the mail handler fall 2010

The Mail HandlerThe Mail HandlerT h e Q u a r t e r l y P u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e N a t i o n a l P o s t a l M a i l H a n d l e r s U n i o n

F a l l 2 0 1 0

NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION,

NOW MORE THAN EVER!

61346_Magazine.indd 1 10/26/10 9:09:47 AM

Fall 2010

3 President’s Report Read National President Hegarty’s report on the “time of the season” and the immediate challenges that face the NPMHU, the USPS, and all postal employees.

4 Secretary-Treasurers Report Read National Secretary-Treasurer Gardner’s forceful reminder of why Mail Handlers need the protection of their collective bargaining agreement now more than ever to safeguard their pay, benefits and working conditions.

5 Financial Statements Here are the NPMHU’s financial statements as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.

6 Capitol Hill News USPS economics casts shadows on the continuing ability of the Postal Service to meet its obligations to the American public and the workers who provide those services. Read about the recent developments on these issues.

10 NPMHU’s Contract Administration Department (CAD) Read how the NPMHU continually represents Mail Handlers as it implements and enforces the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the USPS.

14 NPMHU Arthur S. Vallone Scholarship Program See the 2010 scholarship winners across the NPMHU regions.

20 Semi-Annual Meeting of the Local Unions Read about the recent national gathering of NPMHU officers and representatives.

24 Committee of the Future of the NPMHU Read the report of the committee on the major developments impacting our Union

27 Health Care Reform Read how you and your children under age 26 may benefit by your FEHB insurance in the new plan year starting in 2011.

28 NPMHU Leadership Training Read about the two-day intense training provided to Local Union leaders to equip them to represent their members even more effectively.

31 Mail Handlers Across the Country See pictures of various NPMHU meetings and functions across the nation.

On the Cover: The message is clear and simple – Mail Handlers need and depend on their Union.

Contents

61346_Magazine.indd 2 10/26/10 9:09:52 AM

The Mail Handler | 3

National Postal Mail Handlers UnionNational Executive Board

John F. Hegarty National President

Mark A. Gardner Secretary-Treasurer

Jefferson C. Peppers III Vice President Central Region

Samuel C. D’Ambrosio Vice President Eastern Region

Paul Hogrogian Vice President Northeastern Region

Bruce Z. Miller Vice President Southern Region

Rudy Santos Vice President Western Region

The Mail Handler, ISSN:1098-5689, is published quarterly by the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C. and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Mail Handler, 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 Copyright 2010: National Postal Mail Handlers Union. All rights reserved. Reproduction without permis-sion is pro hibited. The Mail Handler is published for the members of our union. For additional copies please send $2.00 to: National Postal Mail Handlers Union—National Headquarters, 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036, (202) 833-9095

National Postal Mail Handlers Union

Dear Members,

time of the season

The title of my Article comes from an old song by the Zombies, (which I thought was appropriate given the times that we are living in). Seriously, it is the “time of the season” for a number of difficult issues facing the NPMHU, the United States Postal Service, and all postal employees.

It’s the “time of the season” for politics. By the time you read this, the mid-term elections will be over. I hope you exercised your right to vote, to have a say in how this country is run for the next two years, and, just as important for us as postal employees, to have a say in how future legislative action may affect the Postal Service.

It’s the “time of the season” for the USPS to make its mandated pre-payment for retiree health care to the tune of 5.4 billion dollars. This year, there was no relief granted in the continuing resolution passed by Congress at the end of September. What this means is that the USPS goes deeper in debt, borrowing money from the government, to pre-fund a long-term obligation that no other government agency is required to do.

It’s the “time of the season” for collective bargaining as both the APWU and Rural Carriers are right in the middle of tough nego-tiations with the USPS (which, as is often the case, is bleeding red ink). The NPMHU comes up for bargaining next November (2011) and we are already preparing for the difficult task that lies ahead.

And, unfortunately it’s the “time of the season”, (or maybe it’s “open season”), for all manner of external forces to continue their attack on postal employees. You’ve heard it all before, “postal employees are overpaid, underworked, and have

much more generous benefits than in the private sector.” These attacks come from politicians who are looking for a favorable sound bite, from the mailers who are trying everything they can to keep rates down, and, many times, from the USPS in contract negotiations.

It’s always the “time of the season” to keep you up-to-date on these, and many more issues, through our publications and on your bulletin boards. We will continue to deal with these issues in whatever forum they need to be dealt with.

Let me take this opportunity to thank our Officers and Stewards from the thirty-seven Local Unions, who are operating under extremely dif-ficult conditions to provide representation to the rank and file. I also want to thank you, the mem-bers; we appreciate your support of the Union during these difficult times.

Lastly, it’s the time of the season to spend some time with your families, and to give thanks for what we do have. I know it can be very stressful at work, but knowing that you have quality repre-sentation from the Union certainly helps. I hope you enjoy the upcoming Holidays, and wish you all the best for the coming year.

John F. HegartyNational President

PReSIDent’S REPORT

J O H N F . H E G A R T Y , N a t i o n a l P r e s i d e n t

61346_Magazine.indd 3 10/26/10 9:10:01 AM

4 | The Mail Handler Fall 2010

Secretary-treaSurer’S RepoRt

Fall 2010

NOW… MORE THAN EVER

M a r k a . G a r d n e r , S e c r e t a r y - T r e a s u r e r

To the NPMHU union members reading this article…Thank You. You are undoubtedly aware of the security that a negotiated contract brings to your life in the form of competitive wages, job protection, health and safety standards, retire-ment benefits, and a host of other worker protec-tions. You also are aware that those benefits were not gifts by your employer, given out of the good-ness of their hearts. Rather, those hard-won ben-efits were the result of many decades of collective bargaining between your union and the USPS.

Without your negotiated contract, and the power of our collective voice, Mail Handlers would receive wages similar to those of a casual employee, with no benefits, and working at the whims and mercy of management. NPMHU

members know that the stability of our career union jobs is a direct result of the efforts of our union over the last one hundred years. To the non-members who may be reading this article, I respectfully ask that you reconsider your deci-sion, and that you become an NPMHU mem-ber. We need you, and you need us, now more than ever.

As I write this, there is a full-court press by the ultra-conservative media to paint the economic mess our country is enduring as the fault of, among other things, “greedy union thugs” who intimidate employers into signing contracts that threaten the very existence of the free-market system, and who bully otherwise unwilling work-ers to pay union dues. We all know that nothing could be further from the truth. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, nor have I ever known a union thug. And just like 90% of all mail handler craft workers across the country, I freely and voluntarily choose to pay my union dues, to enjoy the wages, benefits, and working conditions that my union has secured for me, and to actively support the efforts of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union.

Yet, the voices screaming this anti-union mes-sage and other vitriol are currently the loudest in this election year. I daresay we all have tried patiently to explain the fallacy of this rheto-ric to the uninformed at one time or another. But facts don’t seem to be enough to convince dear, misguided Uncle Joe, who spends his day watching bizarre chalkboard presentations on television, with hateful radio pundits spewing in the background. Their stated solution to our country’s economic problems is to cut taxes for the rich, cut Granny’s social security, bust the unions, and do away with most or all of the federal government. Hey, this is America, and thankfully we all have the right to express our opinions, despite the sometimes-flaming insan-ity of those positions.

I believe that Mail Handlers are savvy about the nuances of politics, especially concerning the Postal Service. Undoubtedly, you are aware of its ongoing financial problems, which have been discussed and reported on numerous occasions

in this and other Mail Handler publications. Because Congress again has failed to responsibly address the unfair USPS Retiree Health Benefits funding mandates, and the Postal Regulatory Commission has now declined to approve the recent request for an emergency increase to postal rates, the Postal Service is going to be searching for ways to remain viable. The truth is that, absent the ridiculous and unfair pre-funding mandate for the RHBF, the USPS would have operated with a surplus during two of the last three years.

The timing of these financial woes could not be worse for first the APWU and the NRLCA, now currently in negotiations and, next, the NALC and your own union when our contracts expire in November of next year. USPS will undoubt-edly be seeking significant worker concessions during these rounds of collective bargaining. While recognizing that the reality of the Postal Service’s situation is grave, we will continue to reject its attempts to solve those problems on the backs of its workers.

I’ll say it again. Now, more than ever, you need your union and your union needs you. And let’s not let the anti-union talking head loonies be the loudest voice in the room. Be proud of your union membership and let your pride show.

Mark A. GardnerNational Secretary-Treasurer

“ to the non-members who may be reading this article, i respectfully ask that you reconsider your decision, and that you become an nPmhU member. We need you, and you need us, now more than ever. ”

61346_Magazine.indd 4 10/26/10 9:10:06 AM

The Mail Handler | 5National Postal Mail Handlers Union

Secretary-treaSurer’S RepoRtNATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNIONA DIVISION OF LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO

DECEMBER 31, 2009 AND 2008STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES

ASSETSCURRENT ASSETS 2009 2008 Cash and cash equivalents $14,230,048 $12,068,780 Accounts receivable - local unions 26,217 34,275 Accounts receivable - other 613,494 575,527 Interest receivable 134,882 111,001 Loans to local unions 128,601 205,867 Prepaid expenses 205,680 218,555

15,338,922 13,214,005 LONG-TERM RECEIVABLES Loans to local unions 716,474 427,076 INVESTMENTS Marketable securities - at fair value 26,048,845 28,253,542 FIXED ASSETS Furniture, fixtures and equipment 1,264,630 1,231,930 Automobiles 94,087 75,713 Leasehold improvements 135,434 87,988 Land 397,345 397,345 Building 718,939 693,102

2,610,435 2,486,078 Accumulated depreciation and amortization

(1,530,790) (1,546,393)

1,079,645 939,685 OTHER ASSETS Inventory of promotional items 74,213 68,718 Deposits 100,166 100,972

174,379 169,690 TOTAL ASSETS $43,358,265 $43,003,998

LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable and accrued expenses $2,329,845 $1,996,758 Dues collected for local unions 1,316,019 1,389,971 Deferred dues revenue 525,788 543,286 Deferred rent abatement 104,500 157,408

4,276,152 4,087,423 LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Security deposit - sublease 9,377 9,377 TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,285,529 4,096,800

UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS 39,072,736 38,907,198 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $43,358,265 $43,003,998


REVENUE 2009 2008Per capita assessments Member per capita $7,288,316 $7,576,478 Associate per capita 1,959,623 2,064,171

9,247,939 9,640,649 MHBP service fee 7,301,751 6,670,930 Investment income 651,730 1,425,713 National billing program 277,253 286,265 Royalties 1,061,396 1,072,908 Convention - 26,550 Rental income 122,311 129,225 Sale of promotional items 30,450 22,997 Miscellaneous 29,916 24,498

18,722,746 19,299,735

EXPENSESPer capita taxes 3,236,945 3,356,202 Salaries 3,690,312 3,302,993 Payroll taxes and employee benefits 1,967,007 1,799,152 Revenue Sharing Program 2,894,694 2,863,469 Income and property taxes 2,165,687 2,371,118 Convention - 2,546,770 Professional fees 1,112,478 846,397 Rent 801,934 842,056 Printing and publications 394,682 539,579 Travel and lodging 580,608 529,834 Office supplies and postage 309,926 311,834 Meetings and conferences 573,209 484,433 Depreciation and amortization 122,596 117,808 Bank charges 114,161 109,568 Telephone 121,467 112,793 Scholarships 82,500 75,000 Leased equipment 94,676 88,079 Miscellaneous 39,913 49,085 Insurance and bonding 57,615 62,192 Computer services 29,229 26,109 Repairs and maintenance 51,517 35,192 Automobile and housing 36,402 35,665 Promotional items 40,632 19,117 Election - 35,903 Charitable contributions 115,525 32,300

18,633,715 20,592,648 EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUE OVER EXPENSES

89,031 (1,292,913)

Pension-related changes other than net periodic pension cost 76,507 407,682

INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET ASSETS 165,538 (885,231)UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 38,907,198 39,792,429

UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR $39,072,736 $38,907,198

61346_Magazine.indd 5 10/26/10 9:10:07 AM


A KEY ISSUE ON CAPITOL HILL:uSPS ecONOMIcS

In the midst of a slow and painful recovery from the deepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the nation’s capital also has been focused on the economics of the U.S. Postal Service. Because of the ongo-ing recession and the continuing diversion of mail to electronic communications, as well as legislatively-imposed but financially-unjustified contributions to various benefit plans, the USPS is facing a major cash-flow crisis which still has not been solved.

Back in March of this year, the Postal Service announced a set of proposals to address its worst-case scenario for the future of the American postal system. Under that scenario, the Postal Service is planning for continued economic losses over the next decade that, in an extreme case, according to USPS predictions, could top $238 billion. To deal with this possibility, the Postal Service proposed a continuation of down-sizing, through closings and consolidations of postal facilities; a workforce with fewer full-time career employees, and more part-time and casual employees to increase management flexibility in scheduling; an emergency rate increase applicable to the mailing public early in 2011; and the proposed elimination of Saturday residential delivery starting in the summer of 2011. The USPS plan also called for less con-gressional interference in postal operations, and major changes in funding for the Postal Service’s Retiree Health Benefit Fund (RHBF) and USPS contributions to the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS).

To this point, however, the Postal Service has failed to make any significant progress toward implementing any of these objectives.

RHBF and CSRSFirst and foremost, the Postal Service needs –

and deserves – relief from its required annual payments into the RHBF. This fund was estab-

lished by the 2006 postal reform act to pay for retiree health insurance for all postal retirees and their families, and current law obligates the Postal Service to make cash payments of more than $5.5 billion per year for each of the next seven years into the RHBF. The RHBF already contains more than $41 billion, however, and any rational business or government entity facing the existing economic circumstances would be using the overfunding of the RHBF as a means of cutting its current expenses. Last year, just moments before midnight on September 30, 2009, Congress adopted and President Obama signed a one-time delay in a $4 billion payment otherwise required from the USPS. This year, however, efforts to obtain a similar or larger delay – supported by the legislative staff of the NPMHU – were unsuccessful.

In part, forcing the Postal Service to pay another $5.5 billion for future retiree health was the result of election-year politics. Congress adopted a “continuing resolution” that will fund the federal government through early December, but Senate Republicans – on a strict party-line vote – decided to block any relief for the Postal Service. The result was that the Postal Service had to make its full annual payment to the RHBF, leaving the Postal Service with only $2 billion in liquid assets. “The Republicans in the Senate acted irresponsibly,” noted NPMHU National President Hegarty, and “we can only hope that more reasonable views will prevail when the Congress returns from its election-year recess.” Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense to have the Postal Service risk its continuing operations when so much cash has already been put away for future benefit costs.

Adding to this unfortunate series of events, the USPS Office of the Inspector General recently issued a well-received report finding that the Postal Service also has overpaid into its retirement fund for the CSRS by upwards of $75 billion. A subsequent report from the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC) reached a simi-

lar conclusion, although the amount of overpay-ment calculated was approximately $52 billion. In either event, there is more than enough money available to the Postal Service to meet all of its obligations if either the RHBF payments are terminated, the CSRS overpayments are refunded, or a combination of the two.

With regard to the RHBF, no federal agency has a similar financing requirement, and few private businesses are saddled with these costs on a similar schedule. In the private sector, the pre-funding of retiree health benefits is purely voluntary, and fewer than half of all companies put aside money for such purposes. “To impose such costs on the USPS during these trying eco-nomic times,” noted President Hegarty, is “the height of irresponsibility.”

Private businesses and most governmental entities have the ability to postpone payments depending on their current economic condi-tion. The Postal Service cannot adjust its pay-ment schedule similarly without the approval of Congress. If there ever were an appropriate time to allow for adjustment of these payments, now is that time. The NPMHU National Office and legislative department continue to work daily with key congressional leaders and staff to obtain such relief for the Postal Service.

Residential DeliveryWhether or not Congress acts to relieve the

Postal Service of its RHBF obligations, or to adjust the CSRS overfunding, the plan issued by the USPS in March 2010 remains on the table. Another key aspect of that plan is to reduce residential delivery to five days per week by eliminating Saturday deliveries. Reaction to this plan was swift, and largely negative. “Cutting out Saturday delivery is self-defeating,” declared President Hegarty. It “is an essential part of the Postal Service brand.”

61346_Magazine.indd 6 10/26/10 9:10:13 AM


Indeed, there is every reason to expect that the demise of Saturday residential delivery would drive vital business to private-sector com-petitors. Saturday delivery at weekday prices is a niche that only the Postal Service fills. Whether it is someone’s government benefit check, a much-needed prescription drug, or a birthday gift or a DVD, only the Postal Service provides reliable Saturday service without charging a premium. For many small businesses, Saturday deliveries are the difference between thriving and bankruptcy. As noted, given the current technological and economic environment, indi-vidual use of the mail has plummeted, and therefore business reliance on the mail is what is most important to the future of the postal sys-tem. Why put such business mail at risk?

Although it is difficult if not dangerous to pre-dict Congressional action, especially when the recent elections could produce major changes, at this writing it does not appear that Congress will allow Postal Service to end Saturday mail delivery this year.

Exigent Rate Increase In early July, the Postal Service filed a request

with the PRC for approval of a rate increase in excess of the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. In particular, the request was for a 5.6% increase that would raise approxi-mately $3 billion per year.

After hearings and briefing, the PRC rejected that request, because it concluded that the rate increase was not necessary to the continuing operations of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission pointed the finger of blame at the Congress, which to this point has been unwilling or unable to deal with the unjustified payments to the RHBF and the CSRS.

In a more favorable part of its decision, a majority of the PRC agreed with arguments put forward by the USPS, and supported by the NPMHU, that the economic downturn that began in 2008 presented an “extraordi-nary or exceptional circumstance” that, under other facts, could support an above-inflation rate increase. A concurring opinion issued by

Commissioner Nanci Langley specifically high-lighted the comments filed by the NPMHU:

Additionally, given the precedential nature of this first filing under 39 USC § 3622(b)(1)(E), I wish to have my view of the legislative history relating to the development of the exigent clause on record. I believe the com-promise language embodied in the PAEA was truly a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. As noted by the detailed initial comments of the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU), “after almost two years of congres-sional debate and consideration, this compro-mise language essentially incorporated the standard originally contained in H.R. 22, and combined that House-initiated standard with a substantially more flexible version of the standard that was originally contained in S. 662.” (NPMHU Initial Comments at 8). The compromise balanced the objectives of the differing House and Senate provi-sions relating to exigent situations. While my observations do not alter the Commission’s decision, they do provide additional guidance for future discussions.

The remainder of these comments will focus on a detailed description of the legislative history of Section 3622(d)(1)(E), and will demonstrate that arguments in favor of a more restrictive reading – including those contained in recent submissions from the Affordable Mail Alliance and Senator Susan Collins – are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the statute’s language and history.

The plain language and legisla-tive history of the PAEA conclu-sively show that what is now Section 3622(d)(1)(E) was the result of a legislative compromise reconciling related, but vastly different, provi-sions contained in the precursor House and Senate bills. As a matter

of law, and perhaps of equal impor-tance as a matter of common sense, the terms of this legislative com-promise provide the legally binding standard that must be implemented by the Commission. We therefore analyze this compromise in some detail.

When they were initially intro-duced in the 109th Congress, both the House and Senate postal reform bills included a cap on rate adjust-ments tied to the CPI. Both bills also authorized the Commission to per-mit rate increases above this cap. The bills differed, however, on the cir-cumstances that would justify such an above-CPI increase.

The original House bill, H.R. 22, was introduced on January 14, 2005 by then-Representative John McHugh. H.R. 22 would have allowed the Commission to permit a rate adjustment exceeding the CPI if the Commission determined that “such [an] increase is reasonable and equita-ble and necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of hon-est, efficient, and economical manage-ment, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.”

The Senate bill, S. 662, was initially introduced by Senator Susan Collins on March 17, 2005. In direct contrast to the House Bill, S. 662 would have

The NPMHU Comments also directly confronted certain positions – in our view, unreasonable positions – taken by a coalition of mailers called the Affordable Mail Alliance and by Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). Here are some excerpts from those comments:

contInued on page 8 ❯❯

61346_Magazine.indd 7 10/26/10 9:10:15 AM


imposed a more restrictive standard on above-CPI rate increases, autho-rizing the Commission to “estab-lish procedures whereby rates may be adjusted on an expedited basis due to unexpected and extraordinary circumstances.”

These fundamental differences between H.R. 22 and S. 662 were highlighted in a series of 2005 reports from the Congressional Research Service (“CRS”). For example, in an August 4, 2005 report from the CRS, the analyst noted that “significant differences remain[ed]” between the House and Senate versions of the new ratemaking system, particularly in the standard provided for exceeding the rate cap for market dominant prices. After describing the two different standards, the report noted that “[t]he Postal Service would like to have [the House] rate-cap escape clause because it believes that staying below the CPI will be ‘extremely challenging.’”

During the following months, vari-ous groups of stakeholders debated the impact of the differing standards contained in the bills. The Postal Service and labor and management groups representing Postal Service employees generally urged lawmakers to reject the more restrictive standard contained in S. 662. Mailing groups representing large postal customers and the White House generally pre-ferred the Senate version.

Ultimately, a compromise was reached. The compromise language, which now appears in Section 3622(d)(1)(E), first appeared in an updated and amended version of the Senate bill that was circulated to interested stakeholders by Senator Collins in October 2006, and was formally introduced in the House as H.R. 6407. As eventually adopted into law, that provision unequivocally authorizes the Commission to approve an expe-

dited rate increase, above that allowed by the CPI cap, if the adjustment is based on “either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances,” and if the Commission finds, after notice and hearing, that the adjustment is “rea-sonable and equitable and necessary” to enable the Postal Service, operating under “best practices of honest, effi-cient, and economical management,” to maintain and continue the devel-opment of postal services.

The final language contained in this compromise provision is signifi-cant in a number of different respects: First, the compromise language elimi-nates S. 662’s conjunctive require-ment – that circumstances be both “unexpected and extraordinary” –and replaces that conjunctive language with explicitly disjunctive language – that circumstances be “either extraor-dinary or exceptional.” To ensure that there would be no doubt about this change, the statute as finally enacted includes not only the disjunctive “or,” but also adds the word “either” at the beginning of this phrase to emphasize that either an extraordinary circum-stance or an exceptional circumstance, standing alone, would provide an independent basis for allowing a rate increase above the CPI cap. Second, although the compromise provision retains the word “extraordinary” from the earlier Senate version in S. 662, it substantially increases the flexibility granted by that term by allowing it to stand on its own as an indepen-dent basis for Commission approval of an above-CPI rate increase, rather than limiting the permissible basis for such a rate increase to circum-stances that were both “unexpected and extraordinary.” Third, the com-promise language allows for an above-CPI adjustment because of circumstances that may properly be characterized as “exceptional,” rather than S. 662’s earlier requirement that

the circumstance be “unexpected,” or more accurately both “unexpected and extraordinary.” This one change has at least two significant conse-quences. To begin with, this change makes clear that even completely fore-seeable circumstances properly may form the basis for granting a Postal Service request to increase rates above CPI. By eliminating the word “unex-pected,” and substituting the word “exceptional,” Congress flatly rejected a foreseeability standard by rejecting the requirement that circumstances be “unexpected.” Furthermore, even if the substitute “exceptional” standard were to be read to include, in part, some reference to foreseeability, the fact that the statutory provision is now expressly disjunctive – and that circumstances that are either extraor-dinary or exceptional will justify an increase – means that reliance on the foreseeability of a circumstance as the sole basis for rejecting an above-CPI rate request would be contrary to the statutory language.

All of these conclusions, in turn, have critical implications for the Commission’s consideration of the Postal Service’s current request. First, there is no basis for denying the request on grounds that it is not based on circumstances that are not both extraordinary and exceptional – the Postal Service must satisfy only one of these standards. Second, there is no basis for denying the request because it is based on circumstances that were not unforeseeable – Congress clearly rejected a foresee-ability standard by rejecting the requirement that circumstances be “unexpected.” Third, in the absence of any explicit definition in the PAEA of the word “extraordinary” or the word “exceptional,” these terms must be given their usual (i.e., ordi-nary or unexceptional) meaning – that is, that circumstances which are

61346_Magazine.indd 8 10/26/10 9:10:15 AM


unusual, rare, or out of the ordinary may be used by the Postal Service to justify an above-CPI rate increase. Circumstances that would justify an increase should be out of the ordi-nary – either in kind (e.g., a natural disaster, a severe spike in costs that is not fully reflected in CPI) or in severity (e.g., a drop in mail volume) – and should have an impact on the Postal Service’s finances such that the above-CPI rate increase is “neces-sary to enable the Postal Service” to “maintain and continue the develop-ment of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.”

For these reasons, a restrictive reading of the compromise language in Section 3622(d)(1)(E) would be improper in light of the statutory text and the congressional history that led to its enactment. Such a read-ing also would be erroneous, because it essentially would read the legisla-tive compromise underlying Section 3622(d)(1)(E) out of the statute. That is the fatal error made in the letter and attachments that were submitted by Senator Collins in an effort to support the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Affordable Mail Alliance.

A careful examination of the sub-mission filed by Senator Collins shows that it is based on a misunder-standing of the legislative record. To begin with, each and every citation or quotation contained in Senator Collins’ submission is taken from documents or materials that were created prior to the development of the legislative compromise that now appears in the PAEA. Thus, the let-ter from Senator Collins quotes from the 2003 report of the Presidential Commission on the United States Postal Service, from a 2004 postal reform bill, from 2004 testimony presented by then-PRC Chairman

George Omas, from the 2004 Senate Committee Report (rate authority to be used only for “unexpected and extraordinary circumstances” and thus when rapid changes are needed “in the event of a national emer-gency”), and from 2005 testimony from the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (in favor of establishing “a very high bar” for above-CPI rate increases, consistent with then-exist-ing Senate language). These citations are relevant – if they are relevant at all – only if the Commission wants to understand or interpret the restric-tive standard only contained in the Senate bill, S. 662 (during the period from 2004 through September 2006), before that standard was rejected by the entire Congress which enacted the PAEA in December 2006. Stated another way, the citations and quota-tions that Senator Collins offers to support her personal recollections of the standard for above-CPI rate increases actually establish precisely the opposite – that is, they estab-lish what was not included in the actual language of the final version of Section 3622(d)(1)(E) that eventually was enacted as part of the PAEA. The Senate version of S. 662 from 2004, 2005, and the first part of 2006 was rejected by Congress, and in its stead Congress adopted the more flexible standard of “either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances.”

The submission from Senator Collins also mischaracterizes what occurred during the Congressional debate in 2006, during the 109th Congress. It repeatedly but errone-ously states that Congress “adopted the Senate’s more stringent . . . stan-dard,” and that Congressional action resulted in “the adoption of the Senate exigent rate case standard.” Again, with all respect, these descriptions merely reflect the Senator’s recol-lections of the record, and are not

accurate. When Congress adopted the PAEA, it adopted compromise lan-guage that not only incorporated the House-backed standard, but also sub-stituted a considerably more lenient version of the Senate-backed require-ment, providing for above-CPI rate increases if the circumstances fac-ing the Postal Service were “either extraordinary or exceptional.”

At bottom, the letter submitted by Senator Collins asserts that, as the “author of the exigent rate author-ity,” Senator Collins can “attest that the provision was not intended to be used under the current circum-stances.” With respect, the “exigent” language was the result of a pro-cess that included many Members of Congress in both Houses of Congress. For the reasons already explained, the language originally contained in S. 662 and supported by Senator Collins was not adopted by Congress, and does not appear in Section 3622(d)(1)(E) of the PAEA.

With the PRC’s rejection of the requested rate increase, the Postal Service has limited options with regard to rates. It could – and prob-ably will – increase rates by the rate of inflation since the last increase, which is approximately 1%. This increase would not require regulatory approval. Also, another request for an exigent rate increase could be filed at some point during 2011, if Congress refuses to act to alleviate the coming liquidity crisis.

Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain. The Postal Service’s continuing attempts to cut costs and raise revenues will continue, unless and until Congress shows the courage to resolve the underlying RHBF and CSRS issues during the coming weeks and months.

61346_Magazine.indd 9 10/26/10 9:10:15 AM


I f there is anything constant at the NPMHU, it is the Union’s devotion to implementing and administering the National Agreement between the Postal

Service and the NPMHU. At the Local level, that responsibility falls on the elected officers and appointed stewards, who take on the tough, and often thankless, job of represent-ing mail handlers on a day-to-day basis.

At the Regional and National Offices, however, the duties of the Contract Administration Department – affectionately known as the CAD are fulfilled by the National Officers and a handful of mail handlers who are appointed by the National President to deal with their counterparts in USPS management from the Area Offices and from USPS Headquarters. Chief among the responsibilities of these mail handlers is to meet with USPS management to attempt to resolve grievance appeals and to issue joint interpretations of the National Agreement.

Every six months, the CAD issues a writ-ten report to all of the Local Unions, which provides Local officers and stewards with the highlights of the CAD’s most recent efforts to enforce the terms of the governing contracts, the handbooks and manuals, the regulations, and the published guidelines that together control the daily work life of all mail handlers. Here is an excerpt from the most recent CAD Report, to provide a small sample of what the NPMHU is doing in contract administration.

ImplementatIon of the 2006 natIonal agreement. Because of con-tinuing deflation in the American economy since July 2008, the COLA or cost-of-living adjustment for September 2010 once again was $0. The next COLA is scheduled to be paid in March 2011. For there to be a posi-tive COLA by March 2011, inflation would have to run at the rate of 1.2%, or at an annual clip of 2.4%, during the current six-month period.

In the meantime, on November 20, 2010, all mail handlers will receive another 1.2% increase in base pay. This general wage increase is the final general wage increase under the 2006 National Agreement, which is set to expire on November 20, 2011. Depending on changes in the CPI, as noted above, there may be COLA payments in March 2011 and/or September 2011.

The NPMHU’s 2006 National Agreement expires on November 20, 2011, as does the current collective bargaining agreement between the Postal Service and the National Association of Letter Carriers. The other major postal unions – the American Postal Workers Union and the National Rural Letter Carriers Association – are currently negotiating, as their contracts are set to expire in November of this year.

rI-399 — JurIsdIctIonal dIsputes. The process for deciding jurisdictional dis-putes’ pending under the RI-399 Dispute Resolution Procedures continues, but on a very slow pace. At the National level, the latest National-level RI-399 arbitration was decided in September 2009, in favor of the NPMHU. In that case, National Arbitrator Joseph Sharnoff upheld the Postal Service’s 1988 jurisdictional assign-ments on the Small Parcel and Bundle Sorter, ruling that the Postal Service’s jurisdictional determination was cor-rect, and denying the APWU’s attempt to reverse or revise that determination.

In accordance with the lawsuit settle-ment signed in June 2007, the parties have agreed that the next National case to be arbitrated will be selected by the NPMHU, and the parties also have agreed to extend Arbitrator Sharnoff ’s appointment as National RI-399 Arbitrator. The issue to be presented in the next case will relate to the interplay of the 4-hour rule and the opera-tion of the “new work” and “operational change” provisions of the RI-399 Dispute Resolution Procedures. There are various

cases pending at the NDRC raising these issues – from Baltimore, MD, Traverse City, MI, and Miami, FL – and the CAD, in consultation with counsel, is working to develop the best question to be presented in this next hearing.

During meetings of the National Dispute Resolution Committee, the NPMHU repre-sentatives have submitted the following as a draft position statement of the question to be presented:

Does an increase in work in a postal facil-ity – from less than four (4) hours to “four (4) or more hours of continuous work, consisting of one or more work functions in one or more operations designated to the same primary craft” – allow the union to file a timely RI-399 dispute under Dispute Resolution Procedures, notwithstanding the fact that no dispute was filed on that work prior to April 1992?

The NPMHU submits that a new dispute may be timely filed in these circumstances because the additional work in the facility satisfies either the “new or consolidated facilities,” the “new work,” or the “opera-tional change” criteria in the Dispute Resolution Procedures. In this regard, when the increase in work occurs, it may be the result of either a new or consoli-dated facility or an operational change, in which case the parties understand that a new dispute may be filed. If the increase in work simply results from an increase in mail volume or an increased dependence on that particular operation, the NPMHU believes that – even without an operational change – a dispute may be filed under the “new work” criterion.

The result urged by the NPMHU is the only reasonable and rational conclusion. If there were four or more hours of work in April 1992, and the amount of work decreased to less than four hours, the Postal Service and the APWU would be allowed to elimi-nate the mail handler assignment. If a new

the npmhu’s contract admInIstratIon department: ALWAYS REPRESENTING

61346_Magazine.indd 10 10/26/10 9:10:16 AM


dispute could not be filed for an increase in work to four or more hours, this would be an unfair and unjustified one-way ratchet, in which mail handlers could lose assignments because of decreased volume but not gain assignments from increased volume. The parties certainly could not have intended such an absurd result when they negotiated the Dispute Resolution Procedures.

Neither the APWU nor the Postal Service has formally taken a position on these issues, other than to note their general opposition, and no hearings have been set. Moreover, with National bargaining between the USPS and the APWU now active, the RI-399 arbi-tration process at the National-level goes into hiatus until the completion of that bargaining. Thus, it is unlikely that another National RI-399 issue will be decided in arbitration before 2011.

JurIsdIctIonal determInatIons under rI-399: For several years now, the National Office has been focused on obtain-ing all appropriate assignments when the Postal Service initially makes its jurisdictional determinations with regard to new machinery or equipment. That process continues.

1. The Postal Service is slowly, but surely installing and operating its Flat Sequencing System or FSS. Jurisdictional determinations with regard to positions on the FSS, most recently with regard to the ITC groomer position, have been assigned to the mail handler craft.

2. The National Office continues to seek a National-level jurisdictional determina-tion for the High Speed Universal Sorter, the High Speed Tray Sorter, and the Low Cost Universal Sorter. Management has obtained input from the two Unions at the National level, consistent with the prin-ciples of RI-399, and site visits also have taken place. One more site visit is prob-ably required, and then a decision from postal management is expected.

changes to elm on famIly and medIcal leave act and return to duty Issues. By letter dated July 6, 2010, the Postal Service informed the NPMHU that it was proposing changes to ELM Section 510, Leave, and ELM Section 865, Return to Duty after Absences for Medical Reasons, in large part precipitated by the revised FMLA regulations issued during

the final days of the Bush Administration. The proposed changes have been circu-lated to all Local Unions.

The National CAD met with the Postal Service in August, and is preparing a letter setting forth the particular concerns that we raised. For example, the USPS posi-tion is now that only FMLA forms issued by the U.S. Department of Labor will be authorized for use. We expect this issue to remain unresolved, and headed for arbitra-tion. Most of the issues we raised, however, will be addressed in the next draft of these proposed revisions, a copy of which will be shared with the Locals when it is received.

network redesIgn: consolIdatIons or closIngs of postal facIlItIes. More than five years ago, in October 2005, the Postal Service notified the National Union and many of the Locals about its plans to consolidate or close certain postal facilities. As explained by the Postal Service, these closings and consolidations were meant to be the first step in its nationwide effort to adjust the postal network of facili-ties around the country.

When the initial plant closings and con-solidations were announced in early 2006, the National Union called an emergency meeting of the National Executive Board and the entire CAD. The officers and rep-resentatives in attendance, together with the National Union’s legislative and legal staff, discussed a host of issues raised by these notifications, and developed strate-gies that could assist the Locals in respond-ing to these proposals.

The result of this meeting was a com-prehensive package of materials that was prepared and distributed to assist the Local Unions with responding to these proposed actions. The Union’s CAD Representatives, at both the National and Regional levels, as well as the NPMHU legislative staff, also have been made available to assist each Local in answering questions about strat-egy, the proper application of the National Agreement, and legislative/political activ-ity as one possible response to a particular closing or consolidation.

It also was agreed during the NPMHU’s early strategy meetings that not every notice of a consolidation or closing is going to require the same response – every situation is different. In some cases – such as where the proposal concerns a facility that currently has

no mail handlers, or where the mail handlers in that facility do not object to the consolida-tion – the Local Union may decide not to get involved. In other cases, the best approach may be to “wait and see.” In every case, how-ever, communication between and among the National Office, the relevant Regional Office, and the affected Local Union(s) and Branch(es) is critical. Of even more impor-tance, it is crucial to communicate with the affected or potentially affected members. The package of materials circulated by the National Office was designed to assist each Local Union in making the determination about what is the appropriate response in a particular situation, and to assist the Local in deciding what to do once it has made that determination.

We expect that the Postal Service will continue to announce additional plans for closings and consolidations when they iden-tify cost-saving opportunities (often related to building rental or ownership expenses, sometimes related to drastic drops in mail volume) that do not present impossible political situations, usually associated with strenuous opposition on Capitol Hill. In the six-month period between March and September 2010, for example, the Postal Service notified the National Office of 11 new or revised plans for closings or con-solidations. Thus, the NPMHU’s flexible approach to these issues must continue, and USPS closings and consolidations will remain at the top of our agenda for many months if not years to come.

Finally, it bears noting that, pursuant to the guidelines governing AMPs under Handbook PO-408, the Postal Service is required to conduct Post-Implementation Reviews (PIRs) when a closing or consoli-dation goes forward. Copies of these PIRs generally are sent to the National Office and forwarded to the Local Unions, and they certainly should be reviewed to assess whether the USPS predictions about sav-ings, employee complements, and other issues proved to be accurate.

statIons and Branches BeIng consIdered for possIBle closIng. In early 2009, the Postal Service announced that it was reviewing more than 3,200 sta-tions and branches for possible closure. The Postal Service then made multiple revisions to its list, until only 162 were submitted to the Postal Regulatory Commission for


61346_Magazine.indd 11 10/26/10 9:10:16 AM


review. Each of these lists was circulated to the Local Unions. We have urged all NPMHU representatives to review the list, and obtain more information, at the Local level, if and when these stations and branch-es are considered for closure. For most of these facilities, there should be no impact, or only minimal impact, on mail handlers, but some of the stations or branches that eventually may be targeted employ a handful of mail handlers.

In addition, the Postal Regulatory Commission has issued an advisory opin-ion on the USPS program to close stations and branches. In its Executive Summary, the Commission found that “it is consis-tent with applicable public policy for the Postal Service to adjust its retail footprint to recognize changing customer needs and usage. However, the Commission also finds that a number of changes should be made to the current Postal Service process to assure that adequate and efficient service is maintained. Improvements in three areas are particularly important.

❚ First, the Commission finds that the Postal Service should improve custom-ers’ opportunity to offer input ... . Postal Service decision-making will be improved if it establishes a notice and comment period that provides an adequate opportu-nity for public input before an initial deci-sion to close a facility is made.

❚ Second, the Commission finds that the financial analysis used to estimate the cost savings if a facility closes should be improved.

❚ Third, the Commission finds that the Postal Service should provide local managers responsible for developing proposals to close facilities with written guidance on how to obtain relevant infor-mation and how to apply the qualitative decision factors. This will allow consis-tent, nationwide application of relevant factors and produce more well-reasoned, and less arbitrary decisions.

conversIon of Bulk maIl centers Into network dIstrIButIon centers. After rejecting an initial plan to subcon-tract the work at the Bulk Mail Centers, the Postal Service created a new network of NDCs or Network Distribution Centers. The network was officially completed as

of March 2010, although adjustments are constantly being made.

Under the new system, the BMCs have become known as NDCs, and are coordinat-ing with existing Surface Transfer Centers to create a new mail processing network. NDCs have been divided into three Tiers, with 10 of the NDCs being Tier 1 Facilities, 7 being Tier 2 Facilities, and 4 of the current NDCs being Tier 3 Facilities (Pittsburgh, Denver, Des Moines, and Memphis). These facilities have been identified because of their geographic location.

In general terms, Tier 1 Facilities only sort and process the destinating mail, and thus will ship all originating mail unworked (parcels, standard mail, and periodicals) to a Tier 2 or Tier 3 Facility. Mailers are allowed to continue to drop their shipments at the existing facilities, or the mailer may decide to drop at the applicable Tier 2 or Tier 3 Facility. Under this scenario, the Tier 1 Facilities lose their originating volumes. The impact, if any, on work hours or staffing dif-fers upon the particular facility.

The NPMHU National Office also has been monitoring almost 20 “Surface Transfer Centers” that also are supposed to be added to the mix to create the new mail processing network. We were told last year that some of these STCs which currently are subcontracted (in Salt Lake, Indianapolis, Memphis, Clinton, TN, Binghamton, Dallas, and Atlanta) should be taken out of private contracts, and returned to the Postal Service, and this too is a subject being monitored by the NPMHU.

The CAD also has continued to coordi-nate with the BMC Task Force and the Local Unions. (Mail handlers will recall that the Task Force was established through a reso-lution adopted by the delegates attending the 2008 National Convention.) Another telephone conference occurred on June 30, 2010, at which time the latest information and progress reports were shared. To this point, a handful of STCs, including those in Washington, DC, Chicago, and New Jersey, should already be consolidated into their respective NDCs, while others may still be waiting or be on hold because of space, equipment, or staffing issues. The repre-sentative from each NDC also gave a report on the current status of employee comple-ment, work assignments, mail equipment, and mail mix in his or her facility.

pIlot test on consolIdatIon/deconsolIdatIon of traIler loads. In a letter dated July 28, 2010, the National CAD was informed by the Postal Service that USPS would be performing a pilot test during the last four months of this year at or near three of the NDCs – in New Jersey, Denver, and Los Angeles – supposedly to study private contractors for unloading mail from postal paks and other containers and bed-loading that mail onto other trailers for transport to the destination city.

The National CAD immediately informed the three affected Locals, and demanded a meeting with the Postal Service to object to the pilot test. We were able to meet with the postal officials in Supply Management and Operations who are in charge of the pilot, and express our strong concerns about the program. According to the USPS, the goal of the program is to provide a means to decrease the number of half-empty trucks taking trips across the country, which is a large expense to the Postal Service. No work currently performed by mail handlers would change, but additional mail handling work would be given to private consolidators. The USPS acknowledged, of course, that allowing these contractors to bed-load the half-empty trucks, rather than having mail handlers perform the work, would have an adverse impact on bargaining unit work. In addition to cost, the USPS also cited safety concerns (as if the physical well-being of private employees is less important), the unavailability of equipment at the Postal Service (especially extendables for loading and unloading the trucks), and the incon-sistency between bed-loading and the Postal Service’s multi-decade focus on a container-ized environment. It may be, however, that the loading work is being offered to the private companies as an offset against the reduction in monies they would receive for mileage and transportation.

The National CAD has filed an infor-mation request, but will not be able to stop the pilot program. We will continue to oppose this consolidation of trucks using non-career employees, and will urge the USPS to use mail handlers to load the trucks prior to transport.

artIcle 12 task force. The National CAD has been meeting with the Postal Service on a routine basis under the guise of the Article 12 Task Force, established

61346_Magazine.indd 12 10/26/10 9:10:17 AM


pursuant to the MOU in the 2006 National Agreement, to discuss and review the issues that arise from recent Postal Service actions. The NPMHU representatives on this Article 12 Task Force are Sam D’Ambrosio, Eastern Region Vice President; Paul Hogrogian, Northeastern Region Vice President and Local 300 President; and Bill Flynn, Manager of the CAD.

The NPMHU members of the Task Force have two general goals: First, the NPMHU is working to reach agreements with the Postal Service on a host of gen-eral issues, some involving interpretive issues under the National Agreement, and others involving possible adjustments to practices to deal with unexpected condi-tions or circumstances arising during the downsizing of the Postal Service. Second, the NPMHU representatives on the Article 12 Task Force have been focusing on hot spots or disputed issues arising from the Local level because of the closing or consolidation of particular facilities, the compression of tours and/or change of starting times, and the constant excessing and reassignment of employees because of the recent drop in mail volume and the poor financial results of the Postal Service. This sec-ond goal is aimed at fixing Local issues, and implementing the principle that, in effecting reassignments, dislocation and inconvenience to employees shall be kept to a minimum, consistent with the needs of the Postal Service.

The Task Force has had a great deal of success on this second issue, as it has been able to achieve resolutions of some very thorny situations in several of the Local Unions. Success on the first issue is still an aspiration, although the parties continue to discuss a host of issues involving some very impor-tant topics, including flexibility on the eligibility rules for transferring out of an installation, if the installation is adversely affected by excessing; changes to e-Re-assign; excessing by seniority as opposed to excessing by level; adjust-ments to the notice requirements that are a prerequisite to major excessing; priority for mail handlers in filling craft vacancies; and the distinction between vacancies and residual vacancies.

The issues that commonly arise at the Local level are extremely complicated, and often present conflicts between and among our membership or among full-time career employees in different crafts (e.g., veteran preference versus seniority; retreat rights versus volun-tary assignments; part-time employees versus employees from other crafts). Given the immense amount of excess-ing, withholding, and reassigning that is taking place, many issues are arising for the first time, and the contract lan-guage simply is unclear. But the Article 12 Task Force has proven to be a useful forum for discussing all of these issues, settling some, and setting up methods for resolving the others.

contract InterpretatIon manual (cIm). Work on the next version is complete, and the parties are finalizing publication of CIM Version 3, as well as an updated CIM Resource Guide. We are pleased to note that arbitrators and settlements continue to cite the CIM to resolve disputes. That is why the National CAD hopes that, in the future, it will be able to update the CIM more routinely to include the latest agreements and interpretations.

cases pendIng natIonal arBItratIon. The CAD continues to work on resolving cases pending arbi-tration at the National level. Here are some recent developments:

casuals: Arbitration hearings and briefs have been completed with regard to the long-standing dispute between the NPMHU and the Postal Service on whether casual employees who pre-viously have been employed in other crafts during the calendar year for all or part of two 90-day periods of employ-ment may subsequently be employed as mail handler casuals in the same calendar year. This case is better known as the casual “flip-flop” case. Briefs were filed in April 2010, and a decision from National Arbitrator Shyam Das could be issued at any moment.

Sunday Pay: The NPMHU recently intervened in a National-level arbitration (between the APWU and the USPS) con-cerning whether postal employees should

receive Sunday premium pay when they are placed on administrative leave for a tour on which they would otherwise receive Sunday pay. Mail handlers will recall that the NPMHU previously had won, in 2000, a National-level arbitration before Arbitrator Phillip Parkinson on a similar issue: whether postal employees receive night differential when they are placed on administrative leave for a shift for which they would otherwise receive night differential. The position asserted by both the NPMHU and the APWU was that the ELM provisions defining administrative leave as leave “without loss of pay” means that employees are entitled to Sunday premium, just as they are entitled to night differential.

Unfortunately, National Arbitrator Linda Byars disagreed with the unions’ positions and ruled for the Postal Service. Byars distinguished the Parkinson Award regarding night differential on the basis that the ELM provision regard-ing Sunday premium pay contains different language than the ELM provi-sion regarding night differential. Byars found that the ELM provision regarding Sunday premium pay clearly states that Sunday premium will not be paid if the employee is on leave, and that this ELM provision controlled.

Significantly for the NPMHU, how-ever, Byars reserved judgment on one important aspect of the case. In 1985, the NPMHU and the USPS reached a National-level pre-arbitration settle-ment of a grievance claiming that mail handlers had impermissibly been denied Sunday premium pay after being placed on administrative leave. In particular, the NPMHU argued to Arbitrator Byars that this pre-arbitration settlement con-trolled the outcome of the arbitration before her, at least for the NPMHU, but Byars held that “issues concern-ing the precedential value of the 1985 settlement will be decided under the USPS-NPMHU grievance/arbitration process.” The Postal Service’s current position is that this 1985 settlement only applies where employees have been called in to work, but then sent home on administrative leave because of an Act of God, but the National Office plans to argue that the 1985 settlement is more broadly applicable.

ALWAYS REPRESENTING

61346_Magazine.indd 13 10/26/10 9:10:17 AM


The NPMHU Arthur S. Vallone National Scholarship committee has

finalized its work for this year, and the latest round of Vallone scholars

now has been awarded their scholarships for the 2010-2011 school year.

The Vallone Scholarship Award has become a coveted prize since its

inception over a decade ago. As designed, the NPMHU Scholarship

Program awards a total of twenty-five new scholarships on a yearly

basis to assist deserving mail handlers and/or their immediate families

to defray the costs of higher education. Each NPMHU region is granted

a total of five scholarships in the amount of $1,000 each, renewable for

the recipient for up to four years or until the completion of the student’s

undergraduate degree, whichever occurs first -- for a maximum of

$4,000 per recipient over four years.

The National Office received over 350 applications for the 2010-

2011 year. Both craft mail handlers and their children submitted well-

documented and very competitive applications for evaluation by the

Scholarship Committee. “The application pool has become quite diffi-

cult to grade over the past few years,” says Scholarship Committee mem-

ber Susan Carle. Another Committee member, Jean Darden, observed:

“Some applications are four pages and some are over twenty pages long,

full of accomplishments, and that is incredible.”

Prior Vallone Scholar Carols Rios, a Mail Handler from Local 301, is now

enrolled at Bridgewater State College. Carlos, a 27 year old Mail Handler out of

Brockton, Massachusetts, has been handling a very rigorous schedule working 6

days per week while carrying a full time school course load. Since being award-

ed his scholarship, Carlos has completed his Associate Degree at Massasoit

Community College where he maintained a 3.2 GPA.

Erica Zamora, daughter of two

Mail Handlers from Local 302,

is currently studying Chinese

through a Flagship Program at

San Francisco State University.

Erica is also devoting equal time

to her core course of study in

International Business at Indiana University. She has been working very

hard to juggle the demands of both programs, while also struggling

with the cost of these programs. Erica and her mother, NPMHU Local

302 member Angela Zamora, along with Local 302 President Ernie

Grijalva recently had the opportunity to personally thank John Hegarty

and Mark Gardner for the financial assistance awarded through the

NPMHU Scholarship Program. (See inset photo above.)

The scholarship application and details for the 2011-2012 year will

soon be available to mail handlers and their families. Applications will

be available for download on the NPMHU website www.npmhu.org or

by contacting your Local or National Union headquarters.

Vallone Scholars: Success Stories

By: Noah L. Giebel – Scholarship Program Coordinator

Northeastern Region

Michael Kenworthy Local 309

Arun Mathew Local 300

Carlos Rios Local 301

Harold Toliver Local 301

Jessie Walker Local 300

Noah GiebelArthur S. Vallone


61346_Magazine.indd 14 10/26/10 9:10:28 AM


Western Region

Southern Region

Central Region

Eastern Region

Charris Allen Local 308

Alec Chen Local 305

Taylor Hibbitts Local 305

Melissa Lee Local 308

Rhiannon Vaughn Local 322

Matthew Cong Local 315

Carolyn Gani Local- 303

Peter Li Local 302

Erica Zamora Local 302

Brandon Schwartz Local 320

Lauren McKenzie Alexander Local 334

Chelsea Boozer Local 329

Natalie Derouen Local 312

Elena Novak Local 318

Bianca Richardson Local 311

Kiersten Bailey Local 297

Emily Dimet Local 307

Mitchell S. Dorsten Local 304

Thomas A Morris Local 306

Katelyn Oldham Local 297


61346_Magazine.indd 15 10/26/10 9:11:19 AM


Choose coverage sponsored by your union and SAVE!

Get Low Rates with the MHBP Value PlanValue Plan 2045$

Postal, Self Only, BiweeklyPlus, get all these great benefits:

• Comprehensive Coverage — preventive care, doctor visits, prescription drugs, hospitalization, and more

• Nationwide PPO — access to providers where you live, work, or travel

• Non-network benefits — see any provider you like

• Overseas Coverage — PPO benefits go with you, even abroad

• Membership Extras — hearing, vision, fitness, and pharmacy discounts

• Reliable Service — serving FEHBP for over 45 years

And so much more!

Call 1.800.410.7778or go online at www.mhbpOpenSeason.comto request your FREE information kit.

Switch to MHBP before December 13, 2010! Make 2011 the year of value.

To learn more:

More MHBP options

MHBP Standard Option gives you more traditional coverage and helps you manage your out-of pocket costs.

MHBP Consumer Option gives you control of your health care spending with a high-deductible health plan and a health savings account (HSA). Receive up to $1,690 annually in tax-free funds to spend on qualified health care, or save in your HSA.

MHBP Supplemental Dental and Vision Plans* are a smart complement to any health plan. For a low monthly rate, your dental benefits provide 100% coverage for preventive care, and great benefits for basic and major services, too (extractions, root canals, and crowns). Add vision coverage including eye exams, frames and lenses, contacts, and laser vision correction discounts. Call 1-800-254-0227 to learn your rates and enroll.

Your 2011 MHBP Postal Biweekly Rates

MHBP membership extras**

• Pharmacy savings with the CVS Caremark ExtraCare® Health Card

• Vision care discounts and savings from EyeMed® Vision Care providers

• Laser vision correction savings from the U.S. Laser Network and QualSight®

• Hearing aid discount program from HearPO

• Healthy living and fitness benefits from GlobalFitTM

* These benefits are neither offered nor guaranteed under contract with the FEHB Program, but are made available to all persons who are eligible for FEHBP coverage. You cannot file an FEHB disputed claim about them. The premiums and fees you pay for these services do not count toward FEHB deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. Dental Program underwritten by First Health Life & Health Insurance Company and Cambridge Life Insurance Company. Benefits are not provided for services rendered outside the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. You do not have to be enrolled in an MHBP health plan to enroll in the MHBP Supplemental Dental Plan or the MHBP Supplemental Vision Plan.

** The discount programs are neither offered nor guaranteed under the FEHB Program, but are made available to all MHBP enrollees and their covered family members. You cannot file any FEHB disputed claim about them.

This is a summary of the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. Before making a final decision, please read the 2011 official Plan brochure (RI71-007). All benefits are subject to the definitions, limitations and exclusions set forth in the 2011 official Plan brochure.

© 2010 Coventry Health Care, Inc. All rights reserved. All other names and (registered) trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

These rates do not apply to all enrollees. If you are in a special enrollment category, please refer to your Guide to Federal Benefits or contact the agency that maintains your health benefits enrollment.

Value Consumer Standard

Self Only $20.45 $28.24 $78.85

Self and Family $48.76 $63.99 $191.10

FHG2216_Save2011_Ad_A.indd 1 10/4/10 3:19 PM

61346_Magazine.indd 16 10/26/10 9:11:27 AM


Choose coverage sponsored by your union and SAVE!

Get Low Rates with the MHBP Value Plan 2045$

Postal, Self Only, BiweeklyPlus, get all these great benefits:

• Comprehensive Coverage — preventive care, doctor visits, prescription drugs, hospitalization, and more

• Nationwide PPO — access to providers where you live, work, or travel

• Non-network benefits — see any provider you like

• Overseas Coverage — PPO benefits go with you, even abroad

• Membership Extras — hearing, vision, fitness, and pharmacy discounts

• Reliable Service — serving FEHBP for over 45 years

And so much more!

Call 1.800.410.7778or go online at www.mhbpOpenSeason.comto request your FREE information kit.

Switch to MHBP before December 13, 2010! Make 2011 the year of value.

To learn more:

More MHBP options

MHBP Standard Option gives you more traditional coverage and helps you manage your out-of pocket costs.

MHBP Consumer Option gives you control of your health care spending with a high-deductible health plan and a health savings account (HSA). Receive up to $1,690 annually in tax-free funds to spend on qualified health care, or save in your HSA.

MHBP Supplemental Dental and Vision Plans* are a smart complement to any health plan. For a low monthly rate, your dental benefits provide 100% coverage for preventive care, and great benefits for basic and major services, too (extractions, root canals, and crowns). Add vision coverage including eye exams, frames and lenses, contacts, and laser vision correction discounts. Call 1-800-254-0227 to learn your rates and enroll.

Your 2011 MHBP Postal Biweekly Rates

MHBP membership extras**

• Pharmacy savings with the CVS Caremark ExtraCare® Health Card

• Vision care discounts and savings from EyeMed® Vision Care providers

• Laser vision correction savings from the U.S. Laser Network and QualSight®

• Hearing aid discount program from HearPO

• Healthy living and fitness benefits from GlobalFitTM

* These benefits are neither offered nor guaranteed under contract with the FEHB Program, but are made available to all persons who are eligible for FEHBP coverage. You cannot file an FEHB disputed claim about them. The premiums and fees you pay for these services do not count toward FEHB deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums. Dental Program underwritten by First Health Life & Health Insurance Company and Cambridge Life Insurance Company. Benefits are not provided for services rendered outside the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. You do not have to be enrolled in an MHBP health plan to enroll in the MHBP Supplemental Dental Plan or the MHBP Supplemental Vision Plan.

** The discount programs are neither offered nor guaranteed under the FEHB Program, but are made available to all MHBP enrollees and their covered family members. You cannot file any FEHB disputed claim about them.

This is a summary of the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan. Before making a final decision, please read the 2011 official Plan brochure (RI71-007). All benefits are subject to the definitions, limitations and exclusions set forth in the 2011 official Plan brochure.

© 2010 Coventry Health Care, Inc. All rights reserved. All other names and (registered) trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

These rates do not apply to all enrollees. If you are in a special enrollment category, please refer to your Guide to Federal Benefits or contact the agency that maintains your health benefits enrollment.

Value Consumer Standard

Self Only $20.45 $28.24 $78.85

Self and Family $48.76 $63.99 $191.10

FHG2216_Save2011_Ad_A.indd 1 10/4/10 3:19 PM

61346_Magazine.indd 17 10/26/10 9:11:32 AM


YOU TOO CAN BECOME AN NPMHU

POLITICAL ACTIVISTThere is a quick way for Mail Handlers to contribute to the NPMHU PAC. Simply call in to the PostalEASE system, or visit the PostalEASE option on the web at www.liteblue.usps.gov. Follow the instructions printed on page 19 of this magazine. Your PAC contribution will be made

directly from your bi-weekly postal payroll. You also have the option of sending in a personal check or authorizing a credit card contribution. Your contributions will also be entered in to the incentive award program that entitles you to an award based on your contribution level. There are five distinct PAC membership levels and awards. Awards are distributed based on membership level and will be mailed after the end of the year. Awards will vary year to year.

NOTICE CONCERNING CONTRIBUTIONS:

Contributions to the Mail Handlers PAC are not deductible as charitable contributions for purposes of federal income taxes. In addi-tion, federal law requires that the Mail Handlers PAC report to the Federal Election Commission the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer for each individual whose contributions in any calendar year total in excess of $200. Please also note that the Mail Handlers PAC has political purposes, and that all members have the right to refuse to contribute, and the right to revoke their authoriza-tion for any continuing contributions, without any reprisal.

(cut here and return to nPMhu Pac)

PAC contribution by personal check, money order, or credit card:

You can contribute directly to the Mail Handlers PAC by filling out the following information and mailing it to the P.O. Box listed below. Please enclose your check or money order, or provide authorization to charge your credit card.

Here is my contribution of (please circle one): $26 (Member) $52 (Sponsor) $100 (Activist) $250 (Leader) $500 (Ambassador) other amount __________.

Name:____________________________________________ _____VISA _____MasterCard

Address __________________________________________ Acct. #_________________________________________

Expiration Date: _______________ City _____________________ State ______ Zip _________ Please charge my credit card as indicated above.

MAIL TO: Mail Handlers PAC Signature:___________________________________ ___

P.O. Box 65171 Washington, DC 20035 If necessary, you may FAX your credit card authorization to: 202.785.9860

nPMHU PAC

61346_Magazine.indd 18 10/26/10 9:11:33 AM


You also can make your PAC contribution by bi-weekly salary allotment through PostalEASE (access by phone or on the web):

PostalEASE BY TELEPHONE:

Dial 1-877-4PS-EASE — (877-477-3273) and follow the prompt for the Employee Services Main Menu.

When prompted Press #1 for PostalEASEWhen prompted, enter your eight-digit USPS employee identification number.When prompted again, enter your USPS PIN number. (This is the same as the PIN number you use for telephone bidding and/or other payroll allotments.)

When Prompted, Choose Option #2 (to select payroll allotments)Then Choose Option #1 (to select allotments)

When prompted Press #2 to continue When prompted Press #3 to add the allotmentWhen prompted for the routing number enter 054001220When prompted for the account number enter the following : 11260001 __ __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ (the last nine digits of your account number is your social security number—this information will allow us to identify you as the PAC contributor).

Press #1 if correctWhen prompted Press #1 for “checking”

When prompted, input the bi-weekly dollar amount of your PAC allotment.Press #1 if correctWhen prompted Press #1 to processYou will be provided a confirmation number as well as the start date for the salary allotment.

For your records:Record the confirmation number __________________

Record the start date of the salary allotment _____________Press #1 to repeat or Press #9 to end call

PostalEASE on the WEB:

To initiate your bi-weekly PAC contribution on the web, simply go to www.liteblue.usps.govEnter your eight-digit USPS Employee ID Number and your USPS PIN

Follow the link to PostalEASE—you will again be asked to enter your Employee ID Number and USPS PIN

Follow the link for PAYROLL- Allotments/NTBContinue to the ALLOTMENTS section

Your ROUTING TRANSIT NUMBER is: 054001220

Your ACCOUNT # will be: 11260001 __ __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ (the last nine digits of your account number is your social security number—this information will allow us to identify you as the PAC contributor).

For ACCOUNT TYPE—please select “CHECKING”

When prompted, please input the AMOUNT that you would like to contribute to the PAC each pay period.

To process your PAC allotment, you will need to select the VALIDATE button, and to finalize the transaction, please select SUBMIT. Be sure to print out a copy of the confirmation page for your records.

61346_Magazine.indd 19 10/26/10 9:11:33 AM

20 | The Mail Handler Fall 201020 | The Mail Handler Fall 2010

The NPMHU held its second s e m i - a n nu a l Meeting of the

Local Unions for 2010 in Austin, Texas in September of this year. The meeting began with an invoca-tion by Ft. Worth Branch President Jack Bell, followed by National President John Hegarty’s intro-duction of the NPMHU National Executive Board and key staff members from the Union’s National and Regional Offices. Local 311

(Texas) President D.T. Taylor then welcomed the attendees, offering the assistance of his local delega-tion to the meeting attendees over the course of their stay in Austin, and gave welcoming remarks on behalf of all officers and members of Local 311.

President Hegarty then offered his congratulations to Local 313 (Puerto Rico) President Julio Figueroa, Local 319 (Wyoming) President James Rosso, and Local 314 (Missouri) President Anthony

Davis, each of whom was recently re-elected to his Union position. Brother Hegarty also congratu-lated other recently-elected Local Union officers who were in atten-dance at the session.

Following these opening activi-ties, President Hegarty turned to his comprehensive report to the assembly, and entertained numer-ous questions and comments on a variety of topics, including: a lengthy and comprehensive review of the many challenges currently

facing the USPS, and an analysis of the various proposals being pursued by postal headquarters to respond to these challenges; a dis-cussion of various issues related to the separate collective bargaining negotiations that the USPS is cur-rently engaged in with both the APWU and the NRLCA; a review of planning by the NPMHU in preparation for its 2011 collective bargaining process with the USPS for a successor NPMHU National Agreement; a review of various

Austin, TX

Local 300 Vice President Robert Blum

Local 329 President John R. Macon

(l-r) Northeastern Region Director Ray Sokolowski, Northeastern Region Representative Terry Donahue

Local 300 Vice President Local 300 Vice President

(l-r) Northeastern Region Director Ray Sokolowski, Northeastern Region Representative Terry Donahue

Local 329

20 | The Mail Handler

(l-r) Local 311 Branch President Larry Guerrero, Local 311 Branch President Jack Bell, Local 311 Recording Secretary Eileen Mills, Local 311 President Damon (DT) Taylor

Southern Region Director Charles Reynolds

NPMHU Local Presidents

(l-r) Local 311

Western Region Director Richard Siu

Southern Region Director

NPMHU Local Presidents

Western Region Director Richard Siu

MEETING OF THE LOCAL UNIONS — HELD IN —

MEETING OF THE LOCAL UNIONS — HELD IN —

61346_Magazine.indd 20 10/26/10 9:12:11 AM

The Mail Handler | 21National Postal Mail Handlers Union The Mail Handler | 21National Postal Mail Handlers Union

issues related to the recent conver-sion of USPS Bulk Mail Centers (BMCs) into the new Network Distribution Centers (NDCs); a discussion of current national eco-nomic factors, and their impact on the NPMHU contractual cost-of-living allowance (COLA) pro-vision; a discussion of the latest report of the Committee on the Future of the NPMHU; a status update on the pending release of the Contract Interpretation Manual (CIM) version 3; a dis-

cussion of positive developments within the American labor move-ment, including the reaffiliation of LIUNA with the AFL-CIO; and an update on NPMHU train-ing programs scheduled for the coming year.

Following discussion of the issues presented by President Hegarty, National Secretary-Treasurer Gardner provided a detailed presentation and enter-tained questions and comments on a variety of topics, including:

the NPMHU financial statements for the quarter ending June 30, 2010; an updated presentation and analysis related to Mail Handler complement, membership trends, and revenue allocation among our Union’s affiliated organizations; a review and discussion of issues related to the NPMHU Revenue Sharing Program; an update on finances of the NPMHU Political Action Committee; a review of the Arthur S. Vallone Scholarship Program; and a report on various

scheduled NPMHU national meet-ings and training programs.

The NPMHU Senior Legislative Advisor, Roger Blacklow, then pro-vided a comprehensive report on various important legislative efforts with which the NPMHU and its activists continue to be involved. His report was followed by a report from General Counsel Bruce Lerner on pending litigation involving the NPMHU National Union. This segment of the meeting concluded with a presentation from NPMHU


(l-r) Local 332 President Woody Hendrickson and Local 318 President Nick Mosezar

Local leaders follow along with meeting materials.

National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner discusses the NPMHU Financial report

(l-r) Local 306 Treasurer Joseph Boston, Local 303 Representatives Juanita Wright and Juliet Schnyder

(l-r) National CAD Representative Thomas Branch, Northeastern Region Director Ray Sokolowski, Northeastern Region Representative Terry Donahue

(l-r) Local 306 Treasurer Joseph Boston, Local 303

Local 324

recording Secretary

Daniel Bauder

Local 315 President David Jarvis

The Presidents’ meeting in progress

Local 324

recording Secretary

Daniel Bauder

Local 328 President Larry Karsten

Local 318 President

Nick Mosezar

The Presidents’ meeting in progress

(l-r) National CAD Representative Thomas Branch,

Local 318 President

Nick Mosezar

National Secretary-

National Postal Mail Handlers UnionNational Postal Mail Handlers Union

Local 316 President Pat McClear

David Jarvis

Local leaders follow


Local 316 President Pat President Pat McClearNational Postal Mail Handlers UnionMcClearNational Postal Mail Handlers Union

(l-r) Local 332 President


Local 308 President John Macey

Northeastern Region Vice President

Paul Hogrogian, Eastern Region

Vice President and National Trainer Sam D’Ambrosio

National Off ice Comptroller Susanne Green

Northeastern Region Vice President

Paul Hogrogian, Eastern Region

Vice President and National Trainer Sam D’Ambrosio

John Macey

National Off ice Comptroller Susanne Green

Senior Legislative Advisor Roger Blacklow

Senior Legislative

Larry Karsten

Local 303 Branch President Juan Torres, National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, Local 303 Vice President Charles Burks

Local 303 Branch President Juan Torres,


61346_Magazine.indd 21 10/26/10 9:13:15 AM

22 | The Mail Handler Fall 201022 | The Mail Handler

Comptroller Susanne Green, who discussed changes implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards with regard to electronic filing by all unions of annual financial reports.

The next matter on the meeting agenda was a comprehensive report and discussion from Coventry Manager of National Accounts Brad Corban on the status of the Mail Handlers Benefit Plan (MHBP). That report covered various topics, including an overview of the then

soon-to-be-released MHBP rates and benefits for the 2011 Plan year, and a review of the marketing plan to be implemented in the upcom-ing open season period for health plan selection for all federal and postal employees.

Legislative and Political Director Bob Losi provided a broad over-view of the political landscape during this run up to the 2010 Congressional and Gubernatorial elections. Brother Losi also dis-cussed fund-raising efforts and

successes through the NPMHU Political Action Committee (PAC).

Contract Administration Department Manager Bill Flynn then provided a full report and entertained questions and com-ments from various attendees on the activities of the Contract Administration Department since the last meeting of the Local Unions. The remainder of Brother Flynn’s presentation was based on the writ-ten report that was circulated at the meeting (and which is being

distributed on CD to all NPMHU Officers and Stewards).

Eastern Region Vice President D’Ambrosio took the podium to lead two discussions, first on activities related to the NPMHU/USPS joint Task Force on Discipline, followed by an update on activities of the NPMHU/USPS Article 12 Task Force with par-ticular emphasis on the Workforce Repositioning Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Local 301 (New England states) President Tim Dwyer delivered a

MHBP Manager-National Accounts Brad Corban

MHBP Account Manager Schann Holladay

(l-r) Local 311 Representative Danny Perry, Local 311 Representative Michael Roundtree, Local 311 Representative Ken McFarland

SAMLU Attendees

Western Region Vice President and President Local 320 Rudy Santos

Coventry Vice

President Al Dielo

National President John Hegarty

(l-r) Southern Region Director Charles Reynolds, Local 314 President Anthony Davis, Central Region Director Dianne Williams, Local 304 Attendee Pat Paschall, Senior Legislative Advisor Roger Blacklow

MHBP Manager-(l-r) Southern Region Director Charles Reynolds,

SAMLU Attendees

MHBP Account

Western Region Vice President and President Local 320 Rudy Santos

Coventry Vice

President Al Dielo


(l-r) Local 311 Representative Danny Perry,

Local 331 President Ezequiel

(Zeke) Moreno

Local 331 President Ezequiel

(Zeke) Moreno

22 | The Mail Handler

(l-r) Local 311 President Damon (DT) Taylor and National CAD Representative Dallas Jones share a humorous moment.

Local 311 Branch President Robert Robinson

Local 297 President John Savala

Local attendees engaged in

the SAMLU proceedings

Local 309 Recording Secretary

Alex Catello

National Legislative and Political Director Bob Losi delivering his report to the membership

Robert Robinson

Local 309 Recording Secretary

Alex Catello

Fall 2010

National Legislative and Political Director Bob Losi delivering his report to the membership

John Savala

(l-r) Local 311 President Damon (DT)

61346_Magazine.indd 22 10/26/10 9:14:12 AM

The Mail Handler | 23National Postal Mail Handlers Union The Mail Handler | 23National Postal Mail Handlers UnionNational Postal Mail Handlers Union

Local 300 President and Northeastern Region Vice President Paul Hogrogian

Local 300 President and


Local 321 Branch President Ricardo Olivares is retiring after 25 years of dedicated service to Local 321. Thank you, Ricardo!Back row (l-r) Local 321 Vice President Donald Gonzales, Central Region Vice President and Local 306 President Jefferson Peppers III, Local 321 President Michael Hora. Front Row (l-r) National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, Local 321 Branch President Ricardo Olivares, Local 321 Branch President Cindy Hoehl-Rinker, National President John Hegarty

(l-r) Southern Region Vice President and Local 310 President Bruce Z. Miller, Central Region Vice President and Local 306 President Jefferson Peppers III, Western Region Vice President and Local 320 President Rudy Santos

(l-r) Southern Region Vice President and Local 310 President Bruce Z. Miller,

(l-r) Local 311 Branch President Paul Pineda, Local 311 Branch President Glenn Smith

National CAD Representative Dallas Jones

SAMLU Attendees

Eastern Region Vice President and National Trainer Sam D’Ambrosio

(l-r) Local 311 Branch President Harry Kimbrough, Local 311 Branch President Byron Bennett, Local 311 Branch President Albert Traylor

National CAD Manager Bill Flynn with the CAD Report

Local 301 President Tim Dwyer assisting in the

afternoons training session

President Byron Bennett, Local 311 Branch President Albert Traylor

(l-r) Local 311 Branch President Paul Pineda,

National CAD Manager Bill Flynn with the CAD Report

Eastern Region Vice President and

Local 301 President Tim Dwyer assisting in the

afternoons training session

National CAD



presentation on a modified arbi-tration process pilot program, which he helped develop and which is being tested in Local 301. This process is designed to both expedite the adjudication of cases pending arbitration, and to maximize the cost efficiency of the overall process.

Northeastern Region Vice President and Local 300 (NYC Metropolitan Area) President Paul Hogrogian gave an insightful pre-sentation on various issues related

to USPS attendance control poli-cies, with suggestions on ways to respond to over-aggressive local attendance policies and any oner-ous documentation requirements implemented at the facility level.

As with each of these Meetings of the Local Unions, a solicitation for agenda items was distributed to all Local Union Presidents in advance of this meeting. Agenda items that were sent to the National Office were distributed to all Local Presidents prior to the meeting and,

to the extent possible, the submit-ted agenda items were addressed in the appropriate reports and through other discussion before the assembly. Several other topics were raised and discussed during the round-robin segment of the meet-ing. Over the course of the meet-ing, numerous Local Presidents also took the floor to introduce their fellow Local officers and other representatives who were in atten-dance at this meeting of the Local Unions, and to express their thanks

and appreciation to members of the National Executive Board and representatives of the National and Regional Contract Administration Department, and for the support that they have received from their fellow Local Union officers.

By all accounts, the attendees to this gathering found the subjects covered to be both interesting and informative. The next semi-annual Meeting of the Local Unions will take place in Tucson, Arizona in late March of 2011.

SAMLU Attendees

61346_Magazine.indd 23 10/26/10 9:14:59 AM


For the past fourteen years, the Committee on the Future of the NPMHU has

focused on a wide-ranging agenda that includes issues such as: priva-tization of the Postal Service; the NPMHU’s legislative relations pro-gram; USPS automation and other technological changes; financial planning; and membership recruit-ment. The current members of the Committee include all mem-bers of the NEB and Local Union Presidents James Bell of Local 304, Steve Taylor of Local 312, Nick Mosezar of Local 318, and Michael Hora of Local 321.

At its second meeting of the year 2010, this past July, the Committee focused on several crucial issues, all of which are related to one another: the cur-rent economic status and future economic prospects of the Postal Service; the impact that the financial uncertainty facing the Postal Service is having on mail handlers currently, and is like-ly to have on the NPMHU, its Local Unions, and future negoti-ations over the terms of the 2011 National Agreement; and the various legislative issues being debated in the current Congress, which not surprisingly relate directly to the financial status of the Postal Service.

Economic Status of the USPS. The current state of USPS finances remains extremely poor. In the 2009 fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2009, mail volume was down about 15%, and the end of year deficit was $3.8 billion. It would have been much greater, but for a last min-ute statute, passed by Congress in the closing minutes of the fis-cal year on September 30, 2009, which gave the Postal Service $4 billion in relief by delaying last year’s otherwise required payments to the Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHBF).

The financial situation did not significantly improve during the 2010 fiscal year, as the Postal Service finished with a deficit of $7 billion for the most recent year ending September 30, 2010. Mail volume continues to fall, although the rate of decline has slowed, and future volume once again may be dependent on the general state of the American economy. Although the USPS deficit actu-ally resulting from a decline in mail volume and changes in the mail mix has been running a little better than expected, the Postal Service experienced much larger than planned costs in workers’ compensation (due primarily to falling interest rates), and at the time of the July 2010 meeting

still had a $5.6 billion payment due on September 30, 2010 into the RHBF. Proposed legislation seeking to defer that payment has since failed, so the USPS now has made that mandatory payment, and must regroup to adjust for its expected cash shortfall during the year ahead.

To deal with this financial cri-sis, the Postal Service has adopted a multi-faceted approach, imple-menting and/or proposing a series of operational and financial actions. For one, the Postal Service in early July proposed an above-inflation increase in postal rates, which was reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission and which only could have been approved if the PRC were to determine that the rates are made necessary by either extraordinary or exceptional cir-cumstances and that the rates are necessary to the continued opera-tion of the Postal Service. Although the PRC found the recession of 2008 to be an extraordinary cir-cumstance, the PRC did not find that an exigent rate increase was necessary, and therefore denied the USPS request. Had it been granted, such a rate increase would have generated about 5.6% or about $3 billion per year.

Also, the Postal Service is pro-posing to stop residential deliver-ies on most Saturdays, which the

USPS is claiming will save another $2.5 billion per year. In addition, the Postal Service continues in its efforts to close or consolidate existing USPS facilities, including several major plants and a host of stations and branches. And the Postal Service continues to adopt cost-cutting programs, including a hiring freeze and (in some, but cer-tainly not all locations) reductions in overtime for full-time employees and cuts in hours for part-time employees. The reorganization of the Bulk Mail Center network into Network Distribution Centers, the consolidation of tours and sections within many plants, and delays in the implementation of various automation purchases, includ-ing the Flat Sequencing System (FSS), have added to the uncer-tainty. The Committee analyzed each of these topics, and addressed the NPMHU’s continuing efforts to deal with these issues in a consis-tent and thorough manner.

Each of these actions (or inac-tions) is expected to continue, at least until growth in the American economy revitalizes the mail stream. The Postal Service contin-ues to forecast a drop in mail vol-ume, although the extent of that drop, based in part on continued electronic diversion and in part on the economic recession, is largely unknown and unknowable.

MAKING PLANS AND DEVELOPING STRATEGIES:

THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL POSTAL

MAIL HANDLERS UNION

61346_Magazine.indd 24 10/26/10 9:15:00 AM


Impact on mail handlers. As the NPMHU reacts to these issues, those arising under the National Agreement remain the primary focus of the Contract Administration Department. But the Committee on the Future also is following new and revised auto-mation, and is developing and monitoring the Union’s efforts in Congress or before the Postal Regulatory Commission to adjust the statutory or regulatory business model governing the Postal Service during the coming years.

In this regard, the Committee discussed recent meetings of the joint NPMHU-USPS Article 12 Task Force, focusing in particu-lar on issues arising as a result of excessing, in the mail han-dler craft and in other crafts. The Committee also reviewed the workings of the NPMHU’s BMC Task Force. The Committee also discussed the implementation of the FSS, as well as potential future changes such as more upgrades to the AFCS, more efforts by the mailing industry to reduce the use of plastic straps and plastic wrap, and more equipment upgrades such as the Automated Letter Movement System (ALMS).

Impact on the NPMHU and its Local Unions. Another result of USPS downsiz-ing is its impact on all levels of the Union. On the one hand, con-stant management actions requir-ing implementation of Article 12 place additional stress on mail handlers and additional burdens on the stewards and officers who represent them. This forces the Union, at both the National and Local levels, to devote available resources to deal with the con-stant movement, reassignment, dislocation, and inconvenience that are being imposed on the membership.

At the same time, because of the Postal Service’s downsizing,

the Union has been losing mem-bers, and there is virtually no USPS hiring. Thus, at precisely the time when the Union must marshal its resources, the financial resources of the Union are becoming more and more limited. The Committee dis-cussed the practical impact of these trends, emphasizing the need to continue organizing new members, especially among current postal employees who are just becoming members of the mail handler craft. And, of course, the Committee continued to discuss ways to con-vince Local Unions to spend their resources wisely, focusing on the representation of members under the National Agreement.

Legislative Efforts in the 111th Congress. As a direct result of the ongoing financial prob-lems faced by the Postal Service, many of the Union’s efforts during the two years of the 111th Congress necessarily have been focused on enacting economic relief for the Postal Service.

The Committee’s discussion of legislative matters began with a dis-cussion of the political environment that has a vice-like grip on the leg-islative process. Among the items noted were the bitter partisan nature of the political scene, the diverse opinions that exist within the ruling Democratic Party that result in no singular message or united view on legislation, the openly “just say no” policy adopted by Congressional Republicans, and the apparent gap between the expectations of President Obama’s supporters at the time of his inauguration and the reality of Congressional law-making. Furthermore, the President inherited a situation that only President Roosevelt had previously faced, with economic catastrophe at home and multiple foreign-policy challenges abroad, a situation that in great measure dictated the legisla-tive agenda of the last two years.

Both Republicans and Democrats are keenly aware of the alarm-ing drop in the President’s poll numbers, and are acting accord-ingly with the November election around the corner. Republicans continue to oppose, block, and gum up the legislative process. Some Democrats have, on par-ticular issues, abandoned both the President and their party col-leagues. The November 2010 “mid-term” elections, named because they fall in the middle of the President’s four-year term, began the day Obama was inaugurated. The Republicans openly defied the President and offered little assis-tance, other than to ratchet up the rhetoric and increase their resis-tance. Likewise, the race for the 2012 election will begin in earnest the day after the mid-term elec-tions, and will severely handicap any significant legislative action in 2011 or 2012.

The Committee discussed the potential impact on Congress of the upcoming elections and the recent ruling by a divided (5-4) Supreme Court that corpora-tions will be unfettered by previ-ous campaign finance regulations. Corporations are now allowed to spend money on campaigns in unlimited amounts because the Court decided that the use of cor-porate money is free speech. These same corporations, with an agenda of cutbacks on employee rights and

safety and consumer protections, already outspend labor unions by more than 18-1.

The Committee on the Future then discussed, in detail, the Congressional attempts to deal with the current economic situation faced by the Postal Service. The Committee heard reports on two major issues: (1) the apparent overfunding of the CSRS pension system by the USPS, in the amount of $50 to $70 billion, and (2) the congressionally man-dated, yearly payments of more than $5 billion to the RHBF established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA). Note: Since the Committee meeting, legis-lation (H.R. 5746) was introduced by Rep. Steve Lynch, D-MA, to address the situation. A letter for NPMHU members and legislative activists to send to their Representative, urging co-sponsorship of this legislation, is available on the npmhu.org website. As of October 2010, there are more than 125 co-sponsors.

With regard to pension over-funding, the USPS Office of Inspector General (OIG) dropped a bombshell when, in response to pressure from the postal unions, it investigated the annual pay-ments the USPS makes to the Civil Service Retirement Fund. The OIG concluded that the Postal Service and its customers had overpaid by more than $70 billion. The PRC then did a separate study that found the number closer to $50

COTF

...corporations, with an agenda of cutbacks on employee rights and safety and consumer protections, already outspend labor unions by more than 18-1. contInued on

page 26 ❯❯

61346_Magazine.indd 25 10/26/10 9:15:01 AM


billion. In either case, the overpay-ment is more than enough to pay all of the yearly RHBF payments and keep the USPS fiscally healthy for years to come.

Not surprisingly, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which calculated the amount of these payments to the CSRS Fund, disputes these claims. OPM says that the payments were figured out in accordance with the law and that OPM should not have to forfeit the money or redirect it to the RHBF. Corrections of these pension overpayments by properly estimating the obliga-tions and crediting monies back to the Postal Service would result in full funding of both the pension and retiree health benefit funds, eliminating the need for PAEA payments altogether. But such cor-rections will not likely take place without legislative action.

The Committee on the Future recognized how critical this money is to the Postal Service, which as noted above ran a debt in the most recent fiscal year of approximately $7 billion, of which $5.6 billion is the payment to the RHBF. Indeed, were it not for the prefunding requirement, the Postal Service would have run an operating profit in two of the last three fiscal years.

Under normal circumstances, such as those that existed when the PAEA was passed in 2006, the annual funding requirement for the RHBF would be consid-

ered unusual, but not crippling. When the economy nose-dived, however, any private-sector com-pany that also pre-funded retiree health benefits ceased doing so. Not the Postal Service, howev-er, because the law mandates the payments. As noted, the law would have to be amended or changed in some fashion to end these obligations.

Therein lies the problem. Almost any fix to the situation would, according to congressional budget experts, add to the nation’s deficit. In the current political environment, adding billions of dollars to the deficit is not likely to pass through Congress and be signed into law by the President. Furthermore, any legislative fix in the Senate will mean that the NPMHU and other postal unions probably will have to fight off amendments by Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) that were offered last year to S. 1507. Those amendments would alter the current collective bargain-ing language and possibly increase the share of health benefit premi-ums paid by postal employees.

The unions and management associations, working closely with Rep. Lynch and his staff, are searching for a viable answer legislatively. A hearing was held on the topic. The OIG and USPS said that there was overfunding; OPM disagreed. Unfortunately, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) tried (unsuccessful-

ly) to submarine postal groups’ efforts both at the hearing and in subsequent legislation.

In any case, the Committee agreed that Congress would have to do something by September 30, 2010, possibly an act similar to that passed last year, if they did not want the USPS to founder. Unfortunately, that financial relief did not come to fruition prior to the end of the USPS fiscal year.

After the lengthy discussion on pension and RHBF issues, the Committee on the Future engaged in vigorous discussion about claims made by a new mailer group, the so-called Affordable Mail Alliance. This organization was formed as a response to the effort by the USPS to use the “exigency” clause in the PAEA to raise postal rates by more than the Consumer Price Index. The Alliance claims that the causes for the Postal Service’s financial decline include poor management, the congressio-nal mandate for payments into the RHBF, and the overfunded pension costs. Thus, they wanted the PRC to reject any special rate increase. They also target the high cost of labor, which the Alliance claims is much higher than in the private sector. They also say that benefits for postal employees are much too generous, even in comparison to the Federal Government.

The NPMHU, acting through its General Counsel, responded to these claims in an effort to support the Postal Service’s failed rate request. We argued that the economic recession that started in 2008 was sufficiently drastic to satisfy the statutory require-ment of “extraordinary or excep-tional circumstances.” A major-ity of the PRC agreed with the NPMHU analysis, but went on to conclude that, notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstanc-es presented, the Postal Service could not prove that the exigent rate increase was necessary to its continuing operations.

Among the other issues that garnered the attention of the Committee were:

❚ Various congressional and PRC hearings on the USPS and related labor issues;

❚ Attempts by Congressional Republicans to impose a pay freeze on federal employees, who cur-rently are scheduled to get a 1.4% pay increase. If those attempts are successful, that not only would implement poor public policy, but also may impact upcoming postal negotiations;

❚ The President’s Deficit Commission, which is looking at recommenda-tions to lower Medicare costs and raise the retirement age for Social Security and other pension programs;

❚ Nominations to the USPS Board of Governors and the PRC, as well as the NLRB and the U.S. Supreme Court;

❚ Other legislative issues were dis-cussed as well, including vote by mail, a census bill that would use letter carriers as census takers, WEP/GPO, premium conversion, Rep. Lynch’s bill to limit subcon-tracting or outsourcing of postal jobs; a bill from Rep. Albio Sires (D-NJ) on closings, a bill from Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) on fuel, electric-drive vehicles, and various state issues such as “Do Not Mail” and anti-union ballot initiatives.

Notwithstanding the poison-ous atmosphere controlling the 111th Congress, several advances were made on postal-related leg-islation toward the end of 2009, including those relating to FERS sick leave and the Thrift Savings Plan. Indeed, back in 2009, the Committee adopted a compre-hensive legislative agenda that included specific legislative goals, some of which already have been enacted into law and others of which are pending leg-islative action.

COTF

A letter for NPMHU members and legislative activists to send to their Representative, urging co-sponsor-ship of [H.R. 5746] is available on the npmhu.org website.

61346_Magazine.indd 26 10/26/10 9:15:02 AM


The most notable of these changes is health insurance coverage for children, married chil-dren, stepchildren, and foster children between the ages of 22 and 26, as well as children incapable of self-support because of a mental or physical disability that began before age 26. Children do not have to live with their parent, be financially dependent upon their parent, or be students to be covered up to age 26. There is also no requirement that the child have prior or current insurance coverage. FEHB Program plans will send notice to all of their enrollees of the coverage eligibility changes as a part of each plan’s Open Season com-munications. In cases where children have their own employer-provided health insurance and also are covered under their parent’s Self and Family enrollment, the children’s employer-provided health insurance will be the primary payer. FEHB will be the secondary payer.

What must you do to add a newly eligible child to your enrollment?

❚ If you currently have a Self and Family enrollment and you do not change to another health plan or option during Open Season, contact your FEHB plan and give them information on your newly eligible child. Do not complete an SF 2809, Health Benefits Election Form, or enter dependent information in the Postal Service’s enrollment system to add your child to an existing Self and Family enrollment. Your child will be covered on January 1, 2011.

❚ If you currently have a Self Only enrollment and you have newly eligible children, you must change

your enrollment from Self Only to Self and Family if you want your children to be covered. You must use an SF 2809 or the Postal Service enrollment system to make this change.

❚ If you are not currently enrolled and you want FEHB coverage since your children are now eli-gible, you must enroll for Self and Family coverage to provide coverage for your children. You must use an SF 2809 or the Postal Service’s enrollment system to make this change.

❚ If you are enrolled in Self and Family, and you are changing health plans, complete SF 2809 and include all children up to age 26

❚ Important: If you are enrolling or changing your enrollment, be sure to include all children up to age 26 when completing your SF 2809 or using the Postal Service’s enrollment system.

❚ If you enroll or change your enrollment as an Open Season change, it will take effect on the first day of the first pay period that begins in 2011. For many federal employees, this will be January 2, 2011. For the Office of Workers’ Compensation, this will be January 16, 2011. For Postal Service employees, CSRS/FERS annuitants, Temporary Continuation of Coverage (TCC) enrollees and former spouses, an enrollment or change in enroll-ment made either as a “change in family status” QLE or as an Open Season change will provide coverage of eligible children on January 1, 2011. This is also true for other agencies and other retirement systems with a pay period that begins on January 1, 2011.

Please be aware that the effective date of cover-age for your newly eligible children depends upon the event used to enroll or change enrollment. If you are an employee who gets paid biweekly (this applies to most federal employees) or you are an Office of Workers’ Compensation (OWCP) recip-ient, and you want your child covered on January 1, 2011, then you must enroll or change your enrollment as a “change in family status” – quali-fying life event (QLE). The qualifying life event code to use on the SF 2809 is ‘1C’ for employees and ‘2B’ for OWCP recipients.

You may change your enrollment from 31 days before to 60 days after January 1, 2011. Your change to Self and Family will take effect on the first day of the pay period that includes January 1, 2011. Your child will be covered on January 1, 2011. If you make your QLE change after January 1st, your child will be covered retroactively to January 1, 2011 and you will pay retroactive premiums back to the effective date of the enrollment or change.

How does this affect eligibility for Temporary Continuation of Coverage (TCC)?Children who lose coverage due to reaching age 26 are eligible for TCC for up to 36 months even if they previously had TCC. If you are a child of an FEHB enrollee and you are now enrolled under TCC, you may no longer need your TCC enrollment since you could be covered under your parent’s Self and Family enrollment. Once you are assured of coverage under your parent’s Self and Family enrollment, you may want to cancel your TCC enrollment. To cancel your TCC, contact the National Finance Center at USDA, National Finance Center, DPRS Billing Unit, PO Box 61760, New Orleans, LA 70161-1760, or call that Center at 1-800-242-9630.

Health Insurance for Children Health Insurance for Children — UNTIL AGE 26 —— UNTIL AGE 26 —

UNDER HEALTH CARE REFORM OF 2010UNDER HEALTH CARE REFORM OF 2010

ON MARCH 23, 2010, President Obama

signed the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as health

care reform. Several provisions of the ACA affect eligibility

and benefits under the Federal Employees Health Benefits

(FEHB) Program beginning January 1, 2011.

61346_Magazine.indd 27 10/26/10 9:15:02 AM


More than one hundred mail handlers from across the country – most of whom serve as elected officers from

one of the thirty-seven NPMHU Local Unions – gathered in Washington, DC for two days of intense Leadership Training. The training was conducted by all seven members of the National Executive Board, and was supplemented by sev-eral presentations from outside experts.

During the training, participants reviewed both the constitutional and legal rules that gov-ern issues involved in leading a union and the practical concerns that must be considered by

union leaders. The training focused, therefore, on the various documents and rules that regu-late all Local Unions, including the Uniform Local Union Constitution and the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. In addition, participants also discussed a host of practical issues, such as how to conduct union meetings; how to improve union communica-tions, including routine mailings, newsletters and web pages; how to take advantage of con-tractually required labor-management meetings; how and when to hire outside consultants, law-yers, auditors, and other experts to assist a Local

Union; how to adopt and implement document retention and destruction policies; and how to identify and adopt successful approaches to han-dling grievances and appealing arbitrations.

The training was greatly enhanced by the active participation of many attendees, who asked insightful questions and shared their experiences. The participants also heard from several outside speakers, including Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, and Terry O’Sullivan, General President of the NPMHU’s international parent body, the Laborers’ International Union of North America. Brothers Trumka and O’Sullivan spoke

NPMHU LeaDeRshiP tRaininG FOR LOCAL OFFICERS


Eastern Region Vice President and National Trainer Sam D’Ambrosio

LIUNA International President Terence O’Sullivan

NPMHU General Counsel Bruce Lerner

Western Region Vice President and Local 320 President Rudy Santos

AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka National Secretary-Treasurer Mark GardnerNational President John Hegarty AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner

Eastern Region Vice President and LIUNA International President NPMHU General Counsel Western Region Vice President and

61346_Magazine.indd 28 10/26/10 9:15:35 AM


(l-r) National CAD Representative Dallas Jones, Western CAD Director David Ross, Local 304 President James Bell, National CAD Representative Thomas Branch

Union Leaders gather for a group photo

(l-r) Local 302 Recording Secretary Juanita Contreras, National President John Hegarty, Local 302 Vice President Liberty Velasco

(l-r) Local 306 SEBM David Stenson, Local 306 Recording Secretary Belinda Jackson,

Central Region Vice President and Local 306 President Jefferson Peppers III, and Local 306 Vice President June Harris

(l-r) Local 314 President Anthony Davis, Local 324

President Abraham Calamease,


John Lund, Ph.D. Director Office of Labor-Management Standards/ESA U.S. Department of Labor

National Legislative and Political Director Bob Losi

Central Region Vice President and Local 306 President Jefferson Peppers III

Southern Region Vice President and Local 310 President Bruce Z. Miller

about the crucial role that union leaders must play, not only in contract enforcement and union administration, but also in the all-important political and legislative spheres.

And finally, Dr. John Lund, President Obama’s appointment as Director of the Office of Labor-Management Standards in the U.S. Department of Labor, offered a well-received presentation on the many regulatory issues that confront union leaders on a day-to-day basis. The DOL has supervisory authority over union finances, union recordkeeping, union elections, and the fiduciary duties of union officers, so Lund’s comments were relevant to virtually the entire agenda of the leadership program.

In short, Local officers who attended the leadership training had a much-needed opportunity to discuss and debate various issues that will confront their respective Locals during the coming months and years. They also were urged to share these lessons with their colleagues back home, so that all Local officers and representatives could gain the benefits of the training program.

continued on page 30 ❯❯

61346_MagazineX.indd 29 10/26/10 3:30:47 PM


(l-r) National President John Hegarty, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka, National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner

Leadership Training attendees

(l-r) National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, LIUNA International

President Terence O’Sullivan, National President John Hegarty

NPMHU Leadership Training in progress

Local leaders participating in the training

(l-r) National Office 1188 Project Coordinator Ponise Shields and National Office Director of Membership Robin Daniels

Northeast Region Vice President and Local 300 President Paul Hogrogian

NPMHU Leadership Training in progress

Northeast Region Vice President and (l-r) National Office 1188 Project Coordinator

(l-r) National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, LIUNA International

President Terence O’Sullivan, National President John Hegarty

Local leaders participating in the training

Leadership Training attendees

(l-r) National President John Hegarty, AFL-CIO President

(l-r) Local 314 Treasurer William

(Ray) Brown, Northeast Region

Vice President and Local 300 President Paul

Hogrogian, Local 314 President

Anthony Davis, and Central

Region Director Dianne Williams

(l-r) Local 334 Vice President Andre Jenkins, Eastern Region Vice President and National Trainer Sam D’Ambrosio, National President John Hegarty, Local 334 President Michael Howell

61346_Magazine.indd 30 10/26/10 9:16:54 AM

The Mail Handler | 31National Postal Mail Handlers Union The Mail Handler | 31National Postal Mail Handlers Union

Mail Handlers Across the Country

Local 310 Shop Stewards at their Tri-Annual Shop Steward Training.

Local 310 Steward Training

(l-r) National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, Local VP William “Bill” Sitzes, Branch President Armando Sanchez, Local President Anthony Davis, Branch President Doug Adkins, Recording Secretary Yvette Luster, Branch President Leslie Williams, State Executive Board Member Scott Rodgers, Local Treasurer William “Ray” Brown, Branch President Matt McCune, and National President John Hegarty

Election of Officers in St. Louis: National President John Hegarty met with NPMHU officers and members in St. Louis on October 15, 2010 to administer the Oath of Office following the officer elections in Local 314.

(l-r) National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner, Local 313 Recording Secretary Elsie Santos, Local 313 VP Mike Pazos, State Executive Board Member Carlos Alicea, Local 313 President Julio Figueroa, and Northeast Region Vice President and Local 300 President Paul Hogrogian (not pictured, Local 313 Treasurer Jose Santiago)

Local 313 Installation of Officers: Northeastern Region VP Paul Hogrogian joined National Secretary-Treasurer Mark Gardner on August 24, 2010 at the Installation of Officers ceremony following the recent election of officers in Local 313 (Puerto Rico).

(l-r standing) Local 321 President Michael Hora, SEBM John Meding, Steward Andy Lovato, Steward Zack Mischo, , Branch President P&DC Cindy Hoehl-Rinker, Central Region Vice President and Local 306 President Jefferson C. Peppers III, National President John Hegarty, Steward Mike Blackburn, Local 321 Vice President Don Gonzales, Steward Diana Leyba, Steward Kim Snyder, Branch President Colorado Springs Ricardo Olivares (l-r in front) Steward Claude Ridley, Branch President Denver NDC Mark Lofthouse, Recording Secretary Ed Flagg

Denver: Local 321 Picnic – July 2010

(l-r)T1 Steward, NDC Tammy Guy, T3 Steward, P&DC Vern Millsap, Recording Secretary Dave Sapp, National President John Hegarty, Local 333 President Randy Krueger, Branch President, P&DC Diane Roll, State Representative Jason Vick, Branch President, Waterloo Dave Henninger, T3 Steward, NDC Monica Mathews, T2 Steward, P&DC Dave Freeman, Local 333 Vice President Dennis Lockridge,

Local 333 Membership meeting and Picnic – October 16

61346_Magazine.indd 31 10/26/10 9:17:07 AM

Start saving today with dozens of coupons at

UnionPlus.org/Coupons

Use your coupons from the web site for discounts.Visit UnionPlus.org/Coupons today!

Find quick, easy savings at our NEW Union Plus Coupon Center!

FIND SAVINGS COUPONS FOR: Money • Home Discounts • Health

• Auto • Assistance • Travel and Entertainment

Our new Coupon Center now makes it easier than ever to take advantage of your many benefits. Simply print the coupons you need to help you stretch your

paycheck, weather hardships and get more out of life, on and off the job!

Save 20%on Flowers and Gifts!on Flowers and Gifts!

Save up to 25%on car, van and truck rentals!on car, van and truck rentals!

SampleSave 15%

on the regular monthly rate for individual and family cell plans*AT&T is the only unionized wireless service company!

The Union Discount FAN# is

*Excludes additional lines for family plans, AT&T Unity plans and unlimited plans.

PRINT COUPON

61346_MagazineX.indd 32 10/28/10 9:35:16 AM

the mail handler fall 2010

Documents

simple mail handlers

amthe mail handler

npmhu regions

npmhu arthur

t i o n o f t h e n

postal employees

postal service

r t e r