All Sections ------------------------------- News & Events Pay & Benefits Departments & Divisions Members Only

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

---

---

---

Postal Reform Measure
Awaits Conference Action

(This article was first published in the July/August 2006 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

Further action on the postal reform bills already approved by the House and Senate appears to be stalled while congressional leaders and the White House consider additional changes to the legislation.

The House passed its bill (H.R. 22) on July 26, 2005, by a vote of 410 to 20. The Senate passed its bill (S. 662) under a “unanimous consent agreement” on Feb. 9, 2006. As a next step, a House-Senate conference committee must convene to formally resolve differences between the two bills before a final version of the legislation can be submitted to both chambers for approval and then forwarded to the president for his signature or veto.

The Senate named its conferees immediately after it passed its bill. The senators who will serve on the panel are Susan Collins (ME), chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, and fellow Republicans Ted Stevens (AK), George Voinovich (OH), Norm Coleman (MN), and Robert Bennett (UT). Democrats serving as conferees are Senator Joe Lieberman (CT), Tom Carper (DE), and Daniel Akaka (HI). At press time, the House had not named its conferees.

Behind the scenes, however, Senate and House staff are attempting to reach a framework for resolving as many differences between the bills as possible before the conference committee formally begins its work. We are working with other postal “stakeholders” to maintain the provisions we sought to include in the legislation, and we are on guard against efforts to change it in ways that would be unfavorable to postal workers and consumers.

It must be emphasized that, unlike virtually all of the other postal stakeholders, we have yet to take a stand on the pending legislation: As long as it is “pending,” we will not endorse it, nor will we oppose it.

Once the conference formally begins — and it has already been four months without the House conferees being named — it could take months before the panel produces and both chambers approve a final version of the legislation. Or, if congressional leaders and the administration reach an agreement on final changes to the bill, the entire process could be over very quickly. As always, we encourage every union member to stay aware of late-breaking developments by visiting this Web site, by reading APWU News Bulletins, and by joining the APWU “e-Team.”

APWU, Administration: At Odds

In a July 2005 “Statement of Administration Policy,” the White House threatened to veto the pending postal reform legislation unless it included modifications that the union is strongly opposed to.

The administration opposes releasing from an escrow account billions of dollars that the USPS has saved by ending overpayments to the Civil Service Retirement System. The White House also opposes returning to the Treasury responsibility for paying some $27 billion in military service-related retirement benefits for postal workers. (No other federal agency is required to pay these costs.)

In addition to these ‘big-ticket’ items, the administration is demanding that the legislation:

• Give the USPS “greater flexibility to use worksharing.” The current provision “places too many restrictions” on the discounts to mailers that perform cost-saving tasks such as pre-sorting, the statement says.
  
  
• Require arbitrators to “consider USPS’ financial health” during contract negotiations. The Postal Service, the policy statement says, must be assured that new limitations imposed by a postage rate cap will be considered during labor negotiations, a standard almost certain to undermine collective bargaining.
  
  
• “‘Reform’ the workers’ compensation system” by reducing benefits for postal workers injured on the job.

Provisions already in the Senate bill (but not in the House bill) would delay workers’ compensation benefits for injured USPS workers, and force those receiving OWCP benefits to retire as soon as they become eligible or face a reduction in their OWCP benefits.

APWU has urged Senate conferees and key House members to retain a provision approved by the Senate that would require the USPS to solicit and consider community input when it is planning consolidations. This provision was included in the legislation thanks to an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA).

Vote-by-Mail Movement

A recent conference in the nation’s capital was held to examine the concept of eliminating poll-booth voting nationwide and replacing it with voting by mail. One state, Oregon, has already adopted this process for all elections. The venture has proven successful, and ballot initiatives are pending in Arizona, California, and Washington.

The system is a simple one. At least two weeks before an election, every registered voter in the state is mailed a ballot and a return envelope. Each return envelope has a bar code identifying the voter. Once the ballot is marked, it is placed inside a secret ballot envelope, which is separated from the outer envelope during the counting process. Special security measures ensure the privacy of the vote and prevent individuals from voting more than once.

The state pays all postage — the voter is not required to put a stamp on the return envelope. In Oregon, vote-by-mail is costing about one-third as much as a state-wide poll-booth election.

A group headed by Bill Bradbury, Oregon’s secretary of state, has asked the APWU to take a leading role in this effort as it moves forward. All 50 secretaries of state will be at a meeting next year to discuss this, and President Burrus has accepted an invitation to that gathering.

Clearly, if this movement catches on it will be a “win-win” for us. Studies show that voter participation increases dramatically when voting by mail is offered; the increases are seen in all segments of the voter base.

The greater use of the Postal Service during election periods would not only increase mail volume, but would further enhance the credibility of the service we provide to the American public.

[back to top]