The story from the Alexandria Town Talk about the possible closing of the city’s mail processing operation presents an amazing transportation anomaly. According to the story, moving mail processing operations down the road to Lafayette would mean “mailing a letter or bill across town would take four to five days“. What’s puzzling is that in a previous story, the paper quoted an APWU official as saying that working the mail in Alexandria “allows mail delivery to anywhere in Louisiana except New Orleans in one day”.

Now that’s odd- it only takes a day to get mail from this place to anywhere in the state, but it takes four or five days to get it back from a plant 88 miles away? If you were a reporter, wouldn’t you find that a bit questionable? Apparently not in Alexandria.

The Postal Rate Commission yesterday issued its “Opinion and Recommended Decision” in the Evolutionary Network Development (END) proceedings. The PRC found that the USPS had ”not provide assurance that the proposed realignment program, as currently envisaged, will meet its declared goals.  In particular, the record reflects flawed or absent information on certain crucial aspects of the Postal Service’s plan for network realignment.”

The PRC found that the plan’s flaws included:

• Questionable or Incomplete Cost and Service Estimates
• Inadequate Review of Local Impacts
• Insufficient Provisions for Public Participation

The commission analyzed the Area Mail Processing (AMP) process for evaluating individual plant consolidations, and found that:

• AMP Reviews Lack Consistency
• AMP Process Lacks Criteria for Approval
• The Post Implementation Review Process (PIR) is Flawed

The commission also criticized the USPS for failing to fully consider the service implications of plant realignments:

The Postal Service is a service organization, perhaps the largest such organization in the country.  It does not seem prudent, in the Commission’s view, for an organization of its size and economic importance to commit itself to a logistics network restructuring program of this magnitude, without first having a full grasp of its likely effect on the service that it provides its customers.  If the Postal Service’s representations in this docket are accurate, however, that is what the Postal Service is considering.  The Commission recommends that the Postal Service choose a “most likely” network realignment outcome for planning purposes, and estimate the full range of service impacts that would result from that outcome before it commits further resources to this program.

Commissioner Ruth Goldway wrote in a concurring opinion that the Commission’s opinion “fails to express sufficiently serious concern about the problems that have arisen in initial stages of the Postal Service’s consolidation efforts, in places such as Southern California, El Paso, Texas and Las Vegas, Nevada.”

I am concerned that unless the Postal Service management is truly attentive to improving the AMP change process, implementation of network realignment is likely to result in substantial, unexpected, and potentially expensive service disruptions throughout the nation.  A clear example is that the AMP change analysis performed prior to the recent consolidation of the Marina Del Rey facility into the existing Los Angeles facility totally failed to predict the myriad of service disruptions that occurred in the weeks and months after implementation.

…Before the Postal Service implements the dozens of consolidations required by network realignment, it should improve the AMP change process to insure that service disruptions are minimized.  The best way to improve that process is to fully review each consolidation that has already occurred. It should honestly face and thoroughly analyze mis-estimates and determine the lessons learned.  Going forward, the Postal Service should require forecasts of possible changes in service levels to the end users in planning every AMP change, require measurement of customer feedback in any post implementation review, and then accurately measure the net cost savings by including changes in post-implementation workforce, transportation or other adjustments.

ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING A PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF POSTAL SERVICES

The Postal Reform Act passed by Congress contains language that supports the Postal Service’s efforts to consolidate plants, while requiring the agency to be more open about its plans. The act includes this: “as noted by the President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, the Postal Service has more facilities than it needs and the streamlining of this distribution network can pave the way for the potential consolidation of sorting facilities and the elimination of excess costs”.

The act encourages the USPS to “expeditiously move forward in its streamlining efforts”, but adds that it must also “keep unions, management associations, and local elected officials informed as an essential part of this effort and abide by any procedural requirements contained in the national bargaining agreements.”

To that end, the USPS is required to produce a plan outlining the steps it plans to take, including “estimated timeframes, criteria, and processes to be used for making changes to the facilities network, and the process for engaging policy makers and the public in related decisions”. The plan must also include “a discussion of what impact any facility changes may have on the postal workforce and whether the Postal Service has sufficient flexibility to make needed workforce changes”, as well as “a comprehensive plan under which reemployment assistance shall be afforded to employees displaced as a result of automation of any of its functions, the closing and consolidation of any of its facilities, or such other reasons as the Postal Service may determine”.

The act requires that any consolidation efforts currently under way include notice to the communities involved of any service changes and impacts on employees. The USPS must also “afford affected persons ample opportunity to provide input on the proposed decision; and take such comments into account in making a final decision.”

The US Postal Service yesterday filed its reply brief in the END Plant Consolidation case being considered by the Postal Rate Commission. The agency repeated its contention that “The Commission is not tasked by § 3661 to second-guess the judgment of postal management in proposing the service changes in question. Nor is it the Commission’s task under § 3661 to determine whether some alternative objectives would be “better” for the Postal Service to pursue.”, and argued that any opinion the PRC renders will be “advisory only”.

Best line in the brief has to be the footnote on page 3. After pointing out the many layers of existing oversight the USPS operates under, the brief notes that ‘At page 74, the OCA [Office of the Consumer Advocate] refers to a need for “continued surveillance” of postal management.’ The footnote asks “Can postal rendition be far behind?”

USPS N2006-1 Reply Brief
USPS N2006-1 Initial Brief
Complete Listing of Briefs filed

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

The Olympia Local of the American Postal Workers Union will hold an all day informational picket on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at the Olympia Post Office to protest the Postal Service’s plans to consolidate facilities and reduce mail service to the public. The Olympia action is part of a nationwide informational picket by the American Postal Workers Union. Postal workers in cities across the United States will be informing the public about consolidation plans that will reduce service to their communities.

The Olympia outgoing mail has already been consolidated to Tacoma. It is worth noting that the Tacoma Plant cannot handle the extra Olympia mail. The Tacoma Plant is using overtime and often sending Tacoma mail to Seattle in order to handle the Olympia mail. In essence, Olympia mail is being worked in Tacoma and Tacoma mail is being worked in Seattle. The consolidation of the Olympia mail to Tacoma has increased costs and reduced mail service for the average citizen.

However, all too often, the Postal Service no longer acts in the interest of the average citizen. Similar to other government agencies, the Postal Service increasingly acts in the interest of large corporations who have been successful in electing and influencing government officials with large amounts of money. The power of large corporations over the Postal Service is illustrated by the fact that James C. Miller III, a long time advocate for the privatization of the Postal Service, is now the current chair of the Board of Governors for the Postal Service. The governing head of the Postal Service is someone who does not believe the Postal Service should be a democratic institution.

In the case of the Postal Service, the corporate influence has the added element of media power. Time Warner, the Newspaper Association of America, and other large corporate media interests are big customers of the Postal Service and have been actively supporting consolidation and other plans in their self-interest, which often comes at the expense of the general public.

It is difficult for postal workers and other advocates for a democratic postal service to get their views articulated when most of the media is corporate owned and in support of a corporate oriented postal service. Therefore, postal workers will utilize picket signs on Thursday, October 26, as one method of informing the public that unwarranted consolidations will reduce mail service and increase costs for the average citizen in the country.

For more information contact: Clint Burelson - clintburelson@comcast.net or 360-970-2965

From the APWU- a commercial the union is running “in cities where APWU activists have already taken steps to inform citizens about the negative effect USPS network consolidation plans will have on mail service for individual postal customers and small businesses.” Click here for more on the APWU’s radio and TV campaign.

NAPS posted the following on its Legislative News web site. In recent reorganizations, the Postal Service has characterized the actions as the complete elimination of an administrative unit, rather than as the merger of two or more units. In a ‘merger’, preference eligible veterans would have ‘bumping’ and other rights. When a unit is discontinued, those rights do not apply. Presumably NAPS would like to insure that members (and other veterans) affected by proposed plant consolidations would keep their preference:

An URGENT Message to NAPS Legislative Leaders a Read the rest of this entry »

A skyrocketing suicide rate, rampant drug use and the sudden failure of Washington State residents to pay their taxes has followed on the heels of the shocking decision by postal officials to do away with the long cherished “Olympia WA” postmark.

OK- enough sarcasm. But how else can you respond to the bizarre editorial in today’s “Olympian” “Tacoma-Olympian”?

Consider the second paragraph: “The battle to retain the local postmark has been waged - and lost. It’s time for South Sound residents to live with the results and make the best of an unfortunate situation.”

Can you imagine having to live with that? I mean really live with it day after day without totally losing it? CAN YOU?!?!?!

“The emotional attachment to something as artificial as a postmark is amazing.” I’ll say! What is it about people in Olympia that they seem to have this creepy attachment to something that gets sprayed on a few of their letters by an ink jet?

“When postal authorities announced consolidation plans last November, there was a fair amount of public outrage.” No mention of what the death toll was, but you can just imagine!

But just when you think it can’t get any worse, it does: “Postal officials did make one concession. They gave Olympia and Tacoma a joint postmark. The community was led to believe it would be an “Olympia-Tacoma” postmark, but it ended up being a “Tacoma-Olympia” postmark. That’s like pouring salt in the wound to postal employees who waged a valiant - albeit unsuccessful - campaign to save Olympia’s postmark.”

Bastards!!!!!

And if you don’t think that losing your postmark is the death knell for a city, consider this: “Had the city lost its postmark entirely, Olympia would have joined Annapolis, Md., and Carson City, Nev., as one of three state capitals without one.”

Notice anything missing, Vermonters? Yes, that’s right- Montpelier is SO forgotten that it doesn’t even make the list of state capitals that don’t have a postmark!

Not until the very end does the editorial get around to mentioning how the consolidation is actually working. The biggest fears the State Capital of Washington State had when this all started was that mail from the state government would be hopelessly delayed. So how’s that going?

“The biggest South Sound mail customer, of course, is the state of Washington. Consolidated Mail Services, a division of the state Department of General Administration that handles 100,000 pieces of state mail a day, has spent months preparing for the shift to Tacoma processing. So far, the planning has paid off, as it has been a smooth transition.”

Oh…

Well, never mind!

Postal promises must be kept - The Olympian The Tacoma-Olympian- Olympia Tacoma-Olympia, Washington

Newspaper coverage of the various plant consolidation controversies has been sloppy, but this story from the Akron Beacon Journal takes the cake. According to ace reporter Ed Meyer, the plan to shift mail processing operations from Canton to Akron was “put together by the Bush administration and the Government Accountability Office”. Uh oh.

The rest of the story is pretty much what we’ve heard before- the APWU says shifting the work will delay the mail, and the Mayor of Canton says the city will lose its identity if it loses its postmark. (I’ll resist the urge to make a smart remark about what the “identity” of Canton, OH might consist of currently.)

The idea does sound pretty far-fetched- after all, it is all of 23 miles from Canton to Akron! Imagine that! How could they possible get mail from one city to the other (and back!) in less than a week?

Canton letters could get loopy