Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

11 messages Options
Embed this post
Permalink
Postaltexan

Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
United States                                                                                                                  Postal Service

November 20, 2008

The Honorable Bob Filner                                                                                           House of Representatives                                                                                   Washington, DC 20515-0550

Dear Congressman Filner:

This is in response to your October 22 letter to Postmaster General John E. Potter, cosigned by 122 of your colleagues, regarding compensation provided to rural letter carriers for using their personal vehicles to perform their daily on-the-job duties.

You expressed concern that due to inadequate reimbursement of vehicle costs, specifically rising fuel costs, rural carriers are left to use out-of-pocket expenses to perform their official job duties. I understand your interest in this matter, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the reimbursement provided to rural letter carriers for personal vehicle use.

Approximately two-thirds of all rural carriers are required to provide a personal vehicle to deliver mail. These rural carriers are provided a generous reimbursement for maintaining and utilizing their personal vehicle to deliver mail on their rural routes. This reimbursement is entitled, Equipment Maintenance Allowance (EMA). It is important to note, however, that providing rural carriers with EMA or adjusting EMA is not a matter of discretion for the U.S. Postal Service. EMA rates are strictly determined under the terms and conditions of our National Agreement with the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association (NRLCA).

The Postal Service and the NRLCA have negotiated provisions to establish a fair standard to reimburse rural carriers for the costs associated with using personal vehicles to deliver their routes and to meet price fluctuations in all vehicle operating costs. In accordance with the National Agreement, the EMA rate is adjusted pursuant to changes in the Expenditure Category for Private Transportation, which is listed in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. One of the components of the Index is the cost of fuel. The Postal Service reviews the Index and makes adjustments to EMA quarterly in accordance with our collective bargaining agreement. Adjustments in the Index and negotiated increases with the NRLCA have recently resulted in 5 cents per mile increase in July 2008, and another 3 cents per mile increase in October 2008. EMA is currently reimbursed at a rate of 65 cents per mile.

EMA has been a subject of collective bargaining with the NRLCA for over 37 years. If either party believes the current calculation for EMA is no longer a fair standard to reimburse rural carriers for the use of their personal vehicles, demands may be placed on the bargaining table during the next round of negotiations in 2010.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our position in this matter. If I can be of assistance with other postal issues, please let me know.

Sincerely,

/s/

William J. Weagley  
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has..
*SUPERsub*

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
sounds to me like they are saying its fair cause our union THINKS it is....interesting...perhaps the union could step up and negotiate us a better deal? what the hell am i saying? lmao
To err is human...to blame it on someone else shows management potential!
zippydi

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
In reply to this post by Postaltexan
Excuse me, what did they say was the estimated cost for an LLV per mile? I do believe our EMA is a bit less than what they estimate for the LLV and we have to buy the vehicle. I am confused.
*SUPERsub*

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
the very last i seen..it cost them .93 a mile for an LLV....
while most pov routes are POV cause they are so long and shitty...those LLVs cant hold up on blacktop roads....let alone handle those routes...so you know it costs rurals with POVs more...not to mention we arent exempt from gas tax...and what have you...so go figure...and that estimate for an LLV i seen a long time ago..im sure its more now...But good luck on finding those type of figures...you dont see them make their costs public knowledge...or at least easy to find.
To err is human...to blame it on someone else shows management potential!
manOman

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
PO also doesn't have to buy license plates for LLV's


Button, button, who's got a button??
gjtrisa

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
...or pay insurance for them because they self insure.
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/30/08 21:29:36 Mountain Standard Time, [hidden email] writes:
PO also doesn't have to buy license plates for LLV's


 
"My all your weeds be wildflowers." @{------->----------
gjtrisa

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
In reply to this post by manOman
Oh, and 53 cents is less than the current IRS rate.  Perhaps the NRLCA could negotiate a clause that EMA will not fall below the current IRS rate.
 
 
 
In a message dated 12/30/08 21:29:36 Mountain Standard Time, [hidden email] writes:
PO also doesn't have to buy license plates for LLV's
 
"My all your weeds be wildflowers." @{------->----------
Underdog

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
In reply to this post by Postaltexan
 "....These rural carriers are provided a generous reimbursement ....."

GENEROUS?  They make it sound like its some kind of gift....rather than a PORTION of what we DESERVE...FULL reimbursement for the use of our vehicles by the USPS.

As long as carriers are taking money out of our own pockets for ANY route related expenses we are being SCREWED.

GENEROUS! What a f#@&ing INSULT!!!!!
sunset

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink

My vehicle won't run one day and I called a sub,my postmaster told me I am supposed to have a backup to use when this happens, so now I am to pay insurance and licenses for 2 vehicles? I think nottttttttt.
Underdog

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
No way...ever my union rep said we are not required to provide TWO vehicles.
mlad

Re: Reply from USPS to Rep. Filner's letter on the Fair fuel reimbursement for rural carriers

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
My pm told me that I have to have a back up vehicle in case my regular vehicle is out of commision.  I now have a 94 rhd jeep and a 2008 Kia rio5 and I am paying a hell of a lot more than the ema is paying me.