• Everyone, please help make our jobs easier and choose the correct category. Thank you

RECCS Poll! (enough already, what say you)? - Note after the start up period scheduled changes will only use a full years data!

RECCS Poll! (enough already, what say you)

  • Take 4 weeks of data (1 month) after all we do that now! Update pay once a year (Annually)!

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Take 4 weeks of data (1 month) after all we do that now! Update pay Twice a year (every 6 months)!

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • Take 6 months of data (1/2 year) ! Update pay once a year (Annually)!

    Votes: 3 6.0%

  • Take 6 months of data (1/2 year) ! Update pay twice a year (every 6 months)!

    Votes: 4 8.0%

  • Take 12 months of data (1 year) ! Update pay once a year (Annually)!

    Votes: 33 66.0%

  • Take 12 months of data (1/2 year) ! Update pay twice a year (every 6 months)!

    Votes: 5 10.0%

  • Other?????

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
V

Voglio-il mio

Well-known member
We are currently are working under an Evaluation System that uses a three week count to formulate our earnings. We currently have the opportunity for interim adjustments. Scheduled counts are negotiated, so otherwise your evaluations stay the same until the next one. By the way we don't have any in this contract!

If RECCS were to start today how would you choose for it to start up? Note after the start up period scheduled changes will only use a full years data!

What would you like for its frequency of updating your evaluation?
 
Last edited:
We'll likely find out it was implemented when we see it in our pay stubs.... then when we ask wtf.... they'll say, oh yeah, we've been collecting the data, and bada-bing... this is your new eval.... no fuss, no muss... :oops:
 
Voglio-il mio -- "We are currently are working under an Evaluation System that uses a three week count to formulate our earnings. "

-- Actually it WAS two- and three-weak counts to determine a route's evaluation.

-- Used to be two- and FOUR-weak counts in September's, but that changed to a FEB-MAR time frame thanks to Arbitrator Wells as of 2002. ( any one remember the USPS's "Managing the Opportunity"?

-- The Arbitrator Clarke ( 2010-2015 ) changed process to two- and three-weak counts in FEB-MAR as proposed by -- you guessed it -- the NRLCA!!

-- The NRLCA's mantra used to be: No Contract, No Count. That worked until the 12-26 ( middle of ) March 2016 count which was included in the 2010-2015 contract, which expired 15 MAY 2015.

-- More "fun and games" regarding counts:

- The 2000-2004 Arbitration came out on 3 FEB 2002, yet a national count was conducted beginning 28 FEB 2002 which included LOTS of changes to standards. ( think someone ( the USPS ) was given advance notice of the changes? )

- The 2015-2018 Contract included NO count for 2017. ( the parties probably thought the new evaluated pay system would be in place ( LOL ))

- Even in her last State of the Union address of August 2018, X-President Dwyer continued to cite two- and four-weak counts despite the change to two- and three-weak counts with the 2010-2015 contract.

- The 2018-2021 Contract includes NO counts for the duration of the contract, aside from the USPS's option to conduct a national count over the last 12 working days of September of any year, provided the NRLCA is given at least a 30-day notice of the impending count. ( the parties probably hope RRECS will be in place sometime during the life of the contract )

-- Carrier can always hope to have a change in pay ( hopefully upwards ) with route adjustments through territorial gains or losses, when "unusual circumstance" have negated the validity of the annual count ( that seems to get overlooked in such cases as the addition of Amazon AFTER a count) , the implementation of DPS /FSS, or change between "L" and "Non-L" classification.
 
My route has seasonal fluctuations, so I would like to see yearly data collections. However, I would want to be able to see a running tally of how the route is doing periodically throughout that year. That's where I think so many routes will get into trouble when this thing starts up. Carriers who have no idea how their actions are affecting their evaluations will suddenly get a big surprise after that first year of data collection. It shouldn't be difficult to have route data available for viewing on LiteBlue.
 
Rural Deviation et al -- "My personal opinion lends more toward a yearly count, but with special provision if volume increases then carrier could call for special count within each year."

-- The "special provision" is already in place. Just have to know where to look ( something the national officers don't seem to be interested in ).

- MOU #1: It is the understanding of the parties that a national mail count MAY be initiated where rural delivery has been impacted on a NATIONAL level. Examples of such would be a reduction in delivery days, a SUBSTANTIAL change in mail VOLUME, etc. ( does that include parcels? ) ( would be helpful in the MOU included just WHO could initiate the national count. )

- Article 9.2.C.11 -- Special Counts (1) When circumstances have NEGATED the validity of the latest count and evaluation. ( just need a 2+ hour change in order to affect pay )

- M-38's Section 527.1.c. When unusual circumstances have NEGATED the validity of the annual count.
 
blamethesub et al -- "My route has seasonal fluctuations,"

-- Not to worry or maybe you should!

-- From the RRECS Q&A:

- Q -- What about seasonal routes, was it considered in the study?

- A -- Dr. Mericle -- Yes. That is built into the system. Stops will only be on curb routes not NDCBU's. Seasonal addresses will disappear.

- A -- President Dwyer -- Have a committee working on seasonal routes right now to see how it affects this system. ( NRLCA committees ( and Task Forces ) not exactly known for their timely reports. )
 
Thanks, btdt. I'm not officially a seasonal route, but the current system counts me at the lowest volume time of year. Then, when the route triples in volume, I'm still getting paid for what it looked like in Feb. Yearly data collection will give me a truer average, which is what the evaluated system is supposed to provide in the first place.

On the flip side, those areas where my residents go for the winter are over evaluated due to the Feb count. Those routes will lose time with yearly data collection, but they will also have a truer average for the work they are doing.
 
Voglio-il mio said:
We are currently are working under an Evaluation System that uses a three week count to formulate our earnings. We currently have the opportunity for interim adjustments. Scheduled counts are negotiated, so otherwise your evaluations stay the same until the next one. By the way we don't have any in this contract!

If RECCS were to start today how would you choose for it to start up? Note after the start up period scheduled changes will only use a full years data!

What would you like for its frequency of updating your evaluation?
Click to expand...
I would say to get started with the new system we should use at least 2 months of data and maybe 3. After that I would use all the data from the whole year MINUS the Christmas period. During the Christmas period we could be paid like we are now.......evaluation plus aux help or OT pay for hours over eval. The Christmas period could be determined by both parties. I would suggest starting it earlier than we do now and ending it later. By how much would have to be agreed upon. Our salaries could either be annual or adjusted twice a year. In an earlier post I suggested salary adjustments as much as every 3 months but carriers didn't seem to like having to deal with a possible fluctuation in income throughout the year which I can understand.
 
Rural Deviation said:
My personal opinion lends more toward a yearly count, but with special provision if volume increases then carrier could call for special count within each year.
Click to expand...

I believe interim adjustments will still be practiced with the RECCS system, well at least that's the last answer I got anyway. Maybe if you get a chance to ask anybody that might have a clue, you can get back to us with that answer!

Finding somebody that has a clue will be the difficult part of that statement!
 
Last edited:
Does it really matter what we "want"? Isn't the RRECS deal supposed to be based on a year's worth of data. Whatever we've thought, said, ranted, or raved about hasn't changed anything one iota so far.
 
Rt2mailman said:
Does it really matter what we "want"? Isn't the RRECS deal supposed to be based on a year's worth of data. Whatever we've thought, said, ranted, or raved about hasn't changed anything one iota so far.
Click to expand...
u really see these "people" following contracts now? have you ever seen so many gray areas? they do what they want, when they want and laugh at our top shelf union stopping em////
 
Routes vary so much it is hard to speak as one group. Some carriers want at new postal vehicle. Others want higher EMA for their POV and never want a postal vehicle. A high growth urban area may want to have an evaluation updated every few months or not updated as they may be overburdened and would have a pay cut. A route out in the sticks wants as few adjustments as possible as their pay probably drops with every evaluation. If you happened to count with Amazon and now it is gone an adjustment would not be to your benefit. Conversely if you are delivering Amazon that was never included in a count you would like an evaluation update yesterday. No matter what happens there will be winners and losers. Someone will think RRECS is the greatest thing since sliced bread and others will feel like the mother-in-law moved into the basement.
 
There should be no new evaluations made until people are given an opportunity to work under the new changes they'll be requiring. If they change the evals based on pre-RRECS requirements, they'll be comparing apples to oranges. It would be extremely unfair. Which alas, might be the idea.

A year's worth of data is a good sampling. It captures the highs and lows, the good weather and bad. I like that, but again, only if it is based on year one of data (not year -1.)
 

Share this page

New Media

B679D973-BCBD-4724-8345-6775F1EE86B0.jpeg
1000002893.gif
1000002887.jpg
IMG_6632.jpeg
IMG_6632.jpeg
IMG_6632.jpeg
1000003305.jpg
20240411_141451.jpg
590DF2D6-0DFB-4053-89DB-88DB368B0E65.jpeg
Screenshot_20240404_122857_Google.jpg
Screenshot_20240404_122947_Google.jpg
F946D388-561E-4CE9-A35A-CF9201D22624.png
Back
Top