Special Tentative Agreement Edition 2019 Issue of Magazine Posted

Ruralinfo

Administrator
Staff member
The Special Tentative Agreement Edition 2019 issue of the National Rural Letter Carrier magazine has been posted in the “Magazine” section of the website under “Current Issues.” Important! Look inside this issue for: Tentative Contract Language and Explanations Scheduled Time, Place, and...


Continue reading...
 

Deer smearer

Well-known member
The parties agree when leave replacements are required to travel to a temporary duty station that is within local travel distance of their permanent duty station, there is an entitlement to mileage reimbursement.

Looks like RCAs will be forced to work in other offices.

Table 1 rcas won't get COLA, just the 1% like table 2
 
I need to reread the information because I am not understanding how the table 1 table 2 gap is closed. From my brief skim over the information, it seemed like just two additional steps were added at the end.
 
Last edited:
Also with the new rule for rca going up to 50 miles to other offices, is that going to be like ccas where they have to go after finishing their route in the home office?
 

Voglio-il mio

Well-known member
Its my understanding that all annual salary increases for the life of the contract will go back to the step on the appropriate March 03, 2018 salary schedule. Even though its minor, our increases are not even compounding! What's with that?
 
Last edited:

Jmdw52

Active member
Also with the new rule for rca going up to 50 miles to other offices, is that going to be like ccas where they have to go after finishing their route in the home office?
I’m sure some of our PMs will look at it that way....

It’s funny how they wanna create a task force to talk about the issues with retaining RCAs and then proceed to make things more difficult for them.

I for one am voting no.

If they really want to keep RCAs, actually offer something! It used to be going regular was worth it... nowadays that’s in question... I know many dont really want a formula office... but, if they gave RCAs strings just like ptfs... those of us in small offices might actually get enough hours to have something of a job!
 

martian

Well-known member
They changed the date to figure the COLA from November to April. I believe this results in a loss of over $300. There is no reason the full COLA isn't in the agreement. Very ineffective negotiation IMO.

Also no improvement in the EMA. After claiming we were being underpaid during the Clark arbitration, I cannot believe there is no change.

Finally, no February 2020 count option for carriers. Another giveaway with little to show. Overall, not impressed.
 

btdtret

Well-known member
All -- Glad I don't have to vote on this contract.

-- No negotiated counts at all!! USPS retains right to call for a national count over the last 12 working days of any September. Tucked away in the wording: "The NRLCA and USPS will determine the need for route counts until 2020 or until the RRECS is implemented." ( why not just remove MOU #1 from the contract since it hasn't been used at all? )

-- Creation of two new task farces: Leave Replacement and Joint Workplace Improvement Process. ( would be nice to see a report from the task farces created by the 2015-2018 contract -- Mail Count and Seasonal Route -- ( along with how much money was spent on each ))

-- At least wages and COLA will be retroactive. The 3 wage increases based upon the 03 MARCH 2018 schedules. So the 21 NOV 2020 increase will be based upon a pay schedule that will be 2.5 years old. ( that has not changed from previous contracts. Now if only inflation would not increase )

-- Table TWO personnel finally match the Step 12 folks on Table ONE, expect it will take two additional steps to do it.

-- RRECS -- 3 components

- Simplified Mapping -- a simplified mapping process will be developed and made available to begin route data population no later than August 30, 2019. ( after how many years and yet they don't have working program now. Where they going to get one in 2 plus months? )

- Route Coverage Factor -- methodology will be developed ( by whom? ) and shared with the union ( that's neighborly! ), within 30 days of the signing of this MOU.

- Route Evaluation Frequency -- the parties will agree to a defined time period for initial evaluation of rural routes under RRECS, along with the frequency by which rural routes will be re-evaluated; utilizing one year of data for the appropriate elements. The initial evaluation period and future frequency will be agreed upon three ( 3 ) months prior to the expected completion of route mapping process. ( be careful where you step as it is a mine field out there as well as a cow pasture! ) They have been on and off with route mapping since 2014 and now expect to have one that actually works -- within a couple of months. I hear there are some bridges in New York City up for sale if anyone is interested. Maybe RRECS will be in place by the time the next round of contract talks begins.

-- And to think "We want to go hourly." would have avoided all this angst.
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
NALC Table2 has 15 steps at 46 weeks each step... reaching top pay step at 12.4 years... (y)
NRLCA Table2 has 15 steps at 52 weeks each step... reaching top pay step at 14 years.,..(n)

NRLCA waits until the FINAL 2 steps to eliminate the vast majority of the shortfall in pay, whereas the NALC gradually closes the gap at EACH step of their pay table...

So, really NRLCA Table2 peeps got screwed again, imo... you're better off than you were, but you sure as hail didn't get what the NALC already had, as advertised... bait and switch, shell game, call it what you want... I'd say it's more like the hide the salami game is what you got... just sayin'... 😳
 

PastOThirty

Well-known member
Can I vote to shred it all and start with a clean slate?

What is to lose? We go to arbitration, and they give another unfavorable ruling, or a modestly neutral ruling that has no teeth? Or we get a modestly favorable ruling, the arbitration follows up with it, and then Congress intervenes and shreds it all anyway because it interferes with either the slush fund, or their "constituents" from the mailing industry or the parcel transportation/delivery industry.

There is no good outcome, but I would rather vote no, simply to leave a blight on the record of failures in leadership. Not out of spite, but out of appreciation and acknowledgement of their service. A lack of vote forgets to recognize how wonderfully they have failed us, from both an association and from the employers perspective.

If you are comic-movie fans, we are in the end-game now, friends. Whatever it takes.

If we were playing hardball, and the PMG was interested in honest reform, we would have absolutely saucy contracts, good for a period of time until Congress offers a revised mode of operation to keep this barge humming along up the river. Instead we got fed a lukewarm grilled cheese sandwich: filling, edible, and a little nauseating at the same time. We deserve at least a fresh off the grill hot-ham and cheese.
 

FrozenToes

Well-known member
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
Arbitration will not be in anyones favor.
I don 't live in fear. I guess the APWU doesn't live in fear either.
Arbitrators compare to other postal union contracts and very rarely change past practice items. ( COLAs, contractual increases)
With RRECs, I'm not worried there would be any standard changes by the arbitrator.
The NRLCA couldn't even get the same COLA as the other 2 unions. Nor could they get the same number of years to reach the top step of Table 2.
No counts?
I'm a Table 1 with less than 10 years to go. But this is a huge disappointment.
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
The devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
Arbitration will not be in anyones favor.
It might pass... likely just because the NRLCA kool-aide drinkers will vote for it... for Table 1er's what would an arbitrator take away??? What is the downside for a Table 1 peep voting *NO* ??? :unsure:

Oh, and what if the Arbitrator decided Table 2 should be equalized in 12.4 years, just like everybody else... how will you feel if that is what the APWU achieves in arbitration??? :oops:
 
Last edited:

FrozenToes

Well-known member
It might pass... likely just because the NRLCA kool-aide drinkers will vote for it... for Table 1er's what would an arbitrator take away??? What is the downside for a Table 1 peep voting *NO* ??? :unsure:
It will pass because of the fear of arbitration. Also another poster also felt it would pass because folks want their raises. ( I agree)
I might just go to the ratification meeting now and express my discontent.
 

gotstamps

Well-known member
Also with the new rule for rca going up to 50 miles to other offices, is that going to be like ccas where they have to go after finishing their route in the home office?
No. This says the PO can borrow an RCA prior to using a Non-RDWL Regular. This is changing up the Order of Consideration which is used in scheduling & morning call-ins. This is NOT for assistance or splitting routes.
 

btdtret

Well-known member
DB.Cooper et al -- With Table TWO eventually catching up with Table ONE on the top step, I guess that will mean Table TWO carriers will actually be getting larger increases than Table ONE carriers as they get closer to the top step. That should mean Table TWO carriers will be getting closer attention from manglement during those latter years. Or in actual ( real world ) terms -- more harassment, more nit-picking, more pressure to force them out. ( provided the USPS is still around )

The last sentence in the RRECS MOU: "In addition, these provisions will NOT BE CITED by either party in any collective bargaining procedures to include negotiations, NATIONAL LEVEL GRIEVANCES, rights and interest arbitration."

-- So I guess that means if those dates to start Simplified Mapping, Route Coverage Factor, and Route Evaluation Frequency are not met -- too bad, no big deal, just continue as before.

-- "rights and interest arbitration"??

- apparently carriers have no rights in having MOU's adhered to as written? ( maybe the MOU's for the formation of the Leave Replacement Task Farce and Joint Workplace Improvement Process should have included a specific date for a report to be issued to the membership -- unlike the current MOU #23 and #24. )

- interest arbitration? -- new arbitrators are loathe to change another arbitrator's ruling / award. Arbitrator Clarke has not said anything nor intervened with his 2010-2015 "award" despite the way the USPS and NRLCA have changed or failed to meet his award implementation deadlines.
 
Top