The subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia marked up H.R. 22 today and passed it by a unanimous vote. This legislation will allow the United States Postal Service to pay its share of contributions for annuitants’ health benefits out of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund.

I commend the hundreds of letter carriers, state presidents and congressional district liaisons (CDLs) who worked tirelessly, both here in Washington and back at home, to bring us the 337 co-sponsors of this bill. No other pending legislation in Congress has as many cosponsors and such bipartisan support.

For purely technical reasons, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) “scored” the bill, which means they gave it a projected cost of about $12 billion, even though the bill does not require any taxpayer funds. Nonetheless, this was a threat to passage on the floor due to the “pay-go” rules currently enforced in the House.

With major input from the NALC and with the leadership of Committee Chairman Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Full Committee Chairman Ed Towns (D-NY), an amended version of the bill was crafted, which shortens the relief from eight years to three years in order to reduce the score and improve the chances of House passage. Full Committee Ranking Member Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Subcommittee Ranking Member Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) were also instrumental in the passage of the amended bill.

We worked hand-in-hand with the bill’s original authors, Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), both longtime friends and advocates for letter carriers. Although the bill falls short of what was originally intended, we stand firm in our support for H.R. 22 as amended and will continue to work diligently to pass this bill in full committee and to send it to the full House of Representatives for a vote.

When there is an opportunity in the future through other legislative vehicles to strengthen the Postal Service, we will pursue them. However, at this time, I want to thank the above-mentioned committee leadership as well as the other members of the subcommittee who took the first step in advancing this very important bill. I will keep you posted on the progress of this legislation. I ask that you continue to thank all the original co-sponsors of the bill and impress upon them the importance of sticking with us as we approach floor action in the House of Representatives.

My sincere thanks again to all of those who worked with us to help protect the future of all letter carriers and the United States Postal Service.

In Solidarity,

William H. Young, President

From the NALC Bulletin:

Let Let me make the following clear to one and all, including Postal Service management at headquarters and in the field, and all letter carriers, at every level in the union and in every post office: No one, at any level, has any authority to amend or violate the national contract, period.

I continue to receive calls from branch officers who inform me that local managers have approached them and attempted to secure agreements to violate the national contract. These same managers have the audacity to suggest that I am cooperating with the Postal Service and that they should, too!

The plain fact is that I encourage cooperation with the Postal Service because I realize the current financial crisis requires cooperation, where appropriate.

If any manager approaches you with a suggestion for creative ooperation, advise them to send their ideas to USPS headquarters, which will then make the determination whether to present such ideas to us. Some of the ideas floating around now are not grounded in common sense. For example, the idea of prohibiting all carriers from working their nonscheduled day off, and then requiring non-ODL carriers to work overtime is a clear violation of the contract – one we will stop through the grievance procedure, and one that will cost the USPS dearly in the end. We must be mindful of the critical difference between contract amendment/contract violation on the one hand, and creative, positive cooperation on the other.

Includes speech by NALC President Young

Update: Postalmag.com suggests that maybe the rumor arose from the fact that NALC National Business Agents are meeting in DC, but says that was a previously scheduled meeting.

It’s just a rumor at the moment, so stay tuned. One hint is that the NALC’s web site abruptly removed the prominent ‘Contract Rap Session’ box from its web site:

Monday:

Today:

From the November 1 NALC News Bulletin: 

Young Issues Warning to Postal Bargainers

At main table negotiations held October 31 at NALC Headquarters, Postal Service representatives stated they were not prepared to make their economic proposal; did not know when they would be able to make their economic proposal; were not prepared to discuss the substance of their non-economic proposals; refused to withdraw any of their non-economic proposals, including those they acknowledged dealt with other crafts and not letter carriers. Finally, the Service refused to set a date for resumption of negotiations until November 9.

This astonishing performance came on top of their presentation of a series of regressive proposals they made at main table negotiations held on October 26 at NALC Headquarters. There, USPS proposed the elimination of time and one-half pay for work on Christmas Day, and other retrograde holiday premium and scheduling provisions; an increase in the number and usage of low cost non-career employees; elimination of key protective provisions of Article 34 (time and/or work standards); mandatory use of travel credit cards, with individual employee responsibility for payment, for travel on official USPS business.

‘Deep Disappointment’

NALC President William H. Young expressed deep disappointment with the Postal Service’s response to the serious and challenging full set of economic proposals put forth by NALC on October 24. He pointed to the calendar: “21 days to go, what can they be thinking?” On October 24, Young prefaced NALC’s far-reaching proposals by stating that a “dramatic shift in paradigm, to a cooperative relationship” was necessary to the survival of the Service.

USPS Ignores Effort

After the Postal Service’s October 26 and 28 presentations, Young commented:
“Frankly, it is astounding that the Postal Service has simply ignored the extraordinary effort we have made to change the name of the game in contract negotiations — to address honestly and forthrightly the unique challenges, and opportunities, of the current environment.

“Whether the Service is tone deaf, or driven by some ideological agenda, it is
unacceptable — and I measure my words carefully — for the Postal Service to
proceed in these negotiations as though it is business as usual — same old, same old.”

Coming out of the October 31 session, Young issued a warning: “If today’s Postal Service effort is any clue to what they are thinking about in basic economics, and they come to us with a stale and discredited formula of wage freeze, or lump sums or worse; increased letter carrier cost of health insurance; elimination or capping of COLA; elimination of No Lay Off protection — it will be a monumental confession of management failure — and an abdication of responsibility to their employees, to their customers, and to the American public.”

Young added: “Notwithstanding any provocation, NALC will be professional in its response. NALC will be responsible. But mark this well — NALC will not be silent, and letter carriers will not be happy.”

click here to download the entire News Bulletin in .pdf format

The Federal Times says that the four postal unions, currently in contract negotiations with the USPS, expect their members to be rewarded for their contributions to the postal service’s improved financial picture. The story, in the September 18 edition, also highlights continued USPS contributions to postal workers’ health benefits as a prime concern. The story quotes APWU Communications Director Sally Davidow: “We expect health care to be an issue of contention and we will do everything we can to protect and even advance what our members now enjoy.” According to the Federal Times, “Postal Service employees’ share of health benefit premiums is lower than that for other federal employees under current union contracts.”

For all the contention, the story says that the parties are optimistic- it says that the NALC’s Bill Young is confident that negotiations will reach a negotiated agreement, and both PMG Jack Potter and APWU President Bill Burrus expect to sign an agreement by November 20

I guess turnabout is fair play- if George Bush and the Republicans can demagogue the so-called war on terror every chance they get, why can’t a labor leader use it every now and then? That must have been Bill Young’s reasoning when he decided to tell NALC delegates at the union’s convention that “In the midst of a global war on terror, now is not the time to open a hole in the nation’s defenses by giving unscreened, contingent workers access to the mail stream.”

Come on, Bill- you’re about as worried about terrorism as Bill Burrus is about service standards. Contracting out delivery is bad for your members because it will cost them their jobs, and it’s bad for the country because it furthers the right wing agenda that seeks to deprive American workers of their rights and benefits. It’s got nothing to do with terrorism.

Young Warns That Contracting Out Mail Delivery Could Weaken Nation’s Defense Against Terrorism

Today’s NAPUS newsletter includes a short piece on the ‘horse race’ that has developed in the Connecticut’s Democratic primary election for Joe Lieberman’s Senate seat. NAPUS argues that Joe has been a friend of postal workers, and is in a position to help us, even as though his party is still in the minority. It goes on to suggest that his opponent, Ned Lamont, ‘appears to be solely an anti-war candidate’.

Fair enough- but accusing Lamont of being a ‘one issue’ candidate is a little ironic coming from NAPUS. Don’t get me wrong- I don’t think NAPUS, or the NALC for that matter, are doing anything wrong in endorsing Joe Lieberman. They’re just doing what their members pay them to do- support the politicians who will do the most good for the membership. But NALC and NAPUS are by definition, ‘one issue’ organizations. We don’t expect them to have a position on flag burning or gay marriage, thank god.

In the case of the Connecticut election, however, the issue that Ned Lamont is running on is far more important than any fears about his position (or lack thereof) on postal affairs. Lieberman’s enthusiastic support for George Bush’s disastrous war against Iraq is a disgrace. Lieberman may continue to claim that he is still a ‘real Democrat’ on domestic social issues. By supporting Bush’s war, however, he’s helped Bush to chip away at Americans’ rights, and he’s contributed to the increased hatred of America in the rest of the world. He’s also an accomplice in the staggering budget deficits the war has created, deficits made worse by Bush’s handouts to the wealthy. Doesn’t sound very ‘Democratic’ to me.

So NAPUS and the NALC are really asking their members to support Lieberman based on ‘one issue’- his record of support on postal matters. Fine- but knowing the damage he’s helped Bush do to this country, I think I’d rather take my chances with Ned Lamont!

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

The NALC’s magazine, Postal Record, this month features a 4 page article on the USPS’s financial performance in FY 2005. It’s a good summation, and ends with a pointed reminder:

with the federal government awash in red ink, there are external risks. As many letter carriers recall, during the 1980s and 1990s, Congress and the White House were more than willing to cut the deficit by raiding the Postal Service “piggy bank,” despite the mandate that USPS operate as an independent entity.

One problem with the summary, though is the statement that “Bucking the downward drift of recent years, first class mail increased slightly”

Not so fast! It is true that total first class volume was up very slightly for the year- 145 million pieces to be exact. The problem is that there was only one month that showed an increase- November. Mainly because of a one time spike in credit card solicitations, volume in that month was 863 million pieces over the prior year. Do the math- outside of November, first class volume was down by over 700 million pieces. A one month spike caused by an external event (in this case a court decision) doesn’t represent a change in the trend.

Of course, regardless of the reason for the spike, I’m happy we got the extra revenue. Ummm, but it turns out we didn’t- while first class volume (adding November back in) was up by 0.1% for the year, the first class revenue we took in was down by 0.9%.

You know what they say about every silver lining having a cloud… 

Behind the Numbers: A look at USPS financial performance