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

Advanced Search

---

---

Ask President Burrus

Question:

Why was the national APWU caught off guard by the USPS consolidation plans? The only time I know of that the APWU protested management’s refusal to provide the consolidation plan was during the first year of the contract extension.

Why was there no follow-up? Why wasn’t legal action taken or a grievance filed? What is the national doing in regard to all the Area Mail Processing (AMP) studies? Grassroots efforts are fine, but what is the national union doing?

Don, Sioux City (IA) Local

President Burrus:

Despite management’s refusal to provide the union with information about its plans, the APWU has made extensive preparations for opposing the negative effects of consolidation on our members and on service to the American people.

As a part of the 2002 and 2005 contract extensions, the union negotiated provisions that were designed to strengthen job security; these stipulations will help limit the impact of consolidation on our members.

In 2002, we won an agreement from the Postal Service to provide voluntary early retirement opportunities for all APWU-represented employees. We also extended no-layoff protection.

In addition, we bargained for a nationwide freeze on excessing employees beyond 50 miles. (Ironically, management’s failure to provide the union with information about its consolidation plans resulted in the freeze being extended well beyond the six-month duration that was stipulated by the contract extension.)

We also bargained for and won a training program that enables APWU members to upgrade their skills so that they can qualify for jobs that are unlikely to be affected by consolidation. In 2005, as part of the second contract extension, we negotiated an agreement to expand transfer opportunities.

We have initiated a grievance protesting management’s failure to meet its obligation to notify the union of its plans. The newly negotiated right to advance national-level disputes to the top of the arbitration docket will enable us to adjudicate this matter quickly if the issue remains unresolved.

The only pre-emptive contractual action that the union could have taken would have been to negotiate a prohibition on consolidations. The subject was discussed during each of the extension negotiations, but agreement could not be reached on a ban. Absent a voluntary agreement and given the contractual protections against layoffs, it is unlikely an arbitrator would have issued a ruling prohibiting management from consolidating operations.

We are continuing to review the options for filing a lawsuit, and are reaching out to appropriate congressional representatives and requesting their assistance.

In addition to these activities, we took steps to inform and mobilize the union membership. Early in 2003 we distributed a packet to all local and state presidents outlining methods for organizing union members and involving the community in efforts to oppose consolidation.

We are distributing an updated packet of information to affected locals, which includes a broad and detailed outline for waging this struggle. A team of resident officers has been empanelled to coordinate our efforts, provide resources, and assist locals.

Opposing the negative effects of consolidation will require collective efforts by locals and the national union, working in tandem to engage our members and the public. In a world that is constantly evolving, it is extremely difficult to prevent change. This fight will be protracted, and it will be waged on a number of fronts.

I urge all APWU members in affected locals to lend their efforts to this important cause.

Jan. 18, 2006

[more questions]

[back to top]