Special count over...now what?
- Thread starter wolfound
- Start date
D.B.Cooper
Active member
I know carriers who NEVER sign off on their count sheets... doesn't make any diff... they'll implement the results anyways... <img title="Confused" alt="Confused" src="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-smileys/sf-confused.gif" />
wolfhound -- "If regular refuses to sign off on this count…what happens?"
-- If the regular refuses to sign off on the count, he / she better have some documentation and a memo to forward to District as to why not.
-- What happens -- basically nothing! Manglement may note "carrier refused to sign" on the form.
-- If the carrier had 10 years as a regular, by not signing, may miss out on the High Option.
-- Might get a sheet of paper back in a month or two from District with one or more boxes checked.
-- My last count as one during the last two weeks of a September. As a record keeper, I had 10+ years of info when certainly flats ( wraps ), newspapers, ads, etc came during which week of the month. As I noted in my memo and enclosed documentation to District, many of the flats, newspapers, and ads just happened to show up during the week before the start of count and also the week after count ended. District's response several weeks later was a mimeograph page with the box for "Availability of Mail" checked.
-- If the regular refuses to sign off on the count, he / she better have some documentation and a memo to forward to District as to why not.
-- What happens -- basically nothing! Manglement may note "carrier refused to sign" on the form.
-- If the carrier had 10 years as a regular, by not signing, may miss out on the High Option.
-- Might get a sheet of paper back in a month or two from District with one or more boxes checked.
-- My last count as one during the last two weeks of a September. As a record keeper, I had 10+ years of info when certainly flats ( wraps ), newspapers, ads, etc came during which week of the month. As I noted in my memo and enclosed documentation to District, many of the flats, newspapers, and ads just happened to show up during the week before the start of count and also the week after count ended. District's response several weeks later was a mimeograph page with the box for "Availability of Mail" checked.
gotstamps
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>wolfound said </strong>
If regular refuses to sign off on this count...what happens? </blockquote>
The carrier must put in writing the reason for the disagreement of the count results. Sometimes it's something the PM will agree to correct especially if there is "backup documentation". Without documentation to backup the claim, it's likely nothing changes and life goes on.
If a route was counted due to the validity of the last count/eval and there is less than a 2 hour difference between the old eval & the new eval, nothing changes. Good if the route went down but not good if it gained an hour & they follow that rule. I haven't seen where that rule applies if counted due to density/2-hr change, though.
If regular refuses to sign off on this count...what happens? </blockquote>
The carrier must put in writing the reason for the disagreement of the count results. Sometimes it's something the PM will agree to correct especially if there is "backup documentation". Without documentation to backup the claim, it's likely nothing changes and life goes on.
If a route was counted due to the validity of the last count/eval and there is less than a 2 hour difference between the old eval & the new eval, nothing changes. Good if the route went down but not good if it gained an hour & they follow that rule. I haven't seen where that rule applies if counted due to density/2-hr change, though.
Gotstamps......the route lost 2 hours in this count(count done because RC had DPS review in late October 2016)...no surprise to me as RC took miles and gave away the amazon crazy addys to another route when we absorbed another zipcode...And you are saying the 'song remains the same' because the difference is 2 hours?
gotstamps
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>wolfound said </strong>
Gotstamps......the route lost 2 hours in this count(count done because RC had DPS review in late October 2016)...no surprise to me as RC took miles and gave away the amazon crazy addys to another route when we absorbed another zipcode...And you are saying the 'song remains the same' because the difference is 2 hours? </blockquote>
Strange that it wasn't counted last Spring to correct the issue.
Art. 9.2.C.11.a.1
"When circumstances have negated the validity of the latest count & evaluation. No salary adjustments will be made as a result of the count unless the evaluation of the route is changed by 120 minutes (2 hours) or more."
If it's a full 2 hr loss, the route would go down to reflect that. But if it's a minute shy of that 2 hours, no change.
Gotstamps......the route lost 2 hours in this count(count done because RC had DPS review in late October 2016)...no surprise to me as RC took miles and gave away the amazon crazy addys to another route when we absorbed another zipcode...And you are saying the 'song remains the same' because the difference is 2 hours? </blockquote>
Strange that it wasn't counted last Spring to correct the issue.
Art. 9.2.C.11.a.1
"When circumstances have negated the validity of the latest count & evaluation. No salary adjustments will be made as a result of the count unless the evaluation of the route is changed by 120 minutes (2 hours) or more."
If it's a full 2 hr loss, the route would go down to reflect that. But if it's a minute shy of that 2 hours, no change.
gotstamps
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>btdtret said </strong>
gotstamps -- "Strange that it wasn’t counted last Spring to correct the issue."
-- There wasn't a scheduled count last spring ( for some reason ) even with the avalanche of Amazon parcels, which should have negated the validity of the previous count. </blockquote>
Sorry. I guess I forgot we didn't have one. These years keep rolling by faster & faster. After typing that, I couldn't recall when they cut me (just over a year ago). Summer never really lightened up much so it feels as if we skipped it.
gotstamps -- "Strange that it wasn’t counted last Spring to correct the issue."
-- There wasn't a scheduled count last spring ( for some reason ) even with the avalanche of Amazon parcels, which should have negated the validity of the previous count. </blockquote>
Sorry. I guess I forgot we didn't have one. These years keep rolling by faster & faster. After typing that, I couldn't recall when they cut me (just over a year ago). Summer never really lightened up much so it feels as if we skipped it.
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>btdtret said </strong>
gotstamps -- "Strange that it wasn’t counted last Spring to correct the issue."
-- There wasn't a scheduled count last spring ( for some reason ) even with the avalanche of Amazon parcels, which should have negated the validity of the previous count. </blockquote>
My question is why the union (assoc) strongly encouraged us to vote yes on their contract which did not have a 2017 count? Can anyone tell me why they did not negotiate a count in 2017? And why with the avalanche of parcels they did not have (or try to have) the validity of the latest count negated? This is why I always contest their leadership. With a strong leadership they would have fought for us and insisted we get a recount, an adjustment for the packages or aux help or pay for the extra hours we are putting in. We have very, very weak leadership that cripples the membership from their lack of leadership and vision. They seem to do almost nothing that matters for the members that pay their salaries.
gotstamps -- "Strange that it wasn’t counted last Spring to correct the issue."
-- There wasn't a scheduled count last spring ( for some reason ) even with the avalanche of Amazon parcels, which should have negated the validity of the previous count. </blockquote>
My question is why the union (assoc) strongly encouraged us to vote yes on their contract which did not have a 2017 count? Can anyone tell me why they did not negotiate a count in 2017? And why with the avalanche of parcels they did not have (or try to have) the validity of the latest count negated? This is why I always contest their leadership. With a strong leadership they would have fought for us and insisted we get a recount, an adjustment for the packages or aux help or pay for the extra hours we are putting in. We have very, very weak leadership that cripples the membership from their lack of leadership and vision. They seem to do almost nothing that matters for the members that pay their salaries.
Cangonow -- "My question is why the union (assoc) strongly encouraged us to vote yes on their contract which did not have a 2017 count? "
-- Haven't a clue. They probably hoped no one would notice it until the contract was ratified.
-- If you remember the negotiated 2006-2010 contract was declared to be "excellent" by the then president of the NRLCA. And when the membership though other wise by voting it down, one of the national officials called the rural carriers "egocentric". At least we know what those folks at HQ actually think about its members.
"And why with the avalanche of parcels they did not have (or try to have) the validity of the latest count negated? "
-- Just look at MOU #1 -- It is the understanding of the parties that a national mail count MAY be initiated ( but by whom? ) where rural delivery has been impacted on a national level ( apparently the avalanche of Amazon - and others' parcels has not been felt on the national level )! Examples of such change would be reduction in delivery days, a SUBSTANTIAL change in mail VOLUME, etc.
-- And page 15 of the current contract ( in part ): 11. Special Counts. (1) When circumstances have negated the validity of the latest count and evaluation.
-- Obviously the NRLCA has not pushed for a Special Count for all rural routes as it does not consider the latest count ( prior to the 2017 September Count ) to have been negated by any circumstances.
-- With the national convention out of the way, in their spare time, maybe the NRCLA could ask the USPS for data of 2080 and 2240 problems this year as compared to past years ( pre-Amazon ).
-- Haven't a clue. They probably hoped no one would notice it until the contract was ratified.
-- If you remember the negotiated 2006-2010 contract was declared to be "excellent" by the then president of the NRLCA. And when the membership though other wise by voting it down, one of the national officials called the rural carriers "egocentric". At least we know what those folks at HQ actually think about its members.
"And why with the avalanche of parcels they did not have (or try to have) the validity of the latest count negated? "
-- Just look at MOU #1 -- It is the understanding of the parties that a national mail count MAY be initiated ( but by whom? ) where rural delivery has been impacted on a national level ( apparently the avalanche of Amazon - and others' parcels has not been felt on the national level )! Examples of such change would be reduction in delivery days, a SUBSTANTIAL change in mail VOLUME, etc.
-- And page 15 of the current contract ( in part ): 11. Special Counts. (1) When circumstances have negated the validity of the latest count and evaluation.
-- Obviously the NRLCA has not pushed for a Special Count for all rural routes as it does not consider the latest count ( prior to the 2017 September Count ) to have been negated by any circumstances.
-- With the national convention out of the way, in their spare time, maybe the NRCLA could ask the USPS for data of 2080 and 2240 problems this year as compared to past years ( pre-Amazon ).
<a class="spLink spProfilePage" title="" href="https://www.ruralmailtalk.ruralinfo.net/forum/profile/2275/">btdtret</a>, I have come to believe the NRLCA headquarter bunch is just an APATHETIC group of very highly paid people who have lost touch with their membership. As soon as the implementation date was not met for the time study they should have taken action to protect their members. A grievance should have been filed at the national level! We are now facing the third holiday season without any changes being made to the evaluated system. I have posted before how this is affecting my office with untold amounts of free OT worked for the USPS, extreme 2080 problems and extremely underevaluated routes creating exhausted and depressed rural carriers. We at the bottom are bound by the actions they take or don't take at the top. I find it hard to believe that there aren't at least some people at national who want to press the USPS to make the membership whole. This is a sad and very frustrating time to be a member of the NRLCA for many.
westendgal
New member
What about any bank time you might have. Do they use that in the 120 minutes?
Nebcarrier
New member
Cangrow, I think that is the reason for the contested elections of the Director of Stewards and Executive Committeeman. We shall see what next year holds for those in the hot seats.
gotstamps
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>westendgal said </strong>
What about any bank time you might have. Do they use that in the 120 minutes? </blockquote>
Once a route is counted, the "bank time" is cleared & it starts back at ZERO. Bank time is always "zero'd out" when a route is counted or when it's added to or cut. A mail count changes ALL the numbers & the route starts with fresh numbers. Nothing from the previous evaluation carries over.
What about any bank time you might have. Do they use that in the 120 minutes? </blockquote>
Once a route is counted, the "bank time" is cleared & it starts back at ZERO. Bank time is always "zero'd out" when a route is counted or when it's added to or cut. A mail count changes ALL the numbers & the route starts with fresh numbers. Nothing from the previous evaluation carries over.
westendgal
New member
So if the last eval is 50:02 and I have 48 mins. banked will they deduct the 120 mins. from 50:02 or 50:50? The eval plus the 48. And even in a special count when you only lose if it goes down by 120 mins. you still lose the bank time even if you didnt lose 120 mins.?
gotstamps
Well-known member
<blockquote class="spPostEmbedQuote"><strong>westendgal said </strong>
So if the last eval is 50:02 and I have 48 mins. banked will they deduct the 120 mins. from 50:02 or 50:50? The eval plus the 48. And even in a special count when you only lose if it goes down by 120 mins. you still lose the bank time even if you didnt lose 120 mins.? </blockquote>
I guess I missed what you were asking before. It's not clear in the contract but I would assume the 120 minute difference would have to be from the 50:50. I've never gone down & I've always gone up more than 2 hrs when special counted.
If the count is accepted as good then the evaluation is reset to whatever the outcome (new eval, new volume #, no bank). If the count is thrown out, then nothing changes just like it never happened.
So if the last eval is 50:02 and I have 48 mins. banked will they deduct the 120 mins. from 50:02 or 50:50? The eval plus the 48. And even in a special count when you only lose if it goes down by 120 mins. you still lose the bank time even if you didnt lose 120 mins.? </blockquote>
I guess I missed what you were asking before. It's not clear in the contract but I would assume the 120 minute difference would have to be from the 50:50. I've never gone down & I've always gone up more than 2 hrs when special counted.
If the count is accepted as good then the evaluation is reset to whatever the outcome (new eval, new volume #, no bank). If the count is thrown out, then nothing changes just like it never happened.
