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

Advanced Search

---

---

Ask President Burrus

Question:

Given that our national union agreed to make casuals a permanent part of our workforce and this decision was ratified by those voted for the contract, when are we going to start pushing to make them members of the bargaining unit? I can see no other sensible reason for agreeing to this. I did not vote to support the contract for the sole reason that I felt that accepting non-bargaining unit employees as a permanent part of the workforce was a bad idea.

Vern, Cape Girardeau (MO) Area Local

President Burrus:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the proposal to organize casuals. I have developed a survey and mailed it to APWU local presidents in offices that employ casuals, requesting their input on such a campaign. To date, I have received responses from approximately 50 percent of the locals who were surveyed. A majority of local presidents who replied favor an organizing effort; however, several large locals oppose the idea and do not believe that it would be successful.

I do not accept your assertion that “accepting non-bargaining unit employees as a permanent part of our workforce was a bad idea.” Like an ostrich that buries its head in the sand, this position ignores reality. I have been a postal employee for 50 years and throughout that period the Postal Service has employed substantial numbers of casual employees. The union has arbitrated many cases attempting to limit the use of casuals, and to restrict their overtime, hours of work, and assigned duties: We have lost each one. As president I do not have the luxury of pretending that casuals were not already a permanent part of the workforce.

The last time that we went to arbitration over the use of casuals, the arbitrator increased their numbers from 5 percent to 5.9 percent of the workforce. So, without a voluntary agreement by management to eliminate casuals, our options were limited. Casuals have been a fact of life and would have continued to be a component of the complement far into the future.

In return for an all full-time workforce in large offices, and for specific restrictions on the use of casuals, I agreed to extend their employment from two 90-day appointments to 360-day appointments. You describe this change as “accepting non-bargaining unit employees as permanent.” That is a stretch.

During the last contract we had 10 percent or more PTFs, no restrictions on casuals, and 5.9 percent casuals authorized by the contract. As 90-day appointments expired, one group of casuals was routinely replaced with another.

Were we better off? Perhaps you would have preferred to pretend that casuals were not a permanent part of the work force.

In light of the fact that the National Association of Letter Carriers’ tentative agreement will convert casuals to TEs, I am deferring making a final decision on organizing casuals until we can discuss the option of negotiating their conversion to TEs. Because there is a continuing convention resolution endorsing the elimination of TEs, I would not propose this alternative until we have fully discussed the respective options.

As president, I am responsible for negotiating on behalf of 275,000 active-duty postal employees who expect the union to make their lives better. That means being bold enough to change. The contract was ratified by 89 percent of the members who voted; clearly, they approved. You obviously take pride in being among the 11 percent who opposed the contract, and wear your “no” vote as a badge of honor. However, a rejection of the agreement would not have achieved a contract, would not have eliminated casuals, and would have served no purpose except to emulate the ostrich’s behavior.

Thank you for your inquiry, and thank you for being a member.

Aug. 21, 2007

[more questions]

[back to top]