Fwd: {{ruralcarriers@rootsweb.com}} NJ Postal and Rural News, Issue 27-SE, V.1, Special Edition Dec 6, 2007 (List 1)

[mb]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <hier...@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Subject: {{ruralc...@rootsweb.com}} NJ Postal and Rural News, Issue 27-SE, V.1, Special Edition Dec 6, 2007 (List 1)
To: Hier...@comcast.net
Cc: Ruralc...@rootsweb.com



NEW JERSEY POSTAL AND RURAL NEWS
Issue 27-Special Edition, Vol. 1       December 6, 2007      Hier...@comcast.net

Issues of the New Jersey Postal and NRLCA News are now posted and available on the following website: http://groups.google.com/group/rlc_onliners_pub?hl=en

DISCLAIMER: I have no affiliation with USPS or the NRLCA and as such any information that I pass on is unofficial and constitutes advice and/or suggestions for your consideration. You may be advised to double-check with official sources before depending on its use and while you are doing that ask why is it that someone without official contacts has this information and is passing it on and its not coming from official sources.
Note: These email messages are being sent to the entire NJ state board and almost all of the senior stewards in New Jersey. There should be no concerns about this being done secretly.
**If you know any rural craft employee who would like to receive this dissemination, please send email address, and office of employment to Hier...@comcast.net.
**If you do not wish to receive these disseminations, please notify Hier...@comcast.net  and request removal from dissemination list.
**Please address all comments, submissions, stories to Hier...@comcast.net and be sure to mark it as confidential or note if it is OK to share.
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

 INTEREST ARBITRATION ISSUE Analysis:

INTEREST ARBITRATION AWARD ISSUED
The link below is to the Award issued by the interest arbitration panel chaired by Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold as well as to the separate statement from NRLCA Arbitrator Dennis D. Clark.  The Award sets the terms of the 2006-2010 USPS-NRLCA National Agreement.
Click here to view the Award and the separate statement from Arbitrator Clark
PK Postman, Nevada writes:
Don't overlook what Arbitrator Fishgold says was APPARENT.  I quote:  "It was also VERY APPARENT TO ME (caps by me for emphasis)  that the parties' proposals to this Panel on the core economic issues at impasse were SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT (caps by me for emphasis) than those items agreed to by the Postal Service and NRLCA in their tentative agreement or by the Postal Service and the other 3 unions."

Understand that and you understand what's APPARENT !  The Arbitrator basically said that the Postal Service and NRLCA negotiated nickel and dime issues, and then, in binding arbitration, both demanded award of multi-dollar issues !  Arbitrator Fishgold pretty much said that's BS !  He came damn close to saying the parties must have negotiated in bad faith, and weren't gonna get away with it during binding arbitration, as long as he had a say !  He said the Postal Service and NRLCA "negotitated" a tentative agreement that was "satisfactory" then, but now in binding arbitration, both sides want the moon !  Fishgold in essence said  ...  I think not !!

Let's get back to basics  --  contract negotiation.  The NRLCA accepted what the membership saw as a BS agreement from the Postal Service.  NRLCA accepting and presenting that tentative agreement to the membership, was as I said then, the easy way out being taken by the National Board, if they could get it ratified by the membership.  It wasn't ratified and NRLCA had no choice but to go back to work, and eventual binding arbitration.  So, OK maybe NRLCA was "prepared" for binding arbitration with the USPS as they said.  But once again, as in Wells, all that "preparedness" and those volumes of information and data proved virtually useless !  Seems NRLCA "was ready" to fight battles that were never enjoined and once again, members will be the judge of NRLCA "representation" and what, if anything they "won" from that representation and subsequent Fishgold award.

Without a lot of numbers crunching, Rural Carriers get 1.5% each year
for 2007/8/9 (NALC gets 1.9% for same period).  And it's a whole 3
tenths of a percent better each year than the Natl Board accepted
agreement !  NALC got 1.4% for 2006, Rural Carriers 1.2%  The $686 lump sum payment (not tied to pay scale) is  1.9% for 40hour/Step A and goes down from there, for routes over 40 hours a week.  If that's to make up for lost COLAs, consider:  Soc Sec folks will get 2.3% COLA in Jan 08.  And that lump sum (COLA) loses interest compounding for future annual pay raises and COLAs, which directly im pacts (lowers) retirement pay !

The total 4% decrease Postal Service pays for Health Care Ins Premiums over 4 years, is about what was initially "accepted".  But, with those premiums expected to rise 7 to 10% each year, annual raises and COLAs may not cover the increase in premium payments at end of 4 years !!  EMA base is better than the tentative agreement (like 46 cents <2009> vs. 41cents), but still woefully inadequate !!  The bone thrown to the RCAs is still there.  Didn't see any agreement re. CDS li ke NALC has, nor any mention of all craft employees becoming career employees.

The bottom line here, is that a union should make demands during initial contract talks and negotiation, for what it thinks it's members deserve, and not raise the stakes when it comes to interest (binding)
arbitration.  The notion that what's been asked for by the other unions
applying to NRLCA representing Rural Carriers is, and has been
illogical.  Yet NRLCA seems to have followed in the same footsteps of
the other unions demands !

It also seems that it was  APPARENT to Fishgold, that both parties
reneged while playing their game of poker  --  you can't check and then raise the bet !  (negotiation vs. arbitration).  Nor, can you go back
after the game is over, and say I won a particular hand, and say that
you meant to bet more, and should now be paid !  That's essentially what the union tries to do, when they say that Rural Carriers deserve salary parity with City Carriers.  That difference in pay, is a direct result of previous contracts negotiated by both unions for their members.  Rural Carriers fall further behind City Carriers pay wise in this contract as well.  And, asking an Arbitrator to go back and fix the
NRLCA's previous "bad" negotiations and arbitrations won't ever get
Rural Carriers an award of pay parity with City Carriers !  NRLCA must
be upfront, demand, and justify the demand for increased salary in
contract negotiations (and arbitration if it gets to that).

I think what was APPARENT to most, was that the Arbitrator wouldn't
"award" much more than was initially agreed to, so don't think too many are surprised.  I'm also sure a lot of Rural Carriers expected much more.......

I'm not at all inclined to blame the Arbitrator for this award  --  I'd
have to fault both USPS and NRLCA !


An Arbitrator has one main duty  --  resolve disputes. Understand what Arbitrator Fishgold told the parties (USPS and NRLCA).  He wasn't there to have them renegotiate a contract !  He was there to settle their initial disputes !  That's what Arbitrator's do  --  settle disputes.  To do so, they look at addi tional info, arguments, and
clarifications presented by the opposing parties, as relate to items in
dispute.

Those items in dispute, were those items added during contract talks and negotiation, and part of the "tentative" agreement. What Arbitrator Fishgold was not required to do, was to listen to newer contract proposals presented during binding arbitration as requested by both the USPS and NRLCA.  For example, both wanted to demand changes in time standards, NOT addressed or in dispute from the tentative agreement.  Also, the USPS was told they couldn't introduce a Locality Pay Option into the arbitration process, since there was no official record of dispute, and it   had not been part of the tentative
agreement.  Likewise the plea that Rural Carrier's pay be closer to City Carriers as advanced by NRLCA was similiarly dismissed.

Matters not if USPS and NRLCA agreed or disagreed with those new (in arbitration) demands.  The Arbitrator's job was not to go back to square one so USPS and NRLCA could negotiate a "new"contract, with a lot of probable "new" disputes.  The parties failed to do their job in contract negotiations, and tried to make that worse in arbitration.  The Arbitrator set the framework (the tentative agreement) for USPS and NRLCA to address and hopefully settle their initial disputes, without adding new ones to be settled by the Arbitr ator.

May seem to some like the Arbitrator took the easy way out.  The real
problem, was the result of the parties (USPS and NRLCA) not
presenting, adequately addressing, totally resolving, or recording
disputes to demands their side made during the initial phases of the
collective bargaining process.  All that was overcome by events.  A
tentative agreement WAS MADE that WAS ACCEPTABLE to both parties  --  the USPS and NRLCA.  The fact that it was (rightly, in my opinion) NOT RATIFIED by the membership is relatively meaningless.  The membership are the one who elected the National Board to represent them in the collective bargaining process, and aren't direct participants in that process.

Also remember, the Arbitrator owes it to BOTH parties to be fair.  Seems his bench mark was cost per employee to the employer (USPS).  That cost was known and agreed to by the other unions and USPS.  Some fared better than others, but that's the result of effective vs. less than effective collective bargaining.  The Arbitrator's point was, that NRLCA was not going to gain a significant and disproportionate advantage over the employee, when the other unions had settled for amounts the other unions (and their members) considered fair.

Arbitrator Fishgold also said, had all the parties' demands (like for
time standards, locality pay, and Rural Carrier salary parity with City
Carriers) been in dispute from contract negotiations, he would not have taken the approach he did.  But the National Board accepted a tentative contract and then wanted to rewrite it during arbitration.

Again, I don't fault the Arbitrator  --  I fault the USPS and NRLCA.

Tentative Contract proposals that failed ratification
[Postal Texan-QT Topics]
 4 YEAR CONTRACT 11/21/2006 -11/20/2010
1.2% RAISE EFFECTIVE 11/25/2006
1.5% EFFECTIVE 11/24/2007
1.5% EFFECTIVE 11/22/2008
1.5% EFFECTIVE 11/21/2009
BACK PAY FOR 2006 & 2007

COLA INCREASE TWICE A YEAR
$686.00 BACK PAY FOR 2006 & 2007 COLA FOR REGULAR CARRIERS
RCA COLA ROLLED IN FEB. 2011
[COLA Base year changed to May 2007 which will increase RCA salary by raising base salary]

2008 2 WEEK COUNT FEB 23RD-MAR. 7TH (OPT IN) ALL VACANT AND AUX COUNTED
2009 4 WEEK COUNT FEB. 14TH – MAR. 14TH. (OPT IN) ALL VAC. AND AUX COUNTED
2010 2 WEEK COUNT FEB. 27TH – MAR. 12TH (OPT IN) ALL VAC AND AUX COUNTED

EMA- NO BACK PAY
[BASE] EMA WILL BE INCREASED BY 7.5 CENTS OVER THE LIFE OF THE CONTRACT [From $ .31 to $ .385]
JAN. 08 3 CENTS
OCT. 08 2 CENTS
OCT. 09 2.5 CENTS

HEALTH BENEFIT PREMIUMS
DECREASE USPS CONTRIBUTION/ INCREASES EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION
2009- USPS CONTRIBUTION DECREASED BY 2%
2010 USPS CONTRIB UTIION DECREASED ANOTHER 1%
2011 USPS CONTRIBUTION DECREASED ANOTHER 1%

NEW LEAVE REPLACEMENTS WILL BE THE HIGHER OR EVALUATION OR HOURLY FOR FIRST 5 PAY PERIODS
LEAVE REPLACEMENT WILL GET THE HIGHER OF EVALUATION OR HOURLY IF THEY HAVE NOT WORKED THE ROUTE IN 12 MONTHS

REGULAR CARRIERS WILL RECEIVE STRAIGHT TIME FOR 8127 TRAINING PRESENTATIONS

TRC COMPLIMENT REDUCED FROM 20% TO 15%

COA CREDIT CHANGED TO 15 SEC. UNLESS YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FILL OUT FORMS OR WRITE ADDRESSES ON CARDS

NO LAYOFFS IN CAREER WORKFORCE

OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN THE RDWL 2 TIMES IN THE GUARANTEE PERIOD

REVENUE GENERATION MOU???

EMPLOYER PROVIDED VEHICLES
15,000 MORE-3000 PER YEAR ON RURAL ROUTES FROM 2009-2013

NEW BIDDING PROCEDURE WITH CLARIFICATION OF AWARDING OF ROUTES AND EXCESS EMPLOYEES

CHANGED FROM 10 TO 15 DAYS TO APPEAL GRIEVANCE TO STEP 3
AREA STEWARD ADDED TO LANGUAGE TO HANDLE GRIEVANCE IN LIEU OF
LOCAL STEWARD
MOU'S 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,14,15 FROM 2000 AGREEMENT REMAIN IN EFFECT

RHD INCENTIVE $1000 FOR MANUFACTURED RHD
RHD INCENTIVE $ 500 FOR RHD CONVERSION
RHD INCENTIVE FOR USED RHD $500 IF INCENTIVE HAS NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAID ON VEHICLE

PTF COURT LEAVE

MOU ON FSS MAIL

LEAVE REPLACEMENT RETENTION AND TRAINING TASK FORCE

MAIL COUNT TASK FORCE TO CONSIDER METHODS TO CHOOSE A REPRESENTATIVE PERIOD FOR MAIL COUNTS
RURALC...@ROOTSWEB.COM MAIL LIST.
FOR DISCUSSION OF POSTAL AND RURAL CARRIER RELATED SUBJECTS.
STEWARD CONTACTS
http://www.nrlca.org/stewards.html
NRLCA CONTACT INFO.
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association
Fourth Floor
1630 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3465
Phone: 703-684-5545
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to RURALCARRI...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message