NRLCA Files National Step 4 Grievance on Whether Rural Carriers are Receiving the Correct Coverage Factor

[DB.Cooper]

As I have said before I'm now retired, so all the current BS about RRECS has no effect on me, but I'll tell you what its impact on my High 3 was Substantial!

They may have cost me some, but I went from a K to a J, so, my hours didn't change all that much... I guess they cost me on days off and the leave I took to compensate for that... but, working for the USPS, I could give you a LONG list of things like that where they screwed me in one way or another for 25+ years.... It's no wonder USPS is broke, they screw over their employees continuously, and so, every time those employees get the chance, they stick it to the USPS.... it's a vicious cycle...

 

[Gotrope]

I will come to the defense of the NRLCA for 1 specific item. RRECS had to be implemented due to arbitration award. ................................. the time factors for each item should have been used to do a traditional mail count and actually count for 3 months for the 1st count. Then go back to the way things were done before 1991 and count "boxholders" and "full coverage mailings- WSS addressed" for 2 weeks prior to the count period and after the count to assure mailers don't play games with the dates to avoid the period. ..................... this is the way it should have been done and should have been implemented before 2020 as the arbitrator thought would happen. USPS and NRLCA dragged it out due to the computer spitting numbers out ( and not verified) until parcels went from few to almost 80% coverage after Covid. NRLCA had to implement the system because carriers were doing 20 to 30 hours of work a week that was unpaid.

There no no way to defend this failure by nrlca. There own stewards and grievance specialists proved the breadcrumb issue to them 5 years ago. Nrlca refused to believe the data presented to them. They chose to believe usps over their own stewards who provided district and area proof by route.

 

[mail1000]

Under the Rural Route Evaluation Dispute Process (RREDP), when the parties reach an impasse at the headquarters level, the dispute is referred to Step 4 of the grievance-arbitration procedure as an interpretive issue.

NRLCA Files National Step 4 Grievance on Whether Rural Carriers are Receiving the Correct Coverage Factor - Ruralinfo.net

Under the Rural Route Evaluation Dispute Process (RREDP), when the parties reach an impasse at the headquarters level, the dispute is referred to Step 4 of the…

ruralinfo.net

Coverage factor has Never been correct and Never will be correct under this system...no matter this outcome...way to many flaws!

 

[Rogtar]

I saw several posts mentioning back pay and , yet , I saw no mention of "back pay" or "made financially whole" in the remedy sought by the union. While an arbitrator MAY find in favor of the union with regard to the coverage factor evidence , that same arbitrator could also rule that since no mention of financial remedy was even mentioned , that none is warranted. I suppose that same arbitrator could also order that The USPS go back X amount of time and reimburse affected carriers. We all know that the "adjustment process" is bogus in and of itself but combining THAT with the coverage factor issue makes it even worse because the evaluations / standard hours of the routes involved in the process were not accurate from the start. Seems that it would take quite some time to recalculate the standard hours / evaluations that all routes SHOULD have been and then going from there to and through the adjusted routes and what they SHOULD have been and figuring out any back pay from there. Then you have the RCA pay for anyone under 40 hours that worked and THEIR back pay as well. Of course, there is always the looming possibility of one of those "pre-arb" settlements.

Wasn't there a mention if retroactively making all coverage factor 100% in that remedy? If anything is done retroactively, admittedly dumb for me to assume smart people are involved, that it would also mean there has to be all other items affected by that change including pay.

 

[psd181]

There no no way to defend this failure by nrlca. There own stewards and grievance specialists proved the breadcrumb issue to them 5 years ago. Nrlca refused to believe the data presented to them. They chose to believe usps over their own stewards who provided district and area proof by route.

I agree. I said I defended them on having to implement RRECS before it was ready due to no mail count for 5 years. probably will never be ready based upon how things are done with the scanners instead of inputed by a central person like the city numbers are put in their system everyday. Parcels should be counted and if it fits in the mailbox then scanner doesn't matter. If goes to door, then should be a go do door input on scanner (easiest would be a picture taken at drop point) as well as the other scan.

Also the system should be set up as do not allow any scans on the street unless the carrier is signed into the specific route they are carrying (this is for parcel assistance or split routes)

As to % of stops, the scanners only work when cell service is active. I've seen it on a couple of routes I carried during the mapping phase (s). Whole roads would not show up or parts of roads show up. One place I drove a 5 mile dead end road that only had 5 houses; little car thing got half way down the road and then jumped back to mail road without retracing LOL So those address never received credit on scanner, they got plotted manually, but mileage and LOT was off when using scanner/mapping.

 

[damifiknow]

i asked them to also explain to me if i have a scan required for there, there stupid spms, and when i get to the box it says that im 15-30 ft away or more, how then am i getting a credit for that box stop when you have to have it within 5 ft, oh dont worry you are getting credit for it the said, i said explain to me how when the scanner thinks im whatever amount away, and have to be within 5 , and believe me im anal about the boexes and where the stop points were. it fell on deaf ears like everything else. try it look at your next spm and see how far away it says you are from the box. interesting?

 

[ATCBigE]

i asked them to also explain to me if i have a scan required for there, there stupid spms, and when i get to the box it says that im 15-30 ft away or more, how then am i getting a credit for that box stop when you have to have it within 5 ft, oh dont worry you are getting credit for it the said, i said explain to me how when the scanner thinks im whatever amount away, and have to be within 5 , and believe me im anal about the boexes and where the stop points were. it fell on deaf ears like everything else. try it look at your next spm and see how far away it says you are from the box. interesting?

That's called the trust me bro syndrome.

 

[ATCBigE]

There no no way to defend this failure by nrlca. There own stewards and grievance specialists proved the breadcrumb issue to them 5 years ago. Nrlca refused to believe the data presented to them. They chose to believe usps over their own stewards who provided district and area proof by route.

Just a little common sense would have proven this. Quick ride along with carrier when SPM goes off with ZERO WARNING should be all that is needed. My route will go from ZERO WARNING to warning 7 boxes before.

Then my favorite problem is once implemented, it is us who have to prove it is wrong more than USPS. The whole implement and fix later logic is so dumb. USPS & NRLCA had 12 years to work things out before implementing it. Instead we have implement a half working system. I mean just the sheer brilliance of this is unreal.

 

[neciat]

Wasn't there a mention if retroactively making all coverage factor 100% in that remedy? If anything is done retroactively, admittedly dumb for me to assume smart people are involved, that it would also mean there has to be all other items affected by that change including pay.

I was only going by what was specified on pages 5 and 6 under the "remedy requested" . While retroactively assigning a 100% coverage factor to all routes , if even granted , would go hand in hand with with compensation in many , if not all instances, I just don't feel comfortable with back pay NOT being specified in the remedy sought. Yes, if the coverage factor isn't / wasn't accurate, then the pay isn't/ wasn't accurate. I just would have liked to have seen "wages" specified in the actual remedy along with the appropriate timeline which would be from day one the system was implemented. Then, we have the other issues of carriers who worked relief days they SHOULD have been entitled to had their evaluations been accurate AND the RCAs who DIDN'T work but SHOULD have because the regular carriers worked days they really should not have worked. So, there's THAT back pay issue as well. Perhaps the citations from Articles 5 and 34 encompass any back pay due. I / we can only hope that the arbitrator understands and considers this while adjudicating the decision. Same to be said for the union should they enter into one of those "pre-arb" settlements.

 

[DB.Cooper]

I agree. I said I defended them on having to implement RRECS before it was ready due to no mail count for 5 years. probably will never be ready based upon how things are done with the scanners instead of inputed by a central person like the city numbers are put in their system everyday. Parcels should be counted and if it fits in the mailbox then scanner doesn't matter. If goes to door, then should be a go do door input on scanner (easiest would be a picture taken at drop point) as well as the other scan.

Also the system should be set up as do not allow any scans on the street unless the carrier is signed into the specific route they are carrying (this is for parcel assistance or split routes)

As to % of stops, the scanners only work when cell service is active. I've seen it on a couple of routes I carried during the mapping phase (s). Whole roads would not show up or parts of roads show up. One place I drove a 5 mile dead end road that only had 5 houses; little car thing got half way down the road and then jumped back to mail road without retracing LOL So those address never received credit on scanner, they got plotted manually, but mileage and LOT was off when using scanner/mapping.

Split routes and bad cell service have screwed carriers by a LOT since RRECS has been in effect... will this Step 4 address that???? Probably not .. NRLCA should have been on these issues BEFORE RRECS was implemented, not YEARS afterwards..

 

[amberedilyn]

if the union has known that this was incorrect why would they continue to agree to the mms and rrecs after 3 years!? And why let us look stupid in filing disputes for the issues that know and have known were incorrect and affecting all of our livelihoods?

 

[Rogtar]

if the union has known that this was incorrect why would they continue to agree to the mms and rrecs after 3 years!? And why let us look stupid in filing disputes for the issues that know and have known were incorrect and affecting all of our livelihoods?

Being stupid and assuming their position: More evidence to build year after year after year until it should be undeniable and has shown no good faith effort to rectify after constant and consistent annual data. Quality of the disputes and greivances have also gone up since the start as people are more educated and motivated to perform the disputes.

Assuming there was a good reason for the union to do something is a ridiculous assumption requiring lots of alcohol however.

 

[DB.Cooper]

if the union has known that this was incorrect why would they continue to agree to the mms and rrecs after 3 years!? And why let us look stupid in filing disputes for the issues that know and have known were incorrect and affecting all of our livelihoods?

Short answer is .. because they're worthless and it doesn't impact the union muckety muck's pay...

 

[neciat]

Well, I guess THIS grievance is in line BEHIND these ; NRLCA Files Three National Step 4 Grievances Against USPS - Ruralinfo.net

Or, perhaps THIS grievance will be kinda' lumped in with two of the above grievances since these three are RRECS related. I don't know. I also wanna' think I recall at least one, if not more, NLRB allegations that were filed and are still pending.

 

[Gotrope]

Just a little common sense would have proven this. Quick ride along with carrier when SPM goes off with ZERO WARNING should be all that is needed. My route will go from ZERO WARNING to warning 7 boxes before.

Then my favorite problem is once implemented, it is us who have to prove it is wrong more than USPS. The whole implement and fix later logic is so dumb. USPS & NRLCA had 12 years to work things out before implementing it. Instead we have implement a half working system. I mean just the sheer brilliance of this is unreal.

Actual routes were studied prior to implemention with carriers stopping at every address daily for a period of 30 days. The coverage was never 100% at any time. We knew that the gps or the programing was an issue. Almost 300 routes were tracked. Not a single one received 100% coverage for the time frame. I believe the best route was ~92% in a San Ramon area. But, most were in the low 70's.
They absolutely knew the system was gamed and implemented anyways. They had a choice to negotiate one time mail count under old system. They were bedazzled by engineers who did time studies...not the programmer who put in option selections to deny the engineering standards.
To simply have 100% of coverage decided by DPS and then allow USPS to manipulate the DPS flow to restrict daily credits was insane. Why do you think the rrecs era dps only has heavy days maybe once a week when they run every cover they can find into the stream?

It's why so many stewards left after a year of rrecs. What was the point in staying to fight when your own team sabotages you?

 

[EthelAnne]

Actual routes were studied prior to implemention with carriers stopping at every address daily for a period of 30 days. The coverage was never 100% at any time. We knew that the gps or the programing was an issue. Almost 300 routes were tracked. Not a single one received 100% coverage for the time frame. I believe the best route was ~92% in a San Ramon area. But, most were in the low 70's.
They absolutely knew the system was gamed and implemented anyways.

I have to say, this thread is giving me PTSD flashbacks to those early days of RRECS!

Ok, as I recall from that time, Coverage Factor was perplexing and controversial from the very beginning, and there were a lot of different theories that were floated as to why some carrier percentages were so low. There was a belief that the GPS signals in certain areas were too weak, perhaps due to geographic features (hills, mountains, valleys, etc), to pick up all of a carrier's stops. There was also a belief that carriers might not be stopping long enough at a mailbox to register the stop. I remember sitting in a meeting and hearing one of the national officers tell us to stop at each box, count to three, and look both ways before proceeding to the next box (believe me, I rolled my eyes hard at that suggestion). In my own experience, I knew a lot of low coverage factor percents were due to carrier error: in the beginning, a lot of us just forgot to enter saturation coverages, so, in my mind at least, that explained the low percents.

Anyway, fast forward three years, and the union's contentions in the Step 4 grievance on this issue are really stunning to read. What we were told about how the system was capturing data was wrong, they knew it was wrong, and they didn't take steps to correct it.

 

[ATCBigE]

What's happening with RRECS reminds me of a college paper that a teacher assigns you at the beginning of the semester.

You get this paper and due end of semester. Instead of working on the process here and there. You wait until last second and just throw something together. That's RRECS. You know paper isn't good but turn it anyways. RRECS had major flaws pointed out but SCREW IT, IMPLEMENT & FIX LATER.........

 

[Dominator]

It's why so many stewards left after a year of rrecs. What was the point in staying to fight when your own team sabotages you?

 

[DB.Cooper]

Does anyone, REALLY know anything for sure when it comes to RRECS????? Seems to me many in the union and many carriers really aren't sure how it works, or doesn't work, or is supposed to work.... and, this is a criticism of RRECS, not the carriers... there's no transparency, so how the hail are carriers really supposed to understand anything.... I said from the beginning, push button , get eval... Any questions???? Oh, the computer said it's right, so it must be... that's your answer...

 

[Wilco183]

Actual routes were studied prior to implemention with carriers stopping at every address daily for a period of 30 days. The coverage was never 100% at any time. We knew that the gps or the programing was an issue. Almost 300 routes were tracked. Not a single one received 100% coverage for the time frame. I believe the best route was ~92% in a San Ramon area. But, most were in the low 70's.
They absolutely knew the system was gamed and implemented anyways. They had a choice to negotiate one time mail count under old system. They were bedazzled by engineers who did time studies...not the programmer who put in option selections to deny the engineering standards.
To simply have 100% of coverage decided by DPS and then allow USPS to manipulate the DPS flow to restrict daily credits was insane. Why do you think the rrecs era dps only has heavy days maybe once a week when they run every cover they can find into the stream?

It's why so many stewards left after a year of rrecs. What was the point in staying to fight when your own team sabotages you?

Yours is a very revealing and interesting post, even after being gone 3 years. I have always thought that coverage % was the long pole in the manipulation tent.

Don't have the data of course or instinctive frame of reference feel through time to even ponder a guess myself, yet am curious to know even ballpark general, just what does an additional 5% even 10% add to an evaluation with all other factors being the same?