Printer-Friendly Page
 |
AFL-CIO News |
 |
Listen to Labor News |
Victory Elusive in Postal ‘Reform’
Burrus Update #08-06, June 28, 2006
Recent news reports have indicated that leaders of the House and Senate committees that have approved postal “reform” bills are hoping for a vote on final passage to occur before Congress’ July 4th recess. Toward that end, the leaders of the two panels have instructed their staffs to work informally to resolve differences between the versions of the bills passed in the House and Senate. The legislators have also been working to address the demands by the White House that the bills be “budget neutral.”
In an Update earlier this year (#03-2006, Jan. 25), I opined that the postal reform bills that had passed in the House and Senate “will not achieve the stated objectives and will be more harmful than continuing operations under current law.” I have been informed that leaders of other postal organizations took exception to the APWU position and made disparaging references about our stand on these issues. I will leave mudslinging to those who feel comfortable in the mud, while reserving the absolute right of the APWU to express our positions independently from others who have a different point of view.
The APWU position on postal reform remains unchanged: The current legislation will not benefit the USPS or postal employees. The Postal Service’s objective in promoting “reform” was to win freedom from burdensome rules governing postage rate increases. But the relaxation of rules on rate-changing is outweighed by the restrictions imposed by rate caps, which are enshrined in both the House and Senate versions of legislation.
Of course, there is nothing in the proposed legislation that would increase first-class mail volume, which traditionally rises and falls with the ups and downs of the American economy. The decline in first-class mail volume often has been cited as the reason postal “reform” was necessary.
Throughout the debate on postal legislation, the APWU has been an outspoken advocate not only for postal workers, but for a strong, healthy Postal Service. We have worked tirelessly to persuade lawmakers that limits on excessive postage discounts for corporate and advertising mailers are necessary to ensure the viability of the Postal Service and to provide fairness to postal consumers. As of now, a provision to achieve that objective remains in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation.
We also have supported a provision offered by our friend, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), that would require public input in the process of network consolidation.
If enacted, these changes would provide some measure of success for the union’s goals; but they would be countered by other provisions of the legislation.
The establishment of a politically appointed postal regulatory board that would have absolute authority over rates and service could wreak havoc on the USPS, the service it provides, and postal employees.
In addition, the proposed rate caps would undermine our members’ collective bargaining rights. To address this concern, recent behind-the-scenes discussions have focused on the circumstances under which exceptions to the rate caps would be permitted. My response to these discussions is simple: Postal collective bargaining has functioned successfully for 35 years without the arbitrary limits of rate caps, and I find it absurd to engage in debate over the retention of these rights. Successful negotiations cannot begin by bargaining over rights already achieved.
The APWU stands to achieve some of our objectives whether postal reform legislation passes or fails. If it passes as currently written we will have achieved legislative limits on excessive postage discounts, even though we will be forced to preserve these gains in the battle over “bottom-up pricing.” (See Burrus Update # 07-2006, May 22, 2006.) We also will have guaranteed the involvement of communities in the process of network realignment. Postal management will gain access to billions of dollars through the release of the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) escrow account that was established in 2003, and from the return of responsibility for the military retirement obligations of postal employees to the Treasury. These changes would weaken management’s attempts to cry “broke” during contract negotiations.
However, we must weigh these potential achievements against possible changes to employee eligibility for workers compensation; an all-powerful postal regulatory board; and rate caps that would impact the available revenues to adequately compensate employees for their services.
No matter the outcome of postal legislation, postal workers will face challenges in their struggle for fairness in the workplace, and any declaration of “victory” will ring hollow.
William Burrus
President
