The Washington Post

Unions object to House postal reform bill


The relationship the U.S. Postal Service has with its customers and employees would change considerably under legislation a House committee approved Wednesday night.

And the workers, who also are customers, don’t like it.

Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about federal government and workplace issues that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns. View Archive

The legislation, which was voted for along party lines by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, represents the House Republicans’ efforts to stabilize sinking Postal Service finances.

It lost $15.9 billion last year and at one point in October had less than four days worth of cash available for its operations.

Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), sponsor of the bill, said, “The common-sense reforms in this legislation will restore the United States Postal Service to long-term financial solvency while maintaining high-quality universal service for all Americans.”

Not so, say union leaders. Postal Service officials aren’t sure yet.

“[P]ostal reform legislation should be evaluated on whether it enables $20 billion in savings by 2017,” a Postal Service statement said. “We will evaluate the Postal Reform Act of 2013 to determine whether it meets that goal.”

It certainly doesn’t meet goals of Postal Service employees, at least as voiced by their elected union officials. They object to several provisions, saying they are bad for postal customers, bad for the Postal Service and bad for its employees.

The bill, said National Association of Letter Carriers President Fredric V. Rolando, is “another failure by . . . Congress to address the problem that they created.” He was referring to a congressional mandate that the Postal Service pre-fund retiree health benefits, which has been a major drag on Postal Service solvency and an obligation not required of any other federal agency.

Issa’s bill does address pre-funding but does not eliminate it, as union officials would like. The legislation would allow the Postal Service, which does not use tax money for operational purposes, to forget about the two prepayments it missed because it was broke and would eliminate prepayments due for fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The Postal Service says it is going to miss the September payment anyway. Payments would resume in 2015, based on actuarial calculations.

Among its many provisions, the legislation would reduce mail delivery and insert Congress into the Postal Service’s collective-bargaining process. The legislation would:

●Prohibit no-layoff clauses in future Postal Service collective bargaining agreements. “Postal employees would be subject to the same Reduction-in-Force authority as the rest of the federal workforce,” a summary of the legislation said. “Any employees who lose their job due to current restructuring will have preferential hiring status among Postal Service contractors.”

●Require Postal Service employees to pay the same premium for health and life insurance benefits that other federal workers pay. Postal Service workers currently pay less.

●Allow the Postal Service to phase out Saturday delivery of letters, bills and magazines, while continuing six-day delivery of packages and medicine.

●Phase out “to-the-door” mail delivery and make greater use of curbside and cluster-box delivery, the delivery methods used by more than 70 percent of the nation, according to Issa’s office.

●Enable the Postal Service to sell advertising on its trucks and buildings and rent space for state and local services, “such as the sale of fishing licenses,” according to Issa’s office.

With layoffs throughout private industry common and furloughs of other federal employees underway, the no-layoff provisions in postal union contracts are an easy target. And given the perilous state of Postal Service finances, why should employees have a guarantee against layoffs that many workers don’t?

It’s a valid question, but it’s about a straw man.

Many Postal Service employees, including some in unions, are not covered by a no-layoff clause. People in Rolando’s union, for example, are not covered by the provision until they have six years of experience. Yet, the Postal Service has not needed to lay them off. Nor does it seem anxious to use that ax.

Why should it? Postal Service officials, with labor unions’ cooperation, have cut staff without resorting to layoffs.

“Recent contractual agreements with major postal unions,” Postmaster General Patrick R. Donahoe told the committee earlier this month, allow for increased use of “lower-cost, non-career employees. The number of career employees decreased by approximately 25,000 in the second quarter and by 46,000 in the last year. These reductions have been accomplished primarily through attrition and separation incentives. The Postal Service now has the lowest number of career employees since 1966.”

Information like that leaves Greg Bell, executive vice president of the American Postal Workers Union, with one conclusion about the plan to nix the no-layoff clause: “This is anti-union and anti-worker.”

Union leaders reject congressional interference in the collective bargaining process, which led to the lower premium payments for postal workers. The comparison between Postal Service employees and other federal workers on this point is not valid, Rolando said, because Postal Service staffers are paid by postage fees and not paid by tax dollars.

Not surprisingly, Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.), a co-sponsor of the bill, has a different view. The bill’s planned cuts are necessary, he said, “in order to protect the interests of those who rely on USPS [and] protect postal employees’ earned benefits.”

No offense, but labor leaders don’t trust him, Issa or other Republicans to protect their benefits or represent their interests.●

Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
We'll have half a million voters in South Carolina. I can shake a lot of hands, but I can't shake that many.
Sen. Marco Rubio, speaking to a group of reporters about his strategy to regain support after a poor performance in the last debate
Fact Checker
Sanders’s claim that Clinton objected to meeting with ‘our enemies’
Sanders said that Clinton was critical of Obama in 2008 for suggesting meeting with Iran. In fact, Clinton and Obama differed over whether to set preconditions, not about meeting with enemies. Once in office, Obama followed the course suggested by Clinton, abandoning an earlier position as unrealistic.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.