I almost titled this piece Why do postal employees hate their customers? You would certainly get the impression from some of the comments posted on postalnews.com, that most postal employees do indeed detest the people who pay their salaries. Now obviously you have to take comments posted anonymously online with an enormous grain of salt, but given the overwhelmingly negative comments, you’ve got to think that the attitude is pretty widespread.

I know that many of the commenters would protest that it isn’t their customers that they hate, it’s the Big Mailers. Which is one of those strange things about the postal service- when postal employees (myself included) think of the word “customer”, we think of the people we deliver to, or serve at the window, or talk to on the telephone.

Most dictionaries, though, would tell you that a customer is “one that buys goods or services”. And who buys the postal service’s goods? Just about everyone in the country. But if you look a little deeper into the revenue reports, you’ll find that of the $55 billion the USPS took in over the first three quarters, only $15.5 billion was from single piece letters, flats and cards. The vast majority of the revenue, and all of the growth came from presorted (i.e. “workshared”) first class (up 1.5%), and the various standard (don’t call it ‘junk mail’) classes (up 2%).

Single piece first class mail volume was down 2.7% from the prior year. Aunt Minnie just isn’t sending as many letters. Like it or not, our biggest customer is Advo.

So why then do so many postal employees, and union heads like Bill Burrus, seem to despise the people who are paying most of their salaries? The most obvious answer seems to be simple short-sightedness. It’s much easier to rail against plant consolidations than it is to respond with well-reasoned alternatives. Burrus might be better off looking for more lucrative buyout options than trying to protect unnecessary plants. Keeping every small plant open will win votes in the union elections, but it might not insure that the USPS is still around when it comes time for younger workers to retire.

The other problem some employees have with big mailers is the perception that they’re somehow getting a free ride- that workshare discounts go too far. Well, maybe they do- but the idea that raising prices will force the mailers to come up with their ‘fair share’ is naive, to say the least. Mailers are in business to make money, period. Raise the price, for whatever reason, and you change the equation, and to some extent, you lose business, and revenue. It doesn’t have anything to do with fairness, or right or wrong.

The bottom line is that the mailers and the postal workers need each other- they should be working together to safeguard the postal service they both depend on, rather than sniping at each other.

It’s the unions, particularly the APWU, that have the most to lose in all this. If the USPS has to keep raising prices because it can’t trim costs, advertisers will find alternatives to direct mail- there are plenty of them out there. Financial services providers will continue to up the incentives for electronic fund transfers rather than shell out more for postage. The growth in workshared and standard volume will slow, and eventually decline. Where does that leave the APWU’s members?

I don’t envy Bill Burrus- he’s in an extremely difficult position, representing the postal workers whose jobs are most at risk from modernization and automation. But demonizing the people who pay his members salaries isn’t going to do him, or them, any good.

The following commentary is by Clint Burleson, President of the Olympia, Washington local of the American Postal Workers Union:

There are plenty of problems with the Postal Service decision to move the cancellation, postmark and sorting of the outgoing mail from Olympia to Tacoma.  But now the Postal Service has admitted that they have possible plans to sort the outgoing Olympia and Tacoma mail in Seattle, which will further increase the problems.   Read the rest of this entry »

(The following commentary comes from Dan Sullivan, who frequently contributes to the 21st Century Postal Worker. Opinions expressed are those of the author. To submit a commentary to postalnewsblog.com, email us at postalnews@gmail.com)

by Dan Sullivan

The piece of vinyl siding was hidden beneath 3 inches of snow when Mike Vinci accidentally found it while delivering mail in Caledonia, NY.

It was like stepping on a sheet of ice.

“My feet went straight up in the air,” he remembers. ” Like an idiot, I hung onto the mail and landed on my elbow.”

Mike finished his mail route that day. But the pain wouldn’t go away.

“I worked for almost a year with shoulder and neck pain, not knowing I had damaged two discs in my neck and partially tore my Achilles tendon in my left ankle.

“I went out of work in February of 1992. It took eight months to even get an OWCP claim number and my first comp check. I had $75 to my name.”

Mike had more than money problems.

It turns out he needed surgeries to repair his ankle and neck. But, like the wheels of justice, the bureaucracy moves slowly. After his ankle surgery, it took another three years to get approval from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) for surgery to fuse his 4^th and 5^th and 6^th and 7^th cervical discs.

His days as a letter carrier were over.

But the Postal Service has always provided work for employees hurt on the job. So when he recovered from his surgeries, Mike was given a position as a part-time flexible clerk at the nearby Geneseo post office. Eventually he worked his way into a regular position.

His work involved the usual clerks’ duties, sorting and distributing letters and flats, clearing carriers and handling accountable mail. Mike has done everything, in fact, except work the window, where the college kids often bring in large parcels too heavy for him to lift because of his medical restrictions.

The story would end here, if the Postal Service hadn’t come up with a scheme to get rid of injured workers like Mike.

Called the Reassessment Program, the plan is being tested in the Western New York District and a couple other areas of the country. The purpose of the program is to cull injured workers from the payroll by dumping them on Workers’ Compensation and then retraining them for private sector jobs.

Mike got his walking papers on May 24, when it took five postal bosses coming down from the Western New York District Office in Buffalo to tell him he was no longer needed.

“A mail carrier had to come in off the street to take over my duties delivering all of the guaranteed overnight mail so that I could attend the meeting,” Mike says.

“They took my badge and walked me out the door. It was 2:00 p.m. They don’t even let you say goodbye to your friends.”

The Geneseo Postmaster, Tammy Kelley, disagreed with the big shots who said there wasn’t any work for Mike.

But what did she know? She was only looking out for Geneseo and wasn’t able to see the big picture.

‘Tammy insisted to them that, not only was I doing a great job and an asset to the office, but the work was there for me to do and had not changed. She also emphasized that I was included in the office budget hours, compiled by them, and that the office had made budget last year and is continuing to do so.”

For obvious reasons, Postmaster Kelley was reluctant to speak about Mike’s situation.

“I can’t really say too much, except this is all new. It’s beyond me. It involves staffing decisions by higher-ups,” the Postmaster says.

But she wasn’t reluctant to praise Mike’s work ethic.

“Oh, Mike was an excellent worker. I can tell you that.”

The bosses at postal headquarters who came up with the Reassessment Program have been mum about the scheme, referring all questions to the American Postal Workers Union, which they say has been briefed on the outsourcing program.

According to APWU Human Relations Director Sue Carney, the Postal Service claims it wants all limited duty and rehabilitation jobs to consist of “necessary work,” not make-work assignments.

So it seems like an obvious question to ask: Why dump Mike Vinci back on Workers’ Compensation when the Geneseo Postmaster has plenty of real work for him to do?

The postal big shot who apparently decided that Mike wasn’t needed at the Geneseo post office is Mary McNeill. She has an important title: Western New York District Manager of Injury Compensation.

Mary wasn’t in her office when I called to ask why Mike was put off the clock and unceremoniously shown the door. Or why it took 5 postal bosses to deliver the news. The person who answered her phone said she was on the road doing reassessment interviews.

I have to assume she must be quite busy trying to help other injured workers, because she hasn’t returned my call.

Mike is now 54 years old and in 11 months he’ll be eligible to retire. Until then he’s going to fight to get his job back.

He’s written his Congressman and filed a grievance with the American Postal Workers Union over his dismissal.

As you can imagine, he doesn’t have much good to say about the Reassessment Program and the bureaucrats in charge of it. But he’s grateful to Geneseo Postmaster Tammy Kelley for “being truthful and maybe jeopardizing her job” for him.

And he has this bit of advice for other postal workers who think it can’t happen to them:

“Even the people who aren’t injured should be against this program because anyone can get hurt at work.

“If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.”

Contact Dan Sullivan at dan_sullivan9026@hotmail.com.

From  Bill Lewis, President, APWU Trenton Metro Area Local

On April 17, 2006 the parties convened to discuss the excessing of Kilmer and Trenton impacted employees.  The manager of labor relations informed me that Trenton was not going to be discussed.  I questioned him as to why was I invited,  he informed me I was invited because I was the NJ state president.  I was shocked because only 3 months ago when Monmouth was excessing I was barred from attending the meeting, reason being, I was too disruptive.  Read the rest of this entry »

Statement by Clint Burelson, President, Olympia Local, American Postal Workers Union

Union and community resistance to Postal Service consolidation plans are making big corporate mailers such as Time Warner nervous.  Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a letter to the editor of the Olympian from Clint Burelson, President of the Olympia Local of the American Postal Workers Union:

The Olympian’s editorial, “Let the Postmark Go,” and its articles concerning mail consolidation failed to report important information relevant to the issue of mail consolidation in general and the Olympia consolidation in particular. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Letter going to the American Postal Workers Union and National Association of Letter Carriers:

re: Mickey D. Barnett,
Nominee to US Postal
Service Board of Directors

As you perhaps know, Mickey D. Barnett has been nominated by the President to serve on the Postal Service Board of Directors. There are some things the Letter Carriers may wish to know about Mr. Barnett concerning his fitness to serve in this position.

First, and perhaps of most important to the letter carriers is Mr. Barnett’s affiliation with the National Right to Work Committee. Barnett was its chief mover in its attempt to make New Mexico a Right-to-Work state. Mr. Barnett’s efforts in opposing organized labor makes his service on the Postal Service Board very suspect and not helpful to harmonious relations between the letter carriers and management.

Barnett is also the New Mexico lobbyist for the payday loan industry. In fact, while serving in the New Mexico Senate, Barnett introduced the legislation that led to New Mexico’s repeal of the interest rate caps on these lending institutions. Consumer groups rate New Mexico as one of the two worst states when it comes to regulating payday loans. Rates can reach 500 percent or more when calculated on an annual basis. Barnett has recently filed suit against New Mexico Attorney General, Patricia Madrid who is trying to administratively regulate the industry.

Given Mr. Barnett’s past record, and controversial deportment, I can’t believe he would or could be fair-minded with your initiatives, programs and ideas.

Sincerely,

Ron Godbey, Retired Member
New Mexico House of Representatives

On Tuesday the APWU submitted more interrogatories in the discovery phase of the plant consolidation case. These concerned the Waterbury consolidation, one of the ten AMP projects that the USPS submitted as examples of the consolidation process.

The APWU’s queries focused on specific operations that would be moved, and the before and after productivity implications of those moves.

Postcom submitted questions about the review and approval process for AMP proposals. The mailers organization also wants to know what steps the USPS takes to monitor and safeguard service during a consolidation.

In another interrogatory, Postcom asked about service measurement, and whether the USPS has actual service performance data for each of the 850,000 possible 3-digit ZIP code pairs. If it does not, the group asks how the USPS will evaluate the impact of consolidations on service.

Do postal employees have the right to remain silent when questioned by members of the Inspection Service, or agents of the USPS Inspector General? No. That’s the surprising assertion made by IG David C. Williams in a letter to APWU Director of Industrial Relations Greg Bell.

Williams was responding to an article by Bell in the November/December 2005 issue of the APWU’s American Postal Worker magazine, entitled ‘What’s Behind the Changes in Internal Investigations?’. Bell wrote that “You have the right to remain silent. A historic Supreme Court ruling (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) holds that not only must a law enforcement officer advise an individual of certain rights, the officer must be sure that these rights are understood.”

In his letter, Williams responds “I am concerned that the article incorrectly states that APWU members have an unequivocal right to remain silent during an interview by the Office of the Inspector General by virtue of Miranda v. Arizona. The article suggests that OIG agents must provide Miranda warnings to all employees prior to their interview, and that the employee may always refuse to answer questions absent a grant of immunity. This is incorrect.”

Which, not surprisingly, provoked a response from Bell.

‘What’s Behind the Changes in Internal Investigations?’

Letter from IG David Williams to the APWU’s Greg Bell

Letter from Greg Bell to David Williams

The PRC’s Office of the Consumer Advocate filed a number of interrogatories in the PRC’s plant consolidation docket today. Each document raises a series of questions about the potential impact of the proposed changes on customer service. Postal people tend to think of service standards in terms of first class mail, and whether it’s overnight, two day or three day. The OCA questions go further, delving into questions such as:

• Read the rest of this entry »