Printer-Friendly Page
Burrus Testifies at Oversight Hearing
(This article was first published in the May/June 2007 issue of The American Postal Worker.)
Even though the APWU staunchly opposed postal reform because it seemed to be “a veiled effort to undermine collective bargaining,” President William Burrus told lawmakers that the union would lend its best efforts to making the new business model work.
 |
“We begin a new era in the long and proud history of a Postal Service that predates the founding of our country,” Burrus said in April 17 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and District of Columbia. The panel was holding its first oversight hearing since the enactment of postal reform legislation in December.
“Each institution must now find its rightful place,” Burrus told legislators. “You legislate, unions represent, and managers manage. When these responsibilities overlap, and they do, the system can break, and more often than not, service and workers suffer.”
“As inviting as it may be, when you are asked to intervene with legislative action in areas best left to other parties, I request that you resist the temptation to do so,” he said.
Reviewing the Recent Record
In his remarks on Capitol Hill, the APWU president said he was pleased with the Postal Rate Commission action of “rejecting the radical proposal referred to as ‘de-linking,’ which would separate the rate for single-piece first-class letters from the rate for first-class work-shared letters.
“This proposal would have set the stage for a continual decline in the uniform rate structure, culminating in one rate for major mailers — who have the capability to barcode, transport, and sort their mail — and another rate for individual citizens,” Burrus testified. “We hope to work with the Commission in the appropriate review of a whole range of discounts to determine their relationship to the cost-avoided standard.” The APWU, he noted, has always opposed excessive workshare discounts.
The union also has been a loud critic of any aspect of postal reform measures that infringed on the collective bargaining process. Burrus said the union would fight at least one onerous provision of the new law.
“I assert that we will never accept as fair the changes included in postal reform legislation that limit compensation for postal employees — and postal employees only — who are injured in the performance of their work.
“This was an injustice,” Burrus said, “and our union will not rest until it is reversed.”
Subcontracting
Burrus’ testimony differed from that of other union leaders, who asked Congress to enact legislation prohibiting the subcontracting of mail delivery.
“Although the APWU vigorously opposes subcontracting work performed by postal employees, there are many problems associated with separating one type of subcontracting from the dozens of others,” he said in an April 18 Burrus Update.
“It would not be possible to ban all subcontracting,” he wrote, citing air mail as an example. “Should one activity be protected from contracting out while others are allowed to be performed by non-postal employees?”
“Postal unions fought long and hard to protect collective bargaining process from congressional intervention,” Burrus wrote. “In 1970, union support for the Postal Reorganization Act was predicated on the elimination of a congressional role in these matters.”
“In my opinion, the forum for separating one activity from another for protection is collective bargaining, not the halls of Congress.”
