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

Advanced Search

Printer-Friendly Page

Network Realignment

Consumers, Workers, Legislators:
The People Demand to Be Heard

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

It didn’t take long for postal consumers and workers to react — and strongly — to the long-expected postal network consolidation that began in bits and pieces last fall. Shortly after the USPS announced that it was consolidating “some operations” at about a dozen processing and distribution facilities, and conducting Area Mail Processing feasibility surveys at approximately 40 others, APWU members and members of the public began to demand answers and accountability. And the campaign to fight consolidation is being coordinated with a grass-roots effort of individual citizens, community organizations, small businesses, and elected officials on all levels.

Angst in the Bronx

On March 20, during a rally at the Bronx General Post Office, Bronx congressmen Jose Serrano (left) and Eliot Engel were presented with 10,000 signed petitions gathered by postal workers and community members upset by the proposed reduction in mail processing operations. Photo by Gary Schoichet.

A consolidation study under way in New York City proposes that mail from three major processing facilities in the Bronx be sent into Manhattan for sorting, then trucked back to customers in the Bronx.

“The Postal Service is treating the Bronx like a borough of poor people,” said Clarice Torrence, president of APWU’s New York Metro Area Local. As a result, the Bronx community is burning mad, in part because the Bronx is booming.

“Washington claims to be making decisions based on ‘shifting mail volume’ and ‘efficiency,’ said Maximino Rivera, the local’s assistant director. “Really, the answers are political. Those communities with the least clout will lose jobs and get slower delivery.”

Politicians seem to agree. “When people commission studies they already have on their mind what direction they want to go,” Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) told reporters at a boisterous “Save the Bronx GPO” rally in April. “We can see the handwriting on the wall. We are not going to allow this to happen quietly. In fact, we are not going to allow this to happen at all.”

“We have to let them know that they can’t finagle with the study results, because we’re not interested in those,” added Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY). “We are interested in the truth about the Bronx, which is that we are growing and are going to keep growing.”

In the Heartland

The campaign to keep mail processing in Sioux City, IA, rather than send the operation, the postmark, and jobs nearly 90 miles north and west to Sioux Falls, SD, has been active since mid-January, when the Iowa Senate declared that the Postal Service’s proposed maneuver was an all-Iowa issue.

Taking it one step further, in February Sen. Tom Harkin (D) inserted a provision in the Senate’s postal reform measure that made it clear that this was a national issue. The “Harkin Amendment” (See Page 27) calls for public input on consolidation plans.

In April, Harkin continued to assail the Postal Service for ignoring “major issues” and pressed for more transparency in the proposed plans. “It’s critical that the Postal Service hears from Siouxland residents how its proposed consolidation plans will impact their community,” the senator said. “Major issues such as the costs the USPS plan will impose on local businesses and possible delays in mail service need to be apparent to all involved before moving the mail processing facility.”

“We’re still fighting against losing a 150-year tradition of having our own identity through the post office,” said Jim Price, president of APWU’s Sioux City Local, which staged a big rally at Sioux City’s downtown post office the day that Harkin issued his remarks.

And Elsewhere

In Bloomington, IN, U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel (R) wrote to postal officials to complain about the shifting of mail processing to Indianapolis , saying that it would add at least an hour and 45 minutes of transit time. If additional transit time and cost will be the result of consolidation, Sodrel said, “this does not meet the objective intended.”

Guy Cruz, Olympia Local treasurer, at a rally in April.

The proposal to consolidate the Olympia (WA) facility continues to draw criticism. And a USPS official acknowledged that service won’t be as good as it used to be, saying in a release that after the transfer of mail from Olympia to Tacoma takes place, “current cost pressures make the protection of all overnight and/or two day service commitments for the consolidated office Olympia) impractical.”

Clint Burelson, President of the Olympia Local, has spearheaded an activist campaign. “We’ve always maintained that a plan to transfer mail operations to Tacoma will cost the Postal Service more money and will reduce service to the local community and the state,” he said. “The Postal Service tried to justify making the capital go without a postmark by saying that moving the mail processing to Tacoma would mean an overall increase in productivity. Clearly, that’s going to be at the expense of service.”

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) recently renewed his criticism of the Postal Service study that would shift the processing of important mail from his state’s capital city to Great Falls, nearly 100 miles away. “The postal identity and postmark that is so important for Helena must be a priority,” he wrote in a letter to the Postal Service. He also called for adequate public notice to communities to be affected by such decisions.

On April 3, the USPS announced that five Area Mail Processing (AMP) feasibility studies “have been placed on hold” indefinitely. The facilities involved are two in Illinois (Carbondale and Centralia), two in New Mexico (Las Cruces and Alamogordo), and one in Arkansas (Batesville).

“While conducting the study,” the announcement said, “the Postal Service determined that there are other factors associated with these studies or the community that need to be addressed before we can proceed with the study.”

[back to top]