Meeting at USPS Headquarters
NAPS/NAPUS & League
October 30, 2008 - 12:30 p.m.

For the Management Associations:

Ted Keating, President, NAPS
Dale Goff, President, NAPUS
Charley Mapa, President, League
Louis Atkins, Executive VP, NAPS
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer NAPS

For the Postal Service

Doug Tulino, Vice President, Labor Relations
Bill Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration

The postmaster associations provided a response to an inquiry that had been made by the Postal Service to forgo the use of postmaster’s convention leave. The postmaster’s organizations responded that they would not give up their rights to convention leave and recommended that the use of convention leave be extended to NAPS.

The management then asked for information from the recent agreement between the NALC and the Postal Service concerning route evaluations.

The Postal Service responded that the goal of this agreement was to ultimately reduce the cost of delivery through the changes in the route evaluation process. In a change from the current method of route evaluations, the adjustments to routes will be data driven through the use of eight weeks of information from current computerized systems. The evaluations will be conducted jointly between the NALC and the Postal Service. The results of this agreement will significantly reduce and eliminate the costs that are involved in the current process.

The management associations then requested information on an email that has been circulating around the country that contained information allegedly from the Board of Governors Meeting last week concerning District Support positions reverting to a Shared Services environment.

The Postal Service responded that this information was not valid.

The management association then questioned the fact that there were numerous rumors in the field about changes that impact individuals represented by one or more of the management associations.

The management associations recommended that any plans by the Postal Service that impacted our members be shared immediately with the management associations as soon as possible.

Management responded that they would provide information on any plans on organizational changes when they are developed.

The management organizations asked again if there were any plans to consolidate Area or Districts and the response was that there were no plans at this time, but that this could change at some later date.

The management organizations asked if there was a national policy that is driving the consolidations of Tour Two operations in Plants across the country. NAPS brought out that there are different plans that have been related to NAPS Headquarters that include some Plants placing all EAS positions on all Tours up for competitive bidding as a result of the elimination of Tour Two operations.

NAPS stated its’ position that supervisor on Tour Three and Tour One should not be impacted by the abolishment of Tour Two operations and that supervisors who had bid positions on Tour Three and Tour One should not have to bid for the positions that they are already in and own.

Management responded that there is not a mandate for the field to adopt a strategy to eliminate Tour Two operations but that there were instructions given to review volumes, equipment staffing and all factors to determine the best use of resources. Once these reviews have been completed then a course of action should be taken on a Plant by Plant basis.

Management also did not believe that wholesale bidding should result from the Tour Two consolidations. Management also responded that they will review the applicable rules that already are in place on how to handle this type of consolidation and will share this information with the management associations.

NAPS replied that with the move to initiate 10 hour/4 day workweeks that the time may have come to look to initiate this type of scheduling with EAS employees as we do not have contractual restrictions on this type of schedule.

Management responded that they are still in negotiations with the APWU and MHU to develop new criteria to accomplish these schedules, and took NAPS’ recommendations under advisement.

Management then asked for a response from all three management organizations on the Postal Service’s request to defer or forgo the payment of NPA for the recently completed FY.

The management organizations provided a written response and also provided the following comments:

The management organizations stated that it would not be in the best interest of their membership to agree with the request. The overwhelming feedback from all of the members of the three management organizations was that the membership’s performance in the PFP system needs to be maintained and that they payouts cannot be stopped.

The meeting concluded at 1:15 p.m.

More on a possible salary freeze for postal supervisors and postmasters. This is a message supposed to have been sent by NAPUS President Dale Goff:

Now the meeting:

We were not given a letter contradicting our letter that pay talks could not be open. Mr. Tulino’s statement was that we are going to need to go to Congress next year and ask for changes to the new law and we don’t need to be at “loggerheads” with the management associations when we do this and during these “unusual economic times”. We don’t need to be in court was his words.

He then asked us to consider instead of a total elimination of NPA and general increases if we would accept a “deferred period” on the NPA and general increases. That is: after five or six months the NPA and general increases would be effective. That is after a case is presented to Congress to change some of the law to help the Postal Service.

He went to each of us then and asked what we thought. Charley Mapa of the League said he would have to consult his board and would not be able to commit. Ted Keating of NAPS responded that at his board meeting this morning when this was discussed they said to keep talking but did not endorse this idea one way or the other. I at this point had a chance to bring up the responses from our meeting last night. I too said it would not be the best to respond right then but if I did, the answer would be a definite NO.

Now my thoughts on this and in no way do I want to influence your thoughts: What comes to mind is Jack Potter telling us that when it came to 5 day delivery he couldn’t make that decision and that he would not break the law. If that is the case on that issue then why does the USPS want to break the law (Title 39) on this issue of reopening pay talks. While, I know we all are tried and blue USPS how much more can we be asked to sacrifice and give back. If anything I feel if we agree to this proposal then we circumvent the law and have set a precedent to ignore it. I have heard recently we need to “get ahead of the law” from Headquarters. I disagree and why would we give away our protection. There is principle involved here and we are not sure what the unions are doing. I can tell you they will never give up any pay. They may change some work rules but not pay. We should not give up pay because we all worked this year to earn this. Just as Ralph said last night that Postmasters will give their all over and over again but once their pay is effected what’s the point.

With that said I would like for each of you to respond with a YES or NO if we should agree to a deferral versus a total elimination. Yes I would welcome you comments. If you have any input on this I need a response by next Wednesday. You can share the attached with whomever. However to address rumors on any of this the answer should be “There is a Potential for Reality”.

We will meet together (NAPS, League and NAPUS) next Thursday morning to discuss any issue on this. We still want to be united. We will then attend a Noon meeting with Mr. Tulino on the same day.

Attached for your information is the letter we received about opening pay talks and our response to Mr. Tulino which I have already sent you.

O Dale Goff, Jr.
National President
National Association of Postmasters of the United States
8 Herbert St.
Alexandria, Va. 22305

A message supposedly sent by League of Postmasters President Charley Mapa claims that postal executives have “given up” their annual pay raises, and that the USPS is seeking to re-open talks with the management associations with the aim of eliminating increases for Postmasters and EAS employees as well. According to the message, the management associations balked, and are considering legal action should the USPS pursue a pay freeze. The message is undated, but the “President’s message” it refers to was posted on the League web site on October 16:

Bill,

We have a commitment to some sort of confidentiality on this, therefore, I haven’t sent anything official out on it. If you had read my President’s message on the website, you would have seen that I talked about the rumors going around and pointed out that most of the time rumors are based on some sliver of fact.

Two weeks ago, the Assn Prezs met with Doug Tulino at HQ. He told us that the PCES emps had given up their Gen pay increases because of the horrible financial status of the Postal Service. He wanted to open pay talks again to discuss our giving up our increase. Following that meeting, I asked Naps and Napus to meet to decide our reactions. We met, predicated much of what we would do based on whether or not HQ could reopen pay talks. Naps’ attorney advised us that HQ could not; we each sent a letter to HQ telling them that they couldn’t open pay talks, however, we were as committed to help the Postal Service as anyone and we would at least listen to what they had to say. We met the following week. Most of the conversation centered around our letter. Tulino said that he didn’t agree with the letter and that he would get a response from Postal attorneys and that we might end up in court. We said “So be it”. We planned to meet the next week after talking to our boards. I had a telecon with our board that evening. To a person, they rejected giving up our general raises; Postmasters had worked too hard with the promise of that raise to ask them to give it up now. I met with Naps and Napus the next morning (last Friday) told them our board’s decision and that could feel free to share our decision with their boards. Naps met Sunday and rejected giving up the increase; Napus meets tonight (telecon) and I expect them to follow suit.

We meet again at HQ tomorrow. I expect HQ to have some sort of letter that disputes our letter and we will talk about going to court.

So, you’ve got a brief synopsis of what’s gone on. Please feel free to share as much of this as you like. Once Naps met on Sunday, pretty much the word was out and we heard from district personnel even weeks before, so someone in the Postal Service has not kept our secret. I will likely issue some sort of official statement tomorrow afternoon.

One thing that should be important to PMs and supervisors is that we are absolutely united in our efforts on this.

Thanks for your great leadership, Bill,

Charley Mapa
President

November 21, 2008 - Annuity estimates will begin being mailed to eligible employees.

November 28, 2008 - VER Offer packages will begin being mailed to VER eligible employees.

December 03, 2008 through January 16, 2009 - VER Window Period

The VER effective date is Tuesday, March 31, 2009.

More information will follow when received.

NAPUS.

A posting on the NAPS member forum by NAPS Secretary Treasurer Jay Killackey verifies what most readers probably assumed from yesterday’s NAPUS hotline article. The article said that NAPUS President Dale Goff would be meeting with PMG Jack Potter tomorrow. The NAPS posting confirms that the PMG will be meeting with the heads of all of the postal unions and management associations.

Speculation on possible outcomes from the meeting center on a restructuring of the organization, and other cost cutting initiatives. The USPS Board of Governors is scheduled to hold its regular monthly meeting on Tuesday and Thursday.

From the NAPUS Hotline:

“The Districts have now gotten all the data for the final NPA. It looks like nationally that ALL the areas fell into the low contributor range. Wonder how that happened?”

In his weekly Hotline column, NAPUS National Executive Director Ken Engstrom complains that “Customers and mailers know about proposed rates and changes before we do”, and points to the Alliance of Nonprofit Mailers website as an example.

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!