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

Advanced Search

---

---

Ask President Burrus

Question:

I support the union and all the good that comes from it. However, I strongly disagree with the provision of the tentative agreement that would allow casuals to work year-round. Not to mention that we lose our right to protest the use of casuals in lieu of career employees.

Please help me understand why our union would consider allowing this to be part of our contract.

Jamie, Southwest Florida Area Local

President Burrus:

Thank you for submitting your question, and for your commitment to the American Postal Workers Union.

During my discussions with management on this issue, I determined that the impact of year-round casuals was not significant. The fact is, postal management routinely exchanges one casual employee for another as soon as a casual completes the two 90-day appointments that are currently permitted: Year-round casuals are already a reality.

Under the terms of the tentative agreement, two or more casuals will be replaced with one. In exchange for this modification, I was able to secure the right of full-time employees to work overtime prior to casuals. The union and management also agreed to establish consecutive days-off at mail-processing facilities (unless the local parties elect to do otherwise).

In my estimation, forcing postal management to continue to hire two casuals to fill one job does not compare to the opportunity to provide these benefits to full-time employees. The overtime provision is especially important in light of the union’s loss of a national-level arbitration case challenging the use of casuals on overtime. Reversing the effects of this decision had been identified as an important goal, and was one that we stood little chance of achieving, except through bargaining.

Perhaps the most important consideration in coming to this agreement was the opportunity to convert all part-time flexible clerks to full time in offices of 200 work-years or more. This benefits not only the 10,000 PTFs who will be converted, but the millions of future employees who will not be subject to the indignities associated with serving as part-time flexibles.

Along with these gains, however, I recognize that the elimination of the “in lieu of” language in “200 man-year” offices is a significant change. In making this decision, I considered the current limitations on the use of casuals and evaluated whether they could be improved upon in the negotiations.

Following is a comparison between the current restrictions and those contained in the tentative agreement:

Limits on Casuals	Existing Contract	New Restrictions
Per Installation	No limitations	11% of Clerk Craft
Per District	15% of APWU crafts	6% of APWU crafts
Nationwide	5.9%	6%

The establishment of a per-installation limit is an improvement, as is the reduction in the per-district limit, from 15 percent to 6 percent.

It should be noted that 11 percent of the Clerk Craft per installation represents approximately 8 percent of the APWU bargaining unit per installation. More than 40 percent of the installations of 200 work-years currently utilize casuals in excess of 8 percent. If the contract is ratified, I anticipate that in the remaining installations management will increase the use of casuals, consistent with the limitations.

You suggest that the “in lieu of” language protects us against the excessive use of casuals, but the facts do not support your conclusion. Currently, the Santa Ana District (which includes the Anaheim and Santa Ana installations) employs a casual complement equal to 13.3 percent of the APWU workforce, or approximately 25 percent of the Clerk Craft, in the mail processing facilities. In addition, casuals equal approximately 14 percent of the Mail Handlers complement nationwide, all employed under the “in lieu of” restrictions. This excessive use of casuals has occurred under the current “in lieu of” restrictions, so the existence of this restriction has not guaranteed that casuals will not be used excessively.

Under the terms of the tentative agreement, the “in lieu of” restrictions have been waived in offices of 200 work-years or more, which constitutes approximately 450 offices of the more than 30,000 nationwide. In the 29,000-plus offices of less than 200 work-years, and in the Maintenance and Motor Vehicle Crafts, the “in lieu of” restrictions will continue to apply.

In the 200 work-year offices, responsibility will shift from local enforcement of the “in lieu of” restrictions to national monitoring of the percent-based limits at the installation, district, and national level. Payment of violations will be automatic, consistent with the contractual terms, and locals will not be forced to wait years for compensation. Under the existing provisions, each local must enforce the “in lieu of” provisions, and remedies for violations are deferred far into the future, typically three years or more.

The remedy for violations will be paid at the Grade 6, Step A rate, which is a vast improvement over what we have been achieving by enforcing the “in lieu of” provisions. Most often locals receive only “cents on the dollar,” even when they prove that management utilized casuals improperly.

On balance, I believe that these changes will best serve the members of APWU now and far into the future. Obviously, if I were to write the agreement myself, I would have eliminated casuals as a supplemental workforce and eliminated part-time employees. But contracts are not written by one side or the other; they are negotiated.

I cannot evaluate any specific section in a vacuum, ignoring that a negotiated agreement includes all of its provisions — no-layoff protection, cost-of-living raises, step increases, holidays, guaranteed work-hours, and benefits. I do not have the luxury of assuming they would be continued if we proceeded to arbitration.

I believe that the tentative contract is an excellent agreement and deserving of the members’ support. In any event, I believe in democracy, and the final decision will be made by the majority of those members who take the time to vote.

Jan. 8, 2007

[more questions]

[back to top]