NRLCA Files National Step 4 Grievance on Whether Rural Carriers are Receiving the Correct Coverage Factor

[Voglio-il mio]

The biggest flaw in RRECS coverage factor.

The issue is that there is exactly no extra credit for coverage with raw. I get that it is near impossible to get, but they need to give several % points to make it even.

I know for example on my route, I have address that is 300 E XXXXXXX in CBU. I get ton of their mail in raw because somehow it gets address as 300 W XXXXXXX. Another one in CBU gets the lake lot number 15 XXXX instead of the 10208 XXXXX.

I mean I know coverage has to be SCREWED UP. In last 2 and half or 3 years (can't remember and don't have sheets in front of me), I have LOST 16% CURB SIDE & 25% CBU coverage in that little time frame. THERE IS NO WAY IMO that coverage can drop that much in that little time frame.

Don't know if you can't open this or not, but its the Grievance that the NRLCA has submitted and can be found on the NRLCA web site.. If you look at page 3 Item #2 Breadcrumbs it states.

"The data provided shows significant evidence that Breadcrumbs collected was turned off for reasons that remain unexplained. This caused the Coverage Factor to be determined Informed Visibility (IV) data if available rather than Breadcrumbs."

https://www.nrlca.org/Documents/WebContent/EditorDocuments/userFiles/File/laborrelations/Step%204%20Coverage%20Factor%20(address%20removed).pdf

If this cant be opened up would someone more knowledgeable on how to post a link remedy that, Thanks!

 

[psd181]

NRLCA should have consulted NALC's audit of the RRECS mess BEFORE accepting and implementing what they knew was a flawed system.... NRLCA committed a derilection of duty in this fiasco...

I will come to the defense of the NRLCA for 1 specific item. RRECS had to be implemented due to arbitration award. ................................. the time factors for each item should have been used to do a traditional mail count and actually count for 3 months for the 1st count. Then go back to the way things were done before 1991 and count "boxholders" and "full coverage mailings- WSS addressed" for 2 weeks prior to the count period and after the count to assure mailers don't play games with the dates to avoid the period. ..................... this is the way it should have been done and should have been implemented before 2020 as the arbitrator thought would happen. USPS and NRLCA dragged it out due to the computer spitting numbers out ( and not verified) until parcels went from few to almost 80% coverage after Covid. NRLCA had to implement the system because carriers were doing 20 to 30 hours of work a week that was unpaid.

 

[neciat]

"The data provided shows significant evidence that Breadcrumbs collected was turned off for reasons that remain unexplained. This caused the Coverage Factor to be determined Informed Visibility (IV) data if available rather than Breadcrumbs.

Turned off !!! ?? There are already MORE than enough faults, flaws , and shortcomings with this system. "Turned off" implies a malicious intent. I believe they left off a few letters in that "step four" . What they meant to say was step FORWARD to the OIG.

 

[DB.Cooper]

I will come to the defense of the NRLCA for 1 specific item. RRECS had to be implemented due to arbitration award. ................................. the time factors for each item should have been used to do a traditional mail count and actually count for 3 months for the 1st count. Then go back to the way things were done before 1991 and count "boxholders" and "full coverage mailings- WSS addressed" for 2 weeks prior to the count period and after the count to assure mailers don't play games with the dates to avoid the period. ..................... this is the way it should have been done and should have been implemented before 2020 as the arbitrator thought would happen. USPS and NRLCA dragged it out due to the computer spitting numbers out ( and not verified) until parcels went from few to almost 80% coverage after Covid. NRLCA had to implement the system because carriers were doing 20 to 30 hours of work a week that was unpaid.

The old mail counts worked, but they did a lot of manipulation by having mail and parcels not show up during the counts .. a big problem was that they simply stopped doing the mail counts for years prior to RRECS.... had they conducted those counts and not done massive manipulation, the old system could have sufficed IMO....

 

[ATCBigE]

The old mail counts worked, but they did a lot of manipulation by having mail and parcels not show up during the counts .. a big problem was that they simply stopped doing the mail counts for years prior to RRECS.... had they conducted those counts and not done massive manipulation, the old system could have sufficed IMO....

Bingo!!!!!

Biggest issue was NO MANDATORY COUNT. You allowed carriers to opt out. If they were that worried about people making too much money, everyone would have counted.

 

[damifiknow]

i fought this for a whole year , when this first started because im smarter then the system i would stop everywhere could never get to 100% but would always be in the high to low 90's then the usps caught i=onto this and would only credit you for incomeing mail, guess what no credit for flags up, i quit doing the stops and graduated to bigger things , this is when i learned tthat the unionb was told to just give in

 

[damifiknow]

coverage factor was a way to control the masses, making all of you think that the union was/is doing something, as ive said before this is not rocket science , its designed to scam you, everytime you figure something out meaning rrecs, they the usps change the rules, ive told everyone of you that it can be done though, if you figure it out i went from 8 hours down to 7.5 and now im 9.5 because i figurred it out and kept tranforming along with them , just figure it out and you will win. if not so be it. the scanner and the usps are always learning you have to of course know that. i have 2 more years left and i wll win out as they transform the system.

 

[Edge]

The biggest flaw in RRECS coverage factor.

The issue is that there is exactly no extra credit for coverage with raw. I get that it is near impossible to get, but they need to give several % points to make it even.

I know for example on my route, I have address that is 300 E XXXXXXX in CBU. I get ton of their mail in raw because somehow it gets address as 300 W XXXXXXX. Another one in CBU gets the lake lot number 15 XXXX instead of the 10208 XXXXX.

I mean I know coverage has to be SCREWED UP. In last 2 and half or 3 years (can't remember and don't have sheets in front of me), I have LOST 16% CURB SIDE & 25% CBU coverage in that little time frame. THERE IS NO WAY IMO that coverage can drop that much in that little time frame.

What would city do?
Refuse to deliver raw mail.
I’m not getting paid for that then it’s not my job

 

[Edge]

Turned off !!! ?? There are already MORE than enough faults, flaws , and shortcomings with this system. "Turned off" implies a malicious intent. I believe they left off a few letters in that "step four" . What they meant to say was step FORWARD to the OIG.

Another thing it’s really sad that a legit business is allowed to not pay their employees for actual work done. I get cutting cost etc, but just out right not paying for work you do, with the nerve of actually cheating your numbers on purpose. Imagine if this happened somewhere else.

 

[EthelAnne]

Don't know if you can't open this or not, but its the Grievance that the NRLCA has submitted and can be found on the NRLCA web site.. If you look at page 3 Item #2 Breadcrumbs it states.

"The data provided shows significant evidence that Breadcrumbs collected was turned off for reasons that remain unexplained. This caused the Coverage Factor to be determined Informed Visibility (IV) data if available rather than Breadcrumbs."

https://www.nrlca.org/Documents/WebContent/EditorDocuments/userFiles/File/laborrelations/Step%204%20Coverage%20Factor%20(address%20removed).pdf

If this cant be opened up would someone more knowledgeable on how to post a link remedy that, Thanks!

Many of us for a long time have thought Coverage Factor was pulled from DPS and WSS scanner entries, and if a box didn't get that mail for the day, it would not be counted, even though the engineers and USPS assured us if we stopped at a box for any reason (to deliver a package, to deliver a raw letter or flat, or to pick up outgoing mail) it would be counted in Coverage Factor.

I still have my doubts about when/if this Step 4 will be adjudicated, but the union is making a strong argument. If it were decided on the merits alone, the union would prevail, but it's likely the USPS will cry poor once again and say they can't afford to pay us for the work we do.

 

[damifiknow]

in the beginning you were paid for stops and i proved that but could not get to 100, was in the high 90 or low 90s , and i kept track, then boom, the numbers were declining even though i was doing the same thing , thats when i alerted the union, that went nowhere, so now they are making it look like they are doing something, its been going on now forever, and i proved it to them.

 

[Sunofa]

Many of us for a long time have thought Coverage Factor was pulled from DPS and WSS scanner entries, and if a box didn't get that mail for the day, it would not be counted, even though the engineers and USPS assured us if we stopped at a box for any reason (to deliver a package, to deliver a raw letter or flat, or to pick up outgoing mail) it would be counted in Coverage Factor.

I still have my doubts about when/if this Step 4 will be adjudicated, but the union is making a strong argument. If it were decided on the merits alone, the union would prevail, but it's likely the USPS will cry poor once again and say they can't afford to pay us for the work we do.

SO what do you guys think of grouped boxes and how that could affect coverage? Most of the boxes on my route are in groups of 2 or 3 some more. So tell me how my coverage factor a lot of the time is 70%?
It's not accurate. It's a very rare occasion when I don't have mail for all of the addresses in that group. So I stop at all of these groups every day for at least 1 of the addresses. So you would think the system would give me credit for all of the boxes in that group right?

 

[neciat]

About three years too late....idiots!

When you think about it with respect to compensation, the effect(s) cover a FOUR YEAR period. From a MOU , in part, ;

The first rural route evaluations under RRECS were implemented on May 6, 2023, and the second rural
route evaluations will be effective October 7, 2023, utilizing volume data collected during the 52-week
period (September 9, 2022, through September 8, 2023), along with mini mail survey data collected
August 25 through September 8, 2023.

Now, since RRECS uses the PREVIOUS 52 weeks of data , this means that we are going BACK into 2022 as stated in the MOU. So, that is FOUR years at MINIMUM. Then, there is this from a 2022 Guide provided by The NRLCA , in part , ;

The parties are still in discussion and
development of a Coverage Factor calculation
using both breadcrumb data and information from
Informed Delivery databases to determine how
many eligible boxes were served on any given
day.

From the above, we are able to determine that coverage factor was a "problem" WAY before this Guide was released. Thus, we can add many more years or even a decade to this particular issue. The USPS implemented this system knowing that the coverage factor WAS NOT resolved. Since BOTH parties were STILL "in negotiations" , one could reasonably believe that The NRLCA would have immediately filed this Step 4 .

 

[ATCBigE]

When you think about it with respect to compensation, the effect(s) cover a FOUR YEAR period. From a MOU , in part, ;

The first rural route evaluations under RRECS were implemented on May 6, 2023, and the second rural
route evaluations will be effective October 7, 2023, utilizing volume data collected during the 52-week
period (September 9, 2022, through September 8, 2023), along with mini mail survey data collected
August 25 through September 8, 2023.

Now, since RRECS uses the PREVIOUS 52 weeks of data , this means that we are going BACK into 2022 as stated in the MOU. So, that is FOUR years at MINIMUM. Then, there is this from a 2022 Guide provided by The NRLCA , in part , ;

The parties are still in discussion and
development of a Coverage Factor calculation
using both breadcrumb data and information from
Informed Delivery databases to determine how
many eligible boxes were served on any given
day.

From the above, we are able to determine that coverage factor was a "problem" WAY before this Guide was released. Thus, we can add many more years or even a decade to this particular issue. The USPS implemented this system knowing that the coverage factor WAS NOT resolved. Since BOTH parties were STILL "in negotiations" , one could reasonably believe that The NRLCA would have immediately filed this Step 4 .

That's my whole issue with this.

They knew it was wrong at the beginning and yet still implement and fix later. Immediately step 4 should have been filed instead of almost 4 years later. Instead rural carriers have had to suffer MASSIVE PAY CUTS because of a fraudulent coverage factor. Since the beginning of RRECS my coverage factors has dropped 16% CURB & 25% CBU. THERE IS NO WAY I COULD LOSE THAT MUCH.

 

[RFD]

Nope I have feeling what will happen. They will say it is wrong and give everyone extra 3% and then barely have to pay anyone becasue that % won't push many over to the next hour.

Bingo!! They will play the "we're broke" card.

 

[EthelAnne]

SO what do you guys think of grouped boxes and how that could affect coverage? Most of the boxes on my route are in groups of 2 or 3 some more. So tell me how my coverage factor a lot of the time is 70%?
It's not accurate. It's a very rare occasion when I don't have mail for all of the addresses in that group. So I stop at all of these groups every day for at least 1 of the addresses. So you would think the system would give me credit for all of the boxes in that group right?

Did you read the Step 4 grievance? You’ll find all the arguments the union is making on why Cover Factor is not accurate there.

 

[neciat]

I saw several posts mentioning back pay and , yet , I saw no mention of "back pay" or "made financially whole" in the remedy sought by the union. While an arbitrator MAY find in favor of the union with regard to the coverage factor evidence , that same arbitrator could also rule that since no mention of financial remedy was even mentioned , that none is warranted. I suppose that same arbitrator could also order that The USPS go back X amount of time and reimburse affected carriers. We all know that the "adjustment process" is bogus in and of itself but combining THAT with the coverage factor issue makes it even worse because the evaluations / standard hours of the routes involved in the process were not accurate from the start. Seems that it would take quite some time to recalculate the standard hours / evaluations that all routes SHOULD have been and then going from there to and through the adjusted routes and what they SHOULD have been and figuring out any back pay from there. Then you have the RCA pay for anyone under 40 hours that worked and THEIR back pay as well. Of course, there is always the looming possibility of one of those "pre-arb" settlements.

 

[Voglio-il mio]

That's my whole issue with this.

They knew it was wrong at the beginning and yet still implement and fix later. Immediately step 4 should have been filed instead of almost 4 years later. Instead rural carriers have had to suffer MASSIVE PAY CUTS because of a fraudulent coverage factor. Since the beginning of RRECS my coverage factors has dropped 16% CURB & 25% CBU. THERE IS NO WAY I COULD LOSE THAT MUCH.

I also knew from the beginning this wasn't fair! The way I thought of it was they were double dipping on the volumes. They were cutting evaluations on volumes and then giving us a percentage of that result!

I don't know about you but I serviced the verification of deliveries to 100% of my addresses every day!

 

[Voglio-il mio]

As I have said before I'm now retired, so all the current BS about RRECS has no effect on me, but I'll tell you what its impact on my High 3 was Substantial!

 

[DB.Cooper]

I also knew from the beginning this wasn't fair! The way I thought of it was they were double dipping on the volumes. They were cutting evaluations on volumes and then giving us a percentage of that result!

I don't know about you but I serviced the verification of deliveries to 100% of my addresses every day!

From the very 1st survey, I always said my coverage factor was WAY low... I had a route where many areas were in cell service dead zones, and this screwed my route under RRECS... then they always split my route when I was off, so yeah... They screwed me about every way possible, but I told them to take that job and shove it... As they say, he who laughs last, laughs best...