U caught my attention
Well-known member
It would make sense to hope to formulate and get a midweek relief for the incentive so the route doesn’t get cut back so far.
If growth routes.
If growth routes.
NRLCA Reaches Tentative Agreement with USPS for Three-Year Contract
- Thread starter Ruralinfo
- Start date
calimailman
Well-known member
Good question. The union released the highlights of the proposed contract.
Are there lowlights?
Who knows.
calimailman
Well-known member
If I were table one, personally I missed it by 5 months i'd probably vote for the contract and have the classic federal worker mentality "i got mine so sorry for you suckers."
So i don't blame table 1 folks for riding the wave so to speak.
Shannonboy
Well-known member
Yeah....I hear ya....but, it sure gets old getting crapped on by the nrlca. If I wanted that every day, I'd work at a daycare....
PersonOfPost
Member
I'm happy because I'm two minutes away from my route going up.
stingrayiii
Well-known member
I'm table 1, we need a better contract for sure. We are all getting screwed. How are we suppose to get good quality workers if we can't offer better pay to attract them for one. It affects all of us. Even table 1 people are stuggling to get by nowadays.
Gotrope et al -- " I didn't really understand until around 2007 how bad our lead counsel was."
-- Sorry, but it should have been evident that the NRLCA's negotiation team and legal representation was not up to the job earlier than 2007.
-- As far as I was concerned, the job of the negotiation team and legal reps is to IMPRESS the arbitrators in order to get a favorable ruling from them.
-- Arbitrator Wells ( 2002 ) had at least 15 negative comments about the union and its reps in his ruling. Such as:
- failed to advance compelling evidence
- unable to submit persuasive evidence
- failed to relevant external comparability evidence
- the union's limited evidence does not support
- the union provided no rebuttal to this evidence
- the NRLCA did not refute any of this evidence
- NRLCA failed to offer compelling evidence
-- Arbitrator Fishgold ( 2006 ) didn't really have negative comments in his 12-page ruling, but he made several references to the other unions reaching an agreement with the USPS, which the NRLCA membership voted down the tentative agreement. And he basically told the USPS and the NRLCA there wouldn't be any significant changes to the previous negotiated items.
-- Arbitrator Clarke ( 2012 ) had at least 12 negative comments in his 17 page ruling, such as:
- unrebutted [ USPS ] evidence shows..
- the difficulty with the NRLCA's argument is that if ignores the role of a National Panel Arbitrator
- the unrebutted evidence presented by the USPS convinces the Chairman....
- NRLCA's evidence does not show the Chairman that vehicle maintenance costs incurred by rural carriers mirrors that of the USPS
-- Time after time, the NRLCA negotiating team and its legal representation fail to impress those who need to be impressed.
-- Sorry, but it should have been evident that the NRLCA's negotiation team and legal representation was not up to the job earlier than 2007.
-- As far as I was concerned, the job of the negotiation team and legal reps is to IMPRESS the arbitrators in order to get a favorable ruling from them.
-- Arbitrator Wells ( 2002 ) had at least 15 negative comments about the union and its reps in his ruling. Such as:
- failed to advance compelling evidence
- unable to submit persuasive evidence
- failed to relevant external comparability evidence
- the union's limited evidence does not support
- the union provided no rebuttal to this evidence
- the NRLCA did not refute any of this evidence
- NRLCA failed to offer compelling evidence
-- Arbitrator Fishgold ( 2006 ) didn't really have negative comments in his 12-page ruling, but he made several references to the other unions reaching an agreement with the USPS, which the NRLCA membership voted down the tentative agreement. And he basically told the USPS and the NRLCA there wouldn't be any significant changes to the previous negotiated items.
-- Arbitrator Clarke ( 2012 ) had at least 12 negative comments in his 17 page ruling, such as:
- unrebutted [ USPS ] evidence shows..
- the difficulty with the NRLCA's argument is that if ignores the role of a National Panel Arbitrator
- the unrebutted evidence presented by the USPS convinces the Chairman....
- NRLCA's evidence does not show the Chairman that vehicle maintenance costs incurred by rural carriers mirrors that of the USPS
-- Time after time, the NRLCA negotiating team and its legal representation fail to impress those who need to be impressed.
Someone needs to explain to our union about this........
CCA vs RCA
CCA
Work 2 years before becoming PTF.
Pay starts at 20.23 with new contract. After 1 year it goes to 20.73.
After 2 years, they become PTF and get 24.57 an hour.
They also get TSP, SL, and can get step increases..
No vehicle
Compared to RCA
Work 3 years before get a $1 an hour increase in pay.
Pay starts at 21.39 with new contract. In 2026, RCA will be making 22.39 or 23.39 depending if they got their years in.
3 years in, they still don't get TSP, SL, & no more step increase of an extra dollar here and there.
Chance they have to have a vehicle to work.
Someone wonder why ESPECIALLY where I live I see plenty of CCA working and BARELY ANY RCA.
They aren't helping us at all with keeping subs. Think about it. If I decided I wanted to work at post office, which one has a better career path????? No wonder city side is filling up and rural is drowning with no one to work.
CCA vs RCA
CCA
Work 2 years before becoming PTF.
Pay starts at 20.23 with new contract. After 1 year it goes to 20.73.
After 2 years, they become PTF and get 24.57 an hour.
They also get TSP, SL, and can get step increases..
No vehicle
Compared to RCA
Work 3 years before get a $1 an hour increase in pay.
Pay starts at 21.39 with new contract. In 2026, RCA will be making 22.39 or 23.39 depending if they got their years in.
3 years in, they still don't get TSP, SL, & no more step increase of an extra dollar here and there.
Chance they have to have a vehicle to work.
Someone wonder why ESPECIALLY where I live I see plenty of CCA working and BARELY ANY RCA.
They aren't helping us at all with keeping subs. Think about it. If I decided I wanted to work at post office, which one has a better career path????? No wonder city side is filling up and rural is drowning with no one to work.
MNRuralRoute4
Well-known member
I am also Table 1 and will be voting no as well. The EMA rate is a joke and the RHD incentive is far too low.
Do away with the rca per route requirement and you can have this.
Well, the old face of the legal team was a lot quicker of wit. The new one is...not. I was many observing the legal team from step 3 issues. When Michael took over it was a very obvious empty space.
I don't even think you have to do that totally.
2 ways to go about this.
#1 think about all of the H & J routes compared to K routes right now. You make those carriers work some extra Saturdays. Like in my area, there are at least 4 H routes that barely work any Saturdays. I know of a few routes that are K with no subs.
When RRECS 1st started, we lost over 16,000 K routes. 9700 went H and 6400 went J. That's a lot of extra subs not working Saturdays. I'm not saying just force them to come to my office and every single Saturday because I have no sub. But these subs should be willing to work elsewhere and help out here and there. I hate to guess how much extra money USPS has lost because I have worked 2/3 of my Saturdays since becoming regular yet there are hundreds of RCA sitting at home doing nothing.
#2 Instead of their BS "$1 an hour" after 3 years. Why not go by hours worked to determine if RCA can be a PTF.
If RCA works let's say 1500 or 1700 hours (MAKE UP A NUMBER) in a full year, they can become PTF. But to keep PTF status after that you have to work minimum say 1300 or 1500 hours a year afterwards (FIND MAGIC NUMBER). This way for example, if you have RCA in like an office like mine with 1 route, they can still have the ability to become PTF.
gotstamps
Well-known member
If there is no change to an Article then it stays as it is in the previous Agreement.
gotstamps
Well-known member
It doesn’t apply now in RRECS as there is no BANK TIME anymore. They are just putting it in writing.
If you were to get a handful of boxes, you could file for that growth to be credited. It just depends on your Volume number + box credit as to how many it would take.
gotstamps
Well-known member
We are at 40% compliment of RCAs & PTFs & have been Formula since it was created. No subs are sitting at home here on Saturdays, even with H-routes & J-routes in a 70-route office. A Regular or 2 still works Saturday Relief Day almost every Saturday.
The PTF position would need to be redefined. There are still Non-Formula offices out there so the requirement of 2 K-routes on a String would not be enforced.
The rule that each route gets an RCA stands in the way of mandatory PTF advance in all offices after a # of years. Non-Formula offices would have to be changed to Formula to require an RCA-PTF advancement.
I know in my area there are quite a few sitting around. Then any time I would try to borrow them their regular would take off and take them back. It's just really frustrating for regulars like myself. So I quit even that because it was so annoying and it would ALWAYS BE LAST SECOND.
While I agree that rule is in the way, our union needs to look at other options to make PTF or making position look better.
As I suggested, my idea would allow RCA even in a 1 route office to be a PTF if they worked enough hours. Our union needs to do something.
gotstamps
Well-known member
PTFs are guaranteed 2 days therefore they are guaranteed 16 hours of pay every week. It’s not possible to guarantee that in a 1-route office & in a 2 or more route office, the office would be required to change to Formula.
A Reg agreeing to change their Relief Day to assist in acquiring a PTF position retains the right to take back their Saturday at any time leaving that PTF without the 2 route minimum.
Also, since we have J & H routes, those also stand in the way of acquiring PTFs as they cannot be assigned to any as part of their String.
Again, all offices would be Formula & the PTF position would have to be redefined to mirror the City PTFs.
Again, if an RCA per route is still in contract, the first proposal isn't valid. You can't work a regular over an RCA. Simply because their is a shortage in many places does not take that requirement out of the equation.
It would be better to go to a ptf system at this point.
PersonOfPost
Member
What I am saying is this. If you are on H route, they should force RCA to work Saturdays that they aren't working on other routes a few times (not every single one necessary but still force them to work a few)
