****Notice:****

This web site has been moved to a permanent location. All updates will be on the new web site although the older free site will be left online for a time to allow others to locate the new pages. Please update any bookmarks that you may have to this web site. The new address is:
www.txrlca.org
effective NOW!

---

* Unofficial Site

Recipients of PAC money

Listing of Senators by State

Representatives by State

Letter to NRLCA President

March 19, 2002

President Gus Baffa
NRLCA
1630 Duke Street, 4th floor
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3465

Hello Gus,

I am writing in response to your memorandum, sent on February 22, 2002, all Rural Carriers. I was informed that you had stated at SWAC, that you were considering filing an unfair labor practice charge concerning the US Postal Service doing a secret study on Rural Carriers that was not shared with the NRLCA as the contract calls for.

I saw the step 4's that were filed in our behalf and couldn't help but notice that at least two of these step 4 grievances indicated that there was a possible violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I believe the secret study not only calls for an unfair labor practice charge, but for all our sakes, I would like you to consider including in such a charge, 'injunctive relief'. This way, if injunctive relief is granted, the Postal Service will not be able to implement the results of the last count until the unfair labor practice charges are resolved.

I want you to know that you and the board have my full support on this issue and that I encourage you to file the unfair labor practice charge w/ injunctive relief, as SOON as possible.

Thank you in advance,

Paul Timothy Garner
President Local #39 of the TXRLCA

Ps, I am including my disagreement letter to use as you see fit up to and including offering it as evidence of the atrocities the US Postal Service is guilty of.

4241 Disagreement forms:

this is the rough draft of my reasons for not signing the count sheet....

Although the Postmaster and the Supervisor of this office have been as fair and reasonable as possible under the circumstances, pressure from the District Office have caused them to change Office procedures during this count. Time for normal procedures in this Office that have been taken away from the Rural Carriers include, but are not
limited to the following: Shelving of Left-notice parcels, sorting of mail into more than two divisions, necessary official communications with customers, management, and clerks, time to get needed supplies from the supply room, a second trip to the Throw-back case that is needed because of PM casing. Further, illegal standards imposed
by the District and above include, but are not limited to the following: A maximum of 20 markups allowed per day, regardless of what is required and usual for each individual route, and an illegal and unsafe standard of 8 minutes maximum for loading time. Since this count was conducted in a way that violated the contract that exists between the
NRLCA and the USPS and the trust and understanding that used to exist between this craft the the USPS, I cannot in good faith, sign this.

Renee

I cannot sign the mail count verification portion of the mail count 2002 forms for the following reason:

1] The count has been skewed into inaccuracy by tactics and policies promulgated by the US Postal Service in clear violation of correct count procedures.
2] After reviewing the times for normal daily functions allowed by these incorrect policies, I cannot verify the accuracy of these times for these functions listed as follows;

a] retreival of the parcels gurney from the parcel staging area
b] no time was allowed for retreival of the dps from the dps processing area
c] inadequate time has been allowed for the retrieval of mails from the collection box located on my route
d] loading of the vehicle has been pushed into what will be an unsafe practice by forcing an overload of the gurney while going to the vehicle[this has been done so that a fewer number of trips may be recorded, thereby reducing loading time]
e] items that are rigid that may qualify as flats are being rendered as flats inaccurately
f] corrections on the daily count sheets are not being done in the correct manner[many are marked out in a illegible fashion, and no verification initials of both supervisor and carrier are present as required ]
g] the low sudden volume of mails is not truly and accurately indicative of the normal volume of mails being received for delivery on a daily basis- with the volumes being abnormally low in violation of the precept regarding even and unimpeded flows of mail volumes
h] all dps technicians that normally are used on the dps machines are NOT being used during this mail count, with those dps technicians whose demonstrated low skill levels would have allowed great numbers of errors NOT being used on the machines , thereby reducing in an artificial and presumably transitory nature the numbers of errors in the dps
i] safety and service talks are being shortened in a violation of the length of talk time needed --i.e. the talks are being kept as short as possible in clear violation of the design parameters of said talks as set out by the USPS officials charged with the tasks of designing the most effective talks- thereby rendering these talks much less effective than their design parameters call for them to be
j] The 4239 forms are not being kept at the mail route cases during this count as the practice was in prior counts. This has allowed numerous errors to occur, when the counters have mistakenly entered counted items for one route upon the count sheet for a different route.
k] the completed 4239 sheets are not being made ready for the carrier by the end of that business day as required
l] markups returned from cfs are not being entered on the sheets as markups when they are being sent back to cfs with an empolyees generated coa--

this is what I intend to use-- how about you folks?

leland grant

Dear Postmaster -

I will not sign my 4241, because I believe the USPS has violated the spirit and intent of both the collective bargaining and evaluated pay systems. The new standards imposed by the arbitrator were based, in no small part, on a "Rural Operations Review" conducted unilaterally by the Postal Service, in violation of our National Agreement, and possibly in violation of federal law.

Additionally, the Postal Service has improperly influenced this count by ignoring published mailcount guidelines - PO-603, DMM, National Agreement, MOU 14 - and, through the use of intimidation and harassment of rural
carriers, has attempted to lower the count and evaluations of rural routes.

I have attached a list of disputed items, specific to my route, as further reason for refusing to sign Form 4241.

SueC

I have drafted a note as to why I won't sign my mail count sheet. If enough of us do the same or similar type of note we may not solve the problem be we will certainly shake things up.

I can not in good faith sign off on this mail count. I feel that the Postal Service has violated the intent and spirit of both the collective bargaining and the evaluated pay systems. Any attempt to redefine categories for payment must be done in the negotiation or arbitration process. I feel that when the arbitrator denied both the Postal Service and the Union in their attempts to change time standards on parcels, it was the final rule. The attempts of the Postal Service to circumvent this ruling by trying to redefine a parcel by packaging rather than size outside of negotiations are a direct violation of the collective bargaining process and therefore voids my count. I further feel that the new time standards awarded by the arbitrator on letter, flat and withdrawal time, were based on casing equipment that is not implemented in all areas and also not sufficient to handle the volume of many routes. Since this equipment does not fit and is not available to all routes a fair allowance should be made to any route not supplied with or any route that could not use this casing equipment due to volume.

William Schwingel

REASONS FOR REFUSING TO SIGN ATTACHED 4241 AS CORRECT:

I refuse to sign the attached 4241 for the following reasons:

(A). In doing so, I would be affixing my name to a falsified government document which could thereby subject me to prosecution under penalty of law associated with falsifying a government document.

(B). It is a falsified government document because it is being represented as true and correct while the facts and figures contained therein do not represent actual, true and correct facts and have been protested as having been derived by the many blatant violations, by USPS management, of the Contract between the USPS and the NRLCA. Said violations having been knowingly, willingly, openly and blatantly forced upon me after giving notice of protest and referring to documentation contained in the PO 603, the DMM and other authoritative documentation which management has chosen to ignore or deny.

SOME OF THE VIOLATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS.

(1) Creating a hostile work environment during this mail count.

(2) Refusing to allow reasonable time for column R to do the normal duties associated with correctly doing work functions not allowed for in other columns.

(3) Refusing to accept documentation about the "address orientation" of a piece of mail with regard to whether it is a letter or flat.

(4) Refusing to allow loading time to begin when I start picking up containers of mail which I had to pull down and set on the floor due to lack of space.

(5) Failure to provide me with a complete and accurate copy of the 4239 (daily count sheet) as required by contract within 24 hours.

(6) Illegally denying credit for mail, which I picked up on the route.

(7) Unreasonably stopping the stopwatch while timing my loading thereby falsifying the time it took to do this function safely and correctly.

Here is the form letter I am going to give to each carrier in New Braunfels along with a copy of all three Step 4 Grievances.

Date:


I ______________________________ carrier on Route ____ respectfully refuse to sign the Mail Count forms, certifying them to be correct, for the Feb 28 - Mar 13 Mail Count.
My reasons for refusing to sign are those stated in the three (3) Step 4 Grievances filed by President Baffa of the NRLCA on March 8, 2002. A copy of each grievance is attached. Basically put, I do not feel that the count
figures show an accurate picture of the "normal" mail flow and the "normal" procedures followed in this office that were not discussed in the pre-count conference.


Carrier RR_____


Here is the cover letter I am putting on top of the above.

The attached letter and copies of the Step 4 Grievances are for your information and action as you see fit. I plan to refuse to sign the Count forms for the reasons stated.
If you refuse to sign the count forms, you should, however, sign the leave commitment line on the PS4241A.

In my opinion, had it not been for "Political" mail, the mail volume (MAIL FLOW) would have been way below normal and would have been a disaster. The new, at least to us, definition or interpretation of some mark-ups is another matter of concern. Which, by the way, was not covered in pre-count.
One trip to the Throw Back case is unrealistic. It causes delay of FIRST CLASS and PRIORITY MAIL which has always been a NO NO. It also makes working at your case more difficult do to limited equipment and room to put mail which must now be kept at the case.
What happened to "if you know where the mail goes deliver it"? Even though "killing it" in some cases gave us a few additional mark-ups it still goes against everything we have been told. I, for one, would hate to explain why I returned a
letter containing a payment notice because it had an incorrect address when my customer Knows that I knew it was for them. I am in complete agreement with the "NEW" procedures for handling of "Address Service Requested" mail.
Constant timing and being watched definitely affects the time it takes to do things. You tend to do things faster, especially loading, even though you try not to.

Letter to the Arbitrator

John Calhoun Wells, Director
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
2100 K Street, NW, Room 900
Washington, DC 20427

Dear Sir,

I am a rural carrier that has been deeply affected by the recent arbitration decision in the NRLCA vs. USPS ordeal. The implementation of the changes in time standards alone is making a deep impact on rural carrier evaluations. This impact will not be offset by the wage increases that were also included in the decision. I personally stand to lose @$4000 to $6000 when I get my "raise" and still do the exact same job every day. I am not an exception.

I understand that the USPS managed to present evidence showing that rural carriers are working under their evaluations consistently, commonly referred to as "the bump". The USPS is known internally for manipulating figures. I wish that I understood the USPS accounting practices, which produced these statistics. I understand that Bill Gordon was able to determine that the USPS did not even bother to exclude paid holidays from these figures showing the actual vs. paid hours. There are many other items that might also affect these figures. Like I said, I don't know the details but would love to find them out, but in my position, that is not possible. When carriers are required to spend time doing duties other than rural routes for a day, and this happens quite a bit, they are paid under a special code, which should exclude these hours from being reported as rural route hours. I feel sure that the USPS didn't bother to exclude this data either. I also feel sure that they did not exclude time credited to QWL/EI that should be excluded from rural route hours. I cannot prove any of this, but am sure that it should be investigated. The simple fact that the USPS would present inaccurate data including holidays with no reported work hours should indicate that further scrutiny might be necessary in evaluating this information.

I also have had the privilege of speaking with a couple of carriers that work in offices where they believe that the USPS time studies were done. Of course, there is no proof to this, the carriers weren't told what the studies were about or for, but the time frame matches what was mentioned as the time frame that they were conducting these studies. One carrier stated to me that the "team" came in on a Monday and stated that there was too much mail to count. They returned on Wednesday and again stated that there was too much mail to count. On Friday, when there was very little mail to be cased, they came back and counted and timed the carriers. The only information that the carriers were given about this activity was that the information was being sent to Washington. Anyone in the USPS knows that mail can be sorted and cased into an empty or partially filled case much faster than if the case is full.

I, personally, did a time study of my own on February 28. It was the first day of the mandated mail count and I had an accurate count of what fits the definition of a parcel. Of course, this was only after bickering with the managers who were stating that the definition had indeed changed. I received credit for 30 parcels, which credited me with 10 minutes for office handling and 5 minutes for street handling according to the standards. Yes, some of these items would fit into the customer's mailbox, but I was finally credited using the standard that was set long ago. I then proceeded to time the functions involved in handling these items. I spent 12 ½ minutes in the office identifying, sorting and marking the items that were too large to be put in the case and would not be able to be seen from my driving position in my vehicle. During delivery, each time that I had to deliver one of these items, I timed the actual time to accomplish this. If the item had managed to be placed in the tray with other mail, no time was needed. If the item would not fit in the mail tray but did fit into the box, I included only the time necessary to retrieve it from the parcel tray behind me and put it into the mailbox. If dismount was required, I timed from the time that I began to dismount the vehicle until I had returned and was ready to move forward again. The total time required was 23:36 to affect these deliveries on the street. I had hoped to continue this practice during the mail count, but am in fear of discipline for wasting time on the clock. I understand that the parcel standard was set long ago, before carriers were required to take parcels to the door for customers. When the practice of door delivery was instituted, the street allowance was added to account for this time. It was set at such a low figure because, at the time, most items classified as parcels only required special handling to get them to the box. At that time, very few "parcels" required dismount for delivery.

I am also keeping track of various other time functions for which we receive no allowance. I have no details about the time studies that were conducted by the USPS, but it seems that our standards are now based upon sorting mail into the case, pulling it out of the case (strapping out) and then placing it into customers' mailboxes. This would be fine if that were all that was actually involved in proper handling and delivery of the mails. Did the USPS actually include removing straps and plastic wrapping from bundled mail before the actual casing of it? Did they include straightening out the magazines and catalogs that are sorted on automated equipment and pulling them one from inside the other? Did they include the time it takes to return equipment to the designated areas? I don't know the answers to these questions or the many others that are out there. There are many other things that come up on a regular basis, which must be taken care of in order to properly direct customers' mail. We are allowed no time for these functions.

It is true that in the almost ½ century since most of these standards were introduced, many things have changed. The standards that were recently changed with this decision, perhaps needed to be changed. But, if that is the case, the entire system needed to be changed all at once. The evaluated system, as a whole, still pretty much represented a fair representation. The items that were perhaps set too high offset the items that were too low, thus giving a fair average in most cases. I do agree with your assessment that the entire system needs to be reworked. It should also have been noted that when the evaluated system was put in place, most offices were small with only a few routes and a small building. Since that time, offices have grown greatly. Where, in the distant past, carriers were only required to turn around and walk a few steps to accomplish tasks, now they may be required to travel hundreds of feet to accomplish the same task today. Even with these changes, the USPS is now insisting that all these extra trips, times and duties are already "built in." During this mandated mail count, our duties and time standards are being assaulted on a grand scale. This will, no doubt, cause an even further effect on the reduction of rural route evaluations.

I have been in contact with many rural carriers from across my state and across the country. The general feeling is that we are now doomed. We all expected to lose time due to the loss of mail volume. This is natural and as it should be. But the combination of change in letter definition, change in count period, change in casing standards and the results of this hostile mail count will most likely compound to create routes where many will be unable to work at the evaluation, much less under it. The USPS seems to be coming after us with a vengeance for reasons beyond our comprehension.

The USPS has always praised us as the best craft in the Postal Service. Most carriers, on a daily basis, go above and beyond the call of duty to serve their customers. I, for one, have always been proud of my position as a public servant. I take seriously the public trust bestowed upon me. Postmaster General John Potter, in speaking to our NRLCA National Convention last year, said,

"Rural Carriers have a tremendous heritage of public service and civic involvement. In thousands of cities and towns from coast to coast, you are one of the most important parts of the community. You are the vital threads in the diverse fabric of America. You are the connection that binds people to the next town over and to the worldwide centers of commerce and culture. Sometimes, particularly for the elderly and shut-ins, you are the only regular contact they have with the outside world. You give it your all every day, and it shows.
We are a better organization and a better nation because of your efforts. You provide a level of personal service that has all but disappeared in today's world. You take the blame and the praise gracefully, and you come back the next day and you do it again with a smile. We couldn't do it without you and I am behind you."

Many carriers are now contemplating whether it is really worth it to continue to struggle in the current environment within the USPS. Many are coming to the realization that they will no longer be able to afford to work at the jobs that they have always loved. After the results are in from this travesty that they are promoting as a "fair and equitable" mail count, I'm sure that there will be many more that will come to realize the impact of all this. For now, it is only those of us who actually understand all the intricacies of our evaluated system that see the true impact that is headed our way.

Therefore, I implore you to revisit this issue. Many of us realize that the Postal Service must make necessary changes in order to survive today. Rural Carriers, as a whole, strive every day to give the best service that is humanly possible to our customers. We want to see the survival of the USPS and want to help accomplish that goal. In my opinion, this goal can be accomplished by getting back to our core mission, mandated by the Constitution, delivery of the mails. In the current environment within the USPS, this does not seem to be the focus. But, perhaps these thoughts digress from the issue that I am addressing. This decision is set to have a great negative impact on the Rural Carriers of our nation. If this decision stands, as it is now, there is a great possibility that many of these dedicated employees of the USPS simply will not be able to continue in their careers.

There are many more issues that I could discuss, but I will end with this. Please, for the sake of Rural Carriers across this land, re-evaluate the changes made to our evaluated system.

Lisa G Lee
Rural Carrier, Local Steward
Vice President, TxRLCA Local 036

Letters to Congress!

(email Congress)

Greetings

I am a rural carrier for the United States Postal Service. I have been with the Postal Service for 23 years. I have not had a wage increase for over 18 months now. While other arbitrated contracts with the Post Office have resulted in $3000.00 raises for other crafts (Atlanta Journal March 6, 2002. Two of the post office's four postal unions have agreed to four-year contracts negotiated through binding arbitration in the past three months, and a third, the 50,000-member National Postal Mail Handlers union, announced in February an agreement with the Postal Service that would give a 6 percent wage increase over four years, along with a cost-of-living adjustment. ), our contract has resulted in most rural carriers seeing a decrease in their pay of $5,000.00 to $10,000. Much of this is due to an illegal time study conducted by the Post Office. To the best of my knowledge, the existence of this time study was w! ithheld from the union until we entered arbitration. The results of this study were to implement the lowest time standards of any craft.

i.e. City carriers must case letters at 18 per minute and flats at 8 per minute.

Rural carriers must case letters at 18 per minute and flats at 10 per minute.

Yet City carriers make more per hour.

Furthermore, we are salaried personnel and a count of the mail and a review of the route which we service determine our salary. Our pay per hour has always been lower than other crafts and now our standards are higher. And yet the USPS is manipulating the mail flow to make our pain even more unbearable. During this mail count, the postal service has interfered with the mail flow by holding mail at processing centers or by keeping it on the road in trucks.

My experience with this count (now halfway over) is that while the National Mail Volume is supposedly down by 5%, my mail volume for letters and magazines has decreased by 20% and parcel volume is down by 45% yet the mail I pick up from my customers is up 41%. They seem to be sending out far more and getting back far less.

The NRLCA (our union) must have evidence that the mail volume is being controlled during this count. The NRLCA has filed 3 National Grievances over the manipulation of mail flow, illegal time studies and other unfair labor practices (such as illegal mail count training manuals used to train Post Masters) which have been engaged in by the employer.

The Post Office will be making money again this year and they have done it by viciously attacking our rural craft. Meanwhile, other crafts have enjoyed salary gains and there are big bonuses for the managers who have helped propagate this travesty! The USPS is still a branch of the federal government and I would appreciate any help you can give in any area for redress of this financial and moral devastation to the rural carrier craft. It would help to contact Post Master General Potter and ask him to resolve these grievances quickly and in a way more equitable to the hard working rural carriers that have performed their jobs so well in the past. It may also help to contact the arbitrator who presided over the new contract and will now decide the future of the 3 grievances if they are not resolved in the next few weeks by the Postal Service and the Union.

Please contact :

John Calhoun Wells, Director
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services
2100K Street NW
Washington DC 20427

(202) 606-8100

And let him know that 23 years of service to the Post Office is worth more than the short shrift I’ve been given. And there are 160,000 others just like me who feel the same way.

Thank you for your time

Sincerely,

Frank J Hopkins,

Here are some other documented facts:

* March 5th 2002. Post Master General Potter announced that in a moneysaving effort mail encoding centers in Kearney, N.J. and Dayton, Ohio, have been closed. Three more centers are to be closed this year, he said.

This looks like a Big change in procedure in the middle of a mail count.

PITTSBURGH, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- Zapping all 200 billion-plus pieces of mail received by Americans each year with high-dose radiation is not enough to guarantee the mail is safe, an engineer who studies bioterrorism said Thursday.

The problem is that irradiating the mail does not kill chemical toxins that "are familiar to terrorists" and offers no protection against radioactive contaminants, he said.

Just a few months ago we were all in the line of the terrorists fire, but few were in more danger during the anthrax scare than postal service workers. And the threat is not over. We’re like the bird in a mine. Everything’s O K unless we start dropping dead. Now we see how the Postal Service treats its heroes. It wants to steal from us.

A little more perspective. These figures are taken from the current Financial & Operating Statement for 2001 that has just been released.

Rural; Budget $1572.6, Actual $1568.0 ..... - 4.6 million under budget

Other delivery; Budget $5577.9, Actual $5607.6 .... + 29.7 million over budget

Mail processing; Budget $4337.8, Actual $4340.1 ....+ 2.3 million over budget

So the Rural Craft comes in under budget and now its come to this:

<quotes Step 4 grievances>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPECIAL MAIL COUNT INSTRUCTIONS
The national office has been receiving many calls from state stewards and other concerned carriers regarding a multitude of management edicts and directives that are being promulgated in the field. These instructions are intended to orchestrate an unprecedented assault on Column R time, loading time, and other variable work functions. Although this paper barrage may lead one to believe that numerous work rules and procedures have changed, the fact is that nothing has changed with respect to core work rules and procedures….

More evidence of controlled mail flow from Internet resources:

I just did some rough figuring. The Post Office will be saving around $6000 on my route after the count, between my reduced salary and my subs loss of time. I will be working 6 days a week. $6000 times around 60000 national rural routes equals 360 million dollars a year. Our contract is good for three years, so that equals 1 billion 80 million in savings off of rural routes if I did my math correctly. WHY IS THE BUDGET DEFICIT BEING BALANCED ON THE BACKS OF RURAL CARRIERS?

I was a 48hour route, now I will probably be a 40hour route. The U.S. Postal Service should be ashamed of how they are treating Rural Carriers. There must be some legal recourse for their actions. I believe this was worked out with the arbitrator before the union even pleaded its case. I think our union needs to hire some good labor lawyers, and if need be sue the Postal Service and the arbitrator for such a sham. This is going to cost most carriers anywhere from 6-12000 dollars a year. This can't be legal!

port orange ,florida. mail voume down more than 1/2 since day one of count. All K routes loosing 10-14 hrs per week.

My route is a 43hour after first week counting a 42hour but not the case for about 35 other routes their down between 4 to 9 hrs.

I work in MA also. In my office most of us were 54 to 57hour routes. We are all coming in 45 to 47 hours for six days in this count.

We have not had any third class mail for two days - I repeat NONE! This has never happened in 11 years.

Post Office is bragging uspsnews hardcopy says that productivity saves 2.8 billion below states what they did to rural carriers...to the side list the states where management gets the bonuses...lets see hmmmm we were in debt 1.9 mill before 911 so it just makes sense 2.8 minus 1.9 leaves a surplus and guess where it goes From our pockets to theirs ...as much

In our office some carriers are losing 5 hours a week.

I just finished figuring the first week and i am not on DPS and I lost 5 hours also. No way will next week be any better.

I did my numbers, I am going from a 54hour to a 46hour, an eight hour drop!

Total loss of 5 1/2 hours on my route.

To add my own anecdotal evidence: I saw 2 postal tractor trailers on 220 in Virginia on March 6th. This was very unusual since I have never seen a tractor trailer for the post office heading south on this road in the 45 minutes it takes me to drive to work. I have been driving this same road every morning for the last 5 years. It made me wonder if they were just driving around until March 14th(day after the mail count).

Some important addresses:

President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov

Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov

 4190