Mail Count Reform Proposal
This was submitted to the National Board 3 years ago for consideration. With the troubled times of the USPS and our Association, is it time to consider some drastic changes in the way our evaluations are determined?? Check it out and leave your comments below!
To our national officers,
We do not know if this is the proper way to submit suggestions to the board, nor if this has been done before, but we are trying to think outside of the box.
We would like to posit some ideas about how to reform the way our national mail counts are conducted. The Wells Arbitration award directed both parties to negotiate a less arcane method of conducting mail counts and following are our initial suggestions. We feel if the Board will do it’s homework, these ideas, (with a little tweaking) would have an excellent chance of being implemented and improving the system.
We all know the Postal Service’s penchant for collecting as much data as possible and we think we should use that to our advantage. They collect volume figures on automated mail (both letter and flat) scanned items and accountable items (scanned or not), and they closely track the Bills of Lading on bulk items for scheduling purposes. We suggest:
1.We use the EOR reports (which we should verify for accuracy through the GAO) to establish weekly averages for automated letters and flats delivered from the previous year for the following year.
2.We use their own scanner collected data to establish weekly averages for all scanned items (credited to the proper categories) from the previous year for the following year.
3.We audit all their Bills of Lading (again, verified for accuracy through the GAO) to determine the most average 4 weeks of volume, by area (i.e. Western States, Mid States, etc.) and demand the National mail count periods be broken out by districts.
4. We document the number of “box holders” to establish weekly averages from the previous year for the following year.
5.We “roll the dice on parcel volume” based on the results of item three above.
This would entail working one year behind with verifiable data, as opposed on “betting on the unknown future” which would increase the incentive for craft members to push products and services and generate more revenues, which would benefit the Postal Service, a form of pay for performance.
It should also lessen the opportunity for the Postal Service to manipulate the large bulk mailers, as the count dates would float by region and last years mailing profile, which would benefit the craft. It should also lessen the costs for the Postal Service to conduct mail counts. It would mean only counting raw mail, parcels, and bulk items, which would benefit the Postal Service, and last but not least, reduce the stress on both sides, which both side should embrace.
We respectfully tender these suggestions as a starting point for your consideration on a way to reform the mail count procedures and preserve the “Evaluated System” of pay for our craft. The present procedures are untenable and must be reformed in a way that is fair and just for both parties.
Respectfully,
Alan J. VerValin
President
CORLCA
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has..
