55 and older

[Bchapman]

Ok I need help, I've read somewhere before about 55 years or older carriers can get help especially during the busy season. There's some protection from being harassed about not making evaluation daily. Can someone please tell me if this true and where I can find the info.

Thanks and everyone stay safe
Bernadette

 

[EthelAnne]

Here’s the citation: PO-603 151.2. Not required to provide auxiliary assistance—the only protection it provides is that they can’t cut your route as long as you can complete it under 48 hours.

“151.2 Performance Appraisal
If the weekly time required to serve the route consistently varies more than three hours, either below or in excess of the route’s standard hours, managers should consider corrective action. Exceptions may be made for carriers 55 years of age or older, and carriers who have served continuously for 25 years or more, provided that their conduct and efficiency are satisfactory. When it is demonstrated that a carrier 55 or over cannot confine total working time to 48 hours per week. “

 

[btdtret]

EthelAnne et al -- Section 151.2 of the PO-603 does have its problems in wording.

-- "managers should consider corrective action"

- Since the carrier is working over the route's evaluation and the USPS is getting FREE WORK, we have considered taking corrective action, but have decided not to.

-- There is a bit more to the last sentence:

- When it is demonstrated that a carrier 55 or over cannot confine total working time to 48 hours per week or less, the route WILL BE ADJUSTED.

- But since adjusting routes takes time and effort by manglement, they seldom act upon the "WILL" portion of the sentence -- especially at the Christmas Crunch time of the year.

-- Other problems areas of the Section:

- Hard for manglement to justify saying a carrier 55 or older or with 25 or more years with continuous service is working satisfactorily and efficiently if working over evaluation. ( not that I would side with manglement )

 

[DB.Cooper]

I've never worked within 3 hours of my evaluation, ever... js... don't think they follow that little policy very closely....

 

[sinister minister]

Here’s the citation: PO-603 151.2. Not required to provide auxiliary assistance—the only protection it provides is that they can’t cut your route as long as you can complete it under 48 hours.

“151.2 Performance Appraisal
If the weekly time required to serve the route consistently varies more than three hours, either below or in excess of the route’s standard hours, managers should consider corrective action. Exceptions may be made for carriers 55 years of age or older, and carriers who have served continuously for 25 years or more, provided that their conduct and efficiency are satisfactory. When it is demonstrated that a carrier 55 or over cannot confine total working time to 48 hours per week. “

"
“151.2 Performance Appraisal
If the weekly time required to serve the route consistently varies more than three hours, either below or in excess of the route’s standard hours, managers should consider corrective action. Exceptions may be made for carriers 55 years of age or older, and carriers who have served continuously for 25 years or more, provided that their conduct and efficiency are satisfactory. When it is demonstrated that a carrier 55 or over cannot confine total working time to 48 hours per week. “

This was, obviously, pre-Amazon

 

[neciat]

Oh, absolutely. But what 99.9% of "the people" always assume is this ; well, they'll just cut ya'. Why does no one ever look at it from the other way ? Corrective action , if I were lobbying either on my behalf or anyone else would be this, PAY THEM MORE !!!!! Would THAT "correct" the problem ? Since they are obviously carrying FAR MORE parcels on a weekly basis than for which they were counted and being compensated and in many cases, not reflected AT ALL in last mail count ( AMAZON ), perhaps compensating ANY carrier , regardless of under or over evaluation , could "correct" the issue. That would be a form of "corrective action " would it not ?

 

[Flimflammed(Quasar)]

Well if they are harassing or taking corrective action 3 hours or more over, shouldn't they be taking corrective action for 3 or more hours under. Isn't this disparate treatment, if they are not?

I thought the evaluation compared to hours worked was based on numerous things throughout the year, mail volume, mail quality, weather, road conditions, etc..

If you have been doing your job for 25 years, you must have been doing your job satisfactorily, so they could adjust route after 25 years of good service? Doesn't sound like that part of the rule helps.

Now 55 years or older, what is the exception

They shouldn't be able to harass you regardless, if nrlca can't help you with this, what good are they.

File a grievance for harassment and good luck.

I don't know.

 

[neciat]

Well if they are harassing or taking corrective action 3 hours or more over, shouldn't they be taking corrective action for 3 or more hours under. Isn't this disparate treatment, if they are not

I would respectfully disagree. We do work on an incentive system. Incentive to get paid for XXXX amount of hours but only actually working X amount of hours. To be reprimanded or financially harmed for succeeding under a designed incentive system under which there is an MOU where the two parties agree is "fair" would open a NLRB can of worms they do not want to open. Neither party wants to open that can.

 

[Flimflammed(Quasar)]

That just seems like that is what the rule says. So are the 20% over just screwed, or better yet the original poster. I still don't know. What's the exception, and still should not harassed.

How is the 55 years of age or older, or 25 years of service employee helped by this rule?

 

[neciat]

Oh, I do agree with you. That IS what that section of the 603 states. But let us NOT assume that "corrective" should mean "bad" .

 

[DB.Cooper]

I've never known anybody who invoked the "I'm over 55" rule, that ever received any benefit from the rule.... has anybody ever seen anybody get any benefit from this???

 

[Oi veh.]

I've never known anybody who invoked the "I'm over 55" rule, that ever received any benefit from the rule.... has anybody ever seen anybody get any benefit from this???

i kind of have...

reminded my pm that i'm over 55 the last time she squawked about me coming back "late". ain't heard a peep since.

on the rare occasions when she comes by our office, i move real slow and kinda drag my leg.

sometimes, ya just gotta mess with them to get them to leave you alone.

otherwise, it's a grievance for harassment.

 

[EthelAnne]

Well if they are harassing or taking corrective action 3 hours or more over, shouldn't they be taking corrective action for 3 or more hours under.

“Either below or in excess” means under or over. “Corrective action” means any of these things: it can mean discipline, it can mean a route cut (if over), it can mean counting the route, it can mean an investigation. Are they likely to take corrective action when a carrier is under evaluation? They should be suspicious and investigate. Maybe the carrier is super efficient or just younger, faster, or more physically equipped to perform the job. Maybe the unique characteristics of the route make it easier to deliver. Or maybe they’re tossing their DPS in a dumpster every day.

Not disputing the OP’s experience—if she says she’s being harassed because she’s older, I’ll support her. Ageism is a real thing. But not every criticism/correction of our work performance is harassment. Management has the right to direct us in our work, especially if we are not achieving work standards.

I worked next to a carrier who did the craziest things. She was easily distracted from her work, she liked to talk (and stopped working while talking), she got daily phone calls from an adult daughter who was always in the middle of some drama in her life, and she rubber banded EVERY SEPARATE ADDRESS as she pulled down on a 500+ route (she did this because she got in trouble so many times over the years for mixing up mail and this was her “solution.”) She never made her evaluation, ever.

 

[EthelAnne]

How is the 55 years of age or older, or 25 years of service employee helped by this rule?

They can’t cut your route as long as you can complete it under 48 hours.

 

[EthelAnne]

I've never known anybody who invoked the "I'm over 55" rule, that ever received any benefit from the rule.... has anybody ever seen anybody get any benefit from this???

Yes. See my anecdote in my comment above. That carrier’s route would have been cut, except for her age. (There was another carrier in the office, on a smaller route than hers, who was agitating for her route to be cut.)

(ETA: that agitating carrier was not me, for the record! I was a brand new regular carrier at the time and an inexperienced local steward who got this issue dropped into my lap, but I did see first hand how the slow carrier worked, as I was assigned the route next to her)

 

[EthelAnne]

Adding one more thought: “corrective action” can be providing additional training to the slow carrier. I haven’t heard this being done in awhile—and it’s actually separate from the age issue, as a carrier of any age can be “slow,” but in my district supervisors could request an academy instructor to come to their office to work with the carrier and giving them guidance on improving their work.

 

[Rt2mailman]

Bchapman, let me see if I get this right. You are dealing with large amounts Christmas time parcels and your pm is telling you that you need to go faster, so she doesn’t have to pay you any overtime or give you aux help.
Ask for your records from your last count and tape it to your case, write the # of parcels down on your time sheet daily, in the comment section, and compare the parcels. Let your pm know that she can judge how much aux help your route requires by noticing how many more parcels you’re getting compared to count. This should shut her up.

 

[neciat]

" Corrective action " could also be this : take a look at the 4241A and compare THOSE numbers to what the route is ACTUALLY receiving. Upon discovering that the route is CONSISTENTLY receiving up to THREE times the amount of parcels WEEKLY than the 4241A reflects AND for which the carrier(s) are being compensated , the carrier(s) are to receive parcel assistance. Here is another scenario ; carrier(s) had no issue(s) making evaluation until AFTER Govt. Vehicle was assigned to route and with the FURTHER decimation of automated standards, carrier(s) are consistently OVER weekly evaluation. Solution, remove Govt. Vehicle.

 

[DB.Cooper]

Adding one more thought: “corrective action” can be providing additional training to the slow carrier. I haven’t heard this being done in awhile—and it’s actually separate from the age issue, as a carrier of any age can be “slow,” but in my district supervisors could request an academy instructor to come to their office to work with the carrier and giving them guidance on improving their work.

From what I've seen... when they think you're not fast enuf, they start suggesting stuff like trying to tell you how to case, or load, or take DPS to the street... usually stupid stuff....

I did see an old carrier who worked until he could barely get on the street before noon.... this was before DPS in the office.... but I've really never heard anybody invoke the I'm over 55 rule tho.... good to know it can work tho....

 

[Flimflammed(Quasar)]

They can’t cut your route as long as you can complete it under 48 hours.

So if you are 35 years old and keep it under 48 hours they can't cut your route either. Doesn't seem like it is necessarily helping the older carrier.

Not really affecting me now, nor do I know what else to tell the original poster.

Also could be another reason to work off the clock.