My route is getting adjusted again and regaining all the stuff that broke it 2 years ago. Same volume of packages and mail (despite the usps saying there’s not volume) we know they are lying. Problem is it has been ran by a contractor for those 2 years. No data has been collected since it left my route. I have said this to management and they don’t care. Told them I would file and I am going too. How can they justify this, my eval won’t be right with no data collected. This is getting old. 32 years and it just keeps getting worse
Tired of all the shady stuff
- Thread starter Tammy
- Start date
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
Why is "YOUR" route being run by a contractor, and not you?
gotstamps
Well-known member
I believe the OP mean the territory cut 2 yrs ago was then delivered by Contractor Delivery & now the territory is being transferred back to the OP.
I would hope that the OPs current volume & coverage would be utilized as they would for adding NEW addresses & territory.
gotstamps
Well-known member
When adding NEW addresses or neighborhoods, the current route’s volume number is utilized.
This return of territory should also follow suit.
DohnJalton
Well-known member
They should be using the data that is available, which would be what it was when you did it.
But they delete RRECS data after a year.
But they delete RRECS data after a year.
Tammy -- "My route is getting adjusted again and regaining all the stuff that broke it 2 years ago. Same volume of packages and mail (despite the usps saying there’s not volume) we know they are lying. Problem is it has been ran by a contractor for those 2 years. No data has been collected since it left my route."
-- Try to find out what the USPS was paying the Highway Contractor to carry that section of the route that is being returned to you.
-- Try to find out what the USPS was paying the Highway Contractor to carry that section of the route that is being returned to you.
Not my route the piece they took off and gave to a aux HCR (yes HCRs are running rurals in my office despite the contract) now they are giving it back to me with no data done by the HCR for 2 years
Shannonboy
Well-known member
Great COMMENT!!!
@btdtret , as always, has a valid point. From Article 32 of The Nat'l Agreement ;
Section 4. Renewal of Contract Delivery Service (CDS)
Routes
The Employer and the Union agree that, in those instances in
which delivery is provided by contract delivery service routes in
offices with only rural delivery, a cost comparison will be com-
pleted prior to the renewal of any such contract delivery route.
Should rural delivery be at a cost less than CDS, the contract
will not be renewed and the route will be converted to rural
delivery at the expiration of the contract. All territory under
review must qualify for rural delivery under the Employer’s regu-
lations before conversion.
Now, this does state " in offices with only rural delivery" for what that's worth.
Section 4. Renewal of Contract Delivery Service (CDS)
Routes
The Employer and the Union agree that, in those instances in
which delivery is provided by contract delivery service routes in
offices with only rural delivery, a cost comparison will be com-
pleted prior to the renewal of any such contract delivery route.
Should rural delivery be at a cost less than CDS, the contract
will not be renewed and the route will be converted to rural
delivery at the expiration of the contract. All territory under
review must qualify for rural delivery under the Employer’s regu-
lations before conversion.
Now, this does state " in offices with only rural delivery" for what that's worth.
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
Your grievance should be to receive back the area at the same box (volume) factor as that part was when it was removed from your route. There is no way for HCR carriers to obtain the proper volume factor for rural routes due to not having those scans available to them as HCR carriers. It's the same when the USPS has city carriers carry parts of rural routes. Unless those carriers switch to the proper rural route in their scanner and make the rural carrier scans, those routes are being screwed over as far as rural evaluations go.
Grieve this on Monday.
Here's the wording I would use.
"Can Usps management provide proper rural evaluation data when adjusting my route up from a rural route that wasn't carried by a rural carrier (Where no rural carrier Rrecs scans were made) for 2 years?"
Grieve this on Monday.
Here's the wording I would use.
"Can Usps management provide proper rural evaluation data when adjusting my route up from a rural route that wasn't carried by a rural carrier (Where no rural carrier Rrecs scans were made) for 2 years?"
Shannonboy
Well-known member
Does anyone else in the forum see the problem with rt2mailman's grievance here...or is it just me...
Shannonboy
Well-known member
RammerJammer
Well-known member
I’d say it’s that management will always lie and say they can provide proper data when in reality we know they can’t and don’t.Does anyone else in the forum see the problem with rt2mailman's grievance here...or is it just me...
Shannonboy
Well-known member
100% accurate!!! Because they sure do lie...however I was leaning more towards rt2's whole 2 year information comment thing because anytime i didnt get paid right the stinking union only went back 2 weeks....2 WEEKS!!!
I NEVER GOT RECOMPENSED BEYOND 2 WEEKS FOR ANYTHING!!!! WHY???? BECAUSE OUR UNION SUCKS, and so does rt2's comment...80k for a small aux
Not that I remember.
Rt2mailman
Well-known member
When a rural adjustment to a rural route is made, data from the last year must be used to figure the evaluation box factor to be used to give a new value to the receiving route. There is no way to do this when an HCR carrier carried that portion of the newly adjusted route.
It has nothing to do with remaining timely with a grievance, as long as the grievance is filed before 2 weeks after the adjustment has been made effective.
If Tammy sits on this grievance for years and tries to file a grievance on it, then yes, she would only get paid for the last 2 weeks of what is owed to her, due to her grievance being untimely. I don't believe anyone on this site would be that stupid, even if they say they did that.
It has nothing to do with remaining timely with a grievance, as long as the grievance is filed before 2 weeks after the adjustment has been made effective.
If Tammy sits on this grievance for years and tries to file a grievance on it, then yes, she would only get paid for the last 2 weeks of what is owed to her, due to her grievance being untimely. I don't believe anyone on this site would be that stupid, even if they say they did that.
This is how it works when anything outside of your route is added.
All current volume factor and coverage factor on your route as it is now, is applied to whatever you gain.
This can suck when you have a lighter route, lose some of it to another, and they add on a heavier part of another route to make you whole.
If you find that the dismount distances or other things are not correct on the interm worksheet you can file if correcting it would put you up enough for an hour change (ie 40k now would have enough time to be a 41k). This is almost verbatim what John Adams (national labor relations for NRLCA) said at our state conference recently. I myself had to file to correct my frozen 43k into a 45k.
I would also encourage @Tammy to make sure mileage is correct as that can easily bump you up enough if it is not correct.
Last edited:
It’s downright criminal. No credit for load times etc. and I’m working for free with increased volume right now since I’ll be locked until Sept/oct 2027 mms
