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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Network Realignment Update

Public Supports Workers’ Efforts
to Preserve Service, Postmarks, Jobs

(This article first appeared in the March/April
2006 issue of The American Postal Worker magazine.)

Rockford (IL) Area Local President Gregg Voiles, right, and Vice President Art Haws, left, met in Washington with Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) to discuss efforts to stop the consolidation of the Rockford P&DC. (Click for larger view)

Postal Service announcements of plans to consolidate “some operations” at mail processing facilities around the country have generated mostly unfavorable reactions from elected officials and consumers alarmed by the prospects of deteriorated customer service, the demise of historical postmarks, and the dislocation of citizens important to local economies.

As part of an effort to get the Postal Service to reconsider plans to relocate major functions of local facilities, these same displeased officials and consumers — aided by APWU members — have been seeking the support of state and federal officials.

In Waterbury, CT, Mayor Michael J. Jarjura is concerned on several levels. “Relocating the essential services that are provided in the Waterbury facility would translate into significant job losses for the city and an increase in the cost of mailings to all nonprofit businesses and corporations,” Jarjura said in a letter to two of Connecticut ’s U.S. Representatives.

James Conway, president of APWU’s Waterbury Area Local, had provided the information about the increase in costs for mailings that would have to go through Wallingford . One of the congressional representatives immediately asked USPS headquarters for verification of the savings the Postal Service is projecting.

Jobs Jeopardized

In Waco, TX, approximately 250 jobs could be affected by a USPS plan to relocate some of the city’s mail processing operations 85 to 100 miles away to Fort Worth and Austin. U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) sent a letter to USPS headquarters hoping to get clarification regarding the intent of the Area Mail Processing (AMP) study.

“We serve a wide area,” said Ruby Harrison, vice president of APWU’s Waco Local in an interview with the Waco Tribune-Herald. “If you’re mailing a bill across town, that bill will have to be trucked to either Austin or Fort Worth to get postmarked and then be trucked back to Waco and delivered.”

In Freeport, IL, Gregg Voiles, president of APWU’s Rockford Area Local, was puzzled by the plan to move processing to Palatine, about 90 miles away. “Everything would go to Palatine, even though our production numbers are better,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense at all.”

U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo (R) showed his concern about the move of the sorting operation from Freeport to Palatine and the closing of small, rural post offices by meeting with postal officials. “It wasn’t a very pleasant meeting,” said a spokesman for Manzullo. The congressman received a commitment to postpone action, the spokesman said, so that concerned citizens could gather evidence to support a proposition opposing USPS plans.

The APWU’s Voiles, who was invited to Washington by Manzullo, told the Journal-Standard newspaper that having the congressman on the side of consumers and workers was “exactly what we need to fight this.”

The Point of the Studies

Many consumers and workers find it incredible that the Postal Service continues to portray AMP surveys simply as studies, perhaps of no important consequence.

“There will be no job loss,” said a postal district manager asked about any possible adverse effects from an AMP study to shift mail processing away from Springfield, MA. “We look at Springfield as a hub for us, and, with long-term planning, we expect that it will continue.”

“I don’t even think he knows what is going to happen,” said Frederick S. Lowney, president of the Springfield Area Local APWU in remarks to the Republican newspaper. “Our members are concerned,” Lowney said in reference to the 1,200 workers he represents. “They can be shifted to jobs anywhere in a 100-mile radius. Are they going to have to sell their homes? We are being kept in the dark.”

The Iowa Senate on Jan. 18 passed a resolution to keep a P&DC in Sioux City, IA, rather than send processing, the postmark, and jobs nearly 90 miles north and west to Sioux Falls, SD. The resolution, which passed unanimously, noted that this is not just a “Siouxland” issue, but an all-Iowa issue.

That point was emphasized when the latest version of postal reform legislation moved through the Senate in February. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) successfully amended the bill (S.662) to block the Postal Service from implementing the results of any AMP study until the public has provided input and has been provided with a cost analysis.

A similar situation exists in La Crosse, WI, where public officials are considering going to battle over the plans to shift the city’s mail processing to Rochester, MN. In late December, the La Crosse Common Council’s Legislative Committee passed a resolution that demands that mail sorting be kept at the local post office. The council members’ concerns include not only that postal identity will be lost, but it will be lost to a neighboring state.

Public Commentary

The county commissioners of Westmoreland County, PA, home of the Youngwood Mail Processing Center, are trying to keep nearly 100 jobs from moving away and local mail from moving more slowly: “Mail delivery in most cases is accomplished in one business day,” a Dec. 31, 2005, county resolution says, “which is an important element of managing businesses, governments and households.”

Bloomington (IN) Local Maintenance Craft Director Kevin McCaffery’s presentations have prompted several community organizations to urge their members to take action against mail-processing consolidation plans. (Click for larger view)

The mayor and city council of Greensburg, where Youngwood is located, are especially concerned about the loss of nearly 100 jobs and were quick to respond when Jim Swank, president of APWU’s Greensburg/Foothills Area Local, asked them to look into the plan. None of the elected officials had been aware of the plan, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review .

As a Postal Service public affairs spokesperson explained in an Aberdeen American News story about an Area Mail Processing study of the Aberdeen (SD) facility, “There is no community component with the study. It’s just an internal look at mail processing and network operations. The study is being conducted by postal officials, and does not call for public comment.”

“Public reaction continues to be very negative,” said APWU President William Burrus. “The Postal Service has long been reluctant to disclose its realignment strategy because of the expected resistance from employees, communities and legislators,” he said. “It is clear that management’s concern continues to be well-placed.”

The Bloomington (IN) Local APWU is doing what it can to make citizens aware of USPS plans to move mail-processing operations to Indianapolis, 45 miles away. Maintenance Craft Director Kevin McCaffery has been making frequent presentations before community organizations and to business and civic leaders. “The question-and-answer sessions at the end really spark interest,” he reports. “All parties in attendance are urging us to contact our federal and state representatives and said they would do likewise.”

The Bloomington local offers other ways to fight consolidation plans with “all available means” at www.bloomapwu.com.

Editor’s note: The Postal Service provided a long-awaited outline of the Evolutionary Network Development (END) program in a meeting with APWU officers Feb. 14, 2006, the same day it submitted the plan to the Postal Rate Commission (PRC). The USPS is required by law to seek an advisory opinion from the PRC when it proposes service changes that are national in scope, and is required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to notify the union of plans to relocate employees “due to the implementation of national postal mail networks.” The APWU filed a Notice of Intervention with the PRC Feb. 15, advising the agency of the union’s intent to participate in any proceedings that occur as a result of the USPS submission.

[back to top]