Study hours and driving habits, but what about EMA?

PastOThirty

Well-known member
Ema is a critical cog in our compensation and reimbursement. Pinning it to the formula they have is fine perhaps in some cases, but like the poor aging of the evaluation system, EMA calculation is largely inadequate. It needs to take stronger consideration for the volatility of fuel, the loss of a sizable secondary market for route vehicles when cash for clunkers happened (meaning the selection and choice of appropriate route vehicle shrinks meaning price goes up), vast differences in local cost of living (California vs Nebraska), rise of the POV L-routes which means even though they travel few miles, they still operate for the employer the same number or more hours that a non-L route high mileage route does, but gets a fraction of the EMA (just because mileages are different doesn’t mean operating costs are lower).

EMA computation should be constructed to cover acquisition, use, and replacement costs, whereby the employee is providing a degree of fleet management to the employer below the market rate but not so that we are by and large subsidizing the employer as we are now. The fact that it is possible and likely the vehicle receives moderate dual use for personal reasons outside of work affords some discount compared to the full cost to purchase, own, and operate, but the share of the cost of the route vehicle is too heavily lying on the employee.

Has the association broached this topic with management yet?
 

Toolology

Well-known member
Current EMA calculations were fine in 1985, cost of vehicle and maintenance cost have skyrocketed. EMA should be double current rate. PO own numbers claims on llv per mile to run is more than double our current EMA. Never understood why this is never brought up or addressed in contract talks. POV routes are supplementing the cost of delivery big time for free.
 

btdtret

Well-known member
Toolology et al -- "Never understood why this [ cost of maintaining a POV vs LLV ] is never brought up or addressed in contract talks.

-- Actually the NRLCA did propose basing EMA on vehicle maintenace costs incurred by the USPS to Arbitrator Clarke ( 2010-2015 contract ).

-- On the other hand, the USPS proposed using Runzheimer International to determine EMA.

-- "The NRLCA's evidence does not show the Chairman ( as usual ) that the vehicle maintenance costs incurred by Rural Letter Carriers mirror those of the USPS." ( in that case, the costs would be backwards if mirrored - IMHO )

-- For Clarke, the USPS's proposed use of Runzheimer International was unacceptable because the methodology used to determine it is proprietary.

-- Big-hearted Clarke did include 1/2 cent raises in the EMA base rate for the last two years of the contract. ( wheee! )
 

PastOThirty

Well-known member
According to this article: Owner Operator Truck Driver Salary, which states that according to indeed.com (a job board/recruiting site) article/survey, over-the-road owner-operators gross $150,000 a year. With EMA, I am not half-way there. Different skills and demands, but different skills and demands. They claim the take home/clear money (after all expenses AND taxes) is between 35,000 and 50,000.

As a mostly passive job (them), versus an moderately active job (ours), I think we are staring at the short end of the stick. And yes, I realize a big truck built for OTR owner-operator use is a multiple more costly than our rig, and we do have better benefits and job security, but we do have significant expense and equipment needs beyond what we are compensated for.
 

btdtret

Well-known member
PastOThirty et al -- " I think we are staring at the short end of the stick."

-- Probably better to be staring at the short end of the stick that having it jammed some where on your bodily person.
 

DB.Cooper

Well-known member
USPS spends a $$$ FORTUNE on LLVs... and what do they have to show for it??? A fleet of worn-out, faulty emissions, sub-standard safety featured, 30+ year old vehicles.... and they're crying that they don't have the $$$ money to replace them...

So, they're spending 3 or 4 times more on LLVs than they're giving us for EMA, and they can't even keep decent vehicles on the road for that jacked up amount... DOH!?!? but yet they expect us to do it for a fraction of what they are spending... sounds right??? :unsure:
 

Windindaface

Well-known member
Try to find an all inclusive writing on what EMA is based upon and from what year?

As the times have changed, rides are now more over engineered, computer controlled than ever before with sky high prices for a new or used one with 100k on it. So are the parts for basic maintenance. Labor rates at shops now average anywhere from 50-125 per hour to pay for their diagnostic/special tools/ and the pay to their labor. They have more crap to remove for any service repair. Just saying an oil change was a simple DYI job long ago. Jack ride up, set drain pan, remove oil pan bolt, drain. While old oil is draining oil filter right there for ease of removal. Costing me under 20 and quality time of yes I did it myself in under 30min.

Now for a simple oil and filter change I have to remove 2 under body panels. 1 to get to oil pan the other to access filter. Takes over an hour of my time by the time all is cleaned up. I now (not to my liking) to an oil change location which dings me for 50 because of the special oil required and work involved.

A contractor who I work for when available told me they just dropped almost 6k for small maintenance needed repairs for their daily work truck with 160K on it. It was more cost effective for them after looking at used rides with under 50k at 35+k or a new one at 60+K

There is a site that can give you info of labor time involved for repairs..... ALLDATA - OEM Repair Information for Professionals
 
Last edited:

johnwayne

Well-known member
how about this..right hand drive vehicle lot in the midwest. they are converting cherokees with factory parts from japan. last three 2019s were advertised at 34-36k. the next one on the website now is 46k. so not only is the po not paying us. we are getting screwed on the buying side as well.
 

Toolology

Well-known member
USPS spends a $$$ FORTUNE on LLVs... and what do they have to show for it??? A fleet of worn-out, faulty emissions, sub-standard safety featured, 30+ year old vehicles.... and they're crying that they don't have the $$$ money to replace them...

So, they're spending 3 or 4 times more on LLVs than they're giving us for EMA, and they can't even keep decent vehicles on the road for that jacked up amount... DOH!?!? but yet they expect us to do it for a fraction of what they are spending... sounds right??? :unsure:
I have said for years EMA should be double minimum. Cost of vehicles and maintenance current EMA was ok maybe in 1985! We are subsidizing delivery for PO for free.
 

RDruckus

Well-known member
When I first started as an RCR, you could fit a 48k route's mail, no double trips, into a Ford Granada.
You could find cheap, reliable used cars. (Always added a transmission cooler, I had 750 boxes.)
My late husband was a mechanic, and got all the parts at professional prices, not retail, did all the work himself.
He loved the EMA, because he could make money on it.
You're all correct, the USPS is being subsidized by the POV routers.
 

stillfirstclass

Well-known member
When I first started as an RCR, you could fit a 48k route's mail, no double trips, into a Ford Granada.
You could find cheap, reliable used cars. (Always added a transmission cooler, I had 750 boxes.)
My late husband was a mechanic, and got all the parts at professional prices, not retail, did all the work himself.
He loved the EMA, because he could make money on it.
You're all correct, the USPS is being subsidized by the POV routers.
even with our help,, they lose money..
 
Top