SUBNAV

Latest News

Filter by:Reset
+
or
and

Latest News

APWU Web News Article 70-2018

Resolution Opposing Privatization of the Postal Service Introduced in Congress

07/19/2018 -

On July 16, a leading group of Congressional representatives took action to help combat a proposal to privatize the Postal Service. The proposal, put forward by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget in their report Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century, would “restructure the U.S. Postal Service” and “prepare it for future conversion from a government agency into a privately-held corporation.”   

CALL 1-844-402-1001 and urge your member of Congress to sign on! 

APWU Web News Article 55-2018

APWU Meets With Federal Task Force Considering Changes to USPS

06/08/2018 - APWU met with the White House Task Force on the Postal Service on Tuesday, June 6 and presented a series of recommendations and supporting materials on how the USPS could improve services, become more financially stable, and continue to remain a treasured public institution offering universal service to all citizens, regardless of where they live or work.

APWU Web News Article 47-2018

Washington’s Latest Attempt to Slash our Pay & Benefits

05/10/2018 - “Such changes would mean thousands of dollars taken out of active workers’ paychecks and thousands more in reduced benefits for retirees,” said APWU Legislative and Political Director Judy Beard. Taken together, the proposals outlined by OPM would take a staggering $144 billion out of the pockets of dedicated civil servants over the next ten years.

Janus v. AFSCME Q&A

05/01/2018 - (This article first appeared in the May-June 2018 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine) 

During the last few months, there has been a lot of discussion in the news about the Janus Supreme Court case and how it will affect public employees, all workers and the labor movement as a whole.

Q: What is the Janus case about?

A: The Janus lawsuit against AFSCME claims that “fair share” fees are a violation of an individual’s “free speech” rights. The case is really not about free speech at all, but rather a blatant effort to weaken unions.

Pages