Are We Ever Going To See This Implemented ?

R5

Active member
I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up.

Just like they must have data that it only takes 10 seconds to deliver a parcel to the door. Someone must of shown this is possible. I believe they would've change this over the last 30 years if it wasn't so. I refuse they would cheat me if it wasn't so. I believe. I believe. Management would never cheat us. I believe!
 

Toolology

Well-known member
I should really apologize to some people. These incessant posts about what RRECS is going to do with so many people absolutely certain that it will be a bloodbath based primarily on 2 things. People are going to lose so much that they can't possibly make it up, and management is going to cheat to make sure it is to their advantage. Why do they need to cheat if it favors them so much to begin with? Either you believe that they are incapable of being honest or you throw that in to "prove" how bad it will be. I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
RRECS came about because there was virtually no understanding of where the standards came from. I am guessing that there are reasons for each standard now, and if they say 86.4 is an average number for the verification of address, it seems likely they have data to back it up. How often do people post that they have timed themselves and it takes 5 minutes to sort 100 pieces of DPS? Or 2? Or 1? All I ever see is how unreasonable the USPS numbers are, with an undercurrent of the less the better, not what is actually fair.
You learn about people by how they react. When confronted with a view opposed to their own, do they simply attack and ridicule, or do they make an attempt to understand and explain?
Not sure how I got my calculator to give me that 60.24 but the basic point I wanted to make is that it can be easy to see a fallacy at times, and just because you can see the easy ones, doesn't really mean you see the hard ones, since so much is more than simple math. I may not live to see this implemented, but my best guess is most people who lose hours won't lose more than they are currently working under time.
When this is implemented you make sure you are around. This is a bloodbath for low volume, high mileage routes. I think your assumptions on most staying the same is a pipe dream. I am a realist and loss of time on standards are simply devastating to the craft.
 

C$$

Well-known member
...
I am in the minority because I believe that more people will be better off than worse off under this system, and a large number will probably end up with virtually no change.
...
The RRECS DPS standards are bad. Extremely bad.

Why believe when you can KNOW?

1) Get a clock, a full tray of DPS, and an empty tray
2) Look at clock
3) Move letters from full tray to empty tray. Look at every address. Throw out bad addresses, fwds, out of orders etc.
4) Look at clock

Added bonus: do it in under 5 minutes and you can call me Chicken Little :)
Double bonus: do it on a route you don't know, like an RCA, in under 5 minutes and you can call me whatever you want :)


I think the problem is we're talking about time. Time is squishy, fuzzy, hard to perceive. Let's talk about cold hard cash:
At the top step of the new pay tables, on a 40k, a carrier is making just under $30 an hour. Let's say a full tray of DPS is 400 pieces. So the value of a tray of DPS is:

(400 pieces * minutes per piece)/(60 minutes) * $30/hr

Current Eval System:
llv: $4.64
pov: $6.67

RRECS:
all: $2.32

Why is a tray of DPS in RRECS worth 1/2 or 1/3 of what it was?
 

FrozenToes

Well-known member
I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to go down. So you're assuming the parcels/dismounts will make up for the mail losses?
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
Wow. Your shown all the facts, but refuse to believe it. Why would they cheat if it's going to be so bad? If you haven't noticed, and it sure looks like you haven't, even with the billions they save from the Wells decision, it's still not enough. It's NEVER enough with them, always trying to capture more savings. New savings. But you just want to believe this is going to be to our advantage. Ignore the time standard changes, ignore the past corruption of mail counts, and benchmarks that they were caught cheating us, just ignore all facts and JUST BELIEVE!
Look at 2012, Billions more with the Tables 2 & 4... each of these carriers will make 100's of Thousands less over a career... it's never enuf.... they'll get the chance to donate more, no doubt... 🤑
 
Last edited:

Wilco183

Well-known member
I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to go down. So you're assuming the parcels/dismounts will make up for the mail losses?
Agree with your estimation...and HV/LM CBU/parcel locker routes like mine will lose the biggest.
 
Last edited:

btdtret

Well-known member
All -- RRECS "standards" information.

-- The BIG question should be: How come C$$ is able to do it and pass along the info while NOTHING from NRLCA?

-- Is the NRCLA still trying to figure out the data?

-- Has anyone at NRLCA HQ been assigned the task of determining how the RRECS "standards" will be affecting rural carriers?

-- Probably the above should have been directed at the national officers at the convention.
 

R5

Active member
I don't understand the rationale of low volume, high mileage vs high volume, low mileage.
Isn't high volume going to get slaughtered due to changes in DPS,flats,box standard,etc.. no long driveways to g
All -- RRECS "standards" information.

-- The BIG question should be: How come C$$ is able to do it and pass along the info while NOTHING from NRLCA?

-- Is the NRCLA still trying to figure out the data?

-- Has anyone at NRLCA HQ been assigned the task of determining how the RRECS "standards" will be affecting rural carriers?
They know, but they'll act shocked when this hits. They're not going to break the bad news and take a backlash from the craft. They're just hoping it won't be implemented for a long time, make their large salaries for as long as possible, then leave. They got us into this mess due to their inability to negotiate and protect the standards over the years, then leading us to the engineer study. A complete failure, alot more work, less pay, lost of days off, and now this coming at us. The new engineer standards were posted in their mag over a year ago. Isn't difficult to do the math with these lower standards. They know what's coming, but why upset us now. Dead silence. But when it all hits, much lower evaluations, sub standard routes thru out the country, loss of routes, they will rise up and guarantee us they're looking into the matter. Another lie, another false promise, and nothing accomplished.
 

Toolology

Well-known member
Agree with your estimation...and HV/LM CBU/parcel locker routes like mine will lose the biggest.
My route is 85 miles low volume/high mileage I get 2 min a mile, under new system the max I get between boxes that are a mile apart is 1:30 a mile in 3 places. The rest is way under that. I will lose over 5 hrs just in driving standard alone. Now high volume/low mileage do not have the mileage factor too lose near as bad. Say a route is 30 miles. You may only lose under 2 hrs compared to my 5 hrs. No routes will be slaughtered like low volume/high mileage. I am down 5 hrs and we have not figured in anything but mileage. The fact I have gravel and dirt roads was not even a consideration in the study and either was weather factor. Most low mileage routes are pavement.
 
Last edited:

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
They know, but they'll act shocked when this hits. They're not going to break the bad news and take a backlash from the craft. They're just hoping it won't be implemented for a long time, make their large salaries for as long as possible, then leave. They got us into this mess due to their inability to negotiate and protect the standards over the years, then leading us to the engineer study. A complete failure, alot more work, less pay, lost of days off, and now this coming at us. The new engineer standards were posted in their mag over a year ago. Isn't difficult to do the math with these lower standards. They know what's coming, but why upset us now. Dead silence. But when it all hits, much lower evaluations, sub standard routes thru out the country, loss of routes, they will rise up and guarantee us they're looking into the matter. Another lie, another false promise, and nothing accomplished.
I remember when that article came out... 1st thing the Jeannie did was emphasize this was NOT imminent... she knew, they knew, they know... this is gonna be a KILLER... 🤥
 
Last edited:

Heywood

Member
My route is 85 miles low volume/high mileage I get 2 min a mile, under new system the max I get between boxes that are a mile apart is 1:30 a mile in 3 places. The rest is way under that. I will lose over 5 hrs just in driving standard alone. Now high volume/low mileage do not have the mileage factor too lose near as bad. Say a route is 30 miles. You may only lose under 2 hrs compared to my 5 hrs. No routes will be slaughtered like low volume/high mileage. I am down 5 hrs and we have not figured in anything but mileage. The fact I have gravel and dirt roads was not even a consideration in the study and either was weather factor. Most low mileage routes are pavement.
So is it fair that as of now I get paid for a standard of 30mph when my whole route is a posted limit of 25 mph? And that's ignoring the fact that I never get up to 25 mph. I'm also assuming you're a nonL. You get 2 minutes per box, while I get 1.82.
Where was the hue and cry when all of us suburban routea were getting f****d all these years?
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
Jeannie is like that character on Hogan Heroes in the 70's Sargent Schultz " I know nothing, I see nothing "
And I'm gonna get the hail outa Dodge before this POS ever comes close to hitting the street... the Ronmeister will likely blame Jeannie.... :oops:
 

WestCoastRural

Active member
So is it fair that as of now I get paid for a standard of 30mph when my whole route is a posted limit of 25 mph? And that's ignoring the fact that I never get up to 25 mph. I'm also assuming you're a nonL. You get 2 minutes per box, while I get 1.82.
Where was the hue and cry when all of us suburban routea were getting f****d all these years?
And all dismounts we do!
 
Top