ELEVATOR
September 28, 2011
The following statistics are included in the September 19, 2011 OIG Report on USPS work rules:
Table 1. APWU and NPMHU Grievance Costs*
| Fiscal Year |
Crossing Crafts |
Workhours |
Overtime |
Reassignments |
Total |
| 2007 |
$3,667,263 |
$695,892 |
$2,062,122 |
$ 472,819 |
$6,898,096 |
| 2008 |
3,839,332 |
521,656 |
2,235,643 |
6,051,145 |
12,647,776 |
| 2009 |
3,587,503 |
437,505 |
1,697,956 |
768,304 |
6,491,268 |
| 2010 |
1,475,647 |
366,782 |
481,928 |
945,571 |
3,269,928 |
| TOTAL |
$12,569,745 |
$2,021,835 |
$6,477,649 |
$8,237,839 |
$29,307,068 |
*As of August FY 2010
Source: Grievance Arbitration Tracking System
The statistics reveal violations that were remedied governed by Articles 7, 8, 9 and 12. You will note the fluctuations in Article 7, 8 and 12 from year to year.
September 16, 2011
A summary of president Guffey's responses to Congress on September 6, 2011 are as follows:
President Guffey testified before Congress that:
1. We have been working together on other things to help reduce the number of employees.
2. The APWU wishes that the postmaster general had supported the Carper and Collins legislation that destroys collective bargaining.
3. The APWU president thinks that in the postal realm "it almost is a family affair."
4. The USPS funds in the health insurance are either $20,000 or $20 million.
5. We've worked through those problems as best we can.
Bill Burrus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 13, 2011
Following are the questions and answers presented at the Senate Hearings on September 6, 2011 to the APWU witness:
Fourth and final question, also by Senator Daniel Akaka: " Do you believe that arbitration favors either unions or management under current law?"
President Guffey's Answer: 190.56
"I - I don’t believe so and- and, if everyone understood the -the nature of arbitration ah a lot of the arbitrators are conservative cause they’re ah are ah certain ah (pause) occupations; lemma put it that way. Ah, it I have been involved in about five of our interest arbitrations over the last 30 years. I guarantee you there is no one in here that would want to sit through the painful two or three days when Harvard Law economists from the union – from the Brookings’ Institute talk to Harvard Law economists from the Cato Institute and debate finances of the union. That happens in every arbitration that’s ever occurred whether or not there is money there to ah ah do certain things and whether it should happen or it shouldn’t happen. Now Ah since 2006 the way the ah the limitations that were put on us in 2006 is the post office cannot raise their rates beyond inflation even though we started out with a rate for the postage ah for the postage that was well below the rate of inflation from 1970 we could not go above the rate of inflation. That in and of itself is a huge block in negotiating our contracts because the post office does not have the money we cannot project beyond the rate of inflation. And if gas prices go up or anything goes up in the ah general economy that limits what the postal workers can get because the post office by law now is restricting from raising rates yearly beyond inflation.”
Third Question by Senator Daniel Akaka: "If Congress were to legislate changes to the existing contracts by altering your layoff positions in health and retirement benefits, my question is if any of these proposals were implemented could unions and the postal service go back to the collective bargaining table to renegotiate these contracts immediately?"
President Guffey's Answer: 186.57
“I do not believe sooo and I believe Ahh the post office would say we’ve got what we got, your name is on this thing. Congress changed the rules for you, us over here. Unless Congress changes other rules, an example, one of the examples I would like to elaborate on, we gave them 20% non-career workforce which mean 20% of the people will not have a retirement. If you give them the right to pull out of the retirement and they say they‘ll have matching funds, will –that, does that include these non-career people? You know they are not going to come ah back and say we give these things to this other group of people uh ah uh that we agreed to give them ah, unless ‘YAW-ll’ tell them they have to uh and we uh don’t believe ‘uh’ the uh Congress should be in the middle of the uh negotiating process. When the post office has problems they’ve talked to us, we’ve worked through those problems as best we can. I am sure the other unions will do the same thing as well as the management organizations.”
Second Question by Senator Joe Lieberman: (Regarding Refund of the Overpayment) "What's your response to the allegation that that's a bailout?"
President Guffey's Answer: 175.58
"Well, my - my response to that is all these funds came from the Ah postal patrons, the people who use the postal service, the money came in the - Ah the Ah (silence) the Ah I don’t want to say - not the profitability but the Ah, the Ah the employees earned, you know, earned the money - they processed the mail they did everything right and there was enough money created to put that money off to the side for their retirements and for their health insurance, now you lay a 120,000 off who gets that money? It’s there for them it was earned by them it was put there by the postal service on their behalf - now if you layoff a 120,000 people Ah who will not be eligible for r these Ah future retiree benefits, who gets that money? Does it just become part of the Ah general fund? You know I understand if you take our funds out of Ah of the Ah health insurance they’re left with $20,000 Ah excuse or Ah- Ah- Ah 20 million dollars Ah 20% funded they’re grossly underfunded, the rest of the government. That’s why they don’t want to take our money out – not our money, the postal patrons’ money out and give it back to the postal service because it will show how underfunded the rest of the federal government is.”
First Question by Senator Joe Lieberman: "Why was the agreement signed in May and then the request for this action is being made now which seems certainly to be inconsistent with the agreement - now I am curious, if you, since he has made these proposals, particularly about the layoffs whether you have asked him that questions and what his answer is?"
President Guffey's Answer 173.53
"Ah we have regular meetings based on Ah what’s Ah going on in Congress. We -all of us recognize that we want to save the postal service. It’s been a good livelihood for all of our members for years and what have you, and we try to work together as close we can. We, we feel Ah a little betrayed, I can understand the pressure the Postmaster General is on. I wished he’d stayed with the original actions in supporting Ah Senator Collins and Senator Carper Ah, Ah and Congressman Lynch’s Ah approach to this Ah, I have no idea and I, I feel like I said “trayed” Ah (slight pause) to think that he didn’t think that this might happen before Ah we signed the agreement. I can’t address that and I won’t address that. I do know that since then you know we have been working together on other things to help reduce the number of employees. We are still working and continuing and will continue to work together. We definitely going to and I think the other unions want to too. I think its I think it Ah you know Ah always seem like unions and management is not always ah considered a family affair, but then I think in the postal realm it almost is a family affair we trying to work together to save the post office.”
Bill Burrus
At the September 6, 2011 Senate Hearings, the APWU witness was asked four simple questions. Two by Senator Lieberman and two by Senator Akaka:
1. Senator Lieberman - "Why was the agreement signed in May and then the request for this action is being made now which seems certainly to be inconsistent with the agreement, now I am curious if you, since he has made these proposals particularly about the layoffs whether you have asked him that question and what his answer is?"
2. Senator Lieberman (with regards to refund of the overpayment) - "What’s your response to the allegation that that’s a bailout?"
3. Senator Akaka - "If Congress were to legislate changes to the existing contracts by altering your layoff positions in health and retirement benefits my question is if any of these proposals were implemented could unions and the postal service go back to the collective bargaining table to renegotiate these contracts immediately?"
4. Senator Akaka – "Do you believe that arbitration favors either unions or management under current law?"
Bill Burrus
August 10, 2011
A Critique of Myth vs. Facts
I have received several questions regarding the validity of the issues raised by Congressman Ross regarding the request that the Postal Service be afforded relief from the payment for retiree health care obligations. In a paper titled "Myth vs. Fact" he presents justification for his opposition to a legislative solution.
A most recent email inquiry was extremely thoughtful and I have asked the author, James McNamara of the Wichita Remote Encoding Center for permission to include my response on this website and he has consented.
A thorough reading of OPM reports on this subject reveals a more balanced review than that portrayed in the critique "Myth vs. Facts." I present the following as a more accurate presentation of the "Issues and Facts" supporting legislative relief of the PAEA retiree health care obligation and payment to the Civil Service Retirement System for service performed pre 1970 with the Post Office Department.
Loss of Mail
The current financial dilemma can be traced to the loss of mail volume which is directly related to the economy. As I chronicled in the essay "Will the Postal Service Survive," the commonly held belief that technology will replace mail as the means of communications is just not accurate. Mail volume trends economic activity so any prediction that volume will not return is a prediction that the United States will not experience future normal and historic GDP and job growth. All respected economist predict otherwise, but perhaps Congressmen Ross and Issa know something that we do not. Recent actions by their Tea Party supporters indicate that there just may be a strategy to destroy the American economy but I digress, this overview is not about politics.
Political charlatans who favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary working citizens find unique justifications for reducing wages and benefits of the working class; this is a prime example. The OPM report that is quoted extensively in "Myth vs. Fact" critique references a comparison between postal and government employees’ compensation that simply does not exist anywhere but in the minds of those who have a political agenda.
Postal wages and benefits as established by the PRA were specifically set as "comparable to employees in the private sector." Nowhere in the legislative record is there any reference to setting postal wages and benefits to employees of "Government agencies." This reference in "Myth vs. Facts" to the different contribution levels of government and postal employees is political theatre that has absolutely no basis in law.
Comparing Postal Wages to Government Employees
I guess we are to ignore the history of the 1970 postal strike that achieved collective bargaining for postal employees, bargaining that has been denied to employees of Government agencies. Would one expect employees who have the right to bargain collectively will do no better than those who do not? If this were the case, Congressmen Ross and Issa would not spend so much energy on denying workers the opportunity to improving their conditions through organizing.
Pre Funding Future Health Care
Any reference to a postal "bailout" is political theatre at best. There is no pending USPS request or sponsored legislation seeking a postal bailout. The request to be treated like any private or government employer in the funding of retiree health care does not rise to the level of government subsidy.
A review of the standards applied reveals that:
* The average Fortune 1000 private company is funded at 28%
* Federal and government civilian annuities are funded at 41%
* Military pensions at 24%
* Federal civilian health plans are not funded, and
* Military health plans are funded at 29%
Yet the expectation is that the Postal Service will fund future retiree health care and retirement obligations at 100% to ensure that the taxpayer is not left holding the bag in the event of possible bankruptcy. I guess other employers have no such exposure.
The retirement pre funding theory is based on the assumption that retiree health care is a current liability, not future, even if they are not payable until a later date. To fully understand this rationale, we use a hypothetical employee named Jane Smith who has 20 years of service and plans to retire in 10 years, 2021. Ms. Smith has agreed to exchange her time, energy, knowledge and experience in return for the negotiated wages and benefits, including health care after retirement. She is compensated biweekly and the Postal Service pays the employer’s share of her health insurance. Let us assume that for her work hours from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm she is paid $29 per hour including night differential. In addition to the salary for that hour worked, she earns the USPS’ proportional payment towards her health and life insurance each pay period and for the years following her retirement until her demise. Ms. Smith’s hourly compensation is inclusive of the hourly rate with differential, the employer’s share of health and life insurance and retirement annuity. But if the retirement benefits are to be considered a current liability, the payments for each hour worked should reflect the income earned that includes the retiree health care payments and included in the pay check to the employee, not bundled in an annual payment to the United States Treasury.
If Congressman Ross intends to require full payment for each hour worked then postal employees would be owed the supplemental payments in their pay checks before they retire.
In the real world, deferred obligations are not funded until payment is due so the hourly wage is separated from the employers’ future contribution.to health care premiums. The Postal Service has funded retiree health care in this manner for over 280 years. From Benjamin Franklin until 2006 and passage of the PAEA, the Post Office Department and the Postal Service employed tens of millions of employees and millions retired with pensions and health insurance without pre funding, and guess what, the Postal Service did not declare bankruptcy and renege on their total payment for each hour worked. But if Congressman Ross wants to change the system and pay Ms. Smith in full for each hour worked, we are talking about a sizable increase in her biweekly check. It's her money.
Phony Excuses for Diverting USPS Revenue
Congressman Ross attempts to rewrite history in his characterization that the health care payment was intended to prevent a "taxpayer bailout" of postal workers retiree health care payments.
Let us return to the time that the 2006 PAEA was written and enacted into law. The Postal Service was experiencing its highest mail volume in its 300 year history and the expectations at the time were that volume would continue to grow in the future at an accelerated pace and from this growth, the Postal Service could afford these huge annual payments. At the time, Senator Collins, Republican from Maine and the White House were fearful that the employees may demand receipt of a share of those profits so they legislated them away with the obligation to fund future health care.
The politically driven health care payments were intended to divert the 2006 postal profits and those to follow to the federal treasury to pay for tax cuts and the two wars that were underway. Now that volume and postal revenue has declined with the economy, threatened bankruptcy becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. If government saddles the Postal Service with financial liabilities beyond its capacity to meet in a bad economy, we can now say that the purpose was to protect the taxpayer from the dilemma that was caused by a political decision.
But for the health care payment, the Postal Service loss over the past four years, even with the 30% loss of volume, would have been $400 million. This has increased to 20 plus billion dollars by this future health care obligation. The furthest thing from the mind of the postal community in 2006 was that mail volume would decline by 30% and gasoline prices would increase to almost $4.00 a gallon.
Retirement Funding
The OPM report that Congressman Ross selectively quotes, includes an admission that OPM "did not retain an independent actuary" to examine the USPS’ finances so any reliance upon opinions about the formula applied for retirement obligations should be given little credence. From a non-actuary, there is something wrong with a system where the Postal Service is obligated for 70% of retirement cost for an employee who spent 50% of their career in the Post Office (pre 1970) as an employee of the US government.
Why would OPM or the Congressman end the review of the retirement system at 2006? It is true that until 2006 the Postal Service could pass on all expenses, including retirement, to the rate payer but in 2006 the PAEA limited rate increases to the CPI which does not include the cost of postal retirees in the market basket of goods and services that determine adjustments. The unreasonable costs of supplementing Post Office service cannot be included in postal rates today and if the formula needs adjustment because it is unfair, there is no legitimate reason to continue this transfer of cost from the government to the Postal Service.
I could go on but I think that you get the point.
Burden Imposed By PAEA Payments
The Postal Service is experiencing serious financial circumstances and without relief from the future health care funding obligation or a retroactive adjustment to the pension funding it will not be able to continue functioning at current levels. It has responded to the severe volume losses through productivity improvements and significant reductions in its employee compliment that absent the requirement to pre fund retiree health care would be a model of success.
Since passage of the 2006 PAEA, the employee compliment has been reduced by over 100,000 employees while assuming increased delivery obligations equal to the size of Houston, Texas each year, This is an outstanding record of achievement that should not be denigrated by politicians whose objective is not a better system of communications but political control to divide and conquer.
The Need for Real Solutions
Congressmen Ross and Issa can do better than the paper "Myth vs. Facts.” It is a political document that distorts facts to achieve a political objective. The American public is deserving of better than a demeaning chronology of the history of an institution that has served this nation with distinction.
Peace, Love and Solidarity
Bill Burrus
August 1, 2011
APWU MEMBERS AND FRIENDS
This is my final posting regarding APWU union issues and to avoid speculation of my reasons, this serves as my announcement.
This website originated for the purpose of distribution of the Burrus Souvenir Journal and was extended to include my views during the negotiations process. Upon completion of the tentative agreement, I shared with the membership my negative opinions about the changes initiated to postal employment and these opinions dominated my writings over several months. I found it important to expose the most severe contractual changes that were reserved for generations of future employees, deciding that they were deserving of a voice in opposition. Those members who desire a composite of those writings may retrieve them through this site.
During the debate over the tentative agreement, the national officers had at their disposal the entire national union network and they used it extensively to extoll the positive aspects of the new agreement. Many felt that theirs should be the only voice and derided those who expressed a different view as unworthy conspirators. Those supporting this bad agreement were encouraged and praised, but they resented anyone voicing an alternative view because they assumed a franchise on speech.
Future employees had no voice and I determined to expose the drastic changes that had been initiated that will dramatically change their lives. Wages will be reduced in amounts up to $500,000 over a career; this had to be made a part of the record.
I reject the excuse that future employees will know the conditions of employment when hired and they have options. It is indecent for someone earning over $100,000 a year to refer to the options confronting someone who is unemployed and will take any suitable employment. This mindset is representative of extreme arrogance and is anti-union. How soon we forget that all of us were new employees and how much our lives would have changed, if the prior generation had done this to us. The reduction in wages will result in children not being able to afford college; dental appointments not made; credit scores that do not qualify for mortgages; credit cards past due and a host of other lifestyle changes, imposed by a theory that they are not entitled to the same rewards for their work as postal employees.
I have never accepted feeble excuses for bad decisions. Union officials must deal with conditions confronting them in the moment and excuses by those who seek to justify today’s bad decisions will morph into more excuses tomorrow. Legislation is currently pending that can dramatically affect bargaining so future negotiations do not promise more labor friendly conditions. Does anyone truly believe that the pay scale can be adjusted if legislation is passed requiring arbitrators to consider the financial health of the Postal Service? "Perfect storms" are not promised to be onetime events so if the same rationale is applied to the next round of bargaining, the union will surrender even more to avoid arbitration.
During the debate, this future impact was brushed aside with a promise of corrections tomorrow, but as I surmised on the “Humor” page Today was Tomorrow- Yesterday. Considering its future impact, this contract will be recorded as the absolute worst in the history of collective bargaining, not just in the Postal Service but the worst in the free world. Some may find solace because others share their warped justification but time will erode alliances as the damage done is held up for the world to see.
Nevertheless, the contractual process has now been completed and it was never my intent to have the Burrus Journal website become the overseer of union affairs. The 21st Century website, under the capable administration of Randy Zelznick, provides an excellent forum for voice; I defer to that exchange and others for membership input.
I have always found plenty to do so this decision is not intended to free up additional time for other activities. I have said the things that I thought were deserving of discussions and now I am through. Democracy is clumsy and often generates unusual consequences but it is the process proven to be most effective and fair. I leave it to you the members to take it from here.
Peace, Love and Solidarity,
Bill Burrus
July 29, 2011
After 53 years of service as a postal employee and union officer, I retired on November 12, 2010, days before the expiration of the 2006 -2010 national agreement. The succeeding union administration finalized the negotiations resulting in the new national agreement.
The tentative agreement submitted for membership ratification involved the most significant changes in the history of postal bargaining. Although retired, I engaged in the discussions, voicing my opinions on the ratification process and the terms of the agreement.
These opinion papers have been compiled into a book as a reference that future generations of postal employees can review the debate that ensued. I considered the changes negotiated to be the most regressive in the history of bargaining, reducing the salaries and retirement annuities of some employees in the range of 40%; converting postal employment from a destination to a work experience to be included on a resume for better employment.
You are afforded the opportunity to preserve that history, the 2010 contract debate from my perspective.
William Burrus
July 28, 2011
"Hypocrisy"
Well, well, well it seems Hypocrisy has no bounds. Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) expresses his unhappiness with the USPS announcement that five House side post offices have been included in the listing of those offices under review for possible closing, to be replaced with mom and pop service centers. He refers to the announcement as similar to the “Washington Monument" strategy, closing popular services first, summarizing the announcement as "that’s politics."
Is it "politics" Representative Ross for the Postal Service to focus their attention for office closings in those areas where the patrons are overly represented among the poor, the disabled and those not connected to the World Wide Web? The American Postal Workers Union performed an analysis of a previous notice of office closings and the findings were that a disproportionate number affected those who had no other means of communications, including those without private transportation, no access to public transportation and no sidewalks between their home and the new facility that will serve their communications needs. Well, I have news for Congressman Ross. That is not politics; it is removing a basic American service from citizens of this country.
One would think that a Congressman who has sworn to protect all of the citizens of this country would direct his outrage at the disproportional denial of government services to a segment of the population and demand the consideration of relevant factors beyond revenue generated. Perhaps the next effort to balance revenue to services will apply to national defense, and taxes paid will determine the level of security afforded individuals of modest means. I can envision the strident response by Representative Ross and his ilk who will be outraged that they will be inconvenienced by not receiving the same level of protection as Bill Gates.
William Burrus
July 28, 2011
Washington Post
Editorial Board
Your editorial in today's hardcopy of the Washington Post "A better route for USPS"Postal Reform Act is imperfect, but needed is the clearest example to date of the bias incorporated in your efforts to influence public opinion. The framers of the United States Constitution intended that a free press would protect the liberties guaranteed in the grand experiment of ordinary citizens to govern themselves, but they failed in instituting a process of holding the press responsible for malicious untruths spread to achieve a corporate objective. The July 28 editorial is a blatant example of a message that is knowingly not factual but achieves the broader objective of attacking the rights of workers to engage in collective bargaining.
To ensure that your Editorial Board was familiar with the specifics of postal collective bargaining, representatives of the National Association of Letter Carriers met with your Board to clarify any misunderstandings of the USPS’ bargaining process, informing that any allegations of restrictions on the employer to present any and all facts in arbitration was blatantly untrue. Despite this effort, your July 28 editorial repeats the false assertion that current rules "prevent arbitrators from taking the financial crisis of the USPS into consideration have resulted in new contracts that give employees raises even in the face of ever-mounting deficits." You know this statement to be maliciously false.
The specifics of the new APWU contract speak for itself and you cannot find in current law governing postal bargaining any limitations on the authority of arbitrators, yet you have elected to make this false assertion to achieve a corporate objective of weakening the efforts of labor unions to represent postal workers. The framers of the constitution did not intend to grant license for such deliberate misstatement of facts. I suspect that you are beyond contrition for deliberate and malicious acts but you cannot hide behind the intent of the framers to provide a free press. The July 28 editorial is reflective of a different form of government, one that permits the press to lie when it suits their corporate interest.
William Burrus
President Emeritus
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO
July 28, 2011
| Will the Post Office Survive? E-Book |
|
In this five part series, I share my views on the future of the United States Postal Service. Will it survive? My analysis is shaped by my many years within the Service as an employee and as a union representative. I apply this experience as I explore the pressing issues confronting this public service.
Multiple generations have experienced a secure and affordable mail service, but in this day of alternative means of communications we should engage in serious debate over the future role of mail in a changing world. The following are my views on the critical issues that will determine the future of the United States Postal Service.
|
William Burrus
July 25, 2011
To: APWU Members
What Went Wrong?
In the recent contract negotiations an often stated objective of the union was to “Save the Postal Service." This objective, intertwined with an opportunity to increase jobs within the bargaining unit created the rationale that an exchange for future wages, rights and benefits was a step forward. The concept created a mindset and influenced the many union decisions over the course of bargaining. These were good intentions and in other circumstances may have achieved their objectives but the end result will be severe adverse impact on generations of postal employees while the future of the Postal Service remains in jeopardy.
The simple fact is that employees cannot resolve the Postal Service’s financial problems. With the next generation of employees suffering wage cuts up to 40%, the Postal Service is still on track to insolvency in 2012. Arbitrator Goldberg summarized the financial stability of the Postal Service in his 2000 interest arbitration award, concluding that it was the responsibility of Congress (not the union in wage concessions) to enact legislation that would secure the USPS’ future. The union’s focus on the needs of the Postal Service is outside the scope of the normal labor agenda and beyond the capability of union negotiators to make a substantial difference.
Congress is aware that the Postal Service cannot and will not survive without legislative initiatives. The Conservative legislators know this but they see an opportunity to reduce employee wages and move the Service towards privatization.
There is no rationale for wage reductions beyond saving money for the Postal Service. By any measure, postal employees have a record of significant productivity increases and have an entitlement to share in the savings earned. The amount spent on APWU represented employees’ wages since 1972 has declined in real terms nearly 3 percent while mail volume has grown 96 percent over the same time period. As a result, employees will deliver nearly twice as much mail at a cost that will be over 20% less after factoring in the 2010 changes. Wages of employees hired under the new contract will be less in real terms, indexed for inflation, when including the reduction of full time to 30 hours and the new pay scale, than that received before the 1970 strike.
Notwithstanding the union’s agreement to reduce wages dramatically, in exchange for jobs, a review of statements by the Postmaster General reveals the intent to further reduce the size of the bargaining unit in a range of reductions equaling 100,000 or more employees. The shifting of 10,000 or more positions from non-supervisory or non-bargaining to the APWU bargaining unit will result in a net, near term loss of 50,000 or more APWU represented employees, and unprecedented wage reductions.
Recent legislative initiatives, although misguided, reflect the recognition by Congress that labor savings will not be sufficient to "save the Postal Service" and without congressional intervention, postal finances are insufficient to meet its obligations burdened by future health care payments and low mail volume.
Despite the inadequacy of wage reductions to address the USPS’ financial difficulties, postal management is expected to use the APWU’s wage concessions as a pattern in other bargaining. With the APWU contract as a guide, the NALC and the Mail Handlers will face demands for equal concessions and if as expected, they resist, Congress will point to union recalcitrance as evidence of the need for regressive reform.
If the Postal Service is to survive, it is Congress that must act with or without union concessions to overcome the real obstacles to the USPS’ solvency. In a series of articles (Will the Post Office Survive), I have explored the obstacles and opportunities of its survival.
Recent efforts by union negotiators were noble with good and honorable intentions, but way beyond the scope of labor. Employee wage reductions cannot save the Postal Service.
Peace, Love and Solidarity,
Bill Burrus
July 14, 2011
Congressman Darrell Issa
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20015-6143
Mr. Chairman,
I am William Burrus, President Emeritus of the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO and I take strong exception to your letter of July 11, 2011 to President Guffey of our union. I no longer speak for the union but as a user of postal services and a continuing member and voter I must expose your allegation that the APWU advertisement is misleading to the American public.
Political messages must be tailored to the time and currently the American public is being exposed to the debate over government spending in the political effort to enact legislation that will govern the nation’s debt limit. In these discussions you and your party have taken an inflexible position that tax subsidies provided to your political supporters should be viewed as "jobs creators” and should be considered off limits for inclusion in a package for future savings. Conversely you choose to characterize the relationship between the federal government and the Postal Service as including "implicit subsidies" as recorded by the Federal Trade Commission.
You have become adept at the use of talking points in support of political positions but this effort to take exception to the assertion of the television ad, that taxpayers do not fund the delivery of mail, fails in its legitimacy. The Postal Service is recognized by law as a federal agency and accordingly is exempt from statutes governing private entities. It is not misleading to maintain that exemption from the obligations cited in your letter do not rise to the level of taxpayer support except in the world of poll driven political statements.
It is also disingenuous for you to compare "several hundred million dollars" of exemptions for a federal agency to the USPS annual budget of 65 billion dollars. If one would include such "special treatment" as taxpayer expense, it would constitute 3/10 of 1% of USPS annual revenues.
President Guffey is correct in pointing out to the American public that the correction to USPS finances is not a request for government financing but relief from Congressional actions requiring the pre-payment of future health care cost. I suggest that if you sincerely want to be absolute in the use of political messages that you begin with an analysis of the specific countries where new jobs have been created from the 2001, 2003 and 2008 tax cuts referred to as the "Bush tax cuts" and compare the results to the APWU ad informing that the Postal Service does not receive government subsidies.
Sincerely,
William Burrus
|
