The USPS has instructed Area Labor Relations Managers that employees may not be excessed because they fail to bid on Non-Traditional Full-Time (NTFT) duty assignments. The notice was sent in response to union allegations that management is trying to force senior employees to resign or retire by threatening to reassign them outside of their bid office if they don’t bid on non-traditional jobs.

In an e-mail message to the field, the Area Manager for Labor Relations wrote, “APWU President Cliff Guffey has informed us that he has received reports from union representatives in the field that some managers have told employees that they will be excessed if they fail to bid on NTFT duty assignments.” NTFT assignments can range from 30 hours per week to 48 hours per week.

“If LR [Labor Relations] becomes aware of situations involving this allegation please ensure they are investigated and properly handled,” the message continued. “We have advised Mr. Guffey that of course, employees have the right to bid on posted duty assignments of their choosing and no employee may be excessed for failing to bid on any NTFT job.”

An article on the union’s Web site on Aug. 25, said Guffey believes management is trying to force senior employees to resign or retire by threatening to excess them. “If you work in an office with junior employees, they must be excessed from the office before you, whether or not they occupy non-traditional schedules,” he said.

“So don’t be intimidated to quit, and don’t be coerced into bidding on a non-traditional assignment unless you want it,” Guffey advised.

“I am pleased with management’s written response,” the union president said. “I look forward to hearing from our members that it is being adhered to in the field.”

11-095-no_retal_exc_email-110826

21st Century Postal Worker Exchange for Messages of General Union Business.

From the American Postal Workers Union:

Greg Bell
Executive Vice President

(This article was first published in the September/October 2011 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

The APWU recently filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) protesting the Postal Service’s refusal to provide the union with information regarding Area Mail Processing (AMP) feasibility studies. Management’s failure to provide the information constitutes a breach of its obligation to bargain in good faith, the union asserted. The USPS must conduct the studies before it consolidates mail processing operations.

The USPS told officials of Sioux City that it would cost them more than $830,000 to obtain copies of documents that led to the decision to close their mail processing center.

On May 10, 2011, the APWU wrote to the Postal Service requesting information about AMP feasibility studies. The union pointed out that the USPS provides the APWU with notices of its intent to conduct AMP studies, and asked for the data management relies on in making the decision to conduct the studies.

Before undertaking a consolidation study, the letter noted, the USPS must consider the impact consolidation would have on the community, service standard changes, impact on customer service, impact on operations at gaining and losing facilities, equipment deployment, and the likelihood of potential savings and efficiencies. This is the information we sought.

Furthermore, the union is currently provided copies of AMP feasibility studies only after public input meetings have been held and consolidation decisions have been made.

However, the studies are completed and available prior to the meetings, the union pointed out. The union also requested a copy of available AMP feasibility studies prior to public input meetings and before a final decision is made.

Ironically, when AMP feasibility studies and Post Implementation Re- views are finally provided, much of the information is redacted — blacked out.

USPS Rejects Request

In a June 20 letter, the USPS denied the union’s request in its entirety. The data requested by the APWU was not relevant to bargaining, management asserted, and providing the information would slow the decision-making process.
After a House hearing on June 15, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) shows President Guffey redacted documents she received from the USPS about a study in her district. Entire pages were blank.

After a House hearing on June 15, Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) shows President Guffey redacted documents she received from the USPS about a study in her district. Entire pages were blank.

The Postal Service refused to pro- vide the information it considers prior to deciding to conduct a study, and refused to produce available data immediately prior to public input meetings, contending that the information is “preliminary” until management incorporates the results of the public input meetings themselves. In addition, the Postal Service rejected the suggestion that it provide the APWU available information after public input has been provided but prior to making a final decision.

The Postal Service also refused to provide un-redacted copies of AMP studies and Post Implementation Reviews (“PIR”) after decisions have been made and facilities have been relocated. The Postal Service maintained the information would aid competitors and rejected the idea of a confidentiality agreement, claiming such an agreement would be “ineffective.”

The union’s unfair labor practice charge asserted that the information is relevant to enforcing the Collective Bargaining Agreement and to providing input to the Postal Service about decisions that would directly affect bargaining unit employees.

In the May 10 request for information, the APWU pointed out that the Postal Service must afford affected persons — including employees — ample opportunity to provide input on the proposed decision, and must take their comments into account in making a final decision.

Refusal Sparks Frustration

Many APWU locals have expressed frustration with management’s refusal to provide the information, and their concerns have been echoed by community residents and local businesses. They ask, “How can we provide meaningful input, without access to information about the effect on the community, changes in service standards, and the impact on customer service?”

The Postal Service also has refused to provide un-redacted information to members of the House of Representatives and Senate whose constituents are affected by consolidations. At a time when the Postal Service is seeking support from members of Congress on major issues, it makes little sense to deny their requests for information concerning consolidation of postal operations in their area.

Legislators from Iowa, including Sen. Tom Harkin (D), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R), and Rep. Steve King (R), as well as the mayor and other officials from Sioux City have been outspoken critics of the Postal Service’s refusal to provide information about a study to consolidate the facility there.

The USPS response? In July, the USPS wrote to City Manager Paul Eckert informing him it would cost the city more than $830,000 to obtain copies of reports and documents that led to the decision to close the mail processing center!

Unfortunately, it seems the Postal Service is attempting to take advantage of the nation’s uncertain economic situation and its own financial difficulties to move full-speed ahead with plans to outsource retail operations, close stations and branches, consolidate postal operations, and reduce mail delivery.

Since January 2011, the Postal Service has announced plans to conduct dozens of AMP feasibility studies, and dozens more have been implemented.

But consolidating and closing mail processing facilities is not the solution to the Postal Service’s financial crisis. The crisis was caused by Congress, and Congress must fix it. The Postal Service’s assault on the nation’s mail processing network shows no signs of letting up; but neither does the determination of APWU members in responding. Local union leaders have been engaging elected officials, community leaders, and local businesses in the fight to save our service. We will continue to challenge any and all inappropriate consolidations.

From the American Postal Workers Union:

With headlines predicting the imminent demise of the Postal Service — and management brazenly exploiting the crisis to attack postal employees — the APWU is asking union members to contact their members of Congress and urge them to take action to save the USPS and protect our jobs.

A brochure with that message will be sent to every APWU member in the next several days — so look for it in your mail.

The pamphlet includes a postcard recipients can sign and mail to legislators to make sure members of Congress get our message. The postcards will include the appropriate name and mailing address of each union member’s U.S. representative. Every APWU member should fill it out, affix a 44-cent stamp, and send it in.

As the mailing notes, a battle is brewing on Capitol Hill over what to do about the USPS financial crisis. One thing is clear: We are in the fight of our lives. Our jobs, our pay, and our benefits are in danger!

The pamphlet includes a postcard to sign and mail to your U.S. representative.

The USPS is asking Congress to enact legislation to remove postal workers and retirees from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and federal retirement plans; allow management to lay off 120,000 employees, and effectively eliminate our right to collective bargaining. In September, the Postal Service will default on a $5.5 billion payment to the Treasury.

Some members of Congress are using the budget crisis to attack our rights, while ignoring other methods of fixing the problem.

In June, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL) introduced H.R. 2309, which would be devastating for the Postal Service and for postal employees. It would accomplish many of management’s goals, but it would do nothing to correct the cause of the Postal Service’s economic difficulties: It would do nothing about the billions of dollars in USPS overpayments to its pension accounts, and it would do nothing to correct the 2006 congressional mandate that requires the Postal Service to pre-fund the healthcare benefits of future retirees. (No other government agency or private company bears this burden, which costs the Postal Service more than $5.5 billion per year.)

On the other hand, H.R. 1351, introduced by Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), would allow the USPS to use the billions of dollars in pension overpayments to meet its financial obligations. It would address the cause of the USPS financial crisis without cutting pay, reducing benefits, eliminating collective bargaining rights, or slashing service. However, word on Capitol Hill is that Rep. Issa is blocking consideration of H.R. 1351. Tell your congressional representative: Oppose H.R. 2309_ or legislation like it — and Support H.R. 1351!

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.

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.

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz spoke with APWU President Cliff Guffey last night on MSNBC

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

msnbc video: Rights of U.S. postal workers under attack.

From the American Postal Workers Union:

An internal USPS document indicating that the reassessment of Limited Duty and Rehabilitation employees concluded on Jan. 31, 2011, is not cause for celebration, Human Relations Director Sue Carney says, because the National Reassessment Process (NRP) seems to have been eliminated in name only.

“Despite the declaration, we continue to receive numerous calls regarding work-hour withdrawals and recurrence claims,” she said. “Compounding suspicions that NRP has been eliminated in name only is a USPS field document that says existing limited-duty assignments will continue to be altered; asserts that revised NRP documents will be used prospectively, and specifies the agency will continue to rely upon the Electronic Search System to document its search efforts.”

The July 1 letter from the USPS Employee Resource Management Department was sent to USPS Area Vice Presidents.

To date, the APWU has received no notice from the Postal Service regarding changes to the NRP, Carney said.

Click here for more information.

via Management’s NRP Letter No Cause for Celebration.

The APWU has filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) protesting the Postal Service’s refusal to provide the union with information regarding Area Mail Processing (AMP) feasibility studies. The union contends that management’s failure to provide the information constitutes a breach of its obligation to bargain in good faith.

On May 10, 2011, the APWU wrote to the Postal Service requesting information about AMP feasibility studies. “Before undertaking a consolidation study, the USPS must consider the impact consolidation would have on the community, service standard changes, impact on customer service, impact on operations at gaining and losing facilities, equipment deployment, and the likelihood of potential savings and efficiencies,” wrote Executive Vice President Greg Bell in the union’s request for information. The union also requested a copy of available AMP feasibility studies prior to public input meetings and before a final decision is made. The union currently receives redacted copies of the AMP studies after the USPS makes its decision.

In a June 20 letter, the USPS denied the union’s request in its entirety. The data requested by the APWU was not relevant to bargaining, management asserted, and providing the information would slow the decision-making process.

The Postal Service also refused to provide un-redacted copies of AMP studies and Post Implementation Reviews (“PIR”) after decisions have been made and facilities have been relocated. The Postal Service maintained the information would aid competitors and rejected the idea of a confidentiality agreement, claiming such an agreement would be ineffective.

The union’s unfair labor practice charge asserted that the information is relevant to enforcing the Collective Bargaining Agreement and to providing input to the Postal Service about decisions that would directly affect bargaining unit employees.

Many APWU locals have expressed frustration with management’s refusal to provide the information, and their concerns have been echoed by community residents and local businesses. They ask, “How can we provide meaningful input, without access to information about the effect on the community, changes in service standards, and the impact on customer service?”

The Postal Service also has refused to provide un-redacted information to members of the House of Representatives and Senate whose constituents are affected by consolidations. At a time when the Postal Service is seeking support from members of Congress on major issues, it makes little sense to deny their requests for information concerning consolidation of postal operations in their area, Bell commented.

via Union Files Unfair Labor Practice Charge Over USPS Refusal to Provide Information on Consolidations.

From the APWU:

“The American Postal Workers Union will stand with our neighbors in demanding that post offices, stations, and branches remain open – and expand the services they offer – wherever they are needed,” APWU President Cliff Guffey said. The USPS announced July 26 that it plans to study 3,700 post offices, stations and branches for possible closure.

“Closing post offices and slashing service to the American people is not the answer to the Postal Service’s financial crisis,” Guffey said. “The USPS is well aware of the cause of its financial difficulties,” he added. “They cannot cut their way to fiscal health.”

“Congress created the crisis when it slapped the USPS with a $5.5 billion obligation that no other government agency or private company is forced to bear,” he said, referring to the requirement that the USPS pre-fund a 75-year retiree healthcare liability over a 10-year period.

“And Congress has refused – so far – to allow the USPS to apply billions of dollars in overpayments to its pension funds to the pre-funding requirement.”

“The federal government is forcing the Postal Service into bankruptcy by holding billions of dollars of USPS money,” Guffey added.

“Unfortunately, the USPS response is misguided. Closing post offices, stations, and branches will not save the Postal Service.”

The USPS plans to replace some of the offices with “Village Post Offices” – convenience stores that will sell stamps and flat-rate packaging – misses the mark, he said.

“In most cases, Village Post Offices will not be able to provide the American people with the service they expect and deserve,” Guffey said. “The so-called ‘Village Post Offices’ are just a warm and fuzzy name for privatizing the USPS.

From the American postal Workers Union:

The Postal Service has provided the APWU with a list of the first 100 mail processing sites that will utilize Non-Traditional Full-Time (NTFT) duty assignments [PDF], as well as computer models showing proposed schedules for three of the sites: the Boston Processing and Distribution Center, the Central Mass P&DC, and the Delaware P&DC.

Officers of the locals that represent the three facilities reviewed the plans with Clerk Division officers and others on July 26, 2011, at the union’s national headquarters. “The local officers provided valuable input,” said Clerk Craft Director Rob Strunk. “We will discuss their concerns with postal management at a meeting later in the week.”

The Postal Service also is expected to provide the APWU with model schedules for the remaining 97 identified offices at the meeting. All 100 proposed mail processing NTFT models are set to be released to local management on or about Aug. 2.

Under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, local management is required to meet with the local union and provide an opportunity to review the proposed schedules, as well as an opportunity to offer input, propose suggestions, and/or offer alternative schedules before any of the assignments can be posted for bid.

The computer models were developed by a private contractor and, while most of the schedules reflected either eight or 10 hours days, they will require significant adjustments in order to comply with the posting and bidding requirements in Article 37 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and in each office’s Local Memorandum of Understanding, Strunk said.

A list of sites and models for Customer Services (frequently referred to as “matrices” or USPS Form 1994), have not yet been shared with the union, but are expected shortly. When they are provided, the union will share the information with affected locals.

Locals are encouraged to review all proposals carefully and to work with management to fulfill the requirement of Article 37.3.A.1 to “create desirable duty assignments from all available work hours for career employees to bid.”

If concerns or disputes about proposed NTFT schedules arise, they will be referred to the appropriate Clerk Craft National Business Agent for timely processing through the Alternative Dispute Resolution Process outlined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

First 100 NTFT Sites