Regular carrier being forced to do extra work.

[Kjun85]

Thank you for taking the time to read this. On our office management is forcing full time carriers to carry more after there route. I stated and showed management the mou on full time carriers they could volunteer but not forced. Management disregards anything about contract or mou. Stating that if I disregard there direct order to carry more I will be disciplined. Union district rep associate stated i have to follow the direct order regardless. If I will to fill out a saefty hazard form what would my statement/ question be so i can turn the tables as being to disregard there direct order? Any other words of wisdom on the issue that may help.
Thank you!

 

[Deleted member 7264]

Just say you're too exhausted to safely complete any additional duties. Even if you don't fill out a safety form you're not going to get fired for refusing if they're so shorthanded they have to resort to mandating regulars. We used to have a regular with a 14 day suspension on file who refused extra work all the time and nothing ever happened to him, although he did end up resigning by his own choice because he got tired of management.

It seems its the way a lot of offices are going now, sadly. Being forced in on every K day isn't enough anymore. Can't keep subs because the allure of "Once you're a regular you only have to do one route a day" is gone now. Why would anyone stay?

Also, look into getting a doctor's note that says you can't perform duties on any route except your own. We have several regulars in our office that have this restriction and management leaves them alone.

 

[Shannonboy]

Just say you're too exhausted to safely complete any additional duties. Even if you don't fill out a safety form you're not going to get fired for refusing if they're so shorthanded they have to resort to mandating regulars. We used to have a regular with a 14 day suspension on file who refused extra work all the time and nothing ever happened to him, although he did end up resigning by his own choice because he got tired of management.

It seems its the way a lot of offices are going now, sadly. Being forced in on every K day isn't enough anymore. Can't keep subs because the allure of "Once you're a regular you only have to do one route a day" is gone now. Why would anyone stay?

Also, look into getting a doctor's note that says you can't perform duties on any route except your own. We have several regulars in our office that have this restriction and management leaves them alone.

This /l\ is the Way...
❤❤❤

 

[tonsillitis]

if management knows how to treat employees well and not just numbers they prolly still have rca to cover it.. and it always baffles me why they always wonder people wont stay.

 

[EthelAnne]

I'll probably regret asking, but have you filed a grievance? Seems like that would be an easier route to stop this than citing safety.

If it's unsafe for you to take a piece of another route due to exhaustion at this time of year, will you be able to complete your route during peak season?

I mean, I don't see how this would fly, but whatever you can get management to agree to, go for it.

 

[Deleted member 7264]

I'll probably regret asking, but have you filed a grievance? Seems like that would be an easier route to stop this than citing safety.

If it's unsafe for you to take a piece of another route due to exhaustion at this time of year, will you be able to complete your route during peak season?

I mean, I don't see how this would fly, but whatever you can get management to agree to, go for it.

Grievances will just get you paid more (we get 250%), it won't stop management from trying to use regulars. The mail has to go out.

 

[YOUAREthecurrentresident]

Grievances will just get you paid more (we get 250%), it won't stop management from trying to use regulars. The mail has to go out.

250%??? Was that obtained at step 1? That’s pretty sweet though…even for someone like me…a table 2er!! I’d be all over that

 

[Kjun85]

I'll probably regret asking, but have you filed a grievance? Seems like that would be an easier route to stop this than citing safety.

If it's unsafe for you to take a piece of another route due to exhaustion at this time of year, will you be able to complete your route during peak season?

I mean, I don't see how this would fly, but whatever you can get management to agree to, go for it.

The point being for me its no longer about the money but the time with my family. In my office we get no relief days, vacation is instantly declined, and now management want you to carry mail from 7am to 10pm. Everyday!

 

[EthelAnne]

Grievances will just get you paid more (we get 250%), it won't stop management from trying to use regulars. The mail has to go out.

Cease and desist with escalating monetary penalties, but yeah, lots of USPS managers see this as just the cost of doing business and don't care.

Grievances are not a cure-all, but in my experience, they show carriers are willing to assert their rights, and often that is all it takes to get management to fall in line. They also bring attention to the issue which sometimes (though not often) gets someone at district level to take notice. They can also start a discussion between carriers and management to come to a compromise.

Routes can go undelivered--it happens in my area, and management has to notify district when it happens, which I am sure no one is happy about, but unfortunately it is the world we live in now. Some carriers aren't willing to work another route for time and a half--but they'll gladly do it for double time. Some managers will saddle up and start delivering routes rather than deal with the hassle of handling grievances.

I just find it hard to believe in an office like the one OP describes they are working in, management is going to understand that sudden burst of energy that will enable OP to deliver their route during peak season when they are too exhausted to help out now. But management is stupid, and they may agree to it. I've seen stranger things happen.

 

[Missed a scan]

Cease and desist with escalating monetary penalties, but yeah, the mail still has to go out.

That should not be the mailman's problem.

 

[EthelAnne]

That should not be the mailman's problem.

I edited my post to make my point clearer so what you've quoted is not what the post currently says, but you are correct it is management's job "to direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties . . . to maintain the efficiency of operations entrusted to it . . . to determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted." (Article 3)

 

[Deer Smearer]

I edited my post to make my point clearer so what you've quoted is not what the post currently says, but you are correct it is management's job "to direct employees of the Employer in the performance of official duties . . . to maintain the efficiency of operations entrusted to it . . . to determine the methods, means, and personnel by which such operations are to be conducted." (Article 3)

And article 3 also states…

 

[Gotrope]

Did mgmt willfully violate terms to force carriers into unsafe work practices rather than carry mail themselves?

Unsafe work practices are not just fatigue. It could be working at risk inducing speeds or manner.

And definitely ask for more than the mou. It wasn't voluntary.

Steward may want to argue the financial harm to rrecs data, as well.

 

[Deleted member 7264]

250%??? Was that obtained at step 1? That’s pretty sweet though…even for someone like me…a table 2er!! I’d be all over that

Yes. We have a few people who volunteer for anything and everything (and they still get the 250% despite not being forced). The money is great but after a while my body hurts and I'd rather spend that time with my family.

 

[Worve]

250%??? Was that obtained at step 1? That’s pretty sweet though…even for someone like me…a table 2er!! I’d be all over that

I would rather see management fail personally, even tho I like current OIC. Did my time bailing them out, not my problem now.

 

[Shannonboy]

250%??? Was that obtained at step 1? That’s pretty sweet though…even for someone like me…a table 2er!! I’d be all over that

Yeah...and mgmt would be all over you for filing a grievance to get that....can you spell R E TA L I A T I O N....if not, ask mgmt, they can spell it just fine, as they do it ALL THE TIME...

 

[Old Fart]

Cease and desist with escalating monetary penalties, but yeah, lots of USPS managers see this as just the cost of doing business and don't care.

Grievances are not a cure-all, but in my experience, they show carriers are willing to assert their rights, and often that is all it takes to get management to fall in line. They also bring attention to the issue which sometimes (though not often) gets someone at district level to take notice. They can also start a discussion between carriers and management to come to a compromise.

Routes can go undelivered--it happens in my area, and management has to notify district when it happens, which I am sure no one is happy about, but unfortunately it is the world we live in now. Some carriers aren't willing to work another route for time and a half--but they'll gladly do it for double time. Some managers will saddle up and start delivering routes rather than deal with the hassle of handling grievances.

I just find it hard to believe in an office like the one OP describes they are working in, management is going to understand that sudden burst of energy that will enable OP to deliver their route during peak season when they are too exhausted to help out now. But management is stupid, and they may agree to it. I've seen stranger things happen.

As indicated above, sometimes MULTIPLE grievances because management continues to violate the same part of the contract will draw District attention. Contact your DR if you aren't getting anything from your local steward or ADR. The DR is a full time union representative and often connects directly with Area and District.

No, you cannot refuse a direct order. I'd get it in writing, letting PM know you're filing but will comply.

 

[Dominator]

And article 3 also states…

View attachment 13267

And don't forget this little gem from 39 USC 101(c), Postal Policy.

As an employer, the Postal Service shall achieve and maintain compensation for its officers and employees comparable to the rates and types of compensation paid in the private sector of the economy of the United States. It shall place particular emphasis upon opportunities for career advancements of all officers and employees and the achievement of worthwhile and satisfying careers in the service of the United States.

How "worthwhile and satisfying" can it be to have your discretionary authority to not assist on another route yanked from under your feet because of poor planning in scheduling?

If we're going to discuss Article 3, the 'mission' mentioned in 3(f) is...




I'd love to hear the argument on how management's decision to obligate regulars to assist on other routes is "consistent with meeting, in a fair way, [their] obligations to [their] current employees."

If management is proposing this "force regulars to assist on other routes" policy change from the MOU is both "consistent" and "fair", show me the Article 19.2 proposal? Oh... lemme guess, it doesn't exist.



I swear... with how often the NRLCA tramples on its membership's constitutional rights, I'd like to at least hope that game could recognize game.

This is the sort of environment what rougly $900 a year in dues gets ya these days? Yikes.

I wouldn't be surprised if Stutts and/or Dwyer try painting Maston as incompetent at this next convention and one of them reclaim the throne they both indicated they were done with, even while it was both of them (though mostly Dwyer) that got us in this mess in the first place.

I'd love to hear a more positive result on this over some backdoor ghost provision settlement that amounts to sticking a premium price tag on a result of management's decision to corner employees into a position nobody ever agreed to take on.

What's next, a provision in the MOU that agrees to a value if management wishes to override the carrier's discretionary authority?

Always with the incremental takeovers.

 

[neciat]

I'd love to hear a more positive result on this over some backdoor ghost provision settlement that amounts to sticking a premium price tag on a result of management's decision to corner employees into a position nobody ever agreed to take on.

Where I get "confused" is when I see language like "cease and desist with escalating monetary penalties" not only on this particular issue but many others as well. Now, this is NOT intended to be a dig on any Steward. I am being sincere here. Which one is it ? "Cease and desist" or "escalating monetary penalties" for totally ignoring not only the ORIGINAL MOU , but ALSO the grievance settlement that states "cease and desist" ? All kinds of "wrong" and "enabled to violate" occurring.

 

[Dominator]

As indicated above, sometimes MULTIPLE grievances because management continues to violate the same part of the contract will draw District attention.

Perhaps filing first thing each morning and remembering to collect meeting time via the comments section of a 4240.

May management require me to perform work today, m/d/y, on a rural route other than my assigned route?

The mere presence of a yes/maybe modifies the terms and conditions of the contract by that a regular carrier no longer has the freedom to plan their personal time beyond what they presume will be their "end of day" clockout.

If the daily cost of just asking this question (hopefully carrier's line up to ask) isn't enough to raise an eyebrow, I'm not sure what will.