When I assumed office in 1981 after addressing USPS compliance with the full to part time complement, I turned my attention to the use of casuals. The contractual limit of 5% was continued, but postal management routinely hired casuals in excess of the contractual limits. Locals were powerless to enforce the restrictions and technically the contract did not prohibit the staffing of an entire installation with casuals, if the 5% limit was not exceeded nationwide. I was later successful in limiting the use of casuals per Installation and District but in 1981 the restrictions applied nationwide.
Again Larry Hutchins, Vice President NALC joined forces to enforce the contractual provisions and limit the use of casuals. The union did not have independent confirmation on the number of casuals so we requested a computer analysis of each casual, the office to which assigned and date hired. After analysis of the requested information, we were able to confirm our suspicions that the number of casuals far exceeded the contractual limitation. Postal management raised technical objections to our conclusions alleging that casuals hired and terminated during the measuring period should not count towards the contractual limitations. We were forced to appeal the dispute to arbitration where the arbitrator ruled in favor of the unions and referred the remedy for further negotiations.
Resolution of a remedy was achieved and thousands of employees were provided payment for the assignment of work to improperly hired casual employees. Perhaps even more important was the system that was agreed to for future hiring of casuals. Prior to the union challenge, each office was free to employ casuals without respect to the number hired in other offices so there was no internal control over compliance with the 5% limitation. As a gesture to resolve the dispute postal management offered in arbitration to implement headquarters’ control to monitor the hiring of casuals. This voluntary means of control was incorporated into the arbitration award and the union achieved a means of monitoring the use of casuals to ensure that the contractual limits were not exceeded.
For every casual who was not hired, the work still had to be performed so it was necessary to hire an employee for each with career status with the opportunity for a long and successful work experience. In future negotiations, the union would revisit the use of casuals – further restricting their use, but in 1981 we succeeded in placing controls on the hiring of casuals within the contractual limitations.
Jeff
I am aware that casuals have been converted to PSEs but I want to give a perspective of the history of the temporary workforce. The union increased the numbers dramatically in exchange for putting them in the bargaining unit. This exchange was unecessary as the trend was in that direction. The Mailhandlers and Letter Carriers had achieved that objective without increasing their number and if I had pushed hard enough in 2006 we may have put them in our bargaining unit. While it was an objective it was never a priority and under no conditions would I have made a trade.
Jeff
It is refreshing to communicate with a member who understands the value of a union. No matter my criticism of the contract there will be many more and their enforcement and the union is the only vehicle. It will have its ups and downs but it’s the only game in town. The contract is a reflection of the membership that was ratified at a 70% plus percentage rate because they wanted to believe that they were protected. They cared about the future but they cared even more about the possible exposure to being personally affected. Any progress from the deep hole created by this agreement will come only from collective effortand the union will lead it. Members like you will lead the way.
Hello Mr. Burrus how are you? You know that I have written to you and have posted comments on your previous articles. My stance as a union paying Flat Sorter Clerk on the issue of PSEs (since, in our office, casuals are only mailhandlers; clerks are PSEs) is that in our office they are being hired daily. The union’s stance doesn’t seem to be consistent with any sort of percentage, and in fact one of our stewards actually got his fiancee a job as a PSE; and now she is being groomed to be a union steward herself. “Me thinks I smell a rat.”
Upon hearing this news several union members stated that they were going to quit the union; and I have to admit I don’t want my dues paying for this woman who, as a PSE doesn’t seem to recall any of her training skills when put to task. Yet how did she pass her 90 day evaluation?: A 204B mailhandler who has never worked in our section gave her the okay. To make things worse, her steward fiancee hasn’t worked his bid job in the 15 years I’ve been working at Crooked Hill Road; and he changed his bid job layoff days and begin and end tour times. He, of course, has weekends off and works a comfortable 10:30am to 7pm. Has anyone taken the place of his job? No, because on record he occupies the bid job and so no one can fill in that missing person’s spot.
You know Mr. Burrus that my position is pro union but I want to restructure the union, as of old, when it was for the worker. I believe you mentioned in a recent posting entitled “Us or Them” (I hope that’s correct) that union officials and stewards seem to place themselves in a different catagory then the average worker. Well I say that the Union is all of US and we need to clean up what “They” have become and say that it’s WE!!!!!!! Thank you Mr. Burrus. Please do take care.
Hello Mr. Burrus how are you? I have written to you and have posted comments as well about the obvious missue of PSEs in our office. I even pointed out to you one of union stewards managing to get his fiancee a job and now is grooming her to be a union steward herself!!!!!!! A lot of workers are seriously thinking about leaving the union (a very bad move); when instead we should be getting the steward out of the office and back on the floor doing his bid job. I’ve worked at Crooked Hill Road for 15 years and have never seen this steward do his bid job once. Plus he even changed his original bid job’s layoff days and working hours to have weekends off and work a comfortable 10am to 7:30pm. Why isn’t someone replacing his job? Well obviously it is still on the books that he has that bid job even though he doesn’t work it.
As you know by now Mr. Burrus I am not anti union but pro reform. Things like this and slowly bargaining away the worker’s rights doesn’t seem to be a union working for me for which I pay dues. I refer you to your own article, I believe it was “Us and Them”; it should be: WE. Thank you sir.
You should see the number of casuals in the Information Technology group.
I estimate it at about 40% casuals. Still waiting for the National grievances that were files 3 years ago to be scheduled.
I pity the fool who shirks their responsibility to process grievances.
I pity the fool who does not understand the importance of filing grievances and keeping the USPS accountable. I believe you are the fool there Mr. T
While that’s great, it has had no practical impact on smaller offices. In this state use of RCAs on the window and as distribution clerks runs rampant. We have a PSE in a level 18 which employs PTFs, plus use RCAs on the window even to process passports. Union knows but nothing is done. One office I was thinking of transferring to said they had an RCA as the only clerk for the past 2 years. One of our RCAs even works as a “hub clerk” going to other offices. With the early out, this will become even worse, as offices feel they have “no choice” but to disregard the contract, even though remaining PTFs are not maximized.