At a meeting between APWU officers and USPS officials in Washington DC on Aug. 16, the Postal Service acknowledged that local managers have no authority to post more Non-Traditional Full-Time (NTFT) assignments in Customer Service areas than the number needed to accommodate Part-Time Flexibles and Part-Time Regulars when they are converted to full time on Aug. 27, Director of Industrial Relations Mike Morris has reported. A provision of the 2010-2015 Collective Bargaining Agreement [PDF] requires the Postal Service to convert all PTFs in Level 21-and-above offices and PTRs in the Clerk Craft and MVS Craft on Aug. 27.

The meeting was prompted by reports from the field that some local managers have notified the union of plans to post more NTFT duty assignments than are needed. Postal officials at USPS headquarters agreed to inform field managers that they have no authority to post NTFT in excess of the number of conversions slated for Aug. 27.

“If local, district or area managers persist in posting an excessive number of NTFT jobs, please provide the details to your National Business Agent, so the problem can be addressed,” Morris said.

“Remember, local union input — including a meaningful opportunity to review, comment, make suggestions and propose alternatives — is required before Non-Traditional Full-Time duty assignments can be posted,” he said.

After duty assignments are posted to accommodate the PTFs and PTRs that will be converted on Aug. 27, management will send suggested staffing criteria to the field for each Customer Service area. Locals will have an opportunity to provide input and propose alternatives to their counterparts in order to ensure as many “desirable” duty assignments as possible are created.

Any disputes that result from these postings will be addressed in the Administrative Dispute Resolution Process, described in Memorandum of Understanding on Non-Traditional Full Time Assignments [PDF].

via NTFT Assignments Cannot Exceed the Number of Employees to be Converted.

When the US Postal Service and the American Postal Workers Union reached a collective bargaining agreement in March, Postmaster General Pat Donahoe said “This is a responsible agreement that is in the best interest of our employees, our customers and the future of the Postal Service. The contract will help lay a foundation that is fair to our employees and stakeholders.”

A month later, when Donahoe and APWU President Cliff Guffey testified together before Darrell Issa’s committee, Donahoe was asked what the USPS needed from Congress. The PMG responded that there were only three things he needed- an end to the prefunding, return of the FERS overpayment, and five day delivery. “Get those things out of the way and you will never see us again!”

And then, just last week, he suddenly changed his mind. Which raises the question- why did Pat think the contract was a good deal just a few short months ago? When did the situation change so drastically that he not only wants to throw it out, but also needs to slash benefits for all postal workers and retirees? Shouldn’t a CEO be better at charting his company’s future?

Self-appointed postal “watchdog” Darrell Issa has been tweeting about his postal “reform” bill again- it’s the one, you may recall, that calls for adding two more layers to the postal bureaucracy, as well as increasing the USPS’s debts by $10 billion. In his tweets Issa repeats his false claim that the USPS is looking for a taxpayer bailout, and links to a press release from a group called “TheTeaParty.net”, that claims to have “sent more than 114,000 letters” to Congress supporting Issa’s bill. While the group’s name sounds like it might be part of the Koch Brothers’ Tea Party organization, it isn’t.

A conservative blogger earlier this year reported that visitors to the web site who signed up for updates ended up being “spammed with ads to buy gold, silverware and knick knacks and other items”. There’s more about the scam at Raw Story, which cites a local Phoenix TV station’s exposé on the group, alleging that the group took in lots of money, but spent most of it promoting its own web site.

League of Postmasters Releases Statement on USPS Newsbreak Regarding Retirement and Health Benefit Proposal.

The National league of Postmasters fully recognizes the gravity of the financial position the Postal Service finds itself in, but is extremely concerned about the Postal Service’s radical notion to abandon the Federal retirement system and the Federal Health Benefit Plan, the most efficient and effective set of health care plans in the United States. Not only would such an action throw postal employees to the wolves, but withdrawal of postal employees from the Federal Plans could put the continued health and stability of those plans into jeopardy.

We have recently seen action by certain elements in the government that have taken the notion of federal government irresponsibility to a new high. Not surprisingly, we have seen the disgust of the American public with that type of irresponsibility also reached a new high. Suggestions such as these by the Postal Service fit into the same category and should not even be considered.

Were the Postal Service a private business, it would stop prefunding a pension plan that was already overfunded, and it would be allowed to transfer the existing surplus from its pension funds to its retirement health benefit funds. But, because it is a federal government entity, it is not allowed to do that because such actions would disrupt the smoke and mirrors that the government has used for years to make itself look good.

It’s time for Congress to do the right thing. Stop forcing the Postal Service to make payments into a fund that is already overfunded, and start allowing it to use the surplus in its pension funds to prefund its retiree health benefits. Were those actions to be allowed, this nonsensical talk of withdrawing from the federal pension system and from the federal health benefit system would disappear, and some semblance of rationality could once again begin to creep back into policy discussion in Washington, D.C..

via National League of Postmasters – Latest News Briefs.

NEW YORK, Aug. 12 — The Direct Marketing Association issued the following news release:

The Direct Marketing Association (http://www.the-dma.org/) (DMA) applauds Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe for proposing new cost-cutting ideas for the US Postal Service (USPS) for Congress and the postal community to examine. To return to financial stability, the Postal Service has stated that it is seeking legislative changes to allow for network and workforce adjustments.

The Postal Service faces imminent insolvency due to declining mail volume. Insolvency of the USPS will harm the $1 trillion "mail" segment of our nation’s economy and the millions of jobs it supports. Mailers can no longer fund the excess capacity in the USPS network and its corresponding employee complement through postage. USPS must right-size its network to match the new reality of lower mail volume.

"Every effort to bring the postal service back from the brink of insolvency must be examined," said Jerry Cerasale, DMA’s senior vice president of government affairs. "We applaud the Postmaster General for expanding that dialogue."

From the Mailhandlers Union:

With National bargaining over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement about to begin, the Postal Service has publicly announced that management is seeking wholesale changes in its collective bargaining agreements. In short, they are asking Congress to override collective bargaining.

President John Hegarty and Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner have sent a memo out to the field outlining the NPMHU’s opposition to these ill-conceived schemes.

* * * * * * *

August 12, 2011

TO: All Local Unions

All National/Regional CAD

FROM: John F. Hegarty, National President

Mark A. Gardner, National Secretary-Treasurer

RE: USPS to Congress: Break Our Collective Bargaining Agreements

With National bargaining over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement about to begin, the Postal Service has publicly announced that management is seeking wholesale changes in its collective bargaining agreements. USPS management also has decided to try to bypass the NPMHU and other postal unions, by asking Congress to enact legislation that would impose most of its outrageous proposals. Instead of coming to the bargaining table in good faith, management is looking for two bites of the apple. The mentality seems to be: let’s see what we can get through bargaining, and then if we don’t like it, we’ll go to Congress. This might lead one to ask: Has Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker been named the new PMG?

Just yesterday, the Postal Service announced that it was seeking to abrogate the no-layoff clause, eliminate the application of the CSRS and FERS retirement systems to postal employees, and end the Postal Service’s coverage under the Federal Health Benefits Program. And to make matters worse, the Postal Service did not propose these changes at the bargaining table, but instead went straight to Congress to seek these changes by legislation. USPS management has circulated two “white papers” on Capitol Hill and in the press that attempt to justify their actions. Those “white papers” will be posted on our web site, and will also be circulated to the Union Leadership at our upcoming National-level meeting (which ironically is being held in Wisconsin).

Apparently, the Postal Service understands that such draconian proposals would have little chance of being supported by the NPMHU during the next round of bargaining, so instead the agency decided to ignore its obligation to bargain directly and in good faith with the NPMHU.

Such tactics do not suggest that postal management will be adopting an enlightened and cooperative atmosphere during this year’s collective bargaining, but only time will tell. In the meantime, the NPMHU and all of its Local Unions and members are urged to oppose these changes with their elected representatives on Capitol Hill. This end-around by USPS management only reinforces the need for all rank and file mail handlers to put pen to paper, and write to their elected representatives to oppose this foolhardy scheme.

The National Office continues to gather additional information, and these matters will be discussed in greater detail with all of the Local Union Presidents.

Please feel free to disseminate this information as you deem appropriate.

via NPMHU: NPMHU SUPPORTS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS.

From the National Associtaion of Postal Supervisors:

The Postal Service yesterday proposed a series of extraordinary and controversial legislative actions to pull its employees and retirees out of the federal retirement and health benefit programs and terminate the no-layoff provisions of its union contracts.

If Congress were to approve the actions, the Postal Service would likely provide smaller retirement and health care benefits to its workforce, and as well as cut as many as 220,000 jobs by 2015.

The Postal Service is facing insolvency in late September due to massive retiree health care pre-payments required by Congress under a 2006 law. The benefit and layoff proposals are in addition to USPS proposals to eliminate Saturday mail service, close 3,700 locations and consolidate processing facilities.

In a statement released today, National Association of Postal Supervisors President Louis M. Atkins said:

“We recognize the grave financial situation of the Postal Service in light of falling mail volume and revenues. Clearly Congress must act to assure continued mail service to the American people.

The realignment by Congress of the Postal Service’s prefunding payments for its future retiree health care obligations remains the most viable way to provide relief, along with appropriate operational measures to reduce costs and achieve savings. For the past two years we, along with the rest of the postal community, have supported House and Senate proposals that would realign the retiree health prefunding payments. We continue to urge Congress to realign the prefunding schedule when it returns, before the Postal Service on September 30 must pay another costly $5.5 billion for future needs that will not arise for decades.

While we will continue to study the details of the Postal Service’s new proposals for administering its own retirement and health care plans, we are deeply apprehensive about their validity and their impact upon our members.”

The House and Senate proposals referenced by Atkins are contained in legislation proposed by: Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA (H.R. 1351); Sen. Tom Carper, D-DE, (S. 1010); and Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME (S. 353).

The
Postal Service proposals are explained in two discussion drafts addressing “Postal Service Health Benefits and Retirement Programs”and “Workforce Optimization.”

The Postal Service in a media release rationalized its proposals because it “will be insolvent next month due to significant declines in First-Class Mail volume, the effects of a Congressional mandate to prefund retiree health benefits and increases in network costs, wages and benefits.” In April during a House hearing, the Postal Service defended the no-layoff provisions in two recently-negotiated union contracts.

The Postal Service proposals require the approval of Congress before they can be implemented.

Bruce Moyer
Legislative Counsel to NAPS

From the National Association of Postmasters of the US (NAPUS):

NAPUS fully recognizes the extraordinary financial difficulties confronting the Service, resulting from overpayments into the retirement system, overly-aggressive prefunding of retiree health coverage, and falling mail volume. However, the USPS proposal to deny its employees and retirees access to a stable, affordable, and time-tested earned health and retirement recklessly endangers the health and retirement security of all postal employees. Consequently, NAPUS urges Congress to reject the USPS proposal.

via NAPUS.

Just months after concluding a negotiated agreement with the American postal Workers Union, the US Postal Service is asking Congress to invalidate portions of that agreement. The most important provision the USPS would like to jettison is layoff protection for current APWU represented employees. Which raises a serious question- why did the USPS agree to continued layoff protection if it presents an obstacle to cutting costs so serious as to require breaking the contract before the ink has dried?

The postal service’s explanation seems to be that because an arbitrator established the no-layoff clause in 1978, arbitrators will always and forever include it in future arbitration awards:

In 1978, the Postal Service proposed to eliminate layoff protections; however, when this issue went to interest arbitration, the arbitrator declined to accept this proposal, and instead gave complete layoff protection to those employed on the date of the decision, and to all newly hired employees once they had achieved six years of continuous service with the Postal Service. Arbitral precedent therefore indicates that arbitrators are unlikely to eliminate layoff protections entirely.

But the US Postal Service is in very different financial circumstances now than it was in 1978. The USPS could have allowed the negotiations to go to arbitration, and argued that the market and financial situations required it to have the ability to lay off employees. (Contrary to widespread misinformation, there is nothing in the law that forbids an arbitrator from considering the financial health of the USPS in reaching a decision.)

An arbitrator could well have extended the no-layoff clause anyway- but at least the USPS would have had a consistent and unambiguous argument for legislation.

So why didn’t it take the obvious course of action? It’s difficult to avoid the suspicion that the service used the extension of the no-layoff clause to extract significant concessions from the union- waived or delayed COLAs, a two tier pay system, the redefinition of “full-time” to mean 30 hours, and a big increase in non-career employees. It’s inconceivable that the union would have agreed to any of those items without layoff protection.

And now that the USPS is aggressively implementing the concessions it won, it asks Congress to eliminate the one big concession it voluntarily gave the union in return. That doesn’t sound like good faith bargaining.

The USPS decision to seek legislation now also places the upcoming city carrier negotiations in jeopardy- why would the NALC agree to a contract knowing that the USPS is already seeking to invalidate the one it just signed with the APWU?

The PMG’s decision doesn’t make a great deal of sense politically, either. It should be obvious to anyone who’s been awake for the last few months that no significant legislation to truly address the USPS’s situation is going to pass this Congress. The House GOP will block anything they think remotely resembles a “bailout” (including the correction of undisputed pension overcharges), while the Democrats in the Senate will at least try to defend the collective bargaining rights of postal workers.

The end result will be the same as the status quo: stalemate. The only change will be the perception that the USPS has acted in bad faith in negotiating with its employees.

From National Association of Letter Carriers President Fred Rolando:

Yesterday, in a mandatory stand-up talk, Postal Service management all across the country told letter carriers:

“If we were a private company, we would have already filed for bankruptcy and gone through restructuring—much like major automakers did two years ago.”

The Service repeated this claim in a press release distributed to the nation’s news media as well.

Of course, it’s not true. But the USPS seems to think that if it repeats this “Big Lie” often enough, most people—and especially members of Congress—will think it’s true.

So, let’s set the record straight: If the Postal Service were a private company, it would not have to file for bankruptcy because it would not be subject to a USPS-specific congressional mandate to pre-fund future retiree health benefits. As it is, it is the only federal agency required to do so: It must pre-fund these benefits some 75 years into the future on a massively accelerated schedule.

This postal-only mandate, which costs the USPS $5.5 billion per year, accounts for 100 percent of the Postal Service’s $20 billion in losses over the past four years. It also accounts for 100 percent of the rise in the Postal Service’s debt in recent years. Without the mandate, the USPS would have been profitable over the past four years and it would have significant borrowing authority to ride out the bad economy. It would not have had to file for bankruptcy.

In fact, no private company in America is required to pre-fund future retiree health benefits, either by law or private-sector accounting standards. The $47 billion the Postal Service has deposited into its retiree health fund over the past four years would have been available for operating costs. And those companies that voluntarily do pre-fund would never have adopted a crushing schedule to pre-fund 80 percent of future retiree health costs in just 10 years. Nor would they mindlessly stick to such an onerous schedule in the middle of the worst recession in 80 years.

Congress, aided and abetted by the Office of Personnel Management and the General Accountability Office, mandated the destructive pre-funding policy in 2006. The common-sense solution is obvious: Let the Postal Service use the massive surpluses in its pension plans, found by two independent audits, to cover the cost of pre-funding. Indeed, 181 members of the House—from both parties—have co-sponsored legislation to adopt this solution (H.R. 1351). But thanks to the dysfunctional nature of Congress, the bureaucratic blindness of OPM and the Office of Management and Budget, and the single-minded stubbornness of the Congressional Budget Office, which “scores” any change in the pre-funding provisions as increasing the deficit even though no taxpayer funds are involved, the Postal Service now faces a financial crisis in September when the next $5.5 billion payment is due.

Don’t believe the “Big Lie.” The Postal Service is not going bankrupt. Rather, Washington politics is killing it.

via Latest News | The ‘Big Lie’ about postal ‘bankruptcy’.