Oh, How Quickly I Can Change Tunes
Or, It Look Different From The Top Down
By Rodney Lawver
Steward
APWU
Here is something I received in my e-mail
about APWU President Burrus comments from 4 years ago about negotiating as a
union should. Here is one quote from below: ..."but a unions role is not to
guarantee success but to wage a battle on behalf of the workers." Read on
and please pass it on to your APWU e-mail friends. Vote No on the 2002
contract extension.
From: campaign1998
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 1998 9:51 AM
Subject: APWU-Tentative Agreement Comments from Bill Burrus
This is a message from Executive Vice President Bill Burrus. The intent
is to keep communication open to our membership.
The E-Mail List received comments from National Representative at Large
Bobby Donelson and Clerk Director Cliff Guffey.
TO APWU Members:
Despite the rhetoric emanating from the office of the postmaster general
expressing the intention of negotiating a contract that is fair to the
workers and the rate payers, the actions of the postal representatives at
the bargaining table in the words of Yogi Berra were "deja vu all over
again." In the waning moments of negotiations or more precisely, at 9:PM on
November 20, the last day of negotiations, postal management presented its
insulting wage proposal and after sporadic negotiations beyond the deadline,
at 2:AM presented its final offer which was equally
unacceptable.
Eleven days later, on December 1, the same unacceptable wage offer submitted
on November 20 became acceptable. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
After negotiating on behalf of 380,000 employees (the largest single
bargaining unit in the country) for the entire statutory period of 90 days,
a mere five hours had passed between the presentation of the USPS initial
wage proposal and their final offer and eleven days later the proposal
remained the same. The message from the Board of Governors was loud and
clear, "take it or leave it".
Unfortunately, the union has elected to accept this extremely modest wage
package and submit it to the members for ratification. I have expressed my
serious reservations about the offered 2% and 1.4% wage increases and now
inform you the members that I think you deserve better.
These negotiations had opened with the promise that after 11 years, postal
management would eschew the arbitration process and elect to reach a fair
negotiated agreement for its employees. It was not to be despite the fact
that tentative agreement had been reached on many non-economic
improvements. The issues of air conditioning for postal drivers,
conversion opportunities for PTF's in smaller offices, modifications to
the grievance/arbitration process including employees being considered
innocent until proven guilty when suspensions are issued for non-emergent
allegations, sub-contracting prohibitions, elimination of the anomaly when
promoted to higher level and the opportunity for union input prior to
future considerations for subcontracting, the opportunity to compete for
Priority Mail processing, leave sell back for employees with good attendance
records and limitations on the use of casuals. These and many other issues
had been hammered out to tentative agreements subject to final agreement on
a wage package.
The postal management strategy was clear from the outset of negotiations,
reach agreement with APWU and use that agreement as a pattern for the Letter
Carriers and the Mail Handlers. When the unions are unable to negotiate
jointly, postal management will inevitably use one union against the other
and in these negotiations the plan was to reach agreement with APWU on
non-economic issues not addressed by the other unions and to convince our
negotiators that sufficient progress had been made on these issues affecting
working conditions that a weak economic package would be accepted.
This agreement, if ratified by the membership, will be used against the
Letter Carriers and has been used to exact settlement with the Mail handlers
placing a ceiling on the wage considerations for their
members and for that postal management should have paid the price of an
acceptable economic package. Instead, they negotiated an agreement with APWU
that applying the most charitable description would be described as modest.
I do not divorce my involvement in the negotiations process having served as
the unions Chief spokesman on most of the non-economic issues. I am
extremely proud of many of the non-economic issues that we were able to
achieve but I was not involved in the discussions leading to the final
agreement on wages and do not suggest that there was an entitlement that I
be involved. The president of the union is fully empowered to apply his/her
judgement to any final agreement. We simply disagree over the final product.
During the early days of negotiations I informed the USPS chief negotiator
that a strategy of selling an unsatisfactory wage package with agreements on
working conditions would not be successful and if the wage proposal was
unacceptable on its own, agreement would not be reached. Later actions by
postal management indicate that my warning was not heeded and they continued
with their effort to buy an APWU agreement on the cheap and use it to hold
down wages for the other unions. It is apparent that their strategy was
successful.
The Postal Service has had the four most profitable years of its history and
the reason for the 5 billion dollars of surplus is that workers wages were
restrained. During the 1994-1998 National Agreement, APWU
represented employees lost approximately 2.7/8% in purchasing power while
managers were being paid up to $20,000 in annual bonuses. The 1994
arbitrated contract resulted in workers receiving an average of a mere .6%
in wage increases per year plus the cost of living which generates only 60%
of the rise in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Workers salaries were being
restrained and as a result surpluses were generated on the backs of the
workers. Contract negotiations was the opportunity to extract the workers
share however 2% and 1.4% wage increases will not restore this
lost purchasing power.
Instead of restoration, postal management elected instead to offer meager
wage increases that will leave employees with a continuing 2% shortfall in
purchasing power.
I disapprove of the final wage agreement that was negotiated and presented
to the union as the only alternative to interest arbitration. I am mindful
that arbitration is not a pleasant alternative as the last two interest
arbitration decisions have resulted in negative results for
postal employees. And "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" but a unions
role is not to guarantee success but to wage a battle on behalf of the
workers. It is possible that if arbitration were elected we could lose
important issues as we did in 1994 and not carry forth the agreements
reached in these negotiations. The decision to ratify or reject must be
given very serious consideration and I offer no advice on your vote.
Your choice is to accept an inferior wage package with positive improvements
in working conditions or to fight for decent wages.
Those unions that enjoy the right to strike have no guarantee that
sacrificing their jobs and their livelihood will result in victory but they
nevertheless engage in lengthy strikes, not because they are assured
of winning but because they are determined to fight. Ask the Detroit Free
Press workers or the UPS workers if their fight was worth the effort even
though the end results were less than anticipated. The role of union leaders
is not to negotiate the easy way out because they fear the
alternative. There are possible negative consequences of arbitration but a
proud union should not be blackmailed into accepting inadequate wages for
its members. Throughout the 1980s workers in the private sector accepted
less than desired Contracts under threat of moving their jobs overseas
or to Mexico. Under those conditions it was understandable that their unions
did what was necessary to exist but we have a Postal Service that has never
before enjoyed the current surpluses and the workers are entitled to their
just share.
Postal management has equal concerns about arbitration as they do not relish
the thought of arbitrators dividing up the five billion dollars in profits
among the workers. Following the expiration of the 1994-1998 National
Agreement, at midnight on November 20th, the Postal Service was
legally entitled to declare an impasse and invoke the fact
finding/arbitration process. They did not, holding out the possibility that
the union would agree to their wage proposal. And we did. They too realized
that never before in the history of postal negotiations has the Postal
Service been as profitable and the experience of the past 4 years is
unlikely to be repeated in future periods prior to negotiations. No postage
increase for a period in excess of 5 years and a modest one cent increase
beginning in January 1999. Two hundred and twenty million dollars in bonuses
to managers and the decision to waive the receipt of 800 million dollars
when they postponed the effective date of the one cent
increase. If the union cannot fight when the Postal Service is profitable
what is to be expected in future lean years? Applying the logic that this
meager wage increase is acceptable when compared to other unions or the
uncertainties of arbitration, we should duplicate the provisions of the
other union contracts and dispense with bargaining,
requesting that the Board of Governors immediately mail us their wage
package for the next Contract in the year 2000 and avoid the trauma of the
threat of arbitration.
You have seen the slogan "Show us the Money". Well, we have seen it and
it is for you to determine if it is enough.
Bill Burrus
Executive Vice President
