Beware the mapping scam!

Skierstmoritz

Well-known member
This is strictly my opinion but I'm afraid the USPS will use "simplified mapping " to screw over rural carriers. In the original study each and every rural carrier was to sit in the office in front of a computer with a specialist and input the location of the mailbox, the location where we parked to deliver the parcels, and the location where we leave the parcels at the house. We were to do this for every customer we serve. Sounded good and fair to me.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints?, outdated software? , lack of bandwidth? , lack of trained personnel?, this is not happening. Instead, we get these random spms thru the scanner that seem to be used to map our routes. Hence, " simplified mapping ". I don't know about your routes but I have a number of dead zones where there is no cell/scanner service.

I'm afraid that the USPS will use this haphazard system to determine our pay and that our union will go along with this less than thorough mapping system. How will distance walked be measured in the "dead-zones"? How will distance be determined in the house that was never spmed I don't think the scanners are all that accurate all the time and I fear the po will apply it's own logic to spm measurements.

We are currently bombed with Amazon, ups, and fed ex drops in addition to our own pkgs. We average 3x the number of parcels as opposed count numbers and it would be nice to be paid fairly for the parcels we deliver. Alas, i fear that , under "simplified mapping ", we will be shorted once again. I feel that the NRLCA should hold the USPS feet to the fire and force the po to map us as originally proposed.
 

gotstamps

Well-known member
We will still do the simplified mapping at a computer. SPMs are not mapping. Maybe it’s helping with mapping but it is not “simplified mapping”. The info that the Scanner sends with where you deliver packages along with the breadcrumbs it records is also used to ”help” with the mapping process when it starts.
The Union & the PO tested Simplified vs the original method and it was spot on and took less time to accomplish. The Union agreed to using Simplified so I don’t see them backing out.
 

Skierstmoritz

Well-known member
Got stamps- thanks for the update. I guess im trying to figure out how this all will happen. In our district, admittedly not huge, nowhere have we heard of anyone being mapped by any means. Are you aware of any offices, other than original study offices that have been mapped? Logistically, in my mind, all routes sitting by a computer, will take forever. Has the band width problem been solved to enable this to happen? I'm not looking forward to carrying Amazon for free indefinitely. And that seems to be our future , with no counts scheduled.
By the way, what exactly is the definition of "simplified mapping. I guess I'm confused.
 

FrozenToes

Well-known member
Got stamps- thanks for the update. I guess im trying to figure out how this all will happen. In our district, admittedly not huge, nowhere have we heard of anyone being mapped by any means. Are you aware of any offices, other than original study offices that have been mapped? Logistically, in my mind, all routes sitting by a computer, will take forever. Has the band width problem been solved to enable this to happen? I'm not looking forward to carrying Amazon for free indefinitely. And that seems to be our future , with no counts scheduled.
By the way, what exactly is the definition of "simplified mapping. I guess I'm confused.
Just guessing. Instead of having to plot all four points you will just have to verify the points. Adjust the points as necessary.
 

Jmdw52

Active member
What I want to know is how we are going to verify the data so we can know for sure we aren’t getting ripped of. Traditional counts have enough room for problems as it is..... hence mail count seminars. What happens when instead of two weeks it’s measured for months? How will we know the data is correct?
 

stingrayiii

Active member
There really is no bandwidth issue as the data is saved in the scanner till docked if it can't receive a signal. SPMs are not mapping anything, they are used as quality control for mail pieces. The mapping is the scanning of everything else that has a bar code. When you have a scan and go to the door it maps your route if the bar code has info to about the address. Even when you scan at/in mailbox it maps your route. That is why the union wanted you to carry your scanner everywhere and scan at the door.
My problem is how do they take in count of stairs or other things?
The more I am learning about this system, the more it is becoming a mess.
 

Itstillfun

Active member
This is strictly my opinion but I'm afraid the USPS will use "simplified mapping " to screw over rural carriers. In the original study each and every rural carrier was to sit in the office in front of a computer with a specialist and input the location of the mailbox, the location where we parked to deliver the parcels, and the location where we leave the parcels at the house. We were to do this for every customer we serve. Sounded good and fair to me.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints?, outdated software? , lack of bandwidth? , lack of trained personnel?, this is not happening. Instead, we get these random spms thru the scanner that seem to be used to map our routes. Hence, " simplified mapping ". I don't know about your routes but I have a number of dead zones where there is no cell/scanner service.

I'm afraid that the USPS will use this haphazard system to determine our pay and that our union will go along with this less than thorough mapping system. How will distance walked be measured in the "dead-zones"? How will distance be determined in the house that was never spmed I don't think the scanners are all that accurate all the time and I fear the po will apply it's own logic to spm measurements.

We are currently bombed with Amazon, ups, and fed ex drops in addition to our own pkgs. We average 3x the number of parcels as opposed count numbers and it would be nice to be paid fairly for the parcels we deliver. Alas, i fear that , under "simplified mapping ", we will be shorted once again. I feel that the NRLCA should hold the USPS feet to the fire and force the po to map us as originally proposed.
Simplified pay ? Oh no you didn't.
 

RDruckus

Well-known member
What I want to know is how we are going to verify the data so we can know for sure we aren’t getting ripped of. Traditional counts have enough room for problems as it is..... hence mail count seminars. What happens when instead of two weeks it’s measured for months? How will we know the data is correct?
You're are rural carrier? Then you're getting ripped off.
 

Havenowgone

Well-known member
What I want to know is how we are going to verify the data so we can know for sure we aren’t getting ripped of. Traditional counts have enough room for problems as it is..... hence mail count seminars. What happens when instead of two weeks it’s measured for months? How will we know the data is correct?
That was always one of my main concerns with the new system. In theory everything sounds better than the system we have now.....Re-engineered standards by professional time study engineers so we get correct times for the things we do, getting times for most or everything we do, a count system that doesn't rely on 2 or 3 weeks to determine pay for the entire year. Each of those sound great but your point as to who keeps track of those figures is valid! How do we verify figures? Are we to trust the USPS to keep track of the numbers year round? They don't have a very good track record of doing that. How many manipulated counts have you already been through and how many errors does each carrier that really follows and keeps track of things find each and every count! In theory the new system should be a lot fairer than the old one but there are so many questions to be answered.
 

btdtret

Well-known member
Havegonenow et al -- "Are we to trust the USPS to keep track of the numbers year round? They don't have a very good track record of doing that. "

-- Maybe they will do a better job in tracking numbers for only 48 weeks as they don't plan on including 4 weeks during the Christmas Period!

-- Which creates another question. If the Christmas No-Overtime Period is 3 weeks long, why will they exclude 4 weeks of data?

-- Which creates yet another question: Why is the ARC "Peak Season" 9+ weeks ( 04 NOV to 17 JAN ) while the rest of the rural craft has 3 weeks ( 07 DEC to 27 DEC ) for a "Peak Season?"
 

Windindaface

Well-known member
btdtret - Why is the ARC "Peak Season" 9+ weeks ( 04 NOV to 17 JAN ) while the rest of the rural craft has 3 weeks ( 07 DEC to 27 DEC ) for a "Peak Season?"

In my day the term ARC meant Association of Retarded Citizens. A term no longer politically correct, but the Machine likes abusing them.
 
Top