Printer-Friendly Page
Commission's Final Hearing
Reinforces APWU Position
(This Viewpoint column by APWU President William Burrus first appeared in the July/August 2003 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine)
At the Presidential Commission's final public hearing on May 29, the last witness was Postmaster General John E. Potter. His response to a question from a commissioner put the entire proceedings in the proper perspective.
When asked whether the development of a new business model — the stated purpose of the commission —would increase the volume of first-class mail, Potter responded that regardless of the business model recommended, first-class mail would be threatened by new technology. His response supports the APWU's position that the proceedings have nothing to do with protecting the Postal Service from advances in technology. Instead, the hearings have presented large mailers with a forum to pursue a system that would permit them to avoid the cost of universal mail service and at the same time launch an assault on postal workers and the citizens who rely on an efficient, affordable Postal Service.
As the president of the largest postal union, my views of the commission and its conduct are not impartial. I have spent the past 49 years fighting for postal workers, so I acknowledge that my perspective is clouded by that commitment. Unfortunately, others who seek to influence the commission do not publicly admit their biases; they present their views as neutral concerns.
The major difference between my views and those of the mailing industry is that mine are based on principles — admittedly biasedwhile theirs are influenced by money: the cost of postage.
A Biased Process
This said, I have little confidence that the commission's report will represent the interests of the American public or the future of the Postal Service. The topics selected for testimony, as well as most of witnesses invited to testify - were biased toward those who wish to remake the Postal Service into a tool for their own profit.
Although representatives of the postal unions and a variety of management associations were also asked to testify — I testified myself on two occasions, inclusion on the witness list was predicated on the subjects the commission declared to be of interest.
Ironically, the rate-setting process - which lies at the heart of the Postal Service's current financial difficulties - was not a large part of the commission's review. The commission's failure to seriously examine the excessive postage discounts given to big mailers reveals a clear bias.
Beginning with Treasury Undersecretary Peter Fisher's charge to the commission, its assumptions were summarized by the assertion that: "As business communications, bills and payments move increasingly to the Internet, the business model of the Postal Service is increasingly at risk." Whenever the commissioners were presented with the opportunity to challenge the conclusion that technology will lead to a substantial erosion of mail volume, they neglected to do so.
After soliciting a study on the future of mail volume, the commission ignored its findings, which offered two differing views: one projecting a decline and another projecting healthy growth. The study's author based the projections on varying assumptions about choices Americans will make regarding the use of mail and new technology, and suggested that either scenario represented a creditable outcome. Nowhere did the author assert that future mail volume depends on postal employee collective bargaining, yet the commission explored that subject extensively.
Crying Out for Evaluation
And despite the commission's intense interest in work-sharing, when the president of UPS testified, he was not asked whether his company utilized work-sharing or whether it granted discounts to customers who pre-sort their mail. The commissioners, who demonstrated a keen interest in collective bargaining and whether or not postal employees were overpaid, also failed to solicit any information from him about wages and the collective bargaining process at UPS. The commissioners did not seem interested in including in the record the fact that UPS workers are unionized and receive higher wages than postal employees.
If one were seeking a business model to emulate, one would have to seriously consider a company as successful as United Parcel Service. UPS has expanded its retail network at a time that the Postal Service is planning drastic reductions; it boasts a wholly-owned transportation system while the USPS makes use of outside contractors; it feature a process that utilizes constant internal planning and evaluation, compared with the Postal Service's near-total reliance on private consultants.
The differences between the operations of UPS and USPS cry out for evaluation, yet the commissioners were not interested: The UPS business model did not fit neatly within the changes the commissioners are determined to recommend.
What's Up With the Decline
Contrary to the assertions of many witnesses that were echoed by the commissioners, mail volume is not in a steady decline. The mailing community expects mail volume to grow over the next 15 years. In fact, Gary Mulloy, the CEO of Advo, one of the nation's largest pre-sort mailers, told the panel on May 28 that "Advo is committed to doubling its business in the next five years because we see tremendous potential for growth in print advertising delivered directly to consumers' homes." Any recommendations based upon the assumption that mail volume is in decline are invalid.
Contrary to the assertion that the Internet and e-mail are the main cause of the alleged decline in first-class mail, all the figures show that the economy has a greater impact on mail volume. Yet witness after witness told the commission that their personal experience offered evidence that cell phones and faxes were largely responsible. David Walker, the Comptroller General, suggested on several occasions that his son's use of a cell phone demonstrates the vulnerability of mail.
The fact is that in the year 2002, personal mail accounted for less than 5 percent of total mail volume. Considering that 42 percent of American citizens are not connected to the Internet and remain largely unaffected by the technology revolution, any change in personal mailing habits will have only a marginal affect on total mail volume. The habits of an individual or a group do not offer a barometer of future mail service. Despite the expanded use of other forms of communications, mail volume also increases in a growing economy.
Primary Target
Collective bargaining is a primary target of right-wing ideologues, and at every opportunity, they make known their solemn intent to challenge the rights of workers to act collectively. The suggestions of "last, best final offer" bargaining or of trading retirement and health benefits for wage increases have nothing to do with technology and its impact on mail volume. They have everything to do with exploiting an opportunity to attack postal wages and making fundamental changes that have absolutely no relation to the diversion of mail.
And finally, the adoption of the military base model as the vehicle for closing unprofitable post offices is a direct assault on millions of Americans who live in impoverished or rural areas. If citizens want the convenience of local post offices and are willing to pay for their continued existence, the desire of the major mailers to rid the nation of a "costly" universal system should not prevail. The basic question is whether the United States Postal Service is a service to the American people or a service to mailing industry giants.
The Survey Says
Several good answers to that question can be found in the responses to a telephone survey conducted at the request of the commission on consumer attitudes about the Postal Service.
Among the highlights of the survey conducted May 19-20 are that eight in 10 respondents said that they have "very positive" or "somewhat positive" feelings about the USPS.
In response to another question, only 6 percent of survey participants said the Postal Service needed a total overhaul, down from 12 percent in a 1994 survey; 16 percent said it needed "some major changes," down from 27 percent in 1994. Forty-three percent said it needed "minor changes" and three in 10 responded that it "works extremely well as it is now" (the latter figure compares with 21 percent who responded that way in 1994).
These are some of the highlights. You can be sure that the mailing industry is not pleased with these findings.
A Challenge
Each of the commissioners boasts a successful public background and while I do not know any of them personally, I accept them as individuals of high character and commitment to their task. But they are more than the victims of a process that they helped create. In its public hearing, the commission sought answers to the biased questions, and, from those answers, will now produce a report summarizing its recommendations.
As we await the outcome of the predetermined exercise I, as president of the American Postal Workers Union, issue a public challenge. This is their commissioners' opportunity to rise above the biases deliberately injected into the process and, if they do, the American Postal Workers Union will applaud them for their courage. But if they choose instead to write a report that reflects the faulty process they created, we will do all within our power to ensure that not a single recommendation becomes law.
