National Association of Letter Carriers

President's Message| William H. Young- NALC Postal Record (PDF) - June 2007

Young Asks Burrus: Which side are you on?

On April 17, I was among a dozen or so people called to testify at a House oversight hearing on the Postal Service. In my prepared testimony, I focused on our campaign to stop the Postal Service’s reckless drive to contract out new deliveries. I called on Congress to enact legislation to prohibit the practice. I am proud to say we helped focus the whole hearing on that issue, with all four panels of witnesses weighing in on the matter.

As I listened to first the postal management panel and then to government investigators, the postal unions and finally to the management associations, I could not help thinking of that great American labor anthem, “Which Side Are You On?” On the issue of contracting out letter carrier work, the answer to the question was somewhat astonishing.

On NALC’s side were the Rural Carriers and Mail Handlers, most members of the subcommittee and—here is the first astonishing part—all three postal management associations: NAPS, NAPUS and the League of Postmasters.

On the Postal Service’s side were Postmaster General Jack Potter, Board Chairman James C. Miller III, the usual right-wing think tanks and—wait for it—the President of the APWU!

I told you it was astonishing. As pleased as I was to hear NAPUS President Dale Goff tell the subcommittee that “with contractors, you get what you pay for,” and as thrilled as I was to hear NAPS President Ted Keating declare that contracting out letter carrier work “will be the death of the Postal Service,” I was flabbergasted by the President of the APWU. He repeatedly—and hypocritically—lobbied the subcommittee not to take legislative action, calling contracting out a “bargaining issue” best left to the parties and to arbitration. That’s the same disingenuous line being peddled by the USPS on Capitol Hill.

It’s no secret that I have never enjoyed a good working relationship with the President of the APWU. It seems we inhabit different worlds and see issues from entirely different perspectives. Still, you don’t often see a national union leader cozy up to ideologues to endorse union-busting and outsourcing.

But I saw it and so did anybody watching C-SPAN. Of course, the APWU is still seeking legislation to slow and possibly prevent the consolidation of mail processing facilities. That’s where the hypocrisy comes in: apparently a radical plan to outsource a core function like city mail delivery is a pure bargaining issue, but network optimization is an urgent matter of public policy. It’s obvious that both issues are public policy matters that Congress can, and should, address. The brothers and sisters of the APWU will be glad to know that NALC supports H.R. 2177, the bill on the postal network consolidation process.

The President of the APWU has tried to defend his preposterous position on his website with a little misdirection and sophistry about NALC’s support of worksharing discounts. He selectively quotes my testimony on the issue before the President’s Commission in 2003—as if encouraging mailers to use technology to optimize the value of USPS automation is morally equivalent to hiring low-wage, no-benefit, part-time, non-union contractors to perform bargaining unit work. The fact is, we supported the APWU’s position on preventing “excessive” discounts in postal reform, and he knows it.

The good news is that APWU is just as isolated and out of step on contracting out as it was on postal reform. As of mid-May, more than 140 members of Congress had co-sponsored H.R. 282, which calls on the USPS to discontinue contracting out mail delivery. In the Senate, bipartisan legislation to ban Contract Delivery Service was set to be introduced.

The wisdom of “Which Side Are You On?” is as compelling today as it was 75 years ago when it was written about a coal miners’ strike in Harlan County, Kentucky. Those miners overcame the armed vigilantes and the scabs. With your help, we can certainly overcome the misguided views of L’Enfant Plaza an and even its most unlikely allies.

President's Message| William H. Young- NALC Postal Record (PDF) -April 2007

Thanks, but no thanks for unsolicited advice

In my line of work, you get a lot of unsolicited advice. When it comes from letter carriers or other people you respect, it pays to sit up and listen. But what do you do when it comes from less credible quarters? That’s my dilemma because, oddly, the president of the APWU has been using his online updates to comment on this union’s policies to his members and the world at large.

In recent months, President Burrus has felt the need to criticize the NALC and other postal unions over postal reform, branding their leaders as “fools” for working to shape “bad” legislation.

He routinely demonizes the nation’s major mailers. Indeed, he once famously referred to the customers who generate the majority of the Postal Service’s volume—and revenue—as “vermin.” I try to ignore comments like these and usually I succeed.

But on March 1, Bill Burrus published something so ridiculous and contrary to the interests of city carriers and other postal employees (including his own members) that I must respond.

In a web posting called “Strange Bedfellows,” he lauded the views of a right-wing think tank called the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation. IRET is an anti-union lobbying outfit financed by conservative ideologues and corporations that has attacked the pay and benefits of unionized postal employees, supported gutting our collective bargaining rights and favors the privatization of the Postal Service. Strange bedfellows indeed. What gives? In February, IRET issued a “Congressional Advisory” (Advisory No. 219) [PDF], arguing that new delivery points are an “asset” to the USPS, not a burden. New deliveries are self-financing, they say, since new households and businesses generate and receive mail. Burrus embraces this view as backing his contention that postal reform was not necessary.

Of course, this line of thought ignores the real issue—what matters is what is happening to the volume of mail addressed to the 145 million existing delivery points. Nobody ever claimed the cost of serving an ever-expanding number of delivery points was the sole rationale for postal reform—it was only part of the story. As NALC members know, the real threat to the long-term viability of the Postal Service is declining First-Class Mail volume and a worsening of the mix of mail (a shift toward lower-value Standard Mail), combined with rising overhead costs associated with new deliveries.

The IRET paper offers very little convincing data to back its claims, but it happily cites Burrus’s anti-reform testimony to the Senate in 2005 as evidence. And it argues that new delivery points can be served by contract delivery carriers. Wait a minute—does APWU now support contracting out?

Clearly, it’s foolish to get in bed with outfits like IRET, but this case is especially troubling. The bogus argument that universal service is an asset, not a burden, is being used by right-wingers all over the world to justify elimination of postal monopolies—and IRET is using it in Washington today to poison the rule-making process for the new Postal Service.

NALC makes no apologies for its leadership role on postal reform. The language on work-sharing discounts was important, but we are not a one-trick pony. Years of work by NALC and its allies—on language to keep universal service and a monopoly, on non-interference in collective bargaining, on the mediation language, on the escrow and military pension money, on the numerous rate-setting issues, and on eliminating the FECA cuts at retirement age—will benefit all postal employees for decades to come. APWU was nowhere to be found on these issues, but its members should be thankful we were there to fight for them.

Besides, all the chest pounding in the world doesn’t change one simple fact. Postal reform was finally passed by the Senate unanimous consent rules—an objection from just one out of the 100 senators would have killed it. President Burrus either did not have the courage of his convictions or he lacked the clout to find a single member of the Senate to stand up for him. Let’s all keep an eye on that website—maybe we’ll find out which is true. ✉

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS APRIL 2007 I POSTAL RECORD

(note: links added by PostalReporter.com)

Board of Governors move to block Senate bill

January 26 2006

Yesterday afternoon we came extremely close to achieving our goal of getting the Senate to pass our bill by unanimous consent. Senator Kit Bond released his hold and all systems were go. Enter the USPS, which in typical fashion decided at the last minute that the deal was not good enough to merit its support.

The Senate bill, as written, would:

preserve universal service
strengthen the Postal Service
repeal the unfair escrow fund requirement
set postal rates based upon the CPI
return to the Treasury the cost of military pensions that prior legislation had placed upon the Postal Service
and create a review process that would overlook the Board of Governors.

With billions of dollars at risk, the governors have apparently decided that subjecting the Postal Service to this review process, as well as allowing for flexibility in setting postal rates, would severely restrict the ability of postal managers to run the Postal Service and has moved to kill the bill. What's ironic is that it was USPS management that agreed to pick up the highly restrictive $27 billion cost of military retirees when the pension reform legislation passed a few years ago.

I have been a postal employee for over 40 years. I have witnessed first-hand the decisions made by postal management over the years. Needless to say, I am not impressed. One failed venture right after another and no one is held accountable for these failures.

So when word spread yesterday that passage of the bill was imminent, the Board of Governors, led by Chairman James Miller III, went to work trying to kill the bill. They knew they had one willing ally, the APWU, and true to form that organization did not fail them.

President Burrus released a statement saying that this bill would do no good and that we would all be better off without reform. This was music to the ears of the Board of Governors. They quoted President Burrus in a press release of their own, trying to mislead the public into believing that all USPS employees were against this legislation.

One or more senators apparently believed them and may be holding up our bill. So we must go back to work, educating the Senate on the reality of the bill. In the meantime, I ask you to be ready to act on a moment’s notice when we need you.

The road to postal reform has been a long and winding one, but I remain convinced that with your help we will prevail in the end.

In Solidarity,
William H. Young

City and Rural Letter Carriers Support Postal Reform Legislation

Washington, DC 20001		January 26 2006

Leaders of the two major unions representing the nation’s 330,000 active city and rural letter carriers issued a joint statement today urging Senate passage of postal reform legislation. Following is the statement by William H. Young, president of the National Association of Letter Carriers (AFL-CIO), and Donnie Pitts, president of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association: “On behalf of 330,000 active postal employees who deliver mail on city and rural routes across America, we urge the United State Senate to swiftly pass S. 662, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The NALC and the NRLCA believe this long-overdue legislation will ensure the strength and viability of the U.S. Postal Service for decades to come.”

return to www.PostalReporter.com