011
Thousands of postal employees will have their Social Security employee tax rate decrease 2 percent in 2011.
The tax reduction is a result of the “Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010” signed into law Dec. 17, 2010.
The Act temporarily decreases the Social Security employee tax rate from 6.2 percent (of the first $106,800 in earned income) to 4.2 percent for 1 year — but some employees will not see any changes in their tax rate.
Here are the new law’s effects:
■ Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees — Since they do not pay Social Security, the new law does not change their tax rate and there will be no change in their retirement deductions.
■ CSRS-offset and Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS) employees — Social Security tax will be reduced by 2 percent and there will be no change in their retirement deductions.
The Social Security tax rate change will be reflected in Jan. 7, 2011 paychecks. The reduced Social Security withholding will have no effect on the employee’s future Social Security benefits.
Click here for more information, or contact the Accounting Help Desk at 866-974-2733
Injured Postal Worker Loses 40-Hr. Work Guarantee After Voluntary Transfer
DOUGLAS S. MARSHALL, of Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, pro se.
ELIZABETH A. SPECK, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were TONY WEST, Assistant Attorney General, JEANNE E. DAVIDSON, Director, and KENNETH M. DINTZER, Assistant Director.
__________________________
MARSHALL v. USPS 2
Before LOURIE, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Douglas S. Marshall (“Marshall”) appeals the final de-cision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”), dismissing his claim for restoration rights under 5 C.F.R. Part 353. Marshall v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. NY-0353-10-0042-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 22, 2010). For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms.
BACKGROUND
In 1995, Marshall was a part-time letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service (“Postal Service”) in Detroit, Michigan when he suffered a knee injury. After surgery and a period of receiving worker’s compensation, Marshall accepted a modified job as a City Carrier Technician in Detroit. This job carried an 8-hour workday and accomodated Marshall’s physical restrictions. Effective Novem-ber 27, 2004, Marshall transferred to become a part-time Flexible City Carrier in Guayanilla, Puerto Rico. For some time he was paid for 40-hours per week, but, pursuant to Postal Service policy, as a full-time employee who transferred to a part-time position, it was later determined that he was not entitled to a 40-hour work week guarantee. On October 7, 2005, Marshall accepted a part-time 36-hour work week position in Puerto Rico. Read more
USPS Using Temporary Schedule Changes To Avoid Paying Employees Overtime
It appears management officials in many USPS offices across the country are using “temporary schedule changes” to avoid paying Postal Employees overtime. There are also reports that USPS is using Full-time Regular employees like Part-Time Flexibles. Here are two Western Region grievance settlements “Temporary Schedule Changes to Avoid Overtime (PDF)” that may be of interest to readers which states:.
“Management may not schedule employees for the purpose of intentionally circumventing overtime desired list provisions.”
“Management initiated temporary schedule changes should be the exception rather than the norm, and not on a regular or recurring basis. These schedule changes are to be made for a pre-determined duration and used to cover operational needs.”
Additional Information:
Out of Schedule Premium Pay
Out-of-schedule premium is paid to eligible full-time bargaining unit employees when they work on a temporary schedule at the request of management.
Notification Requirement:
Notice of a temporary schedule change must be given to an employee by Wednesday of the preceding service week. If the notice is timely, the employee’s work can be limited to the hours of the revised schedule. Out-of-schedule premium is paid for hours worked outside of, and instead of, his or her regular schedule.
Noncompliance with the Notification Requirement:
If notice of a temporary schedule change is not given to the employee by Wednesday of the preceding service week, the employee is entitled to work his or her regular schedule. Hours worked outside of the employee’s regular schedule are then not worked “instead of” but “in addition to” the regular schedule. The additional hours worked are not considered out-of-schedule premium hours but overtime hours worked in excess of eight hours per service day or 40 hours per service week.
Exceptions:
Eligible employees do not receive out-of-schedule premium when any of the following conditions apply:
Training – Employees attending a recognized training session.
Request of Employee – The employee requests the schedule change for personal reasons. The employee’s supervisor and shop steward or other collective bargaining representative must agree to the change. The employee is responsible to complete PS Form 3189, Request for Temporary Schedule Change for Personal Convenience, and obtain all required signatures.
Request of Employee – The employee requests changes to accommodate intermittent leave or a reduced work schedule for family care or a serious health problem of the employee. (See FMLA.)
Tardiness – The employee is allowed or directed to make up time missed because of tardiness in reporting for duty.
Detail Assignments – When the employee is detailed to:
- Postmaster position as officer-in-charge
- Rural carrier position
- Ad hoc position that requires an irregular schedule when the employee applied and was selected for it
- Any non-bargaining position, if the employee is in the clerk, maintenance, motor vehicle, or materiel support craft
- Bargaining or non-bargaining position in grade 19 or above
source for portions of this article: USPS, APWU
Former Texas Postal Employee Charged With Theft Of Mail Matter
Filed under: legal cases, postal, postal employees, postal news, press releases, usdoj
United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas
September 9, 2010
(LAREDO, Texas) – Raul Cavazos, 62, of Edinburgh, Texas, has been arrested as a result of the return of a sealed indictment which charges him with theft of mail matter by a U.S. Postal Service employee, United States Attorney José Angel Moreno announced today.
The sealed indictment returned on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, by a Laredo federal grand jury was unsealed today following Cavazos’ arrest by law enforcement authorities in McAllen, Texas.
According to the indictment, Cavazos is alleged to have stolen and removed from letters, articles and U.S. currency, which came into his possession while he was employed as a postal employee in Laredo between May 11, 2008, and Oct. 16, 2008. The indictment lists a total of eight separate counts in which Cavazos is accused of having allegedly stolen or removed two Visa gift cards, as well as gift cards from Target, Lowe’s and Best Buy and taking U.S. currency from three separate letters amounting to a total of $105.
Cavazos is expected to be make his initial court appearance tomorrow, Sept. 10, before a U.S. Magistrate in McAllen, Texas. At that time, the United States expects to request of the court Cavazos remain in federal custody without bond pending further criminal proceedings. A court date for a hearing on the government’s motion to will be set for a later date. The case against Cavazos will be prosecuted in Laredo.
Each count of the indictment carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment along with a $250,000 fine upon conviction.
The investigation leading to the charges was conducted by the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General and the United States Postal Inspection Service. Assistant United States Attorney Roberto F. Ramirez is prosecuting the case.
Kentucky Postal Workers Charged With Mail Theft
CORBIN — By Carl Keith Greene / Staff Writer
John Henry Sears and Alyssia Lynn Adkins, U.S. Postal Service employees, have been charged in separate indictments with embezzling mail.
Sears, who is scheduled for arraignment in U.S. District Court in London on Aug. 23, is charged on two counts.
Adkins, who worked at the Heidrick, Ky., Post Office, was also charged on two counts.
The first count charges that between Sept. 8, and Sept. 16, 2009, Adkins embezzled “a postal card or mail and its contents” intended to be conveyed by mail.
Full story: Local area postal workers charged with embezzlement TheTimesTribune.com, Corbin, KY.
Postal Worker Responds to Postcom’s Comment on Employees “Sitting Idly In Holding Rooms”
Postcom.org published the following response to its accusation that postal workers were “sitting idle in holding rooms refusing to do work because contract agreements said they didn’t have to.”(7/14)
:
We sit idle on the clock because management orders us to do so. There are employees asking to leave without pay and they are not allowed to go. There is work for us to perform. I know, I have documented the amount of mail sitting and waiting for management to put the clerks back on the floor. The Union has filed grievances to stop this behavior and they are all held pending a national decision from POSTAL MANAGEMENT. The reason they will not let the employees that want to leave the building go home is because there is work that needs to be done and if they let those employees go home the mail won’t be moved. It’s not the Unions causing the problem. It’s the beancounters in headquarters who have no idea of how the mail actually gets from one place to another. They look at reports and make stupid decisions. If you want your postal rates to go down trim USPS Headquarters. While there are fewer craft employees the number of people employeed at headquarters has increased. Go to your local post office and talk to a window clerk if you want the real scoop on the USPS. Stop beating up the people that do move your mailings and that actually care that it gets moved properly.
Sounds like something the Postal Service’s Inspector General should explore.