Management failing to provide vehicles for GOV routes

Today, Management at my office told everyone (city/rural) that they could not get any replacement vehicles for 6 months. Told the CCA’s to either provide their personal vehicle or go home with two hours of pay and the rest of the city side would split the routes.

I am the only RCA covering 5 routes: 4 K’s and 1 J. Two of the K’s are provided a Metris, the other 2 K’s and 1 J are POV. The two K’s with a Metris and the 1 J are the only routes I have ran because our office was staffed well. Anyway, I just overheated my primary pov and possibly warped my heads covering for a route that is assigned a metris because the regular on that route is at home because management would not provide them with a vehicle.

I have found PS Form 8048 but it seems as if that is only for city side? From what I can ascertain, management is responsible for all things vehicle related on Gov. routes. Am I being taken advantage of by management forcing me to use my POV’s because they can’t provide a vehicle for their Gov routes? Or is that something that I’m required to do as an RCA? I have been with the P.O. 5 years, no discipline & im burnt out and basically performing the duties of PTF/VMF while just a regular RCA in a non formula office.

I barely had enough in my EMA account to buy 10 ply replacement tires for both of my POV’s this year and now I have one that has possibly failed catastrophically and management is expecting me to provide the vehicle for these Gov routes for the next 6 months!

Any and all help/advice is appreciated

Here is some info from The 603 .

141 Carrier Responsibilities


141.1 Vehicle Equipment

You are responsible for furnishing all vehicle equipment necessary for safe
and prompt handling of the mail, unless a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is
assigned to the route
141.4 USPS-Owned/Leased Vehicle

If a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is assigned to the route, you may be
requested, but not required, to furnish a vehicle during emergency situations

neciat said:

Here is some info from The 603 .

141 Carrier Responsibilities


141.1 Vehicle Equipment

You are responsible for furnishing all vehicle equipment necessary for safe
and prompt handling of the mail, unless a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is
assigned to the route
141.4 USPS-Owned/Leased Vehicle

If a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is assigned to the route, you may be
requested, but not required, to furnish a vehicle during emergency situations

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, neciat!

They can't force you to use a pov on a gov vehicle rt. They were definitely taking advantage of you.

"covering for a route that is assigned a metris because the regular on that route is at home because management would not provide them with a vehicle."

Well....how in the hell would that work? Regular is still going to be paid...is management going to pay regular to stay home and rca(s) to actually run it? Or according to the first sentence, cca(s) run the rural route?

You’d think with this new generation of platypus LLVs coming in they would have more than enough surplus vehicles LLVs in particular, to ship out to these vehicle shortage offices!

It is my hunch that the PO higher powers have sorted out that it costs an arm and a leg to keep LLVs going on rural delivery that they would much rather fleece employees and pass the buck to maintaining a vehicle for delivery onto them! I come out ahead on EMA vs my cost because my route is so long with not too many boxes. About 160 miles with ~300 boxes. But routes that have like 300-600 boxes and are POV with only 65-100 EMA miles those aren’t paid sufficiently to negate the cost.

Let us not forget about the waiting time paid on Form 8127 for time spent waiting for an "available" vehicle. If you have not already, start recording your waiting time on your 4240 and make a record for yourself as well for any time spent waiting for a Govt. Vehicle when you are serving any route upon which a Govt. Vehicle is provided.

Montana406 said:

You’d think with this new generation of platypus LLVs coming in they would have more than enough surplus vehicles LLVs in particular, to ship out to these vehicle shortage offices!

Click to expand...

They sent my LLV to the scrap yard after my NGDV came in. It was actually running rather well…

neciat said:

Let us not forget about the waiting time paid on Form 8127 for time spent waiting for an "available" vehicle. If you have not already, start recording your waiting time on your 4240 and make a record for yourself as well for any time spent waiting for a Govt. Vehicle when you are serving any route upon which a Govt. Vehicle is provided.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be O time?

Superdaveh100 said:

Wouldn't that be O time?

Click to expand...

No. "O" Time is for Govt. Vehicle break down for regular carriers. Any time waiting for a Govt. Vehicle would be paid on 8127 for regular carriers. I forgot that the OP is a relief carrier. In that instance, I would say green card time for waiting for Govt. Vehicle. For a regular carrier(s), "O" time is recorded until 8 hours is accumulated.

neciat said:

If a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is assigned to the route, you may be
requested, but not required, to furnish a vehicle during emergency situations

Click to expand...

It's not an "emergency situation" per Article 3.f:



A "6 month period" is not only forseen, but is also recurring (daily).

PollenFarm said:

Today, Management at my office told everyone (city/rural) that they could not get any replacement vehicles for 6 months.

Click to expand...

The "request to furnish" itself is a violation.

Your thoughts?

neciat said:

Here is some info from The 603 .

141 Carrier Responsibilities


141.1 Vehicle Equipment

You are responsible for furnishing all vehicle equipment necessary for safe
and prompt handling of the mail, unless a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is
assigned to the route
141.4 USPS-Owned/Leased Vehicle

If a USPS-owned/leased vehicle is assigned to the route, you may be
requested, but not required, to furnish a vehicle during emergency situations

Click to expand...

I am always impressed by Neciats knowledge, and kindness as well.....with that being said....we all know the majority of po mgmt are bungholes to put it nicely....they can direct you to, and are from what OP said, to provide pov's on a gov provided rt. WHAT DO ALL THE UNION LOVERS SAY ON HERE.....
YYYYYEEEESSSSSS....comply with the directive from po mgmt, and then grieve...HOW STUPID IS THAT.....
This may be an emergency situation, but you can count on it that po mgmt HAS NOT exhausted all their options. They are some of the most worthless bunch of people I've ever known, and most of em are skating along on the backs of real workers...you need to bounce past your local steward, and get your ADR out there, and light a fire under their butt, and get some satisfaction against your MORONIC, DUMB DUCK(translate please) OF A POSTMASTER.....SSSHHEESSSHHH
The lack of brains some of these people exhibit is UNBELIEVABLE....how can some of these numbnuts even get a
post master position...its PATHETIC...

Dominator said:

It's not an "emergency situation" per Article 3.f:

View attachment 16619

A "6 month period" is not only forseen, but is also recurring (daily).



The "request to furnish" itself is a violation.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Great comment.....but it's not gonna matter. Po mgmt will give the directive, and you are expected to comply. PERIOD. Only if it endangers your life can you refuse a direct order, and even that has consequences if you cant prove it.

Dominator said:

The "request to furnish" itself is a violation.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I agree. With the OP and the whole office for that matter being informed that there would be a Govt. vehicle shortage for 6 months , "emergency" as defined in Article 3 just ain't gonna' cut it in this instance. Actually, I'll see your "request to furnish" is a violation and raise you a "failure to provide" violation on the routes provided a Govt. Vehicle.

ABCya said:

They can't force you to use a pov on a gov vehicle rt. They were definitely taking advantage of you.

Click to expand...

Yes.....they can. They ABSOLUTELY can...they've done it multiple times in my old office, and still continue to occassionally. Especially when they get a crap union steward. Simply put, they cant keep a steward, because the union there just rolls over and sticks it in theirselves. Some of the most worthless union people I've ever met....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I sure dont miss dealing with those
Bass-turds...

neciat said:

I agree. With the OP and the whole office for that matter being informed that there would be a Govt. vehicle shortage for 6 months , "emergency" as defined in Article 3 just ain't gonna' cut it in this instance. Actually, I'll see your "request to furnish" is a violation and raise you a "failure to provide" violation on the routes provided a Govt. Vehicle.

Click to expand...

I'd like to agree with you'all....but I cant...I've seen this happen, and in my worthless old office, the carriers/rca's they had to comply for about a week until they brought in llv's from another state, or two....its just udderly ridiculous.

K said:

"covering for a route that is assigned a metris because the regular on that route is at home because management would not provide them with a vehicle."

Well....how in the hell would that work? Regular is still going to be paid...is management going to pay regular to stay home and rca(s) to actually run it? Or according to the first sentence, cca(s) run the rural route?

Click to expand...

We are down a few LLV’s on the city side plus 1 metris for rural. The rural regular has been off for a week or more bc they refused to carry the route with their POV.

Management told the CCA’s they would have to use their personal vehicles for the city routes or be sent home with just 2 hours of pay and the rest of them with LLV’s would have to split the routes. They then told the rural side no vehicles available for 6 months.

We have another metris with a check engine light & cylinder misfire issues and management is instructing that carrier to keep driving it because we do not have any replacement vehicles and to “prepare” to use my POV on these Gov. assigned vehicle routes!

PollenFarm -- To add to "neciat's" PO-603 references, you can "fight off" manglement by referring them to Step 4 ( L-101 ), in part:

- In the event a postal-provided vehicle is not available for a route to which one is assigned, a rural carrier may be requested, BUT NOT REQUIRED, to provide a vehicle. If a carrier provides a vehicle for any portion of the route, normal daily equipment maintenance allowance ( EMA ) IS PAYABLE.

-- You may have to stand over manglement's shoulder when pay information is submitted as a change is needed when a route goes from a postal-provided vehicle to a POV.

Shannonboy said:

Yes.....they can. They ABSOLUTELY can...they've done it multiple times in my old office, and still continue to occassionally. Especially when they get a crap union steward. Simply put, they cant keep a steward, because the union there just rolls over and sticks it in theirselves. Some of the most worthless union people I've ever met....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! I sure dont miss dealing with those
Bass-turds...

Click to expand...

management only gets by with what we allow them.

they cannot force you.

file the grievance, then file the non-compliance grievance with penalty.

Shannonboy said:

I'd like to agree with you'all....but I cant...I've seen this happen, and in my worthless old office, the carriers/rca's they had to comply for about a week until they brought in llv's from another state, or two....its just udderly ridiculous.

Click to expand...

If they tried to enforce that, I'd refuse, still. I dont believe the language has changed although I forget where its at and I threw my old books away. I know it used to be valued differently due to DPS values. Not sure now. Either way,
If they really wanted to try I'd enjoy seeing mgmt loan out their cars. I'd never use mine. I'd fight it all the way up even going to Congressman.