United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Showdown at the Post Office
Source:
AT
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog ... owdown_at_the_post_office.html
Published: Sep 6, 2011
Author: John Watson
Post Date: 2011-09-06 22:05:32 by CZ82
Keywords: None
Views: 3146
Comments: 11
Showdown at the Post Office John Watson The New York Times reported on September 4, 2011 ("Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount") that the Post Office is close to default and may have to shut down this winter, unless, of course, Congress "intervenes." The report cites that 80% of the postal service's cost is labor, as compared with only 53% at UPS and 32% at FedEx. It also cites that postal workers get more generous health benefits than even most other federal employees. The Postmaster said they may need to lay off 120,000 workers, among other cost cutting measures like closing 3,700 post offices, but there's one major problem: the American Postal Workers Union. The union has vowed that layoffs are illegal under their contract, and they will fight hard against layoffs. This brings up an interesting dilemma. Providing postal services is one of the very few things the federal government is required to do under the U.S. Constitution. The government, it seems, should be required to find a way to keep the postal service operating. One obvious way is to take money from programs or departments that are not authorized under the Constitution, of which there are many, and use those funds to pay for postal services, at zero additional cost to the taxpayers. Another obvious and parallel solution is to slash the labor costs. Not surprisingly, the union is promising to cause havoc if this is tried, but this contract needs to be legally avoided. The fact that UPS and FedEx can provide far superior service for as little as 40% of the labor costs speaks volumes. It will be interesting to see the proposed solutions to this urgent matter. The only acceptable solution should be one that is cost neutral or cost savings and assures long term stability of the postal service. The steps necessary to accomplish these goals, however, may be quite unpalatable to the union and many politicians who are beholding to the unions. Borrowing more money to pay ridiculous labor costs should not be an option. We simply cannot afford it. While we are at it, perhaps we should address the question of whether unionization of constitutionally mandated services should even be permitted. What's next, unions for the military?
Poster Comment: "The union has vowed that layoffs are illegal under their contract, and they will fight hard against layoffs."...... Stupid until the very end, they would rather everybody lose their jobs instead of renegotiating the contract to try and save some..... And some people on here think that's a great thing!!!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: CZ82 (#0)
One thing the post office is still good for is coupons. Go get a change of address form and take out the lowes 10 percent off coupon. Or if you see a mailman ask him for one. I collect them.
Mr. Watson has an arithmetic problem. The Clerks are represented by the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). Mailhandlers and Maintenance are represented by the National Postal Mailhandlers Union (NPMHU). The Letter Carriers are represented by the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC) and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA). From the NPMHU CBA, Article 6, Section 6.1: A. Each employee who is employed in the regular work force as of the date of the Award of Arbitrator James J. Healy, September 15, 1978, shall be protected henceforth against any involuntary layoff or force reduction. NPMHU CBA, Article 6, Section 6.2A: A. Employees Protected Against Any Involuntary Layoff or Force Reduction Those employees who occupy full-time, part-time regular or part-time flexible positions in the regular work force (as defined in Article 7) on September 15, 1978, are protected against layoff and reduction in force during any period of employment in the regular work force with the United States Postal Service or successor organization in his or her lifetime. Such employees are referred to as "protected employees." Other employees achieve protected status under the provisions of Section 6.2C below. NPMHU CBA, Article 6, Section 6.2C: C1 A non-protected employee achieves protected status upon completion of six years of continuous service in the regular work force. The service requirement is computed from the first day of the pay period in which the employee enters the regular work force. To receive credit for the year, the employee must work at least one hour or receive a call-in guarantee in lieu of work in at least 20 of the 26 pay periods during that anniversary year. [snip] This has been standard in the contracts for decades. Don't consider it a gift. Management got something in return. Article 18 Section 18.1: The Union in behalf of its members agrees that it will not call or sanction a strike or slowdown. [John Watson] Another obvious and parallel solution is to slash the labor costs. Not surprisingly, the union is promising to cause havoc if this is tried, but this contract needs to be legally avoided. [sic - voided] This is just a crock. Notice that only employees with at least six (6) years in the regular workforce are protected. The USPS could get rid of the junior employees if it chose. That would include a lot of sons, daughters, cousins, nieces, nephews, and close friends of the USPS PTB. They can eliminate those not in the regular work force. They are not protected. They could abide by the contract and not deliberately violate it on a daily basis, racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in grievance settlements. A dedicated tow motor operator in a mail processing and distribution center who keeps his eyes open and his pen at the ready can probably make about an extra $10K a year just filing grievances for such things as crossing-craft or improper use of casual employees. Class action grievances have run into the tens of millions of dollars. I am only speaking of 100% legitimate grievances for deliberate violations. UPS and FEDEX do not deliver letter mail to every location in the country, six days a week, for a flat rate 44 cents. Let them do that and get back to us with that labor cost. They can also process all that junk mail at the low business rate. Return the USPS to the Department of the Post Office and this would not be ridiculous. The US Postal Service operates as a quasi-governmental agency. It operates with some features of a commercial company. The Post Office is not a constitutionally mandated service. The Constitution gives to the Congress, the power "To establish post offices and post roads." Granting the power to do something is not a mandate to do it. When the military becomes a quasi-governmental agency, it too will have unions and the military can go on strike. I predict we will never see a U.S. Army Service operated by an independent Board of Supervisors, off-budget, as a quasi-governmental agency. The USPS does not operate like the rest of Civil Service, much less like the military. Can you even picture the military as an independent establishment of the executive branch? The Department of the Post Office operated as part of the Civil Service quite well for about two centuries. http://supreme.justia.com/us/540/736/case.html CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1290. Argued December 1, 2003--Decided February 25, 2004 [excerpts] Major change came with the Postal Reorganization Act of 1971 (PRA), 39 U. S. C. §101 et seq. It was adopted to increase the efficiency of the Postal Service and reduce political influences on its operations. Tierney 1-26; Cullinan 5-10. The PRA renames the Post Office Department the United States Postal Service and removes it from the Cabinet to make it "an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States." 39 U. S. C. §201. - - - Under the PRA, the Postal Service retains its monopoly over the carriage of letters, and the power to authorize postal inspectors to search for, seize, and forfeit mail matter transported in violation of the monopoly. See §§601-606. It also retains the obligation to provide universal service to all parts of the country. §§101, 403. The Postal Service has the power of eminent domain, the power to make postal regulations, and the power to enter international postal agreements subject to the supervision of the Secretary of State. §§401, 407. It has, in addition, powers to contract, to acquire property, and to settle claims. §401. As this brief summary indicates, the Postal Service has significant governmental powers, consistent with its status as an independent establishment of the Executive Branch. It was exempted from many, though not all, statutes governing federal agencies, and specifically subjected to some others. §§409-410. With respect to antitrust liability, however, the PRA neither exempts the Postal Service nor subjects it to liability by express mention. It is silent on the point. - - - The remaining question, then, is whether for purposes of the antitrust laws the Postal Service is a person separate from the United States itself. It is not. The statutory designation of the Postal Service as an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States" is not consistent with the idea that it is an entity existing outside the Government. The statutory instruction that the Postal Service is an establishment "of the executive branch of the Government of the United States" indicates just the contrary. The PRA gives the Postal Service a high degree of independence from other offices of the Government, but it remains part of the Government. The Sherman Act defines "person" to include corporations, and had the Congress chosen to create the Postal Service as a federal corporation, we would have to ask whether the Sherman Act's definition extends to the federal entity under this part of the definitional text. Congress, however, declined to create the Postal Service as a Government corporation, opting instead for an independent establishment. The choice of words likely was more informed than unconsidered, because Congress debated proposals to make the Postal Service a Government corporation before it enacted the PRA. See H. R. Rep. No. 91-1104, p. 6 (1970). - - - On the other hand, but in ways still relevant to the non- applicability of the antitrust laws to the Postal Service, its powers are more limited than those of private businesses. It lacks the prototypical means of engaging in anti-competitive behavior: the power to set prices. This is true both as a matter of mechanics, because pricing decisions are made with the participation of the separate Postal Rate Commission, and as a matter of substance, because price decisions are governed by principles other than profitability. See supra, at 3-4. Similarly, before it can close a post office, it must provide written reasons, and its decision is subject to reversal by the Commission for arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, failure to follow procedures, or lack of evidence. §404. The Postal Service's public characteristics and responsibilities indicate it should be treated under the antitrust laws as part of the Government of the United States, not a market participant separate from it. The Postal Service does operate nonpostal lines of business, for which it is free to set prices independent of the Commission, and in which it may seek profits to offset losses in the postal business. §403(a). The great majority of the organization's business, however, consists of postal services. See Revenue, Pieces and Weight by Classes of Mail and Special Services for Government Fiscal Year 2003, available at http://www.usps.com/financials/ _pdf/GFY03.pdf (as visited Jan. 23, 2004) (available in Clerk of Court's case file). Further, the Postal Service's predecessor, the Post Office Department, had nonpostal lines of business, such as money orders and postal savings accounts. Cullinan 84-85, 107. As a Cabinet agency, the old Post Office Department was not subject to the antitrust laws. The new Postal Service's lines of business beyond the scope of its mail monopoly and universal service obligation do not show it is separate from the Government under the antitrust laws. * * * The Postal Service, in both form and function, is not a separate antitrust person from the United States. It is part of the Government of the United States and so is not controlled by the antitrust laws. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. It is so ordered.
Hmm..maybe if FEDEX and UPS were required to fully fund their future retirement liabilities their labor 'costs' might be a little higher. The post office doesn't need a bailout as much as it needs to be freed from the onerous regulations of the 2006 USPS Reform Act.
At 53 of the PDF, 120 STAT. page 3249, Section 801 provides, "Postal Service Retirement and health Benefits Funding." Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, HR 6407, PL 109-435, 120 Stat 3199 If USPS does not fund the retirement plans, the taxpayer is on the hook for the payments. USPS REALITY CHECK: From the Office of Personnel Management OIG Report of February 28, 2011: The OPM OIG's Position We generally agree with Proposal 1 regarding the disposition of excess FERS contributions. We strongly object to the remaining proposals on several grounds: • They seek to alter the fundamental policy regarding the relationship between the USPS and the Federal Government. These proposals would cause the Government to assume responsibility for USPS retiree benefit expenses without a corresponding increase in Government oversight of the USPS. • They do not acttually remedy any alleged inequities in the Federal retirement program. Instead, they serve only to provide the USPS with operating capital, which would potentially shift costs from USPS ratepayers to the taxpayers. • The proposals would create a dangerous precedent whereby the trust funds' assets are used for purposes other than the payment of benefits. If this became common practice, the financial soundness and integrity of the trust funds would be severely compromised. Of great concern to us is the fact that during the course of our research, we did not find any viable projections indicating that the USPS will be able to restore its operations to profitability. This is problematic because: • If the USPS were unable to make the employer's contribution under CSRS and FERS, the Federal Government would be liable for any shortfall in the CSRD Fund. • The integrity of the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program would be seriously compromised, absent emergency appropriations from Congress, if the USPS were to cease contributing the employer's share of premiums. What the USPS now wants to do: USPS White Paper of August 2, 2011 on Retirement Programs: USPS White Paper on Retirement Programs At page 5: While the Postal Service would need the flexibility to design a health benefits program that is appropriate to the varying needs of its participants, fairness and practical considerations would guide how the Postal Service designs a plan for different groups of prospective participants. The Postal Service would have three distinct categories of participants in the Health Benefits Program and would seek to devise a tiered program uniquely tailored to each group. First, for existing retirees, the Postal Service would continue to provide health benefits comparable to those offered by the most popular plan providers in the FEHB program, at equal or lower cost. However, as with current and future active employees, the Postal Service would seek to ensure that all Medicare-eligible annuitants and dependents fully utilize the Medicare benefits available to them. Equal or lower cost is a sick joke thatmay be translated to At page 7: Although the Postal Service is open to any reasonable approach, we believe the simplest and fairest method to the establishment of a Postal Service Retirement Plan is to withdraw our existing 480,000 annuitants and our 600,000 active employees from CSRS and FERS and place them in a new Postal Service Retirement Program. In order to do this, the Postal Service would have to receive all of the assets associated with its payments over the years, together with accumulated earnings on investments, to offset the liabilities assumed. We know that the Postal Service has a current fund balance in the CSRS of $195.3 billion, and in FERS of $75.2 billion, as of September 2009. If an independent actuary concludes that total postal assets exceed postal retirement liabilities as of a certain date, the amount of the overfunding should be returned to the Postal Service to pay down debt, cover retiree health care, or address immediate cash needs. The only way the new Postal Service Retirement Program would save any money re the 480,000 annuitants is to cuts benefits. The rest is bullcrap. After the annuitant has performed for 30 years is not the time for the government to remove or diminish the benefits, especially to give more efficiency bonuses to the dysfunctional USPS management. USPS makes Katrina-era FEMA management look good. They have proved they cannot manage what they have and shouldn't be trusted with managing anything else. But it is a crisis.
They want to move the retiree obligations OFF BUDGET. At 3: [page ii] [...] To foster the principle of postal independence from national budget considerations, we recommend that the Postal Service pursue three changes to its current relationship with Congress and the budget process: • Amend the House of Representatives' PAYGO rule that allows a point of order to block legislation that increases the off-budget deficit to match the Senate's PAYGO rule that allows a point of order only in response to increases in the onbudget deficit. • Shift to off-budget status the Postal Service’s share of the Civil Service Disability and Retirement Fund (CSRDF) and the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (PSRHBF) to match the off-budget status of the Postal Service Fund. USPS OIG Report of August 27, 2009; Federal Budget Treatment of the Postal Service. Federal Budget Treatment of the US Postal Service, 27aug2009, USPS OIG Report
There is simply no valid reason to keep the United States Postal Service. Its never turned a profit in its entire history from what I can tell. (Ironically, only the CSA's postal service did, throughout the Civil War). And this 'its illegal to lay us off' is a perfect example of WHY Civil Service Employee's should NEVER BE ALLOWED TO UNIONIZE. I can't think of a general job catagory that requires a union LESS than Civil Service employees, except for owners of company's.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
The USPS has been "profitable", such as a government agency can be anyway, throughout its history both public and private. The Post Office was one of four departments that was actually created by the USCON.
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Interesting to note that Fed Ex gets over a billion a year in revenue from the USPS. As others have noted, if the USPS didn't have to put $5 billion a year into funding future pension/health liabilities for 75 years, they would be profitable now.
Tagline for sale - inquire within
And this 'its illegal to lay us off' is a perfect example of WHY Civil Service Employee's should NEVER BE ALLOWED TO UNIONIZE. Both valid points. Technology is making "first class mail" obsolete. There are several carriers who competitively deliver packages. The Post Office should be spun off, just like Germany spun off their Post Office. Hire a CEO and CFO who will straighten the place out and IPO it. Currently Postal employees can receive stock in the new company.
Yep. ON this, Perot was 30 years ahead of his time.
Proxy IP's are amusing.....lmao
They also have single payer health care, a federal pension and are guaranteed a living wage...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
#2. To: CZ82, A K A Stone (#0)
[John Watson] It also cites that postal workers get more generous health benefits than even most other federal employees. The Postmaster said they may need to lay off 120,000 workers, among other cost cutting measures like closing 3,700 post offices, but there's one major problem: the American Postal Workers Union.
Section 6.1 General Principles
Section 6.2 Coverage
C. Non-Protected Employees Achieving Protected Status
Section 18.1
[John Watson] The fact that UPS and FedEx can provide far superior service for as little as 40% of the labor costs speaks volumes.
[John Watson] While we are at it, perhaps we should address the question of whether unionization of constitutionally mandated services should even be permitted. What's next, unions for the military?
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES (USA) LTD. et al.
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
[John Watson] The fact that UPS and FedEx can provide far superior service for as little as 40% of the labor costs speaks volumes.
#4. To: Thunderbird (#3)
Hmm..maybe if FEDEX and UPS were required to fully fund their future retirement liabilities their labor 'costs' might be a little higher. The post office doesn't need a bailout as much as it needs to be freed from the onerous regulations of the 2006 USPS Reform Act.
Proposal 3: Reduction in Contribution Levels for Retiree Benefits. This proposal would change the current law requiring the USPS to fully fund both its liabilities under FERS and its obligations for future retiree health benefits, pennitting the USPS to meet lower funding levels of 80 percent for FERS liabilities and 30 percent for retiree health benefit obligations.
3. THE POSTAL SERVICE HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM GOING FORWARD
equal or lower cost. It sounds suspiciously like converting a health care plan to MediPak. Comparable does not connote equal. This is for retirees who performed for 30 or so years with eligibility under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). 2. A FAIR AND PRACTICAL METHOD OF FINANCIALLY CREATING A POSTAL SERVICE RETIREMENT PLAN
#5. To: Thunderbird (#3)
The two funds that hold the Postal Service’s contributions for future retiree benefits are on budget. As a result, reductions in payments for the Postal Service’s retiree obligations have a negative effect on the federal deficit because of the scoring process.
#6. To: CZ82 (#0)
#7. To: Badeye (#6)
(Edited)
Its [sic] never turned a profit in its entire history from what I can tell.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#8. To: CZ82 (#0)
#9. To: Badeye (#6)
(Edited)
There is simply no valid reason to keep the United States Postal Service.
The hippies wanted peace and love. We wanted Ferraris, blondes and switchblades. -- Alice Cooper
#10. To: jwpegler (#9)
#11. To: jwpegler (#9)
Currently Postal employees can receive stock in the new company.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]