IS THIS A UNION THING?

[MadDog]

What was the point of adjusting all the routes down to a 43k? Seems to me it would be cheaper to keep folks at 44's and 45's than having to create new routes and add a new career position?

The option to cut should come from the employee, if they are consistently meeting eval, don't ya think?

 

[Worve]

contract we work under…. It’s a good thing creating more routes even if aux routes. More people in the craft theoretically more pull come negotiating time. Also helps out office size which impacts everything from staffing across rural, clerk, management, office budget, and more. I get it times are tough, try to keep big picture in mind.

 

[neciat]

The thing is that routes DO NOT have to be reduced to 43K status. That evaluation is just the lowest they can go in MOST instances. So, the mindset of management is just that and not necessarily what makes sense with regards to squaring up territory. Keep in mind that with The RRECS MOU frozen route(s) adjustment language, the PO benefits from a lot of free work. That's why we are seeing an adjustment frenzy. Not that long ago when Amazon was hammering everyone and we didn't count for years, did we see the PO so passionate about adjusting routes ? No, we did not. Why ? Free work. On paper the routes were a lot smaller than they were in reality. Contractually, overburdened routes are to be adjusted and THAT is a process in and of itself WHEN DONE PROPERLY which, in most instances, it is not. Carriers do have the right to their input / ideas in any adjustment. Contractually, that input WILL BE CONSIDERED . Now, is any or all of the carrier input required to be implemented ? No. But, "will be considered" is the contractual language and is an aspect that neither most carriers nor the union ever follow through with as to why and / or why not the particulars of the carrier input were utilized and / or not utilized. That is why I suggest a carrier request a written response in their input letter as to why / why not their ideas were / were not implemented. If the carrier receives no response, I would argue that the input wasn't even considered which is a contractual violation. As far as having it be the carriers option to adjust a route or not , we need to remember that the route does belong to the PO. Part of the suggestions submitted by the carrier could include that particular carrier's work hours history be considered . Staying at or below 2080 , for example, on a 48K would bode well for the carrier's argument to adjust the route to 45K or 46K while keeping financial harm to a minimum which would be ANOTHER request included in the carrier's letter. Like @Worve stated, more routes , even aux. routes, benefits our craft first especially since our craft does not have the automatic career time conversion like the other crafts and the collateral benefits also stated in the post.

 

[Old Fart]

The thing is that routes DO NOT have to be reduced to 43K status. That evaluation is just the lowest they can go in MOST instances. So, the mindset of management is just that and not necessarily what makes sense with regards to squaring up territory. Keep in mind that with The RRECS MOU frozen route(s) adjustment language, the PO benefits from a lot of free work. That's why we are seeing an adjustment frenzy. Not that long ago when Amazon was hammering everyone and we didn't count for years, did we see the PO so passionate about adjusting routes ? No, we did not. Why ? Free work. On paper the routes were a lot smaller than they were in reality. Contractually, overburdened routes are to be adjusted and THAT is a process in and of itself WHEN DONE PROPERLY which, in most instances, it is not. Carriers do have the right to their input / ideas in any adjustment. Contractually, that input WILL BE CONSIDERED . Now, is any or all of the carrier input required to be implemented ? No. But, "will be considered" is the contractual language and is an aspect that neither most carriers nor the union ever follow through with as to why and / or why not the particulars of the carrier input were utilized and / or not utilized. That is why I suggest a carrier request a written response in their input letter as to why / why not their ideas were / were not implemented. If the carrier receives no response, I would argue that the input wasn't even considered which is a contractual violation. As far as having it be the carriers option to adjust a route or not , we need to remember that the route does belong to the PO. Part of the suggestions submitted by the carrier could include that particular carrier's work hours history be considered . Staying at or below 2080 , for example, on a 48K would bode well for the carrier's argument to adjust the route to 45K or 46K while keeping financial harm to a minimum which would be ANOTHER request included in the carrier's letter. Like @Worve stated, more routes , even aux. routes, benefits our craft first especially since our craft does not have the automatic career time conversion like the other crafts and the collateral benefits also stated in the post.

Reminder -- common sense and logic are prohibited at the post office.

 

[jaymacgthree]

What was the point of adjusting all the routes down to a 43k? Seems to me it would be cheaper to keep folks at 44's and 45's than having to create new routes and add a new career position?

The option to cut should come from the employee, if they are consistently meeting eval, don't ya think?

Are you only thinking of yourself? Others carry the routes when you are not on them and the Post Office needs it of a size and volume everyone can do. It is easy for regular carriers to see what we do everyday for years and think that it is normal and easy while forgetting that someone not trained on a route or new to carrying is going to have more difficulty. Adjustments aren't just about money but operations as well.

 

[MadDog]

contract we work under…. It’s a good thing creating more routes even if aux routes. More people in the craft theoretically more pull come negotiating time. Also helps out office size which impacts everything from staffing across rural, clerk, management, office budget, and more. I get it times are tough, try to keep big picture in mind.

The big picture I'm looking at is the one where the USPS becomes profitable.

 

[MadDog]

Are you only thinking of yourself? Others carry the routes when you are not on them and the Post Office needs it of a size and volume everyone can do. It is easy for regular carriers to see what we do everyday for years and think that it is normal and easy while forgetting that someone not trained on a route or new to carrying is going to have more difficulty. Adjustments aren't just about money but operations as well.

I disagree with this. Of course someone new on a route will take longer and may not meet eval right away, but the expectation is that they eventually will. Those that don't are usually let go.

I'm looking at this from the company level and what makes sense economically. If you have 8 45k routes that are locked from growth with carriers that meet eval, to knock them all down to 43k's and create 2 new 43k's or 1 and an auxiliary, ADDS costs, it doesn't reduce them.

 

[OnePiece]

I disagree with this. Of course someone new on a route will take longer and may not meet eval right away, but the expectation is that they eventually will. Those that don't are usually let go.

I'm looking at this from the company level and what makes sense economically. If you have 8 45k routes that are locked from growth with carriers that meet eval, to knock them all down to 43k's and create 2 new 43k's or 1 and an auxiliary, ADDS costs, it doesn't reduce them.

I think you missing jaymacgthree’s point, if the PO never create new routes, then the subs will never become regulars. In your example, 2 subs will be regulars soon. Sure 8 people are losing 2hrs each but 2 people are going regular. I am sure when you were a sub, you were looking forward to becoming regular asap too. Now you seem to forget about the subs. That’s my take on it. Took me 5 years to become a regular. Nowadays subs are clocking 5+ years and still nothing in sight.

 

[hockey94]

Reminder -- common sense and logic are prohibited at the post office.

When I first started I was usually working right by the city carriers, I kept asking them why we do what I thought was time wasting, didn’t make sense to me etc, they all told me just DO, don’t think logically !

 

[ATCBigE]

I think you missing jaymacgthree’s point, if the PO never create new routes, then the subs will never become regulars. In your example, 2 subs will be regulars soon. Sure 8 people are losing 2hrs each but 2 people are going regular. I am sure when you were a sub, you were looking forward to becoming regular asap too. Now you seem to forget about the subs. That’s my take on it. Took me 5 years to become a regular. Nowadays subs are clocking 5+ years and still nothing in sight.

But then you also have to look at this point.

Let's say this is an amazon office. So what happens when you create all these routes after cutting from these routes and everyone is K, what happens when Amazon says BYE BYE???????

Now everyone goes from K drops to H or J and are stuck working 6 days a week for the same pay or less since have to work an extra day or 2 in a week. Everyone will be griping and moaning about that.

RRECS is still and will be a major mess because they have nothing to do. Everyone is stuck on these H routes.

Union needs to look at other stuff such as hours worked in a year, if you work xxxx hours in a year, then you can convert to PTF. Then to maintain you work xxxx hours. Our union is perfectly content living in 1980s still. Instead we gave them $1 an hour raise after 3 years. GENIUS!!!!!!

 

[Gotrope]

I disagree with this. Of course someone new on a route will take longer and may not meet eval right away, but the expectation is that they eventually will. Those that don't are usually let go.

I'm looking at this from the company level and what makes sense economically. If you have 8 45k routes that are locked from growth with carriers that meet eval, to knock them all down to 43k's and create 2 new 43k's or 1 and an auxiliary, ADDS costs, it doesn't reduce them.

You are not looking at it from a USPS view.
A USPS view is mgmt view. Extra personnel, routes, equipment, building needs all signal extra mgmt growth and potential. They don't care about the crafts. It's a mgmt piggy bank.
Seriously if you start looking at the most inefficient ways to manage that actually add to MGMT numbers and bonuses...current actions begin to make much more sense. You can't think like a rural carrier where inefficiency and time waste is not optimal.

 

[Gotrope]

I think you missing jaymacgthree’s point, if the PO never create new routes, then the subs will never become regulars. In your example, 2 subs will be regulars soon. Sure 8 people are losing 2hrs each but 2 people are going regular. I am sure when you were a sub, you were looking forward to becoming regular asap too. Now you seem to forget about the subs. That’s my take on it. Took me 5 years to become a regular. Nowadays subs are clocking 5+ years and still nothing in sight.

Some have hit 15-20 years with no career status. It's a miracle they stay.

 

[All Saints Day]

I think the goal is the keep the median salaries on paper as low as possible. If they had the choice of 3 carriers making 100K each or 4 carriers making 80K each. Even though they are paying 20K more total for the 4 carriers, on paper the average salary is lower. That's my theory anyways.

That's why they pick 43K as the preferred standard. If they cut to 42K, a lot of eligible carriers will take the high option 46J which will raise the median salary of employees. I was cut to 43K and requested if I could be cut to 42 and it was denied by district. Most likely because I would have opted for 46J.

 

[neciat]

Reminder -- common sense and logic are prohibited at the post office.

Oh yeah !!! I recall awhile back when you stated it best by saying something like , " We will not allow common sense and logic to interfere with Postal Operations. " And dadgummit , they certainly adhere to that one no matter what the costs.