Printer-Friendly Page
|
Question:
I recently watched the seven-minute video by Deputy Postmaster General Pat Donahoe, regarding the impact a five-day delivery week would have on postal employees. Many of us in the field feel that although we strongly oppose the reduction in service, it is most likely the direction we are headed. Mr. Donahoe said the change would impact approximately 32,000 city carriers, 2,000 supervisors, and 1,000 clerks nationwide; however, he did not clarify how the reductions would be made. Is it the intent of the Postal Service upon Congressional approval for the five-day week to layoff all employees with less than six years of continuous service? I am very unclear on how these numbers are to be achieved while honoring all current contracts.
Furthermore, I have read many things about how the Postal Service intends to reduce expenses, but very little about how it intends to increase revenue. What is the plan of action if after this skeletal staffing is finalized, mail volume increases as it did in 2005? In my opinion, budget cuts bandage a more serious underlying issue: If the business does not become a tougher competitor and evolve to meet the needs of modern-day mailers this will be the road to the end of the U.S. Postal Service. If we truly are a challenging competitor for UPS and FedEx, why is it that every time I order something on the computer, it is delivered by the big brown truck???
Jennifer, Central New York Local
President Burrus:
Thank you for communicating through Ask the President and sharing your concerns for the future. The APWU and the other postal labor unions oppose the USPS effort to reduce mail delivery from six days to five, and as of this date there is insufficient support in the House or Senate to legislate such a change.
The APWU opposes the reduction in delivery days because we believe it would be the first step toward dismantling the Postal Service. Concurrent with the elimination of Saturday delivery would be the relaxation of the USPS monopoly on access to the mailbox. While Congress could pass legislation that would require the Postal Service to provide delivery only five days each week, lawmakers are unlikely to restrict the American public from receiving mail on the sixth day. If private-sector couriers are permitted to deliver mail on Saturday, they would continually press for expansion and the spiraling affect would be underway.
I am not convinced that increasing the Postal Service’s share of the parcel market would play a major role in reinvigorating the Postal Service. The United Parcel Service (UPS) is a fierce competitor and dominates the market, so it would require a major effort to increase the Postal Service’s market share. Even if this effort were successful, the USPS cannot maintain a national network of more than 37,000 facilities on the revenue generated from parcels.
The USPS has a legal responsibility to deliver to every home six days per week, and must maintain sufficient personnel, vehicles and facilities to meet this responsibility. UPS delivers only to addresses that generate a profit, and has partnered with the Postal Service for unprofitable deliveries.
The primary function of the Postal Service is the delivery of letters, and while we engage in many other activities, our future lies in the growth of letter mail. Other products consume more space but contribute much less proportionally to the maintenance of the national network. Efforts to increase volume should focus on the principal product, letter mail
I agree with your concern that a reduction in delivery and customer service will leave the USPS poorly positioned to serve the customers when volume rebounds. If we have fewer retail units and reduce the number of delivery days, the Postal Service will be ill-equipped to serve the public with a growing demand for service.
Our union has opposed these proposals and views them as acts of surrender. Mail volume is tied to the economy and if one believes that capitalism is the superior vehicle for economic growth, as the economy recovers, mail volume will return. Decisions to reduce delivery and service are short sighted and could retard future growth.
The union expects postal management to honor our Collective Bargaining Agreement, which restricts management’s right to reduce the complement through layoffs. Attrition is the primary method of reducing the complement. (Article 6 provides lifetime protection against layoffs to employees upon completion of six years of continuous service. In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding re: Layoff Protection [page 286] in the 2006-2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement [PDF] stipulates that regular workforce employees who were on the rolls as of Nov. 20, 2006, and had not achieved six years of continuous service “shall be protected against involuntary layoff during the term of the contract,” which ends Nov. 20, 2010.)
It is hoped that the current incentive program will accelerate attrition to alleviate the dislocation of employees caused by excessing and reassignments.
Sept. 2, 2009
