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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

---

Lawmakers Take First Look
At Commission 'Reform' Scheme

(This article first appeared in the Nov./Dec. 2003 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine)

In the first congressional hearing on the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on the U.S. Postal Service, co-chairman James A. Johnson defended the panel's proposals to close many of the nation's post offices and to make postal workers bear the brunt of efforts to cut costs.

Johnson told the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on Sept. 17 that even though "the Postal Service is in dramatically better shape" than it was a year ago, Congress must still act. "It's not a fire," he said, but failing to cut costs through such actions as reducing the postal workforce, will lead to postal rate increases, service cutbacks, or even a need for a taxpayer bailout.

Senators at the hearing questioned how the commission's proposals might affect postal workers and postal customers. While characterizing the commission's report as "a wake-up call" on declining mail volume and saying that she was relieved that the panel did not advocate complete privatization, committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME) expressed concern about the impact of postal facility closings on citizens, businesses, and workers.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) took the commission to task for ignoring the views of postal workers. "They have to be consulted. We have to respect their views and ideas. ... Restricting employee bargaining rights, privatizing jobs, and increasing executive compensation will not solve the Postal Service's workplace problems nor improve employee morale or efficiency." Democratic senators Richard Durbin (IL), Daniel Akaka (HI), and Tom Carper (DE) also spoke up for postal workers.

Johnson held his ground on most of the anti-worker recommendations, however, insisting that the Postal Service must do whatever it can to "right-size" the operation and avoid a financial crisis. He reiterated the commission's intentions.

Closures, Workforce Cuts

Johnson said the commission did not specify how many of the nation's 38,000 post offices and 446 processing and distribution facilities should be closed. But he did say that during off-the-record discussions with Postmaster General John E. Potter, commission members were given an estimate for possible closings of P&DCs and "it was not a trivial number." Johnson added that the number of post offices also was "far in excess of what was needed."

The co-chair also gave a spirited defense of commission recommendations to cut the size of the postal workforce, tying that action to recommendations to outsource many postal functions to the private sector.

All functions except for delivery would be put on the auction block: Retail services would be contracted out to private businesses such as banks, pharmacies and convenience stores, and processing, transportation and maintenance work would be given to the lowest bidder.

Reducing the 'Postal Premium'

Johnson also defended the commission's proposal to include benefits and job security in calculations of postal workers' pay "comparability." Under the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, postal wages must be roughly equivalent or comparable to what workers in similar private-sector occupations earn. Another law guarantees that postal workers receive the same health care and retirement as other federal workers.

Under the panel's proposal, a dollar value would be assigned to the benefits earned by postal workers and added into calculations by the proposed Postal Regulatory. This figure would determine comparability, and the board would use it to set a cap on compensation that could not be exceeded in the collective bargaining process. Johnson claimed that caps on compensation would apply only to future USPS employees, but, in fact, the commission actually proposes to authorize the board to eliminate any "pay premium" earned by current employees as well.

He also defended the commission's so-called pay-for-performance plan, which would link workers' pay to their productivity. While admitting that the commission did not have a specific plan for how this would be structured, he said that commission members "unanimously supported performance pay for bargaining-unit employees." Norman Seabrook, however, the nine-member panel's only labor representative, not only objected vehemently to the proposal at a public hearing, he filed a dissenting opinion to the Workforce Subcommittee's recommendations.

Looking Ahead

Sen. Collins announced that her committee would hold several additional hearings on the commission's proposals. The postmaster general and General Accounting Office officials will testify during a hearing slated for early November, and postal unions and mailing-industry representatives will be invited panelists at subsequent hearings that could carry into 2004. As of press time, no hearings on postal issues have been scheduled in the House of Representatives.

"The commission's proposals are in the hands of Congress," said APWU President William Burrus. "We will work to protect the interests of the American public and postal workers while supporting any recommendations that will strengthen the Postal Service in the 21st Century."

[back to top]