Burrus Journal

The APWU negotiators transfer four billion dollars from the employees to the major mailers and proclaim that “we won.”  It is strange logic to tell the members with a straight face that this transfer of revenue is a victory for the workers.  Applying this logic, the more the workers’ give the greater the victory.  And if four billion dollars is Watershed, can you imagine what word would be used if it is increased to six billion in the next negotiations?    This estimate of four billion dollars in savings did not come from my calculations in an effort to discredit the contract but directly from the postmaster general who testified under oath before Congress, and when given the opportunity the union proudly confirmed the transfer from employees to the USPS balance sheet.  Adding insult to injury, it was still not enough to forestall 5-day delivery, the consolidation of 200 Plants and the emasculation of the motor vehicle craft.  Is the intelligence of the members held in such low regard that one can turn such a colossal failure into a huge win? 

To be an effective union leader, one begins with respect for the intelligence of the members.  The workers must be convinced that their personal experiences of minimum increase in take home pay, the 330% increase of non-career employees, massive consolidations and transfers to other crafts, supervisors performing increased levels of bargaining unit work and the 25% reduction in pay for the next generation are victories that one can be proud of.  If this is the mindset of the leaders, it reveals an arrogant sense of persuasion that “they will fall for anything.” 

Never before in the history of collective bargaining has so much been surrendered while claiming astounding success.  It is a mindset that it the final product is not important but how it is presented.  If all of the national officers sing off the same page the national agreement is not what it is but what we say it is. You are being played a fool by manipulators who failed miserably at negotiations who now seek to get an “A” in persuasion.

A Postal and Unique American Experience
“MY JOURNEY” by William Burrus

Hard Cover $19.95

The incumbent APWU national officers can tell you that they made a mistake when negotiating the national agreement. If given the opportunity they will do better the next time but they cannot tell you that transferring four billion dollars from employees to the mailers was a good agreement. It challenges your intelligence as though you do not know that massive consolidations and a 330% increase in non-career employees who can be trained to take full time jobs is not a good thing.

Human beings make mistakes and this was a big one, but change is possible if they have learned their lesson and apply them to the next negotiations they could atone for the damage done. But it is an act of supreme arrogance to tell you that what they did was in the interest of employees. The excuse given was that they intended to save the Post Office but the events of the past three years clearly show that they did not achieve that objective because that is the role of Congress. Congressman Issa and his Republican supporters refuse to perform their responsibilities and it is not the union’s duty to substitute wage cuts and consolidations to satisfy the deficit.

To be honest, it was a mistake and the members are entitled to an apology instead of the arrogance that you do not know any better.

This heading appears in the May, June issue of the union’s magazine under the byline of the President and reflects the gross misunderstanding of contractual terms. In a distortion of reality, it makes the claim that non career employees fare better under the 2011 national agreement than under previous contracts. To arrive at this conclusion, one has to completely ignore reality and create a new universe. The article paints a picture that totally ignores the past and the rules applicable to non-career employees. For a more accurate comparison, let’s take an installation of 500 APWU represented employees and compare casuals to PSEs: Prior to the conversion from casual to PSE the contract authorized 6% of the employees to be hired as casuals. The resulting number authorized was 30 (6% x 500) casuals and the remaining 470 employees would be full time regulars with full contractual rights.

The new agreement authorizes the hiring of 100 PSEs (20% x 500) and 400 or 70 fewer career employees (100 – 30) who have full rights with a guarantee of 40 hours per week, holidays, seniority and bidding rights. So any comparison of casuals to PSEs can only be made between 30 of the non-career employees when in fact 100 PSEs have been authorized. The remaining 70 would have been full time, but have now been converted to PSE status. This result flies in the face of the stated objective of creating full time jobs when there is fewer and more non-career. Ask these 70 employees if they prefer PSE status over full time with credit towards step increases and retirement. If you multiply these 70 employees in one installation times the 400 plus installations that qualify for all full time status, you have a net reduction of full time opportunities exceeding 25,000 employees who would have been full time but are now subjected to the limited rights and benefits of PSE status.

There is no way that one can manipulate the numbers to arrive at a conclusion that non-career employees fare better under the new agreement. Just ask a PSE who would qualify for full time under the prior agreement if he/she considers themselves to be in a better position. The union gave some of them rights that were taken away from the vast majority and claimed victory. The simple fact is that in exchange for putting non-career(s) into the bargaining unit, the union agreed to change thousands of full time jobs to temporary status, and it is those individual employees who will suffer. The more I hear the more I am convinced that they just don’t know any better. They truly think that this change was Watershed, but ask one of the 25,000 plus PSEs who would have been full time if they would prefer the announced benefits of PSE status or full time career.

A Postal and Unique American Experience
“MY JOURNEY” by William Burrus

Hard Cover $19.95

How can the national officers oppose rate discounts and subsidy for Standard mail while reducing employee wages to equal the reduced revenue? If one truly believes that the discounts are excessive and Standard is underpriced you would expect that they would fight to protect wages and increase revenue. Instead they agreed to lower wages in the amount of four billion dollars making it unnecessary to raise rates. With the lowest postal rates in the world, there is no justification for cutting wages to meet the unjustified reduced revenue.  If the decision was left to the major mailers they would pay postal employees’ minimum wages so they can continue profiting from the mailing of junk mail. There is absolutely no justification to reduce wages to meet an artificial cap on Standard mail and discounts. The proper response to reduced revenue is increased rates – not consolidations and discounts. Whose side are the officers on?

Having spent 53 years as an employee or union representative in the United States Post Office, I was exposed to some of the most intelligent and caring individuals in the world. In my book, My Journey, I chronicle my interaction with fellow workers who taught me the skills to be a man for which I will always be grateful. This firsthand knowledge of the breadth and depth of the intelligence of postal employees belies their involvement in the union’s political process where members routinely vote at a dismal rate of 30% or less. This relates to a staggering number of the remaining 70% of the members whose lives will be directly affected by decisions made deliberately choosing to have no opinion and opt to refrain from selecting one candidate over another.

It is one thing to refuse union membership because of real or imagined issues with the union or its leaders while enjoying all of the benefits of union efforts, but even among those who make their monthly deduction to the union, the rate of participation is pathetic. After committing $40 to $60 per month in union dues, these intelligent and articulate human beings elect to be non-participants in the elective process. Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck would suit them just fine.

Contract negotiations and enforcement are the responsibility of the elected officials and their product directly affects every bargaining unit employee so one would expect that the candidates for office who submit their skills, abilities and vision would be examined intensely to determine if they are up to the task. Yet the record shows that the vast majority of members choose to be non-participants.

Endorsements are meaningless in determining participation. Local leadership that pledges support for one candidate over another can barely produce 30% of the membership to vote for a specific candidate.

APWU is a national union representing employees in 30,000 facilities so it is not possible to have personal relationships between candidates and each member but postal employees have daily experiences that can be applied to the effectiveness of incumbent union officials or the vision of change for those seeking new office. One would assume that each employee would determine if the conditions of employment improved or regressed and has the officer explained a vision for the future? As no two candidates are the same, each brings to the task a unique commitment and understanding of the role of representation to be judged by the electorate.

What does it take to get postal employees involved? If the most recent contract does not invigorate interest, APWU represented employees should consider a new form of union elections removing the members from the process. After 40 years of stability and with each contractual cycle building on the past, the 2010 contract created a whole new foundation of low wages, reduced the number of career positions, abandoned work in small offices and created a new definition of full time. Postal management publically boasted that the contract transferred four billion dollars from employees to management. To embrace this philosophy of change means that the next round of bargaining would include equal contractual modifications. The members either endorse the basic concept of those changes or reject them, but failure to vote means that it does not make a difference.

In the most recent election for the mayor of Los Angeles, a dismal 19% of the eligible voters participated in the election. The second largest city in the nation and only 19% of those eligible elected to have a voice in the selection process for the most powerful position in the community. When subtracting citizens of voting age who are not registered to vote or are unqualified, of the total voting age population, fewer than 10% of the total citizens participated in the selection of their leader. This rate of participation makes a mockery of the democratic process. I would welcome suggestions that would include greater participation by those governed, but until we adopt a better system we have a lot of room to improve. It is not too much to expect that we can reverse the statistics and 70% of the eligible voters will vote, instead of 70% not voting. Will you be among them?

There is something wrong with this picture. The members elect national officers to address national issues but on every issue affecting the national membership, the sum total of the national office is to solicit the members to write their representatives. They print and package the message that it is uniform, but leaders are known by their action. I am unaware of any specific action by the national beyond soliciting the membership. This way when Congress does not respond favorably, the national officers cannot be held responsible because obviously the members did not follow instructions. Consolidations, 5-day delivery, contract compliance, health care payment, et al should be priorities of the national officers’ daily activities, and the members should be kept informed of what they are doing, success or failure.

This constant appeal that members contact their representatives treats all Congressional Representatives as though they are the same. Just send them a letter and that will do it no matter that some do not need your letter having already pledged their support while others will vote against your interest even if they receive letters from all 500 postal employees in their District who will vote in the election. This shotgun approach treats Representatives who are not on the Postal Committees the same as members on the Committee and it ignores the fact that the chairman holds all of the cards. If he doesn’t bring postal issues to a vote, it doesn’t matter how the other members on the committee would vote. You should at least be told which representatives you are trying to convince with this barrage of contacts.

When and if it’s time to vote, the issues that will be converted into political commercials will be immigration, gun control, the deficit and jobs. I dare anyone to find a political race that turns on internal postal issues. This constant appeal that the members contact their Representatives keeps the members busy but there has to be more from leaders. What are they doing?

It reminds me of a person pushed from a twelve story building and advised to flap their arms. It won’t cushion the impact but it gives you something to do on the way down. This gives the members something to do.

The APWU election is approaching and it is expected that many union members will view it as business as usual.   Since the formation of the APWU in 1971, it has included in its constitution a guarantee that every member has a vote. Nevertheless, no officer elected to office has ever received the vote of 30% of the total membership.  That’s right, 30% of the total membership even though they received more than 50% of those voting and were elected to office.  This is a disgrace and reflects the height of apathy by union members who only have to mark a paper ballot and take it to work, postage paid.  There are no excuses and no matter your support or opposition for a candidate, you owe it to yourself to vote.  It does make a difference and it is important to you and your family.

To end this cycle of apathy, I ask that each APWU member make the following pledge:

I am a member of a union of employees that achieved the right to bargain for wages and benefits after 200,000 postal employees waged an illegal strike in 1970 demanding the right to have a voice.  This right to bargain collectively elevated postal employment to a decent standard of living. I and my family have personally benefitted, achieving a working life far beyond those striking employees in 1970.

Today there are negative forces in play, including a postmaster general who wants to reduce service through consolidations and service cuts, a Congress that wants to privatize universal service, oppressive supervisors and union leaders who have met the challenge or who have failed miserably in addressing the changes that confront us.   As an employee, I desperately need a voice in opposing these efforts that will destroy postal services and harm me and my family.

The only voice that I have is through the union that succeeded in making postal employment my choice of a career and I want to do more than complain.  I am a dues paying member because I believe that I must join with my fellow worker to be effective in fighting back the regressive forces and protect what has been achieved.

I recognize that as a single employee my voice will not be heard but as a union member I recognize that the elected leaders will speak for me and all future employees and I promise that I will  vote in the union elections.  This is a promise and I will not make an excuse for not voting in the 2013 union election.  I will vote because I owe it to myself and my family.