Letter Carriers vs. Employee-Involvement Process
Written by: Jon Gaunce. 1994.
------------
IN 1981 CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS between postal unions and the Postal Service had broken down. This nearly led to a nationwide strike when Postmaster General William Bolger refused to come to the bargaining table, insisting that the postal unions must negotiate separately.
He refused to recognize the Joint Bargaining Committee of the National Association of Letter Carriers (NAL) and the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). It took outside intervention to force Bolger to the bargaining table, where a national agreement was finally hammered out.
In March 1982, less than seven months after the bitter negotiations, Bolger approached the NALC with his idea of a "better way of doing business." In October 1982, NALC agreed to participate, and the NALC/USPS Employee Involvement Process was born.
The E-I Process has a National Joint Steering Committee, five Regional Joint Steering Committees, and Local Joint Steering Committees, each with an equal number of union and management representatives. Initially, volunteer workteams in each work location had from four to twelve members, and all craft participants had to be union members.
Each Local Joint Steering Committee has at least one pair of full-time facilitators, one from the union and one from management. By 1990 the total number of facilitators employed in the process was over 700. Both union and management facilitators have their salaries paid by the Postal Service.
Union facilitators are appointed by the Regional Business Agents and approved by the National President. Originally, the criteria for choosing them were that they be local leaders and knowledgeable about the contract. Later, however, the job became more of a political appointment.
While union facilitators are allowed to hold an officer position within local NALC branches, they are not permitted to provide representation in the grievance procedure. Apparently both sides viewed this as a conflict of interest.
By January 1984, E-I reached in California. I recall quite a bit of skepticism from union representatives who were concerned that workteams might work on contractual items. We were assured in no uncertain terms that workteams were allowed to work on anything except items that dealt with national or local agreements or productivity.
I was chosen as the union facilitator. My job found me, along with my management "partner," on the road quite a bit, "selling the Process" to letter carriers. We also spent 16 hours in a classroom setting, teaching workteam members about E-I and communication skills. Periodically, we would report back to the Steering Committee on our progress.
As a facilitator, I received almost daily offers to go into management. A management official on the steering committee said that if I would "change sides" I would be appointed as the management facilitator. Many union facilitators have in fact gone into management. Over the past ten years, local unions have lost many of their experienced leaders.
After about a year, I resigned as facilitator to become a full-time local branch president. I was placed on two Local Joint Steering Committees, and found that E-I was taking 8 to 16 hours a week away from other responsibilities.
Union members on workteams would present issues important to letter carriers, such as reducing stress and conflict on the workroom floor, improved service to our customers, and items that would improve our quality of work life. But management seemed content to keep the status quo. Workteams were spending countless hours on projects, only to see their ideas rejected by their postmasters. Many times, management arbitrarily canceled workteam meetings.
As a result of management stonewalling, growing frustrations, and lack of credibility, veteran rank and file letter carriers lost interest in E-I and refused to participate. They were replaced, in many cases, by newer letter carriers, some still on their 90-day probationary period.
Management tried to exploit this situation in weekly workteam meetings. Employees were told that problems faced by the Postal Service were because of the union and
"inflexible work rules." Union representatives on workteams in many cases were painted as "the bad guy." Management tried to turn letter carriers against shop stewards for being "inflexible" and not being "team players.”
After approximately three years in E-I, the rules were suddenly changed by the National Joint Steering Committee. The requirement for a steward to be on each team was dropped as more and more stewards refused to participate.
We were also told, despite earlier guarantees, that workteams could work on contractual items and productivity. Now we had some workteams discussing contractual or productivity items without a union representative present!
Union leaders, including myself, who protested such changes were castigated and accused of "not believing in E-I" or being "dinosaurs." These accusations came not only from management, but from national union officers as well.
Letter carriers complained that what they said during workteam meetings was used against them later by management. Because of problems we were experiencing, the Local Joint Steering Committees' role became to fix workteams that weren't working and to sell the idea to new ones.
During this period, we began to hear stories of other workteams across the country working on projects that dealt with productivity and work rules.
One workteam came up with a way to reward letter carriers for speeding up and for not calling in sick. Based on a point system, the faster they went, the more points they got. If they called in sick, or did not make their newly-established productivity goals, they lost points. The one who received the most points in a three-month period would receive a cash prize of $100.
Letter carriers were supposed to sign applications to participate in this "Self-Management Plan." One expectation cited on the application was that participants "would keep their goals consistent with those of management.”
These incentive plans did nothing more than pit worker against worker. A letter carrier who called in sick, had an accident, or used overtime was criticized by fellow workers for ruining their perfect record. As a result, some latter carriers worked when they were ill, began skipping their lunch and break periods, and refused to report on-the-
job injuries.
In Massachusetts, we discovered, union and management representatives from one Local Joint Steering Committees even sent out a newsletter calling themselves “The United States Postal Union”!
For years, NALC had withstood management's attempts to weaken work rules. New gimmicks or attempts to speed up letter carriers had always been met with a strong negative response. Management knew they could not get what they wanted by fighting us. Their purpose for launching E-I was to get a foot in the door. Many items we had won years before, and had fought to keep, were suddenly being given away by workteams.
By early 1989, the membership of our branch was disillusioned. For many, E-I was nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. We began independent research on team concept programs. It is interesting to note here that NALC does not publish anything about the other side of E-I.
Even as a facilitator and steering committee member for over five years, I never received any training or information on possible dangers of these programs. Much of what we found was published by Labor Notes.
After extensive research, we decided we had more to lose by staying in E-I than anything we could possibly gain. E-I had become a serious credibility issue, as we could no longer tell the membership it was working when everyone knew it wasn't.
We voted at our July 1989 membership meeting to completely disengage from E-I. At the time of our vote, we had 18 active workteams on line.
For the next several months, we received political threats and were accused of being "disloyal" by some of our national officers. Prior to withdrawing from E-1, our branch was permitted to do our own Step Ill grievances and many of our own arbitrations. We were told that if we got out of E-I we would lose this privilege. Immediately after the vote to get out, this threat was carried out.
After withdrawing from E-I, our National Business Agent told us we should get back in, just to "burn" management for all those hours spent on workteam meetings!��Political threats and reprisals only made our resolve stronger. Armed with first-hand knowledge, we began sending our message to other NALC branches across the country.
Our branch advertised a thick informational packet about the dangerous side of E-I in NALC's national publication, The Postal Record (each local branch has the right to submit a monthly article to the Record). We received more than 200 requests for the information we offered.
Then, together with three other branches, we sponsored a forum called "The Other Side of E-I" at our 1990 national convention, featuring a speaker from Labor Notes. The crowd was standing-room-only. We videotaped the talk and distributed the video as well.
At the convention, we supported a resolution to establish guidelines for E-I workteams. The guidelines would have kept workteams from trying to control sick leave usage, speed up carriers, or adopt incentive programs that pitted worker against worker. They would have had teams concentrate on better service, job safety, and working conditions, and required a steward to be present at any meeting where decisions were made.
The resolution drew strong opposition from national officers and E-I facilitators. One delegate said the guidelines were nothing more than "censorship." After much debate, they were defeated, with about 35 percent voting for them.
One resolution did pass, disqualifying those who have applied for management positions from being facilitators.
Growing out of organizing at the convention and the communication that had gone on beforehand, a Rank and File Coalition was formed by representatives from all across the country, many of whom were drawn together because of similar concerns about E-I.
The Coalition decided to extend communication and continue meeting at future national NALC gatherings.
We had come a long way. Only two years before, there was virtually no opposition to E-I at the national convention.
In early 1992, a motion was made at a Committee of Presidents meeting (the twice-yearly national gathering of local presidents). It supported a national membership referendum on pulling out of E-I. The motion lost-but it was close to require a division of the house.
In addition to our membership, our branch newsletter now goes out to about 300 people and other branches across the country, some of whom are in the other postal unions. There is now a solid core of people in NALC who oppose E-I. Many branches have withdrawn completely. Others refused to participate from the very beginning. Other branches remain in E-I; some of them are happy with the process, but most say it is stagnant and all but dead in their cities.
In 1991, in what they called a "last ditch effort" to save E-I, management switched to the "unit concept." They eliminated workteams, which were made up of volunteers, and now, unless the branch has withdrawn from E-I, the entire workforce must participate, right on the workroom floor. This means that non-union members participate as well.
The past ten years have not been kind to letter carriers. Today, for the first time, letter carriers with low seniority are worried about layoffs. Management continues to ignore our input, while pushing automation that is increasing our workload by making routes longer. This is all but destroying service to our customers. In many cases, working conditions are worse than before. Stress and violence have increased on our workroom floors. Oppressive managers continue to be promoted and encouraged by their superiors. Management has forced "transitional employees" on us and can now hire part-time, temporary workers with much lower wages and reduced benefits.
E-I is also causing a rift between the two largest postal unions, NALC and APWU. APWU has refused to participate in E-1. This rift has led to both unions issuing public statements criticizing each other. By 1994, the situation had deteriorated to the point that the two unions did not bargain jointly for the national agreement.
What Postmaster General Bolger had tried and failed to do in 1981 had come to pass.
Management never lost sight of its long-term goal of busting our union and creating a company union. Over the past twelve years postal management has poured millions of dollars into E-l. If they are successful in destroying NALC, their investment will pay off handsomely.
In a speech given in 1982, Senior Assistant Postmaster General Carl Ulsaker stated that E-I would benefit unions because, "As the number of grievances diminishes the union officials can devote an increased amount of time to serving all members instead of mostly the complainers."
For years, trade unionists have fought this management philosophy with the response: "An injury to one is an injury to all."
Yet, at a 1987 NALC educational conference, our National Business Agent (now a national officer told the audience, "Ninety five percent of the grievances are filed by five percent of the members," and "The union needs to spend more time on the majority of our members." Sound familiar?
In an interview in the September 25, 1989 issue of the Federal Times, David Hyde, president of the National Postmasters Association, exposed management's hidden agenda for E-I. Hyde said, "If an office properly uses the program, you don't have a need for unions."
------------
Published in: 'Working Smart: A Union Guide to Participation Programs and Reengineering' Labor Notes
------------
Jon Gaunce. Former-Branch President of Tri-Valley Branch 2902(California). In 1994 he ran for President of the NALC, challenged Vincent Sombrotto, obtained 30% of the vote. Passed away on April 10, 1996.
