In letter to American Postal Workers Union (APWU) members, APWU President Cliff Guffey identified that a key obstacle to ratification of the contract is rank and file anger with the efforts of Republicans to restrict union rights and reduce the pay and benefits of public and postal employees. President Guffy's letter indicates that the tone that Republican members of Congress at the April 5th House Oversight and Government Reform hearing combined with the state legislative conflicts in Wisconsin, Illinios and Ohio created an environment in which rank and file APWU members are looking for a way to protest the treatment of unionized employees by Republican politicians. The APWU-USPS ratification may have become the vehicle for that protest.
The press release quoting the letter lays out President Guffey's argument that the APWU-USPS contract is not the place to vent anger at Republican politicians.
Some very powerful politicians have set their sights on postal employees, APWU President Cliff Guffey has warned, and union members must respond decisively.
“Anti-labor members of Congress have said the union’s tentative Collective Bargaining Agreement [PDF - members only] is too favorable to workers,” the union president noted. “They favor contracting out virtually all of our jobs.
“I have a simple response,” he said. “I encourage every APWU member to get actively involved in union affairs — and to start by voting on ratification of the tentative Collective Bargaining Agreement. We also must get much more involved in the legislative arena.
“Don’t let these naysayers discourage you from voting.”
At an April 5 hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and other Republicans repeatedly criticized Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe and members of the USPS Board of Governors for agreeing to the union’s demand during negotiations to retain protection against layoffs. They also said the Postal Service needed more freedom to close postal facilities and cut the workforce.
“This is an attack on our collective bargaining rights,” Guffey said. “The APWU and the Postal Service reached an agreement that would benefit both sides — and now anti-union legislators are attempting to undermine it.”
President Guffy is right to warn APWU members to not use their vote on the USPS contract to vent anger at Republican politicians. APWU members need to look at the contract and decide whether they can live with the changes in workrules and in particular the possibility that many positions will follow a non-traditional full-time schedule. They need to determine whether the changes in workrules and contracting-out provisions create opportunities for APWU members that did not exist before and could create opportunities for APWU members to work with the USPS to work with the Postal Service to create products that could compete with presorters. They need to look at the contract and decide whether it increases or decreases the likelihood that they will have a job with the Postal Service until they are ready to retire given the change in the mix and volume of mail. They need to look at the changes in pay and benefits for current employees and future employees and determine whether the contract provides them with sufficient protection from health insurance and general inflation as opposed to what could be imposed by legislative action in the current or future Congresses. Finally, they need to evaluate the risks that exist from turning the development of contract provisions to an independent arbiter who will develop his decision around the time that the Postal Service defaults on payments for retiree health benefit and workers compensation liabilities.
Showing posts with label Contract Negotiations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contract Negotiations. Show all posts
Friday, April 29, 2011
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Postal Service Labor Negotiations: Heading Towards Arbitration
The Washington Post reported the beginning of negotiations between the Postal Service and its four major unions today. The negotiations will take between six months and a year. If no agreement is negotiated it goes to arbitration. Given the differences between the Postal Service and its unions on major issues and the difficulty that union leadership would have in trying to convince the rank-and-file to accept any of the changes that the Postal Service is proposing, an arbitrated settlement appears likely.
Anyone following public statements from the Postal Service or postal unions on negotiating positions or the state of negotiations should understand public statements have specific audiences.
First and foremost, both sides are talking to Congress. Statements made members of Congress from both parties suggest that postal employees may not have as sympathetic an ear as they have had in the past. Postal Unions want to convince of Congress that the Postal Service's proposal is unfair to employees and includes unwarranted changes in current contracts. The Postal Service want to convince members of Congress that it is serious about changing contract provisions that prevent it from becoming financially self sufficient and a relevant part of the economy and that the impact on current employees is no greater than is necessary to meet financial and service goals.
Between the Postal Service and postal unions, the unions probably have the more difficult job of communicating their message. Members of Congress from both parties have pressed management to make significant changes in contracts and given the length of the negotiations the next Congress will be less favorably inclined to listen to postal labor than now.
Second, both sides are talking to the rank and file. Postal unions are political entities as their leadership are elected by the rank and file. Union leaders risk ouster if they accept the give-backs that the Postal Service proposes. Standing up to the Postal Service's proposals is good politics even if it risks a new contract set by an arbitrator under either current law or changes that members of Congress have proposed. The Postal Service needs to communicate both why it wants to make major changes and why employees should be willing to accept them. They need to have some carrot, to make the sale easier but it is not clear if they have any sugar available to make the medicine that they propose go down.
In communicating to rank and file postal employees, postal unions have a much stronger position. A combative position is likely to be popular so employees will be receptive. The Postal Service has little besides pain to offer so it will find it difficult communicating why change is needed to employees that face significant changes in a long standing understanding of what their job entails, how they will be scheduled, what their benefits are, and what they will be paid.
Anyone following public statements from the Postal Service or postal unions on negotiating positions or the state of negotiations should understand public statements have specific audiences.
First and foremost, both sides are talking to Congress. Statements made members of Congress from both parties suggest that postal employees may not have as sympathetic an ear as they have had in the past. Postal Unions want to convince of Congress that the Postal Service's proposal is unfair to employees and includes unwarranted changes in current contracts. The Postal Service want to convince members of Congress that it is serious about changing contract provisions that prevent it from becoming financially self sufficient and a relevant part of the economy and that the impact on current employees is no greater than is necessary to meet financial and service goals.
Between the Postal Service and postal unions, the unions probably have the more difficult job of communicating their message. Members of Congress from both parties have pressed management to make significant changes in contracts and given the length of the negotiations the next Congress will be less favorably inclined to listen to postal labor than now.
Second, both sides are talking to the rank and file. Postal unions are political entities as their leadership are elected by the rank and file. Union leaders risk ouster if they accept the give-backs that the Postal Service proposes. Standing up to the Postal Service's proposals is good politics even if it risks a new contract set by an arbitrator under either current law or changes that members of Congress have proposed. The Postal Service needs to communicate both why it wants to make major changes and why employees should be willing to accept them. They need to have some carrot, to make the sale easier but it is not clear if they have any sugar available to make the medicine that they propose go down.
In communicating to rank and file postal employees, postal unions have a much stronger position. A combative position is likely to be popular so employees will be receptive. The Postal Service has little besides pain to offer so it will find it difficult communicating why change is needed to employees that face significant changes in a long standing understanding of what their job entails, how they will be scheduled, what their benefits are, and what they will be paid.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
How Does Labor Law Matter for the USPS?
Currently the Postal Service operates under a unique labor law that is contained in the Postal Reorganization Act. This is in contrast to its competitors that operate under provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) (e.g., Federal Express) and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (e.g., UPS, printers, pre-sorters, etc.). There are numerous differences among the three laws that can be grouped into three major areas:
The one question that looking at UPS's experience with the RLA and NLRA would not answer would be what would happen if a new business model gave Postal Service unions the right to strike and binding arbitration was not required. The binding arbitration provision was included because mail was considered an essential service and Congress did not want to introduce the right-to-strike to any group of federal workers.
Public transit is an example of another service for which work stoppages could harm the economic well being of the communities affected. Public transit workers fall under variations of the RLA, NLRA and postal-like labor laws that affect contract negotiations and the ability of unions to call a work-stoppage or management to lock-out employees.
Recent negotiations in Philadelphia with SEPTA and Washington DC with METRO illustrate how the different processes affect the communities involved and type of contract employees receive from an employer with limited financial resources and the impact that settlements have on transit fares. In Philadelphia, a contract was signed after transit workers struck for 6 days. In Washington, a contract was imposed in a binding arbitration process that does not allow for a strike. While the strike was unpleasant, and forced thousands of people to find alternative ways to get to work, school and other destinations, there does not appear to any long-term affect of the strike in Philadelphia. In both cities, increases in compensation costs in the new contracts and lower levels of ridership due to the economy will likely result in higher transit fares.
The upcoming postal labor contact negotiations will be coming within a postal market environment that is more difficult than what transit agencies now face. In fact, the market environment is probably more similar to what transit agencies and their predecessor companies faced from the late 1950's though the 1960's as Americans moved to suburbs and switched from public to automobile transportation for most personal trips. In both instances, the change in the competitive environment forces labor and management into negotiations regarding changes in long standing contract provisions and expectations about pay increases and employee benefits. Determining whether the current method of negotiating contracts or alternatives used by UPS ground, UPS aircraft mechanics public transit workers in Philadelphia or public transit workers in Washington DC would ease the process of concluding negotiations successfully with the least harm to the mail market is now worth considering.
- How the laws affect the ability of employees to organize and form unions;
- The process of negotiating contracts including the ability of employees to strike, management to lock-out employees, and requirements for binding arbitration and other methods to prevent strikes and lock-outs; and
- The process of handling employee grievances.
The one question that looking at UPS's experience with the RLA and NLRA would not answer would be what would happen if a new business model gave Postal Service unions the right to strike and binding arbitration was not required. The binding arbitration provision was included because mail was considered an essential service and Congress did not want to introduce the right-to-strike to any group of federal workers.
Public transit is an example of another service for which work stoppages could harm the economic well being of the communities affected. Public transit workers fall under variations of the RLA, NLRA and postal-like labor laws that affect contract negotiations and the ability of unions to call a work-stoppage or management to lock-out employees.
Recent negotiations in Philadelphia with SEPTA and Washington DC with METRO illustrate how the different processes affect the communities involved and type of contract employees receive from an employer with limited financial resources and the impact that settlements have on transit fares. In Philadelphia, a contract was signed after transit workers struck for 6 days. In Washington, a contract was imposed in a binding arbitration process that does not allow for a strike. While the strike was unpleasant, and forced thousands of people to find alternative ways to get to work, school and other destinations, there does not appear to any long-term affect of the strike in Philadelphia. In both cities, increases in compensation costs in the new contracts and lower levels of ridership due to the economy will likely result in higher transit fares.
The upcoming postal labor contact negotiations will be coming within a postal market environment that is more difficult than what transit agencies now face. In fact, the market environment is probably more similar to what transit agencies and their predecessor companies faced from the late 1950's though the 1960's as Americans moved to suburbs and switched from public to automobile transportation for most personal trips. In both instances, the change in the competitive environment forces labor and management into negotiations regarding changes in long standing contract provisions and expectations about pay increases and employee benefits. Determining whether the current method of negotiating contracts or alternatives used by UPS ground, UPS aircraft mechanics public transit workers in Philadelphia or public transit workers in Washington DC would ease the process of concluding negotiations successfully with the least harm to the mail market is now worth considering.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
