Postal Service proposal to break contracts blasted by unions

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

Unions reacted furiously Friday to a proposal by the Postal Service to lay off 120,000 workers by breaking labor contracts and to shift workers out of the federal employee health and retirement plans into cheaper alternatives.

Labor experts and other unions also raised the alarm that any move by Congress to break postal contracts would further wound an already ailing labor movement, much as President Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers did in 1981.

While the postal unions enjoy collective bargaining rights beyond those of regular federal workers, other unions said the proposal could set an economy-wide example at a time when organized labor is under pressure from cost-cutting governors and employers.

“When you break a contract, basically what you’re saying is that we have left the era of good faith bargaining and negotiation and entered into employer unilateralism,” said Bill Fletcher of the American Federation of Government Employees.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-proposal-to-break-contracts-is-blasted-by-unions/2011/08/12/gIQAi3V3BJ_singlePage.html

[CarmanK]

1. WE NEED to see the numbers and the solutions!

The public needs to know why the UNION is protesting and what the unions expect can be done to solve the problems. Believe me, when I say "people like the USPO and they do not want their local services downsized or demolished by the privatizers. The unions need to justify their positions to the public. What are the numbers??? The unions have an ad on TV now, back the claims up with numbers so the bloviators and detractors are discredited.

[Oasis_]

2. The solution

Is to stop making the USPS pre-fund a ridiculous number of future retirement years, which currently stands at nearly six billion dollars.

What company in the world can start every year artificially billions in the hole and expect to be profitable?

Oasis

[brentspeak]

5. The prefunding requirement was specifically created in order to break the postal union

The GOP carefully crafted the Postal Reform Act of 2006 with the sole intention of bankrupting the USPS via the outrageous prefunding requirement. They knew that a hopelessly-in-the-red USPS would be forced to make draconian layoffs -- the breaking of the union contracts -- within 3-5 years after the bill's passage into law. This is why congressional Republicans have continually refused USPS' urgent requests to be freed of the prefunding requirement.

The Republicans have pulled off a colossal scam by destroying the USPS via just a few legislative paragraphs -- happening right before our very eyes.

[True Blue Democrat]

12. That Reform Act of 2006 needs to be repealed

and the Republicans arrested, and lined up to be franked on a daily basis.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

8. The USPS has over paid $60 billion...

... into the "pre-retirement" fund and as of the past few weeks have been asking for their money back. The USPS does their job well, where or how else can you send a real snail mail card to a family member or loved one for such a low cost? That "little" amendment tacked onto another bill needs to be abolished, it is outright "highway robbery" when you also figure in the fuel clause adjustments for contract and star route carriers.

""These overpayments are collectively estimated to be somewhere in the $60 billion to $80 billion range. An incremental return of this funding would provide the Postal Service with the flexibility needed to find long-term solutions to lower costs while avoiding any defaults on current payments."

Source:<http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_18636783>

on edit: to add source

[plumbob]

19. No other company is required to do this.

Not Apple, not Exxon, nobody. Why? Because they couldn't either. It's an insane requirement.

[bread_and_roses]

21. Aside from anything else - the USPS is a public SERVICE - there should be NO question of PROFIT

And for all those who say "everyone does everything on-line" - Seniors don't. The poor and low-income don't. The USPS is a public service, authorized in the Constitution, and there should be no question of profit.

And ALL workers should have good wages, health care, and retirement security. That union members have had them has been fought for and hard won - and our Oligarch Overlords are determined to bust every last shred of worker security.

The fearful and poor are so much easier to manage than the organized.

[jimbo3]

25. Absolutely. nt

[Brickbat]

3. ROFLMAO.

.

[cstanleytech]

4. I'm willing to entertain ideas from the unions to see what they can come up with

but its going to have to be some damn good ideas considering how far in debt the postal service is in.

[hay rick]

10. Here are the numbers:

"... the Postal Service doesn't use a dime of taxpayer money and hasn't for more than a quarter-century. Its revenue comes from selling its products and services, at the best rates in the industrialized world. Customer satisfaction and on-time delivery are at record highs.

Furthermore, USPS' financial problems have surprisingly little to do with delivering the mail. In the past four fiscal years, despite the worst recession in 80 years and despite Internet diversion, revenues from postal operations exceeded costs by $611 million.

The problem lies elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade, an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The roughly $5.5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger."

Link here: http://www.nalc.org/PostalFacts/index.html

The problem isn't with the unions justifying their case to the public. The problem is with the union case being ignored by the media and therefore never getting out to the public.

[plumbob]

22. Yes, the media is owned by the folks trying to kill the PO so that they

can get even more business for THEIR overpriced products and little service.

We use the Flat Rate box service in one of our businesses. USPS delivers it for $14.20 Priority, which is two or three day delivery. The box is 12x12x5-1/2 and can take up to 70 pounds.

Same box UPS: (let's compare 2 day and 3 day delivery - two separate categories for UPS):

Service Latest Pickup
Time: Guaranteed By Total
UPS Next Day Air® 5:00 P.M.
Saturday
August 13, 2011
By End of Day,
Tuesday
August 16, 2011 477.92 USD *


Days In Transit: 2 Schedule by
4:00 P.M.
Saturday
August 13, 2011 Billable Weight:
70.0 lbs.
UPS 2nd Day Air® 5:00 P.M.
Saturday
August 13, 2011
By End of Day,
Wednesday
August 17, 2011 366.40 USD *


Days In Transit: 3 Schedule by
4:00 P.M.
Saturday
August 13, 2011 Billable Weight:

70.0 lbs.

Yep, you read it right - one is nearly $500, the other $400, for the same weight and service as $14.20 by the USPS. We'll fold if the post office does - we mail 8-12 of these a day, and the merchandise inside costs the customer a little under $200, so you can see how dead we would be. Further, in the two years we've been using this, we've never had a package go missing, pickup is made right from our front door, and we received highest marks for shipping speed on our feedback.


Yeah, those private companies, SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO efficient.

[defendandprotect]

6. KR ---

[radhika]

7. Break low-rate contracts with Junk Mailers instead...

Most of the mail delivered to my building is junk mail, catalogs, value-coupons and other ads. Most of us handle bills and banking online, communicate online. Packages and online purchases usually come via Fed-Ex or UPS.

SO....instead of breaking union contracts, penalizing the employees...make those nuisance purveyors pay a rate that covers the cost of delivery. That way, we can still have regular mail service and package delivery to every address in the nation. As more of us go electronic, employees will leave through attrition and staff can be reduced normally.

Is this an idea?

[cstanleytech]

9. An idea? Yes. A good idea? Dont know.

[former9thward]

15. Junk mail not only is charged its cost but it subsidizes first class mail.

With out junk mail first class mail would cost even more. Whatever made you think they don't charge junk mailers their cost?

[PATRICK]

34. Worse than you think

The union had been complaining for many ears of costly sweetheart discounts to bulk mailers at the expense of the service. The postal commission is now currently made up of a majority of Bush appointees and a few Clinton era people. The next term president will appoint a majority which in turn gets to hire the Postmaster general and his second in command who also have voting rights on the commission. A lot of these guys have soirees with big business interests and detrimental philosophies at the very least to the idea of public service. Any legislation that is passed is gamed by the board of governors and their interests toward privatization, consolidation, degradation of service, union "busting", etc.

Then of course there are the usual gripes and the future of electronic communications. As of today, under constant, never ending siege with suppression of real information, we have the best mailing bargains and universal service of any world post office or maybe any public service in the country. Despite being hobbled against competition and garnering profits, a no strike clause and constant political interference AND dipping into funding thefts the post office does well enough(despite the bungling and counterintuitive "modernization" disasters) to provide service to every door in the country for the price of stamps NOT general taxes. We even subsidize franking privileges(free mail) for the politicians who wish to eliminate unions and high wages so we can get back to the glories of the spoils systems and private fat cats swelling their own purses on $2.00 first class stamps.

Junk mail under a private system will continue to be subsidized at even more incredible discounts by your postage purchases. The potential of the USPS is great enough to swallow up all rivals in many delivery businesses but is prohibited by law. Its only protection has been in the past a public service monopoly on first class mail and the mail box. Its main profit rationale is being the only efficient service(currently) to reach and target all households for advertising, something the wider competing variety of electronic choices has ironically only made greater.

The individual consumer can block advertising classes of mail by a single individual request much more easily than blocking e-mail spam or canny internet pop-ups and spyware.

The concept of public service envisioned by Franklin is under general assault and the dissemination of actual NEWSpapers and reading materials at cut rates to educate the public is a corporately poisoned well that yet does not detract from the potential of that original mission.

[True Blue Democrat]

11. The corrective measure for USPS

is not to pre-pay up front. That was the union-breaker for the Republicans to include this in 2006.

It needs to be fully repealed and correct it back to the way it is.

[PatSeg]

13. The right is determined to destroy

every union in this country. I didn't know anything about the Congressional act from 2006 until yesterday when I saw the workers union leader on TV. The world the right is trying to create may not be one they'll want to live in.

[jimbo3]

16. Ted Kennedy voted for the Postal Reform Act of 2006.

So did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. In, fact, it passed the Senate with 100% consent, not a single senator objected to the language in the bill. And the sponsors of the bill in the house were two Republicans, Tom Davis and John McHugh, and two Democrats, Danny Davis and Henry Waxman.

As far as Union busting goes, when the bill was passed, the NALC, the letter carrier union of the postal srvice, was quiet happy with the bill. You can read their comments here: http://www.nalc.org/news/precord/ArticlesPDF/0107-postalreform.pdf The union loved it at the time, because it shifted the paying of military pensions to retired postal workers from the postal service to the federal govt. I remember this very clearly, being a postal worker and a veteran as well.

I have a huge stake in the future of the postal service, as I want to retire in a few years and I want to preserve my benefits, which I've worked hard for. But my questions are many- Why did no Democrats oppose this "union-busting" bill when it went through the senate? Why did two Democrats co-sponsor this "union-busting" legislation? And why has my union, the NALC, done a 180-degree turn-around on this, with no mention of the fact that they supported this bill, even boasted about having helped craft the bill? Why are we not being told the truth?

[PatSeg]

17. Well that explains

why I'm just hearing about it now. Obviously it was no big deal back in 2006. I can imagine you aren't the only union member asking those questions. That act has a Trojan Horse feel about it. Is it possible that the sponsors of the bill honestly didn't know the long term repercussions of the bill?

I am really confused now.

[jimbo3]

18. I am confused too.

Something is fishy here. Not a single Dem, or postal union, opposed this bill. Who got paid off?

[PatSeg]

20. Yeah, something is rotten here

Why did it take five years before anyone realized the major downsides of that act? "No senator objected because none of the key stakeholders in the postal community requested it."

When you read the act, it sounds reasonable and fair. I'm sure most of the senators who voted for it, thought it was a good way to save the Postal Service at the time. I can imagine that you and other union members don't know who you can trust right now.

P.S. Welcome to DU!

[brentspeak]

23. The original language in the bill included explicit provisions to break union contracts

The Democrats managed to strike that wording from the bill, thinking that they had 'won' -- or, at least, claiming that they had 'won'. The postal union believed that it had dodged a bullet with the removal of the specific contract-breaking wording.

It was very revealing that the GOP didn't object very loudly when the contract-breaking wording was removed; they knew that the prefunding provision would do the trick all by itself.

[jimbo3]

24. so, let me get this straight-

What you are saying is that the union-busting aspect of the signed bill, was secretly hidden, and that no one in my Union or in the Democratic leadership, recognised this language as being union-busting? I find that hard to believe. These people, Waxman, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, are very smart people. And you think they were all hoodwinked by crafty Republican wordsmithing?

If the union endorsed a bad bill, thats fine. But they should say so, not pretend now that they never wanted anything to do with this legislation. Thats dishonest. And if Waxman, Clinton, Kerry etc. endorsed a union-busting bill, they should be held accountable, and explain their actions. I'm pretty pissed-off about this. This is my future.

[brentspeak]

26. The bill was passed when the GOP held the majority in both House and Senate

Nothing the Democrats could have done to prevent the bill's passage.

[jimbo3]

27. The bill was passed when the GOP held the majority. Got that.

And not a single Democrat voted against it. And the postal unions endorsed it. I still don't get that.

[brentspeak]

28. It was passed in the House by a voice vote

and in the Senate by unanimous consent (no recorded individual votes). By voice vote or by recorded vote, I don't see what the Democrats -- or especially the unions -- could have done to prevent the bill's passage since the GOP had the votes already in hand to get it passed regardless.

[jimbo3]

29. 2 Democrats, Henry Waxman and Danny Davis,

sponsored the bill. And another Democrat, Tom Carper, pushed it through the senate.And the postal unions ACTIVELY LOBBIED for passage of the bill. Blaming this on just the "GOP had the majority" ignores the facts. The Democrats wanted this bill to pass. The unions wanted this bill to pass. And no one can explain to me why.

[brentspeak]

32. I don't know the answers to your questions

I'm just somebody trying to get background concerning the matter.

In any case, there have been two attempts in the House that would allow USPS to draw upon pension overpayments to pay for the prefunding requirement.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h22/show">H.R. 22 (actually introduced by Republican John McHugh and Democrat Danny Davis) was passed by the House in 2009 over objections by the Tea Party-like Republicans, but has been blocked in the Senate by the GOP ever since through threat of filibuster (along with over 300 other bills).

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) just a few months ago introduced http://www.apwu.org/news/webart/2011/11-041-hr1351-hr1262-110411.htm">even stronger legislation designed to allow USPS to use tap its overpayments. No way is it going to get anywhere in the new Tea Party-controlled House.

Last year, Harry Reid tried to get something going in the Senate to limit the amount of money USPS would be required to prefund each year; the GOP http://www.nalc.org/news/latest/misguided_sept2010.html">killed it.

[jimbo3]

33. I'm aware of the pending legislation.

The Lynch bill looks particularly good, and is strongly endorsed by my union. I have contacted my representatives as well, and urged them to endorse this legislation.

However, you said, in reply #5 in this same thread,"The GOP carefully crafted the Postal Reform Act of 2006 with the sole intention of bankrupting the USPS via the outrageous prefunding requirement." And you also said "The Republicans have pulled off a colossal scam by destroying the USPS via just a few legislative paragraphs -- happening right before our very eyes."

And I believed you were right. But it only took two minutes of on-line research to discover that the Democrats, and the unions, were just as responsible for the crafting of this bill as the republicans were. Were you aware of those facts when you wrote reply #5? I'm not trying to bust your chops, but I am trying to get at the Truth in this very important labor issue. And I come to DU for the Truth. I can get spin almost anywhere.

[brentspeak]

35. If you're in one of the postal unions, why are you asking people here for info?

Contact your union reps directly if you want to get the answers you're looking for.

My correspondence with former Democratic staffers: that the 2006 Act was compromise legislation crafted primarily by the majority GOP under the direction of the Bush administration. The Democrats had a say in the legislation, and even got to remove/add some things, but the final form was firmly shaped by the Bush administration's people. While the Democrats got the collective bargaining and privatization language removed from the bill, they were not responsible for the prefunding requirement's narrow 10-year amortization schedule, even if at least one of the postal unions, NALC, didn't protest the idea of prefunding future retirement benefits in general (too short-sighted to see the danger).

[jimbo3]

36. Thank you for the info.

All my questions have already pretty much been answered. Did the Democrats support this legislation? Yes, 100%. Not a single word of dissent from them. And did my union endorse this legislation? Yes, although now, five years later, they claim it is "union-busting".
I'm not feeling very enthusiastic about trusting my union leadership at this point. They seem to be engaging in deceptive practices on this issue. Thats why I've signed on to DU. To get some honest answers on this before I speak with my union reps.

[brentspeak]

38. I can't speak for the unions

My guess is that the elimination of the obvious union-busting provisions blinded NALC to the budget-busting aspects of the 10-year schedule -- a provision which NALC apparently thought was harmless enough to http://www.nalc.org/postal/reform/paea_2006.html">praise five years ago. The leadership at NALC don't seem like the brightest bulbs. What the other postal unions thought about the prefunding requirement at the time, I don't know.

I can say, though, that the 2006 Democrats' situation was clear enough: either not participate in the legislative process, therefore watching from the sidelines as the majority Republicans easily push through a bill which would have immediately broken the postal union contracts back in 2006/2007 -- or force a smile and take a seat at the table, therefore having a say, however little, in tailoring the legislation, hoping that any damaging aspects of the bill could be later remedied. That's all the leverage the Democrats had back in 2006.

Though you appear to think that the Democrats are as responsible as the Republicans for all of this, give them credit: they did, after all, prevent the GOP from breaking the union contracts outright five years ago, and they have tried (though without success) to fix the prefunding requirement since then.

[onehandle]

14. Fucking Overpaid Union-Socialists. Won't somebody think of the billionaires!!??

Oh, right. Fox News, The Examiner, plus these eight tools.



Not to mention, 'Rick Parry.'

[sarcasmo]

30. The attempt to destroy all Unions is not going away.

[No Elephants]

31. Senate Democrats should block Obama's Republican nominee to the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Currently, the Commission consists of 4 commissioners, all appointed by Bush, plus one vacancy.

Because the law is that no more than 3 Commissioners at any one time can be of the same party, the current Commissioners are two Democrats and two Republicans, but, again, all appointed by Dummya.

Obama has nominated a Republican to fill the one vacancy.

[madville]

37. The USPS is on the downhill run

I don't get anything by mail anymore except my water bill because the utility is small and doesn't even have a website. In 10 or 20 years does anyone really expect for there to still be a USPS in the form it is today, I see them surviving by maybe becoming like UPS or FEDEX and cutting out the regular route service.