The RCA's aren't objecting. They're following protocol for work. They are willing to help out until we can get some relief.
Anyone else hearing about a new 10 day rule?
- Thread starter Defiant
- Start date
Defiant
Well-known member
Would you be mad if I said I don't believe you? I don't believe you. I've never worked with a more dishonest group of people in my life, until I picked up this USPS gig. There is definitely a sick culture of deceit here.
gotstamps
Well-known member
You obviously don’t know me. I am nothing of what you have written & none of the Regular Carriers that I‘ve known in my 15 years has ever treated RCAs as you speak of.
It is really sad that you are so bitter & angry towards Regs. There is no Regs vs RCAs in my office & it’s not small by no means. Some of the Regs still act like RCAs & do the job fast but with little accuracy or they just make up whatever rule sounds good to them. Those Regs I don’t care much for. They have no integrity nor do they care & they’ve taught some RCAs to do the same. Those people stay off my route unless they want to get an earful that they need to pay attention & do their job.
I help the RCAs in my office if they have questions on procedure or whatever. I want to see them succeed by doing this job the right way. The RCA job was very hard in my day due to the tons of mail we used to get, a lot of “accountables” & few pkgs. Now the mail is about 1/3 what it used to be but the parcels are 3 times over & the accountables are few. It is what it is & anyone not happy with the job as an RCA won’t be happier as a Regular. They’ll just be more bitter & ticked off when they figure out the grass isn’t greener.
BTW… RCAs are always wanting to work in my office. Some would like to have a Sunday off once in a while but other than that, they don’t mind too much. If they need a day off, they need only to ask as long as it’s not a Saturday.
I'd suggest if you believe I'm DISHONEST and LYING about this then every post I make is DISHONEST and a LIE. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't come from THIS culture. I spent a lifetime in the corporate world, but perhaps they're BIGGER LIARS and CHEATS than even the post office.
The DISTRICT doesn't talk to ME. The POSTMASTER talks to ME and showed me an email from the MPOO. That's the fact. If THEY are lying, or whatever, so be it. I'm just the dumbass dull tool in the shed conduit,
You're entitled to your opinion. We can still do that most places in America. If you want to convince everyone else on here I'm a LIAR AND CHEAT then go right ahead.
I'm not angry. I am surprised that you know my district policy better than anyone else. From New York. Just strikes me as odd. Maybe it's not POLICY. Maybe it's DIRECTIVE. Whatever, it's what they're going to enforce until the union grievance challenges them.
Have a nice night.
I received a reply from the DR. There is no language in our contract that prohibits any work hour restrictions by an RCA, except 12 hours per day. Up to the RCA if they choose to file.
LostinDakota
Well-known member
This has nothing to do with RCAs staying or quitting, but everything to do with not giving them any overtime hours. Fiscal year ends in late September. Several threads on here make me suspicious that ridiculous ideas are being put in place, just like they are every year about this time, to make the bottom line look better. i.e. turn out the lights, don't run the air conditioning, no overtime for RCAs(and we don't care if the regulars are denied leave). A few years ago it was absolutely no orders for office materials were approved. You need a ream of paper, rubber bands, ink for the copier? Call around to other local offices and see if they will share with you? This came from district and area levels. Now with the reorganization taking place, I have no idea what level the nonsense comes from. Sometimes money has to be spent to supply the service because that is our product, delivery service.
interesting observation. And quite possibly true!
Maybe if the PO would spend its funds more wisely all year, they wouldnt start this BS late in the fiscal year. Yeah, I know, that makes to much sense.
Dominator
Well-known member
I agree with @LostinDakota.
Further, many managers don't pay close attention to RCA weekly work hours. District telling Local to "watch their hours" requires more precision and focus than some local managers may have time for. Limiting how many days per week though introduces a simpler rule that even the least skilled manager can follow, provided single digit integers aren't an uphill battle.
Sunday workers can already be bypassed if the work would cause them to cross 40 hours by Friday. That's a continuity buster for many RCAs out the gate via management's discretionary authority, as it relates to this particular rule.
Then there is 30.2.H that also grants management discretionary authority to stop an RCA from racking up the days when instantly scheduled for the full-week.
True, the blanket restriction on leave replacement employees working over x amount of consecutive days is not contractually supported, and is specifically contrary if an RCA goes beyond the set number due to "day-by-day" scheduling.
The NRO could file a step 3 on it for management to settle for -
Those situations where management does not have discretionary authority to keep an RCA from working shall schedule the leave replacement to work in accordance with contractual provisions. (Then maybe some kind of penalty cost for noncompliance)
Granted, the instant something goes south like a leave replacement is unable to come to work or sick or whatever, management could point to that step 3 during the PDI and claim they did exactly what the union pressed for in the settlement.
This 'RCAs only work x amount of days' rule could be bait, ignorance, or both.
It's all a numbers game. If less time is lost and less money is paid out in grievances for the "RCAs only work x amount of days" method versus the "Local managers watch the work hours" method, management will go with the lesser of the two evils.
If an RCA suffers expectancy damage, grieve it. Don't get mad, get paid!
Defiant
Well-known member
I will, thank you very much. You too.
Defiant
Well-known member
@LostinDakota and @Dominator , I see your point. I'll ask for your thoughts on this though. By implementing this rule this week I see no way around large quantities of letters, flats and Amazon going undelivered in Binghamton on a daily basis. You are arguing they will take massive failures to save OT. That seems weird to me.
Anyway, it is official. Clerk told me today, Yep, that is the rule for now according to the POOM. So I won't be showing at Bingo for Amazon on Sunday anymore. I smirked at the "for now" part. Management just established a wonderful precedent. 6-1 AUX routes can't be forced to work Amazon Sunday anymore. That will be the next thing I tell them to go ahead and fire me for if they try to change it back.
We will see what happens.
Anyway, it is official. Clerk told me today, Yep, that is the rule for now according to the POOM. So I won't be showing at Bingo for Amazon on Sunday anymore. I smirked at the "for now" part. Management just established a wonderful precedent. 6-1 AUX routes can't be forced to work Amazon Sunday anymore. That will be the next thing I tell them to go ahead and fire me for if they try to change it back.
We will see what happens.
Remember Hockey if it makes sense we don't do it.....
LostinDakota
Well-known member
@Mark Oliver, POOMs make ridiculous ultimatums quite often that have to be walked back because the rule hinders effective operations. Many of these rules have unintended consequences. As far as Binghamton having issues without the RCAs going into overtime; there were issues before. Mail and parcels not getting delivered. Unfortunately Binghamton is not the only place in the country with problems. And the POOM for that area already knows a performance bonus is not coming their way, so they are going to make darn sure no one else gets one either. Either that or the POOM for that area has either lost their position or is retiring due to the reorganization. In that case they JUST DON"T CARE what happens.
Dominator
Well-known member
Issuing the "RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days" policy/rule results in two issues:
1) What to dispute when management has discretionary authority to refuse to schedule.
2) What to dispute when management does not have discretionary authority to refuse to schedule.
The rule is basically a directive from district management to local management to exercise discretionary authority provisions by choosing to not schedule RCAs whenever the option exists, every time.
At face, the rule also extends to grant management discretionary authority where none exists. The breach occurs when management utilizes this imaginary rule as though it were legit. (Technically the instant of the breach is when the order is issued, regardless of its execution, but that's an unnecessary tangent)
In the first scenario, the union has no argument because management broke no rule. If management's poor discretion causes failures, the prime issue for the failure wouldn't necessarily be due to the referenced rule, though the rule would be an aggravating circumstance of the case.
Local could stay within the confines of the rule through 30.2.Q (Additional Duties [for Leave Replacements]). If this were not possible, I'd guess management could bring a regular on their relief day and have a leave replacement strictly assist with the surplus workload. An RCA that exceeds 12 workhours to make that happen though is a grievance of a separate issue.
In the second scenario, management would damage RCAs expectancy by not working a carrier who is entitled to workhours. Simply put, grievance =
Whether local management can avoid failures within the confines of the "RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days" rule is between local and district management.
You're presuming your conclusion (massive failures) is absolute and the reason behind these absolute failures will be "insufficient employees to process the workload."
I don't know whether they would exchange failures for an overtime bill. My position was misunderstood as I can't argue that they will or won't make that exchange.
I can argue that if they do, it will likely be because they are following the POOMs order to not schedule employees to process that workload (likely rolling their eyes the entire time). The end result could be an uncomfortable discussion between the POOM and Area management.
As far as it being "weird", yes, a lot of weird happens. I've had passing management explain to me the insanity of the business at times. Even though it would sometimes be cheaper to use the RDWL than use multiple straight-time RCAs to cover a route, a DACA 5 is a beacon on a report, so they would pay more money to RCAs just to dodge discipline for a DACA 5. Though their methods are sometimes weird, a manager must never question.
"Past practice" defenses are easily flushed by educated managers, and local practices are not precident-setting. If precedent is what you seek, you could try pressing for it at step 2:
I doubt you'd get it though because the origin rule (RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days) produces the conflicts referenced above. The rule's foundation is bad. A precident can't be built on a breaching foundation. If it could, then District-level settlements could control National-level agreements. This job is sometimes stranger than fiction though so who knows.
I'm cheering you on @Mark Oliver . It sounds like a frustrating situation indeed.
I don't know the effectiveness of these guys, but it's something to consider.
Dominator
Well-known member
It's like a person tinkering with computer code that knows just enough to botch it up, but not enough to fix it.
Defiant
Well-known member
Issuing the "RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days" policy/rule results in two issues:
1) What to dispute when management has discretionary authority to refuse to schedule.
2) What to dispute when management does not have discretionary authority to refuse to schedule.
The rule is basically a directive from district management to local management to exercise discretionary authority provisions by choosing to not schedule RCAs whenever the option exists, every time.
At face, the rule also extends to grant management discretionary authority where none exists. The breach occurs when management utilizes this imaginary rule as though it were legit. (Technically the instant of the breach is when the order is issued, regardless of its execution, but that's an unnecessary tangent)
In the first scenario, the union has no argument because management broke no rule. If management's poor discretion causes failures, the prime issue for the failure wouldn't necessarily be due to the referenced rule, though the rule would be an aggravating circumstance of the case.
Local could stay within the confines of the rule through 30.2.Q (Additional Duties [for Leave Replacements]). If this were not possible, I'd guess management could bring a regular on their relief day and have a leave replacement strictly assist with the surplus workload. An RCA that exceeds 12 workhours to make that happen though is a grievance of a separate issue.
In the second scenario, management would damage RCAs expectancy by not working a carrier who is entitled to workhours. Simply put, grievance =
Whether local management can avoid failures within the confines of the "RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days" rule is between local and district management.
You're presuming your conclusion (massive failures) is absolute and the reason behind these absolute failures will be "insufficient employees to process the workload."
I don't know whether they would exchange failures for an overtime bill. My position was misunderstood as I can't argue that they will or won't make that exchange.
I can argue that if they do, it will likely be because they are following the POOMs order to not schedule employees to process that workload (likely rolling their eyes the entire time). The end result could be an uncomfortable discussion between the POOM and Area management.
As far as it being "weird", yes, a lot of weird happens. I've had passing management explain to me the insanity of the business at times. Even though it would sometimes be cheaper to use the RDWL than use multiple straight-time RCAs to cover a route, a DACA 5 is a beacon on a report, so they would pay more money to RCAs just to dodge discipline for a DACA 5. Though their methods are sometimes weird, a manager must never question.
"Past practice" defenses are easily flushed by educated managers, and local practices are not precident-setting. If precedent is what you seek, you could try pressing for it at step 2:
View attachment 4513
I doubt you'd get it though because the origin rule (RCAs only work x amount of consecutive days) produces the conflicts referenced above. The rule's foundation is bad. A precident can't be built on a breaching foundation. If it could, then District-level settlements could control National-level agreements. This job is sometimes stranger than fiction though so who knows.
I'm cheering you on @Mark Oliver . It sounds like a frustrating situation indeed.
I don't know the effectiveness of these guys, but it's something to consider.
View attachment 4514
Oh no, no, no. Don't misunderstand. There is no stress on my part. I'm simply creating my own terms of service on how I will allow the USPS to use my hard work ethic and dedication to getting the job done, with an emphasis on not letting them abuse me.
You know, like the NRLCA should be doing. If someone walked in tomorrow and said "you're fired", I'm good with that. Their loss.
And for clarification, I am not talking about my home office in Conklin. Great PM, great clerk, great Regulars. My war is with being forced to help bail out the Binghamton office 6, 7, maybe 8 miles away. They are a perpetual disaster and I'm refusing to go there. I was going to continue going there every other Sunday only, to do Amazon, but the new 10 days on, 1 day off rule got me out of that.
No stress here bro, the job market is rich. My preference is to stay with USPS but I would not freak out if it doesn't work out.
Not being abused is key !! I am not going to be in my present situation, working many 6 day weeks, time off spoardic, F-this place, for not much longer ! They will find some other loser to deliver, oh well !! Good Luck !
You know, whenever these fictitious , bogus, knee jerk, on the fly, large and in charge, we'll show you, etc. "policies" come down , and they come down DAILY, I always respectfully request that WE be provided the handbook, manual, form, MOU, etc. from which these "policies" were derived. I remind our management that EVERYTHING I show them is from an OFFICIAL document. They have YET to provide ANYTHING. Now, I do realize that districts do have latitude to make "some" local policies and / or guidelines. However, these "policies" cannot disobey, blatantly violate, totally ignore, cast aside, etc. existing contractual language which DOES include all the handbooks, manuals, forms, MOUs, etc. As the title of this very thread states in part," anyone else HEARING." That's ALL it is...................rumor. You won't find it anywhere. It's a rumor NOT a policy, rule or regulation.
I disagree. I am a ptf in a small cluster. 5 rts and a 3 hour aux. no rcas. Hang been for 7 months. 2 of my regulars are straight a holes. They bitch about everything, and get off every day they request I have been working six days straight for 7 months with the aux everyday when finished with K and j days and vacation days I’m run ragged. And get bitched at from those two about everything I doo. One put in a grievience because i curtailed some stuff Monday so I could get the 9.4 k day and aux done by the mandated 7pm time. When I confronted him about it he said not my problem do your god dam job, I was pissed and said you are close to loosing another sub. His response is we barely have one that works anyways. Regulars like these is why we have no help in my cluster. And there are a few of them in this cluster that think we should worship the ground they walk on. I am not doing that shit lol.
gotstamps
Well-known member
So what are you disagreeing about? We don’t have those issues in my office. We‘ve had PTFs for years in a 60+ route office. We are short on RCAs but it’s due to the fast-growing area & not because of animosity towards Regs & mgmt. some PTFs we’ve had acted entitled as if they were too good to assist, to work Sundays, or to do their job correctly. They figure out real fast that mgmt isn’t going to put up with it.
As to you cutting back mail on the Regular, that is NOT your decision to make. Mgmt makes that decision & a Regular has the right to compensation for having to carry the previous day’s mail or get assistance equal to the cutback. The Carrier filed on mgmt for them not compensating them properly. It’s not personal, it’s contractual, & you should not have confronted the Regular. FYI… a Carrier or RCA can be disciplined for “delay of mail” if not approved by mgmt first. If mgmt had told you “no” to cutting back mail then you simply let mgmt know that you won’t make whatever time they ”require”. If mgmt wants a Carrier back by a certain time, then they need to manage the mail for them or give assistance. We don’t work a 9 to 5; we work until the day’s mail is delivered.
It takes as long as it takes.
