All Sections ------------------------------- News & Events Pay & Benefits Departments & Divisions Members Only

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

---

---

---

The Road to Reform Remains Treacherous

(This article first appeared in the September/October 2005 edition of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act passed the House by a vote of 410 to 20 on July 26. With such a lopsided vote one might think that the road ahead will be smooth. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

With attention now focused on similar legislation being considered in the Senate, the White House has signaled that it will push for significant changes in the Senate version of the bill (S.662).

A statement of the Bush administration’s policy with regard to this legislation clearly outlines what it believes must be contained in the final legislation. Among its demands:

• A firm postage rate cap, providing for only a few exceptions to that cap. We see this rate cap as essentially leading to wage caps at the bargaining table.
  
  
• Reform of the OWCP provisions that will impose a three-day waiting period after an on-the-job injury to determine eligibility for benefits. This would force postal workers to use their own leave, unless the injury ultimately lasted more than 14 days. At that point, the employees would be reimbursed for any leave taken.
  
  
• Forcing employees on the rolls of OWCP to retire when they become eligible or else receive drastic cuts to their benefits. Currently, workers can remain on the rolls of OWCP and defer retirement until after their recovery. n Greater flexibility on worksharing discounts. If enacted there would be even more outsourcing of our work.
  
  
• That arbitrators be allowed to consider the financial health of the Postal Service when bargaining reaches an impasse. This would place the union at a great disadvantage.
  
  
• That all the money in the escrow fund be applied to reducing the unfunded USPS liability for health and retirement benefits. The escrow fund is money owed to the Postal Service due to its overpayments into the Civil Service Retirement System. The Postal Service is willing to apply some of that money to reduce the unfunded liability, but it also wants to use some of the funds for operational needs.
  
  
• That the Postal Service pay for the military-service-related retirement benefits of postal workers, which no other federal agency is required to do for its employees. All interested parties disagree with the administration on this point and believe the military retirement liability should be returned to the Treasury. Even the commission appointed by the president to study the USPS recommended in its final report two years ago that the military retirement liability should not be the responsibility of the Postal Service.

If the Bush administration is successful in forcing these changes, the result will be disastrous for postal workers and the Postal Service. Collective bargaining will be weak- ened, and the Postal Service will continue to sink deeper into debt, leading to job loses, wage restrictions, accelerated outsourcing of our work, and, eventually, a reduction in services. We must do everything in our power to defeat these administration proposals.

It is interesting to note that, unlike in the House, Senate rules allow any senator to try to amend legislation while it is being considered by the full chamber. This is one of the reasons why we always expected the Senate to be problematic.

If the Senate passes its bill, it will be sent to a House- Senate conference committee, where differences between each chamber’s version of the legislation are resolved. Strange things can happen in a conference committee, so we must be vigilant.

When the conference committee finishes its work, the modified bill is returned to both chambers for a final vote. If it passes both chambers, it goes to the president for his approval or veto.

Family and Medical Leave Act Under Attack on the Hill Unions fought long and hard to win passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which allows millions of workers to take leave to cope with a serious medical condition or to care for a loved one without worrying about job security. However, a coalition of large employers has been pressing the Bush administration and Congress to curtail what they claim are widespread abuses under the act. At a June 23 hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, representatives of the so-called FMLA Technical Correction Coalition said the act has fostered too many recurring absences, lowering productivity and the morale of workers. The employers’ witnesses called for narrowing the definition of “serious health conditions” under which workers can request FMLA time-off; restricting intermittent FMLA use to periods of four hours or more; and giving employers more power to monitor medical information. “Right now, if you’ve got the flu it would qualify as a serious health condition,” said Michael Eastman, labor policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Other employer witnesses claimed allowing workers to use FMLA leave for just an hour or two per day is an administrative burden, and to prevent abuses, businesses need more medical certification. Currently, “there is little an employer can do to figure out if the leave taken is consistent with the condition,” complained Eastman. Employee representatives countered that such claims are exaggerated, and that the act has been beneficial to many millions of families. The FMLA is “one of the most significant steps toward being a family-friendly nation,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. Workers’ advocates argued that the act already excludes minor conditions, and that short-term FMLA absences prevent longer absences that might occur if illnesses worsened due to lack of treatment. In addition, they noted, the intermittent use of FMLA leave is often necessary for doctors’ appointments, and establishing longer minimum durations for which FMLA leave may be used would force workers to take more leave than they need. Whether or not the employers’ coalition wins changes in the law, they may still succeed in changing how it is implemented: Reports have been circulating that the Labor Department is drafting new language to weaken current FMLA regulations. We will continue to monitor this situation closely. Despite the latest assault, there was recently one very bright note for the FMLA: The APWU victory in a federal appeals court ruling that reversed USPS policy requiring detailed medical documentation for workers returning to duty after FMLA absences of more that 21 days. (See Page 12 of the September/October 2005 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

Correction

The Legislative column in the last issue of The American Postal Worker gave the incorrect dates for Government Pension Offset (GPO) eligibility. The GPO, which reduced Social Security survivor benefits for anyone who qualified for a pension other than Social Security, affected Civil Service annuitants who became eligible to retire after July 1, 1983, or who reached age 62 or became disabled after July 1, 1983, and who were the surviving spouses of workers who had paid into Social Security. Whatever survivor benefit they were entitled to was reduced by an amount equal to two-thirds of their civil service annuity. (Our thanks to reader and APWU Retiree Alice Adsit, of Sullivan, WI, for alerting us to the error.)

[back to top]