President Dale Goff was notified by the Postal Service on March 10, “effective, March 6 exceptions to the freeze on field positions will no longer be approved.” President Dale will be pursuing this issue with Postal Headquarters.

Also in yesterday’s NAPUS Hotline:

The Postal Service is undertaking an overhaul of the BMEU [Bulk Mail Entry Unit] system as a result of the failure of the processes to comply with provisions of the Sarbanes/Oxley Law (SOX). The “field” and mailers will in the very near future be receiving information on compliance of the BMEU processes.

The Postal Service notified the management organizations at a meeting in Postal Headquarters on Monday March 9, 2009 that because of budget concerns, there will be no Postal Headquarters speakers sent to the state conventions this year.

NAPUS Hotline

Need to Know: On February 13, 2009 Anthony J. Vegliante, Executive Vice President & Chief Human Resources Officer notified by letter to the “field’ that the policy regarding casual rate of pay is being changed due to the current economic and business climate. The new casual appointments are to be now paid at a rate that is at least $1 less than the previously established rate of pay for each position within your facility.

Representing NAPS:

Ted Keating, National President
Louis Atkins, Executive Vice President
Jay Killackey, Secretary/Treasurer

Representing NAPUS:

Dale Goff, National President
Wayne Orshak, Secretary/Treasurer
Ken Engstrom, Executive Director

Representing the National League of Postmasters

Charley Mapa, National President
Mark Strong, Executive Vice President

Representing the USPS

Tony Vegliante, Chief Human Resource Officer & Executive VP
Doug Tulino, VP Labor Relations
Bill Jones, Manager, Labor Relations, Policy Administration
Mangala Gandi, Manager, Selection, Evaluation, Recognition
Robin McLarney, Manager, Performance Evaluation Programs
Tom Henry, Manager, Field OPS Requirements/Planning
Susan Albro. Operations Performance Analyst
Lee Ann Olohan, Labor Relations Specialist

Doug Tulino requested that the management organizations give an opening statement about the meeting. President Keating responded that the management organizations had provided a comprehensive list of issues to the USPS on Friday, January 9, 2008 and wanted to get responses.

President Mapa stated that this was an important meeting and that the points that we wanted to make related to the compliance of the USPS with Title 39 and our Consultative rights. Mapa read an excerpt from Title 39; the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and other managerial employees.

Doug Tulino responded that we weren’t here to discuss the management association’s rights under Title 39 but that the USPS stands ready to meet with the management associations relative to NPA.

Mark Strong stated that there is a lack of understanding in the field relative to NPA and that the leadership of the management association wants the program and the process to work. Last year NAPUS and the LEAGUE submitted numerous recommendations to improve NPA but the recommendations were never discussed with the management associations and summarily were not included in the NPA roll-out for 2009.

Tom Henry responded that the officers of the USPS were given the same opportunities as the management associations to provide feedback and to review the working product of the developers at USPS HQ. The field had approximately 30 days to review and to respond to the proposals.

The management association’s response to this statement was that the process that was outlined did not constitute consultations as per Title 39. Tulino added that the USPS had to meet with the management associations and that he is making a commitment that this will happen in the upcoming NPA development. The management association’s response was that we have heard this before. Tulino responded again that meetings would be held and that they will commence in March and the management associations would be at the table.

At this point, we agreed to get into the agenda that we sent to the Postal Service on January 9, 2009:

2008 NPA Issues – NAPS/NAPUS/LEAGUE

Under the provisions of 39 USC – Section 1004, the management organizations are entitled to participate directly in the planning and development of pay policies and schedules, fringe benefit programs, and other programs relating to supervisory and
other managerial employees.

As you are well aware, the management organizations have several long-standing issues with the NPA program that we have attempted to resolve on an annual basis. Unfortunately, to date our recommendations and repeated requests for changes in the NPA program have gone unheeded. As the management associations have done in the past, we have not just identified problems; we also have recommended solutions to the problems.

While it remains our desire to resolve these issues internally, and is the reason why we are meeting with you, we stand ready to use any and all resources at our disposal to resolve these matters through outside intervention if necessary.

Annual Development of the NPA Program for EAS Employees

The Postal Service has failed to comply with Title 39 by not inviting the management organizations to participate at the beginning of the process to jointly develop the criteria for the use of measurement systems, assignment of targets and to develop an NPA system that will benefit the Postal Service and drive performance.

Each year, the management associations have made individual and collective requests for consultative meetings with the NPA developers through our contact with Labor Relations, Policy Administration. Instead of meeting directly with the NPA developers, the management associations were relegated receiving emails concerning NPA development with Labor Relations, Policy Administration staff members.

We were never consulted during the development process and only received final drafts through intermediaries. The management association’s recommendations that were made, not at meetings, but again through emails, were summarily ignored as the decisions on the programs were already made and the interaction with the management associations was only an afterthought.

The USPS has failed to provide the management associations with their Consultative rights under Title 39, with respect to NPA and failed to provide the management organizations opportunities to meet with the NPA developers to provide feedback and recommendations to the plans that eventually become our pay program each year.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution:

That the management associations be invited to participate in Consultative Meetings with the individuals from the Postal Service who are tasked with NPA development at the outset of planning for the next fiscal year.

Postal Service’s Response:

The USPS agreed that they would meet with the management associations at the front of the annual development process to include the management associations in the development of the NPA program for the upcoming year.

Failure of the Field to Comply With Administrative Rules

The field is expected to comply with the Administrative Rules for the establishment of Core goals for EAS employees. This includes having an interactive process in the establishment of Core goals. We have continually brought to the Postal Service’s attention the fact that management is violating one of the key principles of goal development and are, in many cases, having their goals sent to them via email, or are having their goals taped to their computer terminal screens.

In many instances, these tactics are employed at the last minute and our members have less than 24 hours to input the information without recourse to an interactive meeting.

At our last Pay Consultations, NAPS recommended that the PES system be modified to include “question” pages that would query participants whether or not they had an interactive meeting at the stat of the year, that they had a mid-year meeting and that they held an end-of-year meeting with their immediate manager.

The USPS response to our suggestion was that the cost to make these program changes could not be implemented because the recommendation was cost-prohibitive. After continual complaints by NAPS, a letter was issued about this problem, but it was sent to the field following the closing of the input of the 2009 Core goal process.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Require that the field comply with all provisions of the Administrative Rules. Implement our recommendation of the questions in the PES to provide additional incentive for the compliance with Administrative Rules.

Discussion on the topic:

The USPS admitted that there are problems with the compliance to the administrative rules in the field and also stated that when the management associations bring these violations to management’s attention at HQ’s that the problem is investigated and remedied when necessary.

The management associations also stated that at this point in the maturity of NPA, that we should not be having to go to USPS HQ with some of these problems and that if the field knew that they couldn’t violate the rules and that there would be consequences if they did, that the violations would go down.

The USPS asked how we (management associations would resolve these problems). The management associations recommended the “one box” reductions in the evaluator’s scores for not following the administrative rules. This was rumored to be implemented, but it never was. Management advised that they would look into this recommendation.

Management also agreed that they would improve the communications to the field in making certain that the field is reminded about the requirements for interactive meetings at the goal development phase, the mid-year and the end-of-year processes.

Changes in NPA during the Year

In just one example; in early 2008, the Board of Governors determined that the service standards established for First Class Mail, standards that are the basis for Corporate Goals in NPA, were set too low by the Postal Service.

As a result of the Board of Governor’s opinion on service standards, the Postal Service arbitrarily changed the corporate goals for overnight, two-day and three-day First Class Mail performance that negatively impacted NPA for EAS employees.

In implementing these changes, the Postal service neglected to meet their obligations to consult with the management associations. While the Board of Governor’s should be able to maintain the right to change the performance expectations of the Postal Service, their decision should not have impacted the measurement of Pay-For-Performance for EAS employees which had already been established for FY 2008.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution
That the Postal Service re-calculate the NPA for corporate measurements for FY 2008 based on the established goals set by the Postal Service and input into the PES system for all EAS employees and not use the service standard goals that were set by the Board of Governors that the Postal Service failed to consult with the management associations prior to the changes being implemented.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS stated that the Board of Governors reviewed the 2008 NPA targets for Corporate and felt that the service standard targets that were set for FY 2008 were not including any continuous improvement as the USPS had already achieved the goals for FY 2007 that were set for FY 2008.

The USPS reminded us that nationally that the company made their service targets for overnight two and three day so the Board of Governors was correct in their assessment and changes that they made in the service standards.

The management associations explained in-depth their objections to the budget flexes that are made during the year and then especially at the end-of-year that severely impact individuals who had otherwise outstanding performance over the entire year.

The management associations recommended that the USPS look at NPA assessment through goals that measure earned hours. Earned hours as a measurement tool would take into consideration volume fluctuations and would take some of the weird science that is employed with the budget flexes that the field is on the receiving end of now.

Management responded that there was merit in the proposal that was made by the management associations and would speak to the specialists to see if something could be done to implement these recommendations for the current FY (2009).

Changes in Goals – Sales

In the spring of 2008, it was brought to NAPS’ attention that members in Sales found that several of their goals were arbitrarily changed without notifying them. NAPS also was not consulted on these changes.

The only reason that our members in Sales found out about these surreptitious changes was that their relative scores were reduced on their monthly evaluations. Once the members went into the system to determine why their coring was lower than they had been expecting during the months (April, May, 2008) where our members found that these arbitrary changes were placed into their portfolio measurements.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Since Sales did not consult with NAPS or notify the members of these changes that negatively impacted our members’ NPA, that the Postal Service revert the measurement of our members performance back to the former targets (prior to the changes) and that adjustments be implemented to the former measurements.

Discussion on Topic:

Management responded that they would discuss this matter with NAPS at a separate meeting.

Change in Use of Lead Finance Numbers for Unit Goals/Targets

For the first time in FY 2008, stations/branches and other operations started to have their unit goals measured to their individual finance number level. This was a dramatic change from all of the prior years of NPA. It was also dramatic as NAPS, NAPUS and the League were unaware that this change was implemented.

Management failed to consult with the management organizations on this change that drastically alters the evaluations of operations that formerly were grouped together for unit measurement under a “lead” finance number.

In a Consultative Meeting between NAPS and the Postal Service on December 8, 2008, NAPS brought this issue forward as a discussion item. Tom Henry, representing PES for the USPS advised us that shortly after his arrival in the department in early (March) 2008 that he “found” this change in the system and did some research to determine how it occurred. In his research he stated that this is what the officers wanted to do, but he did not relate to NAPS that the organization was ever consulted on this change.

Both NAPUS and the League also had no prior information relative to this change and their members in the field were also surprised when the evaluations came out to the unit finance number level instead of the lead finance number.

The internal research that Tom Henry conducted at USPS HQ was concluded in April, 2008. It was determined by the Postal Service that this was the way that unit goals would be measured. The management associations were not consulted about this change and only became aware of the changes when our members were in the process of completing their end-of-year assessments.

The management associations have two problems with this change. First, we were not consulted and second, it is just a bad idea. If we had been consulted on this change, we would have never agreed to it.

We would have pointed out that resources in the field, especially in a Post Office/Station environment, are shared between offices in order to meet operational needs. This change to measurement down to the finance number level “rewards” offices that needed help and were assisted by lower cost employees, and punishes offices that gave up lower cost employees to other offices and used higher cost overtime to meet operational objectives.

Operations managers in the field were even unaware of this change during the year and they managed their operations as they have done in prior years, moving resources from operation (office) to operation as the needs arose.

On January, 6, 2009, at a meeting at NAPS HQ, Bill Jones advised NAPS that the practice of measuring offices at their finance number would continue and that the remedy to ensure that office who shared resources completed workhour transfers in TACS to re-allocate the workhours to the proper finance number when resources are shared.

The management associations believe that this is a bad idea, for managers and supervisors to arbitrarily transfer hours from their finance number and operations to other finance numbers and operations. The practice of transferring hours is not always accurate, is time consuming and would be unnecessary if the Postal Service simply reverted back to the former system.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

Due to the failure of the Postal Service to consult with the management associations on the change in unit measurement down to the unit finance number level, that the FY 2008 NPA be recomputed back to the lead finance number level and that the Postal service abandon this counterproductive measurement that would cause chaos in daily operations in the field.

Consideration should be given to having Post Office retail revenue calculated at a POOM level rather than to the individual finance number to create more teamwork on revenue generation.

Discussion on Topic:

The management associations brought forward several examples of what measuring performance down to the finance number does, including a postmaster taking transitional carriers from one station and moving them to another station and back-filling the losing office with overtime letter carriers. The office that gave up the lower cost employees suffers while the office with the “loaned” employees benefits with lower cost workhour usage.

Management responded that while they would not go back into the system to bring the tracking of performance that was made to the finance number level back to the lead finance number level they did state that they would consider the management associations recommendation to bring the measurement of unit scores back to the lead finance number in cases where they were changed for 2008. Once the issue is reviewed fully at USPS HQ, they will get back to the management associations to determine the course of action for FY 2009.

End-Of-Year NPA Processes

At the end of the FY 2008 NPA process, NAPS brought to the Postal service’s attention that some of our members were arbitrarily having the Core goal results lowered by reviewing officials. While the Postal Service did take action to correct a few of these cases, there were many instances where the Postal Service did not take the actions we requested or where the member did not file an objection to the arbitrary lowering of their Core goal results.

Some of these arbitrary changes went beyond the normal review process where senior managers are required to review ratings of non-contributor or exceptional contributor and there were cases where individuals who attained high-contributor status had their results arbitrarily lowered by a second-level review.

Management Association’s Recommended Solution

More reliance has to be placed on the evaluations that are completed by the immediate manager so that if there are discrepancies in the ratings from the initial level meeting that they will be resolved at the initial level.

We have documented cases where PCES managers who were not even in the same District as our member during the evaluation period, arbitrarily reduced evaluations.
In other instances, PCES managers who left the District during the evaluation period were still reducing evaluations from immediate evaluators in their former Districts.

Second level evaluators should not have the ability to change (reduce) evaluations that are at the high-contributor level to contributor level. It is the function of the immediate manager to review the accomplishments of the employee and make the determination of the scoring. The immediate manager is more knowledgeable of the performance of the employee and is in the best position to evaluate that performance.

Management should maintain the oversight of non-contributor and exceptional contributor, but additional requirements must be placed on the PCES manager to document reductions of scores from exceptional contributor.

Discussion on Topic:

The USPS agreed that additional emphasis has to be placed on following the Administrative Rules for closing out the FY. Management believes that a renewed effort in working with the management associations in the entire NPA process will result in FY 2009.

Management committed to working closer with the management organizations in the adherence to the Administrative Rules and in keeping all of the management organizations involved in the NPA process in the future.

The meeting concluded at 12:10 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.

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

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 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.

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.

“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?”