Postal workers give management a vote of "No Confidence" on VOE survey, but who's listening?

March 2, 2012

The results of the Voice of the Employee (VOE) survey for FY 2011 were made public this week, and there's some bad news for postal headquarters.  Two-thirds of the employees responding to the survey could not say they trusted senior management to ensure the success of the Postal Service.  That’s a loud vote of “no confidence,” and it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg.

The Postal Service conducts the VOE, as the cover story for the most recent issue of Postal Bulletin explains, as a “measure of employee engagement" —  "the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do, and feel valued for doing it.”  The 2011 survey had 35 questions about things like diversity, communication, and safety.

The question about trusting management was worded like this: “I am confident in the ability of senior management to make the decisions necessary to ensure the future success of the Postal Service.” 

The responses were overwhelmingly negative.  Only 32% of employees said they had a "favorable" view of senior management's ability, while 47% had an unfavorable opinion.  Some 22% were neutral on the question, which isn't much of an endorsement either.

This means nearly half of those surveyed have little or no confidence that senior management knows what the hell it’s doing, and fewer than a third are confident that management can get the job done.  Think maybe workplace morale is down?

The survey is voluntary, so one can only speculate about what the results would have been if every employee had participated.  Many of the most disillusioned workers probably just tossed the thing in the trash.  Plus, many of those surveyed replied early in FY 2011, before the plans to close up to 3,652 post offices and 250 plants were announced.  (It’s not been possible to locate the results of surveys in years past, so we don’t whether this unfavorable rating represents a significant departure from previous surveys.  That question may also be a new one on the survey, since some earlier versions don’t include it.)

The Postal Service surveys 25% of the workforce at a time, and about half reply, so in the first quarter of FY 2011, for example, 76,000 employees — 54 percent of those surveyed — responded, and in the last quarter of 2011, 71,000 replied.  A copy of the survey is available here, the results for FY 2011 are here, and the original Excel document with the results can be downloaded here.

While results of the survey in years past are not readily available online, the Postal Service does publish what it calls the “performance indicator.”   This index is calculated by averaging employee responses to eight key questions on the survey:

Issue
Survey Question
Strategic Direction
I am aware of current business conditions facing the Postal Service.
Trust
I am confident in the ability of senior management to make the decisions necessary to ensure the future success of the Postal Service.
Contribution to USPS Growth
Rate the quality of the service provided by your office/facility to your customers.
Communication
Rate your immediate supervisor on communicating regularly to keep you informed.
Diversity and Respect
The Postal Service values diversity of backgrounds, talents and perspectives.
Commitment
I feel personally responsible for helping the Postal Service succeed as a business.
Personal Safety
I receive information to perform my job safely.
Work Effort and Quality
I understand how the work I do impacts the service the Postal Service provides.

The averages over the past decade, since the survey began in 1999, have been fairly consistent, with about 63% giving the USPS a favorable rating.  (The index results for 1999 – 2002 are here; 2001 – 2004, here; and 2005 – 2010, here, p. 38.)

Historically, there have been many issues and controversies with the survey.  In 2005, for example, there were allegations that postal workers who elected not to complete the survey were called to a supervisor’s office where they were verbally asked questions similar to those asked on the VOE Survey.  At around the same time, the APWU called for a boycott of the VOE because it believed postal management used selective responses to justify regressive contract proposals.  In 2009, the National League of Postmasters voted not to support it because of the deteriorating working condition of postmasters.

The Postal Service likes to boast about the fact that it conducts the VOE survey, it uses the covers of Postal Bulletin to encourage employees to respond, it rewards managers for a high response rate, and it apparently thinks that its 63% approval rating is pretty good.  It will be interesting to see what HQ has to say about its dismal rating on the Trust Senior Management question. 

The Clock Nears Twelve: The Approach of Postal Doomsday

February 28, 2012

BY MARK JAMISON

"These men combine to bring about as much financial stress as possible, in order to discredit the policy of government and thereby secure a reversal of that policy, so they may enjoy unmolested the fruits of their own evil doings.  I regard this contest as one that will determine who shall rule this free country — the people through their chosen representatives, or a few ruthless and domineering men whose wealth makes them peculiarly formidable because they hide behind the breastworks of corporate organization."  — Theodore Roosevelt

IN 1947 A NUMBER OF NUCLEAR SCIENTISTS got together and unveiled a public relations device known as the Doomsday Clock.  It was a symbolic clock face, and the nearer the hands came to midnight, the closer we were coming to nuclear disaster.  The clock was initially set at 11:53, and over the years the hands have been moved, sometimes nearer to 12:00, sometimes backing away, in response to the world’s geopolitical situation.

If such a clock existed to represent the fate of the United States Postal Service, the second hand would be finishing its last few clicks before the clock chimed midnight and disaster struck.  The actions of Postmaster General Donahoe and the USPS Board of Governors have methodically ensured that we would be reaching this moment with an ever-increasing sense of eventuality.

Over the past few years the leadership of the Postal Service has offered numerous predictions regarding the financial status of the organization, each more dire than the previous.  Usually the predictions have been accompanied by a set of Draconian prescriptions intended to “save” the patient.

It has become a predictable exercise.  The PMG announces another huge loss and anticipates even greater losses down the road, and then he claims he must be given the power to radically alter the nature of postal services so that he can pursue a more successful business model.

At each juncture, when the public or politicians have questioned Mr. Donahoe’s plan, he has responded with new, even more dire predictions and even more radical solutions.  He has been goaded on by two Republican Congressman, Darryl Issa and Dennis Ross.  Like villains in an old B-movie, they have licked their chops and curled their mustaches at the prospect of the destruction of several hundred thousand public-service, good-paying, union jobs.

Playing foils to Issa and Ross are Senators Susan Collins and Tom Carper.  They fill the role of the “responsible” parties because they have shepherded previous legislation through the sausage grinder, legislation that has turned out be about as useful as Neville Chamberlain’s claim to have achieved “Peace in our time.”  The PAEA that they designed can take much of the credit for the huge deficit the Postal Service now unnecessarily faces.

The various associations of business mailers have chimed in as a cheering section.  They view the Postal Service as their personal lapdog, and they act as though the sole purpose of the postal system is to provide them with low rates and guarantee their profits.

Sadly, the mechanisms that are designed to provide oversight and regulation of the Postal Service have no real teeth.  The management structure of the Postal Service, from the BOG down through the executive corps, faces nothing that would ensure real accountability.  They do as they please. 

 

AT THIS POINT I AM CONVINCED that in a very real sense Mr. Donahoe has won. Regardless of what political or legislative actions may take place over the coming weeks and months, Mr. Donahoe has already done so much damage to the image and brand of the Postal Service, it will be impossible to undo it.  He has so thoroughly undermined the organization’s morale and so completely polluted the dialogue with misrepresentations and visions of doom, that it would be nearly impossible to get the stink of a rotting corpse off the Postal Service.

Congress, for its part, will not be able to act swiftly or forcefully enough to prevent at least a significant part of Mr. Donahoe’s agenda from being implemented.  No Capraesque miracle is going to stop the PMG and save the post office.  There's no Jimmy Stewart or Gary available for a heroic climax.

Vermonters tell it like it is: The public meeting on the White River processing center

February 28, 2012

The USPS is looking at closing the White River Junction, VT Processing and and Distribution Center, which would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs for the area. In addition, the changes would deteriorate the delivery service for people all across the area. At the public hearing in White River Junction, members of the community spoke about the importance of the Post Office as a public good, and expressed their support for postal workers. For more information, go to savewhiteriverpdc.blogspot.com. This video was produced by the media committee of the Vermont Workers' Center: www.workerscenter.org/media

It hits the fan: The Postal Service can't wait to close the plants

February 23, 2012

The Postal Service has announced its decisions on the mail processing plants it's been studying for consolidation.  The APWU has the list of which plants are closing and which will remain open here.   

The list shows 264 plants that were being studied.  The Postal Service determined that 223 could be consolidated, entirely or in part (a few workers might remain).  Some 35 were disapproved for consolidation and will remain open; another six are still under study.

The Postal Service says 40 of the facilities slated for closure did not even go through an AMP study process because they were annexes or mail processing operations within "customer service facilties," which can be closed without a study.  While no public meeting is required for these plants, the Postal Service is inviting customers to provide feedback.  There's more information on the USPS FAQ page.

(If you have more information, like when you've heard a plant might close or the reasons for the decision, please hit the contact link at the top and send a note.)

The closings could begin as soon as May 19, a few days after the moratorium ends on May 15.  It’s going to be a very stressful week, to say the least, and the Washington Post tells us that the Postal Service is increasing security at the plants.  (It's good to know that the consolidation plan is already generating extra work for some sectors of the workforce.)

There are about 150,000 workers in the network of processing plants, and over half of them may be affected by the closings.  As many as 35,000 positions will eventually be eliminated by the consolidation plan, mostly through “attrition” — workers quitting or retiring because they can’t move the family or don’t want to make a long commute (like 50 miles — or more).  The USPS FAQ sheet says about 30,000 will be career employees, and the other 5,000 will be non-career posittions.

The Postal Service isn’t waiting to hear what the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) has to say about the Network Rationalization plan.  The PRC’s Advisory Opinion is due out in late summer, probably August or September, but the Postal Service plans to get started on the consolidations as early as May. 

It’s disconcerting that the Postal Service is in such a rush to begin closing the plants, especially considering that it has only itself to blame for when the Advisory Opinion will be ready.  The Postal Service could have submitted the Request for an Opinion four months earlier. 

In August, the Postal Service was already briefing “outside parties” (like industry stakeholders) about the plan, and as of late September, it intended to submit the Request in October.  But for some unknown reason, the Request was not submitted until December 5.  Perhaps one day we will learn the cause for that delay.

When the PRC announced its Procedural Schedule indicating that the Opinion wouldn’t be done until around August, the Postal Service filed a request to accelerate the schedule.  The PRC turned down that motion because moving too quickly would endanger due process.

In the reply to the Postal Service’s motion to speed things up, the Public Representative noted that the Postal Service itself had delayed submitting the request.  “The Postal Service’s need for the Commission to abandon prudence and hastily issue an advisory opinion is not, however, supported by the Postal Service’s actions.  The Postal Service notes that it briefed outside parties on August 9, 2011 about the network rationalization.  Likewise the Postal Service has produced documents in discovery demonstrating that it intended, as late as September of 2011, to submit an advisory opinion request to the Commission in October of 2011.  However, the Postal Service did not file its request until December 5, 2011.”

It’s not clear why the Postal Service is now in such a hurry and why it wants to close so many plants in such a short time.  It’s a sure formula for chaos in the mail system, and delays in delivering the mail will be inevitable, probably much worse than the change in service standards for First-Class mail that's already part of the plan.

Perhaps the Postal Service wants to increase pressure on Congress to pass legislation, perhaps management really believes its own hype about how dire the situation is, or perhaps they just want to amp up the sense of emergency to help further their agenda.

Whatever the reason, the Postal Service is basically thumbing its nose at the PRC and saying it doesn’t really care what the Advisory Opinion says.  Many of the plants will be closed before the Opinion even comes out. 

The PRC is the nation’s regulatory agency for the Postal Service, and it’s supposed to be ensuring that the Postal Service is in compliance with the law.  The Postal Service is essentially saying it doesn’t care about the law.  Let’s hope some of our legislators in Washington have a greater respect for the laws they make.  

Sign the petition

On Privatization

Good Reading on Postal Privatization

Also: Sarah Ryan's "Understanding Postal Privatization: Corporations, Unions, and the "Public Interest"


 

Privatization in the UK

save your p.o.

Organizing to Save Rural Post Offices


A Community Organizing Toolkit

Revised November 2012

[pdf doc] [word doc]

follow us

Follow Save the Post Office.

 

RSS feed for Save the Post Office articles

 

RSS feed for Save the Post Office News Briefs

 

Links & Topics