Printer-Friendly Page
 |
AFL-CIO News |
 |
Listen to Labor News |
Olympian Effort May Be Model
For Combatting 'Consolidation'
APWU Web News Article #73b-05, Dec. 22, 2005
(Excerpt from The American Postal Worker, Jan./Feb. 2006)
Activities by the Olympia (WA) Local in response to a plan to move the city’s mail processing to Tacoma (a much larger city 30 miles away) may prove to be a model for other APWU locals fighting consolidation. The Olympia local has taken its message to the public — and loudly — and has challenged each claim the Postal Service has made.
“The Olympia APWU Local honestly believes 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,” said Clint Burelson, the Olympia Local’s president. “It is also our contention that the Postal Service is purposefully misleading the public on this issue.”
Olympia is Washington state’s capital, and when the Postal Service announced the realignment, it essentially meant that the “Olympia” postmark itself was history.
“At first 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,” Burelson said.
“That scenario might be possible if the Tacoma plant was more productive than the Olympia facility,” Burelson said. “But according to the Postal Service, the Olympia facility is the most productive of its size in the entire nation and 28th among plants of all sizes.”
Among other things, Burelson pointed out, management has repeatedly failed to follow the collective bargaining agreement in its excessing projections. To follow the agreement, it would have to separate all casuals in the installation, reduce the hours of all the PTFs, reassign temporarily injured employees in the carrier craft who are working in the clerk craft, and reduce the amount of overtime hours.
“If management followed the contract on excessing, there would likely be no employees excessed,” Burelson said.
Postmark’s the Spotlight
The USPS plans for Olympia proved to be a contentious issue, one that reached all the way to the offices of Washington congressmen Brian Baird (D) and Adam Smith (D). In a letter to Postmaster General John E. Potter, the two asked whether the Postal Service’s disdain for public opinion about the postmark was indicative of the rest of its plans: “Does the USPS consider the history of opposition by local, state, and congressional government representatives, local mailers and the community as they conduct analyses and consider plans to consolidate? If so, what is the rationale for proceeding with the consolidation of the Olympia P&DC?”
The postmark itself – the current plan is to have a shared “Tacoma/Olympia” designation — is no mere cosmetic matter. Washington state residents vote by mail and all ballots must be postmarked by Election Day — if the postmark is not applied that day, the ballots are invalidated. Property tax payments and IRS filings that are not postmarked on the day mailed will result in financial penalties. In addition, many business, legal, and state transactions involving the requirement of a postmark will also be in jeopardy.
“Most people can mail their letters after work and the Olympia Plant will place that day’s postmark on the mail and send it on its way in a timely manner,” Burelson said. “An earlier cutoff time would mean a major readjustment and will jeopardize important citizen, business, legal and state correspondence.”
Letters to the editors at Olympia-area newspapers make the same point. While there is concern about the postmark, primarily there is concern with the service historically associated with having the postmark in Olympia. The postmark usually signifies where the mail is processed. Processing the mail in Olympia provides better service to the entire state because of the mailing cut off times that allow state agencies the time to get the mail to citizens all over the state.
Consumers across the country have joined the APWU and other groups to protest mail-processing realignment. Whether it is in Greensburg (PA), Memphis, Red Bank (NJ), Owensboro (KY), Utica (NY), or Albuquerque, the message is much the same: Since postal officials won’t answer questions about their plans or the expected results of their plans, they shouldn’t be allowed to take actions that would disrupt the lives of workers and consumers. Further review is warranted.
“The fact is that the Postal Service has already been criticized for failures of communication and that it continues to ignore the criticisms of its vague plans,” Burelson said, “It should be required to cease all consolidations until such time that transparency and fairness can be assured.”
