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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

---

With Mailers' Views Largely in Mind, Commission Wraps Up Testimony

(This article first appeared in the July/August 2003 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine)

During the final two days of testimony before the Presidential Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, most of the witnesses were from the corporate world, and most of them painted a bleak picture of the future, blaming their forecasts on the costs associated with postal worker wages, health care and retirement benefits, and collective bargaining rights.

Offering virtually a lone voice for consumers served by the nation's mail-delivery system was William L. Clay Sr., who represented Missouri's 1st District in the U.S. House for 32 years and served a long tenure on the Postal Service's oversight committee.

"I have been disappointed that consumers have generally not been heard," Clay told the commissioners. "You have heard from vendors, large mailers, marketers, union representatives, and the Postal Service itself, but the voices of individual Americans who rely on the mail during their daily lives have been missing."

"I have a simple and straightforward message for this Commission," said Clay, chairman of the Consumer Alliance for Postal Services (CAPS). "We are opposed to any efforts that would weaken universal mail service at uniform rates." The current financial situation of the Postal Service simply does not justify making drastic changes to the way it serves the American public, Clay said.

Among the first witnesses during the two-day hearing (May 28-29) was Tom O.S. Rand, who served as a USPS consultant during past contract negotiations. Rand claimed that postal workers' health care, retirement, and paid-leave benefits greatly exceed those earned in the private sector. One way to trim costs, Rand said, would be to move postal workers out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. Another option, mentioned by Rand and endorsed by other witnesses, would be to make all health care and retirement benefits - currently guaranteed by law - subject to collective bargaining.

APWU President William Burrus criticized the commission's handling of the public hearings, saying, "Consumers and citizens organizations were barely heard, and only after they demanded a seat at the table. They certainly were never encouraged to participate." Much of the testimony attacked collective bargaining (the focus of the April 29 hearing in Chicago).

"Collective bargaining has brought 33 years of labor peace and provided for a smooth transition from manual labor to a highly automated method of mail processing," Burrus said in Chicago.

For workers, he said, "the most fundamental right is the right to bargain about wages and working conditions. The second is the right to a prompt and effective resolution of any dispute that may result from collective bargaining. In our industry, strikes are not permitted, so we have a right to receive an arbitrated resolution of any collective bargaining dispute."

Also in Chicago, Stephen B. Goldberg, who served as the neutral arbitrator during APWU contract arbitration proceedings in 2001, urged the commissioners not to recommend changes to the collective bargaining procedure unless such changes were jointly agreed to by management and the union. George Fleischli, who served as the arbitrator for the National Association of Letter Carriers contact hearings in 1999, concurred.

The last person to speak at the May 29 hearing, Postmaster General John E. Potter, sidestepped overt discussion of collective-bargaining, but he urged the commission to recommend giving the Postal Service more latitude to close small post offices and consolidate mail processing facilities, as well as greater pricing flexibility.

In a May 1 letter, Burrus specifically asked the presidential panel to address "pricing" by holding a hearing on the rate-setting process. Burrus called it something that "warrants the concentrated attention of the Commission during a dedicated day of hearings" and said he wanted to hear discussion about below-cost postage discounts given to big mailers who pre-sort their mail.

The commission did not respond to the APWU letter, but less than two weeks after holding a public hearing on collective bargaining and labor issues, the commission began receiving reports from several private consulting firms it hired to study those issues. The topics include alternatives to the current collective bargaining process, incentive compensation programs, and the grievance procedure.

APWU President William Burrus protested the projects in a letter to commission Co-Chairmen James A. Johnson and Harry J. Pearce, noting that "the Commission will not subject the resulting papers to the scrutiny of a public hearing." Consultants bring their own biases to the questions they consider, Burrus noted, and the lack of balance in considering these reports "will undermine the credibility of their conclusions."

Meanwhile, a survey commissioned by the panel revealed little interest among consumers for major changes. Only 6 percent of survey participants favored a "major overhaul," with 16 percent responding that it needed "some major changes." This compared with 43 percent who said it needs only "minor changes" and 30 percent who said it "works extremely well as it is now." More results from the mid-May telephone survey can be seen on the APWU web site, at www.apwu.org.

[back to top]