January 8, 2015
Early last fall, the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) filed a labor grievance against the Postal Service concerning who separates and sorts the mail brought back to the post office by rural carriers. Now the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association (NRLCA) has filed a lawsuit against the Postal Service and the APWU over the issue.
The case involves work assignments in Jacksonville, Florida, which has over 200 rural routes and 250 rural carriers. It's the second largest post office in the country for rural delivery.
When rural carriers in Jacksonville return from their routes, they separate and sort the mail they’ve collected. It’s been that way for several years. But the APWU claims that members of its bargaining unit should be doing this work and getting paid for it, so the union filed a grievance against the USPS.
The APWU and the USPS scheduled an arbitration hearing on October 29, 2014, before arbitrator Harry Gudenberg. When the NRLCA received notice about the upcoming hearing, it sought “full-party status” in the dispute, including the right to participate in the selection of the arbitrator.
The NRLCA objected to the choice of Mr. Gudenberg because he has a contractual relationship with the APWU and USPS as a member of their permanent arbitration panel. The NRLCA wanted a neutral party to serve as arbitrator.
The October 29 hearing was postponed to give the parties an opportunity to work out their differences, but that effort was unsuccessful. The USPS ended up refusing NRLCA’s request for a new arbitrator and instead went ahead and rescheduled the arbitration hearing for February 4, 2015, again with Mr. Gudenberg.
On Christmas Eve, the NRLCA filed a complaint with the D. C. District Court against the Postal Service and the APWU for proceeding in this manner. The NRLCA also filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction blocking the arbitration hearing set for February 4.
That same day, the court granted the injunction, observing that the NRLCA “has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that plaintiff NRLCA will suffer irreparable injuries absent the issuance of a preliminary injunction.”
In its complaint, the NRLCA argued that it was important that no decision on the case be made over the coming weeks because a mail count is scheduled to begin on February 7. The mail count is significant because it helps determine the annual salaries of rural carriers. Every year, for a period of two to four weeks, rural route job functions are counted, timed, measured, and recorded, and the numbers are then converted into time (hours, minutes, and seconds), which is then used to compute the carrier’s annual salary.
The NRLCA argued that if Mr. Gudenberg were to rule that APWU workers should be doing the separation and sortation, they could very well be doing this work during the next mail count, which is set to begin on February 7. Were the NRLCA ultimately to prevail on the case and retain the right to do this work, there wouldn’t be any data to use to compute their salaries.
On New Year's Eve, the Postal Service filed its brief in response to the NRLCA's motion for a preliminary injunction. The USPS attorneys argued that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to issue temporary or permanent injunctions to restrain arbitration in cases involving or growing out of labor disputes.
You can see many of the documents that have been filed on the case here.
(Photo credit: Baymeadows carrier annex in Jacksonville, Florida)
January 6, 2015
The Postal Service has announced that the Reduction in Force (RIF) separation date for all remaining impacted POStPian Postmasters has been extended from January 9 to February 7, 2015.
According to a letter sent to these postmasters (dated Jan. 5), there are also new options for some of these impacted employees. At offices going to two or four hours per day, the postmaster can accept an assignment offer if available effective February 7, 2015, to a career part-time flexible clerk position.
The Postal Service and postmasters associations have not provided a list or number of how many postmasters are looking at a RIF, but we’ve heard that there are about 250 of them.
There may be many more than that, however. For the past couple of years, the Postal Service has been publishing “status reports” on where POStPlan is being implemented. The reports for November and December 2014 (which also includes January 2015) show 1,350 post offices. You can see a list merging these three reports as a spreadsheet or a table. (You can find the original USPS reports here.)
POStPlan was implemented at about 280 of these 1,350 offices in November and December. The remaining 1,068 offices show an implement date of Jan. 10, 2015.
Many of the postmasters at these remaining offices are retiring, so they’re not all going to get a RIF notice, but the final number could be significantly more than 250.
The one-month extension on the RIF notices suggests that the Postal Service would like to find a “soft landing” for as many POStPlan postmasters as possible. Hopefully the extension will give the Postal Service and the last of the impacted postmasters a little more time to avoid at least some of the RIFs.
(Photo credit: Abbeville, MS post office, implement date of 1/10/15. Photo by Evan Kalish.)
January 2, 2015
Finding a good old-fashioned mailbox where you can drop off a letter is becoming almost as difficult as finding a pay phone. The iconic blue boxes are getting to be few and far between.
Fifteen years ago, there were almost 400,000 collection boxes in the country. Now there are fewer than 160,000 of them, and the number goes down every year.
Earlier this week the Postal Service submitted its Annual Compliance Report (ACR) to the Postal Regulatory Commission for the Commission's Annual Compliance Determination report. The main purpose of the review process is to determine the extent to which each type of mail is covering (or not) its attributed costs. The ACR therefore contains a mountain of data about postal rates.
According to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which says what the ACR should include, the Postal Service is also supposed to report on customer access to postal services. But the subject gets just one page in the report, and collection boxes merit just one sentence:
“Nationally, there were 156,349 collection boxes available at the end of FY 2014, compared to 159,729 at the beginning of FY 2014.”
The ACR also includes a table showing the number of boxes, area by area, at the end of FY 2012, 2013, and 2014. The following table uses those numbers, along with the year-to-year changes in percent from the previous year.
Nationwide, over the past two years the number of boxes has decreased by nearly 8,000. That's the net decrease. Considering that the Postal Service sometimes puts up boxes in new locations, it's likely that more than that have been removed. Even so, the rate of decrease — 2.1 pecent over the past year — is not as bad as it's been in previous years, as a look at the history of collection boxes shows.
Here today, gone tomorrow
Collection boxes were first introduced in 1858. In their heyday, the boxes also served as storage facilities for carriers who made their rounds on foot, holding items such as rain gear and coats. Now that most carriers have vehicles, the gear is in the truck and the mailboxes just collect mail.
For well over a century, the number of collection boxes grew along with the population of the country. By the early 1970s, there were almost 400,000 of them.
According to data provided to the PRC by the Postal Service (in connection with a complaint filed by postal watchdog Douglas Carlson in 2002), the number of boxes fluctuated throughout the 1970s and 1980s, sometimes going up, sometimes down. In some years, there were as few as 260,000, while at other times, there were as many as 386,000. According to this USPS report, in 2000 there were still 365,000 collection boxes on the street.
Then in 2002, in order to save fuel and labor costs, the Postal Service began an aggressive program to cull what it considered underused boxes. Over the next few years, the number of collection boxes decreased dramatically. A 2009 news report observed that the Postal Service had been removing the boxes nationally at the rate of more than 60 per day. According to a BBC report, there were 175,000 boxes as of July 2009.
Since then, the rate of decline has diminished considerably. Over the past two fiscal years, some 7,750 boxes have been removed — about 15 per day.
In order to identify which boxes are underperforming, a postal employee does a density check that involves counting pieces of mail per day over a period of two weeks. Back in 2006, when the Postal Service was aggressively removing the boxes, if there were fewer than 50 pieces of mail per day, a box could be targeted for disposal.
According to the Postal Operations Manual, the current policy is that if a mailbox isn't seeing an average of 25 pieces per day, the Postal Service may remove it. The Postal Service is required to post a 30-day notice on the box before it’s removed, and customers are invited to comment.
While the rate of removing boxes may not be as bad as it was a few years ago, customers still don’t like it when their box vanishes. News articles regularly report collection boxes disappearing and customers complaining.
This past summer, there was a report that 39 boxes had been removed from the streets of Rockford, Illinois, which left the city with 102. In January, 16 boxes were removed from Redlands, California, after the Postal Service determined that they were being underused.
Earlier this month, a news team in Coronado, California, observed that several boxes had vanished. A mail carrier said that many folks along his route had complained about the “missing boxes.” He also said that it's harder for the elderly to get down to the post office or find parking.
And that’s basically the issue: By removing the collection boxes, the Postal Service saves some money, but the savings comes at the expense of average customers, who end up having to spend their own time — and often gas too — going to a box that is further away.
December 18, 2014
The Postal Service is continuing to close downtown post offices and move retail services to inconveniently located postal facilities on the outskirts of town. While it may be efficient for carrier annexes and mail processing plants to be located where there's plenty of room for parking for postal workers and easy access for delivery trucks, these facilities were never intended for use by average customers. But in its quest to cut costs, the Postal Service doesn't seem to care much about average customers, and the "annexation of the post office" goes on.
The Postal Service is now planning to close the downtown post office in the Federal Building on Third Street in North Platte, Nebraska, and replace it with a retail office in the carrier annex and mail processing center on Industrial Avenue. The name of the road tells you everything you need to know about the new location.
The annex is on a dead end road in an industrial tract far from the center of the city. It’s totally unsuitable for pedestrians and bicyclers, and the only reason anyone would drive out there is to go to the post office. There’s not much else.
As per its usual MO, the Postal Service did not hold a public hearing on the relocation plan. Instead, as permitted by the relocation regulations, it sent a representative to a regular meeting of the City Council. The meeting was sparsely attended. Most people in North Platte probably learned about the proposed relocation of the post office by reading a news article or seeing a news report on TV a couple of days after the meeting was held.
At the meeting, City Administrator Jim Hawks complained that he had been misled by the Postal Service representative into thinking that this would not be the only opportunity for the community to meet face-to-face with a postal official. As a result, the meeting was not listed as a public hearing on the council agenda.
“I thought I asked, and was told that the council meeting would not be considered the public meeting,” Hawks said.
Russ Rainy, the USPS representative from Denver, said simply, “I apologize if I misspoke.” There would not be another meeting.
As usual, the Postal Service thus fulfilled its legal obligation under the federal regulations governing relocations and avoided having to face a large room filled with angry customers.
The few that did attend the City Council meeting were definitely unhappy. Another complaint was that the Postal Service is giving customers only two weeks to submit written comments, with a deadline of December 31. That too complies with federal regulations, but the comment period will occur when people are distracted by the holidays — another way for the Postal Service to minimize opposition to the relocation.
These sorts of problems in the relocation process were the subject of an investigation by the USPS Office of Inspector General issued earlier this year. The OIG noted that in many cases the Postal Service had failed to issue a press release before the public meeting and did not adequately solicit comments. The OIG pointed to several other recurring issues involving public participation, not following regulations, and not providing transparency. (There's more about the relocation problems in this previous post.)
The post office in North Platte is a big operation, with a thousand post office boxes and daily use by over 300 businesses. Many of them are run by one person, so it’s important to be able to walk over to the post office during lunch. Now these businesses will have to find someone to drive two miles to the annex.
One business owner at the meeting said that many customers would look for alternatives to the Postal Service. For example, there’s a FedEx Ship Center less than a mile from the post office, and a UPS store just over a mile away. For people who live and work downtown, these may prove more convenient than the annex, so the Postal Service will lose revenue.
The Postal Service owns the annex building, so aside from the cost of retrofitting it for a retail operation, some money will be saved on the rent at the downtown office. The amount of the rent is not disclosed on the USPS leased facilities list because the Federal Building is operated by the GSA.
But saving some money on the rent should not be the Postal Service's only concern. The North Platte Federal Building and Post Office was built in 1964, so it's now fifty years old and eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps more importantly, it's located in the heart of the North Platte Historic Downtown district.
The Postal Service is supposed to be locating into such areas, not moving out of them. As noted in "Preserving Historic Post Offices: A Report to Congress," prepared by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Postal Service has a legal obligation to locate in historic downtowns.
Executive Order 13006, issued in 1996, "directs federal agencies not only to locate their operations in established downtowns, but also to give first consideration to locating in historic properties within historic districts."
The order requires the federal government to “utilize and maintain, wherever operationally appropriate and economically prudent, historic properties and districts, especially those located in central business areas.” It also directs federal agencies to give “first consideration” to historic buildings when “operationally appropriate and economically prudent.” The Executive Order was codified into law as an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act in 2000.
The Postal Service has presented the plan to move to the annex as a proposal in its early stages, but if past experience is any indication, it’s already a done deal. A “final decision” will come early next year, and the move will take place when a retail counter is set up in the annex.
UPDATE: The North Platte City Council has decided to hold its own special meeting about the closing of the downtown post office, and it will consider filing a complaint with the Postal Service for failing to properly notify the public as required by federal regulations. Read more.