Virtual Rap Session on the 2023-2026 Tentative Agreement

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hellobrothers and sisters, and welcome to the

(00:08):
virtual rap session for our 2023Tentative National Agreement.
I appreciate you all joining us.
As you all know by now, if you're watchingthis, we reached Tentive Agreement with
the Postal Service a few weeks agoon a new collective bargaining agreement
for letter carriers, and we are currentlyin the process of a ratification vote.

(00:32):
In late October and early November,we held four different informational rap
sessions around the country,where branch leaders from all
over the country attended.
We presented all the information, everysingle change that's included in this
tentative agreement, and gave themthe opportunity to ask questions.

(00:52):
The purpose of this virtual rap sessionis to give all of our members the
opportunity to hear that same information,and we'll also answer questions
that were submitted.
What we will do in this session is talkabout, of course, the terms
of the tentative agreement.
We'll begin with the economic terms, andI will explain each of those in detail.

(01:13):
We'll then get intothe bargaining process.
This is an agreement that took us about ayear and a half of
constant collective bargaining to reach.
I think it's very important for ourmembers to understand what goes into that
bargaining process andhow decisions decisions are made.
We'll also then talk about what we callthe work rule changes, things that are

(01:35):
not necessarily economic in nature.
In other words, they don't directly affectour pay and benefits, but are very
important to the work thatwe do every single day.
We'll begin withthe economic terms of the agreement.
This is an agreement that if ratified, itwould go into effect
retroactively to May of 2023.

(01:59):
It will be a 42-month agreement.
So this agreement wouldexpire in November of 2026.
Economically, the structure of ourcollective bargaining agreements that have
served us very well for a long timehave included a combination of general
wage increases,cost of living adjustments, which we'll

(02:20):
get into in a little more detail in a fewminutes, and then also changes to our pay
tables and pay structures that resultin additional increases.
So we'll take those one piece at a time.
The first pieceis what's included in Article 9 of our
agreement with general wage increases.
In each year of this agreement inNovember, there would be a general wage

(02:41):
increase of 1.3%, so 1.3% increasein November of 2023, November
of 2024, and November of 2025.
If ratified, those general increases inNovember of 2023 and November of 2024
would be paid retroactively in the form ofbackpay, which we'll get into in a

(03:04):
little more detail here in a few minutes.
Next is a very important component of oureconomic package, not just in this
tend of agreement, but historically.
That is our cost of living adjustments.
We as a union have benefited tremendously,and letter carriers have benefited
tremendously over the yearsfrom a cost of living adjustment formula

(03:27):
that is as good or better than anyoneelse in the labor movement has.
We've certainly experienced that more sothan maybe at any point in our history
over the last few years where we sawrecord inflation happen.
But thankfully, this cola clausethat we've had for a number of years,
reacts to that inflationand increases our pay.

(03:49):
In this agreement,the cost of living adjustment
formula that we have is unchanged.
It is the same formulathat we had in the 2019 agreement as
well as several agreements prior to that.
There would be seven cost-to-livingadjustments, the first of which would take
place based onan index that we use to measure inflation

(04:13):
called the consumer price index.
The first adjustment would be based onthat index that was
released in July of 2023.
Then going forward, every July andJanuary, when that
consumer price index is released,we would determine, based on the formula
that we've had for a number ofyears, what that increase would be.

(04:36):
There are a total of seven.
Three of them have already passed, so weknow exactly what those three would be.
The first COLA, which would be effectiveAugust 26th of 2023,
would be $978 at Top Step.
The second COLA, which would be effectiveMarch the ninth of 2024, would be $353.

(05:02):
And the third cola, effective Septemberseventh of 2024, would be $978.
So if you look at the three of thosecombined, that's $2,309 just
in the first three colas.
There would then be four more cost ofliving adjustments going forward, and we

(05:25):
project what those will be using the samemethodology we've used in the 2019
agreement and the 2016 agreementto project them.
We use inflationforecast from the Congressional Budget
Office, which tend tobe fairly conservative.
If you go back and look in 2016 and 2019,what those CBO projections,

(05:48):
how that translated into our COLAprojections, the actual
COLA increases exceeded those projections.
We feel pretty confident that this wouldbe a minimum of the COLA increases.
What we project, based on theCongressional Budget Office's inflation
forecast, over the next four would be forthe COLA that would be effective in March

(06:11):
of 2025, $620, theone that would be effective September of
2025, $604, andthe COLA that would be effective in March
of '26, $624, and then the COLA that wouldbe effective in September of 2026, $561.

(06:33):
All of those would be applicable to all oftable one and then top step in table two.
Once again, these are projections.
So as we move through and talk about someof the other economic terms, terms,
and some of the other information I'llshare with you in terms of what we project
the wage increases would be over thecourse of the agreement, they do factor in

(06:55):
these cost of livingprojections, and we'll talk a little
bit more about COLA in a few minutes.
So that's the baseline that we've had fora long time, the structure of general wage
increases and cost of living adjustments.
In addition to the general wage increasesand our cost of living adjustments, we've
also bargain some significantchanges to our pay tables.

(07:18):
These changes in the wage schedules willresult in increases for a lot of our
members, eventuallyfor all of our members.
Two of the goals that we had coming intothis round of bargaining were to
not only increase our starting pacesignificantly for career employees, which
we did, and we'll get into the details ofthat in just a minute, but also to achieve

(07:40):
an increase in top-step pay, whichbenefits all letter carriers eventually.
There are several changesthat will take place.
These changes would take place within 180days of ratification, should
this agreement be ratified.
The first is the eliminationof some early steps in table 2.

(08:02):
So effective within 180 days ofratification, steps AA, A,
and B would be eliminated.
Any letter carrier that was in steps AA,A, or B at that point in time
would be moved up to step C.
Those that are hiredfrom that point going forward would begin
at step C, which would includethose that are CCAs that are converted to

(08:27):
a PTF through theautomatic conversion MOU.
Each of theseincreases would result in starting pay
going up several thousand dollars a year.
It would be a significantincrease in starting pay.
It would also do something that hasn'thappened since
sometime in the mid-1970s, and that hasreduced the time it takes for a letter

(08:50):
carrier to get from our beginning payto top step by at least 92 weeks.
So that's a goal that we had as well, andwe are certainly happy in this agreement
to have been able to achieve thatreduction in time to top step.
Next is what would happenat top step, at step B.

(09:12):
This would be applicable toboth table 1 and table two.
In addition to the general wage increasesand the colas that we talked about
earlier, top step would increaseby an additional $1,000 per year.
That is a one-time increase in addition tothe general wage increases and

(09:34):
colas that are included here.
The next is an administrative change.
We have, in this round of bargaining,really spent a lot of time
moving toward a single pay table.
I mentioned earlier that almosteveryone in table one is at top step.
Those that are at top step in table one atstep P would be administratively

(09:56):
slotted into step P in table two.
This is purely It is anadministrative action.
It does not affect anyone's pay.
It does not affect anyone'sretirement contribution.
It is simply an administrative move tomove everyone into a single pay table.
In addition to that, those that are not atstep P, when this goes into effect,

(10:18):
when they reach step P in table one,they would also be moved into table two.
The next change that also would go intoeffect within 180 days It would be
applicable to City Care Assistance.
Before I get to that, let me talk aboutthe other wage increases for CCAs.
Ccas would receive the same general wageincreases as career letter

(10:42):
carriers, so 1.3% each November.
In addition to that, because CCAs do notreceive a cost-of-living adjustment,
they would receive an additional1% increase each November.
So effectively, CCAs receive a 2.3%increase in each November
of this agreement.
In addition tothat, within 180 days of ratification, on

(11:06):
the same timeline asthe three other items I mentioned earlier,
CCA pay would be increasedby 50 cents per hour.
So CCA pay would go upan additional 50 cents per hour.
Next is, I think, where we want tolook into what does all this mean?

(11:27):
Because pay increaseswhile While structurally, our CBAs have
remained similar over the years,general wage increases, call us changes
to our wage tables,we have to look at what is the total
economic benefit in terms of our wages.
When we get a paycheck, we don't look andtypically say this dollar is

(11:50):
this amount of increase is due to this,and this amount of
increase is due to that.
We thought it was important forinformational reasons
to share what we project the total benefitwould be for the letter carrier,
regardless of what your status is, whattable you're in, or what step you were in.
We created a chart that I think gives alot of insight here into

(12:15):
the approach to bargaining andthe process that we go through.
A very natural question to ask is, you'reeliminating steps A, A, A, and B, and
step P is getting an additional increase.
What about all the people that arecurrently in steps C through O?
When we take a look at the benefit toeveryone, regardless of which step they

(12:39):
are at, we thought the fairest way to dothis in this round of bargaining
was to take those that make the leastmoney, give them the biggest increase,
and then have that incrementallyshift as you move through our pay table.
If we started our top step, which is stepP, and this is true in both table one and

(13:01):
table two, we know whatthe 1.3% increase would be.
I talked about a few minutes ago what theprojection is for the cost of living
adjustments,at least the three that we already know,
and then the four that we can project,and we see an increase that would happen
of about 11.5%, 11.49.As you begin to work back through table

(13:27):
two, and you take into account all theeconomic benefits, what you see is
a gradual increasedepending on what step someone is at.
So for the purposes of the numbers thatI'm about to give you,
this is based on an assumptionthat a carrier starts at a certain step

(13:48):
on day one of this agreement.
So if on May 20th, 2023,a carrier's very first day in a particular
step, what would the benefit them overthe course of the agreement?
This includes general increases,this includes cost of living adjustments,
and this includes the changes in the wageschedules and the pay tables, and also the

(14:12):
things that we were able to keep,such as step increases, all of which are
bargained and negotiated inArticle 9 of our agreement.
A carrier that was at Step P at thebeginning of this agreement, May 20th,
2023, the salary was $75,299 a year.
We project by the end of the agreement,which would be November seventh

(14:35):
of 2026, that salary would increase to$83,954 a year.
That's an increaseof $8,654 $1.55, an 11.49% increase.
As we work backwards through table 2,a carrier that was at step 0.

(14:56):
And again, this is day 1 in step 0 on May20th, 2023, the salary was $74,854 a year.
We project by the end of the agreement,that salary for that carrier would be
$83,954 a year,an increase of $9,100 a year,

(15:17):
a total increase of 12.16%. At StepIn, the starting salary was $72,796.
That would increase to $83,954.
$1,064, an increase of $11,158,a total increase of $15.33%.

(15:40):
At Step In, at the beginning of theagreement, salary would
have been $70,000 $740.
That increase would go to $83,954, an
increase of $13,214, an 18.68% increase.
You What you can see as you go step bystep, the total pay increase

(16:04):
gradually goes up as we gowork backwards through table 2.
At step L, at the beginning of theagreement in May of 2023,
the salary was $68,679.
We project that the salary at the end ofthe agreement for that
carrier would be $82,441.

(16:27):
That is a total increaseof $13,7 $1,062 or 20.04 %.
At step K at the beginning ofthe agreement, salary is $66,622.
By the end of the agreement,it will be $80,000.
$175, a total increaseof $13,553, a 20.34 % increase.

(16:56):
At step J, Step I.
The salary was $64,562.
It would increase to $77,912, an
increase of $13,350, a 20.68% increase.
Step I starts at $62,505,would increase to 75,641.

(17:25):
This is an increase of$13,136, a 21.02% increase.
Step H, beginning pay, $60,448.
By the end of the agreement, we projectedit would be $73,374,
a $12,926 increase per year and 21.38%.At step G, the starting

(17:54):
annual salary is $58,387.
That would increase to $71,108, a $12,721annual increase,
a percentage increase of 21.79%.
At step F, starting pay, $56,327 per year.

(18:18):
The ending pay that we project would be$68,843 per year, an increase of $12,516.
That's $22.2 2% total increase.
Those at step E at the beginning ofthe agreement, salary was $54,271.

(18:40):
It would increase to $66,576.
That is a total increase of$12,305, a 22.67% increase.
Those that were at step D at the beginningof the agreement, annual salary of $52,201
would increase to

(19:03):
$64,306, a $12,95 increase per year or
23.17%. At step C, the salary at thebeginning of the agreement was $50,153.
That would increase to $62,037, anincrease of $11,884 or 23.7%.

(19:29):
At At Step B,starting pay at the beginning of
the agreement annual is $48,994.
It would increase to $59,773, an $11,679
increase, a total increase of 24.28 %.

(19:50):
Those at Step A or at step AA, the salaryat the beginning of the
agreement, 46,038 dollars.
It would increase to 57,504 dollars.
This is a total increase of11,466 dollars or 24.91 %.

(20:11):
So once again, this chartand the numbers that I just read
assumes that the carriers in each of thosesteps were at day one in that step was day
one of this tenet of agreement, May20th, 2023, and it incorporates all of the
pay increases that are bargain in thistenet of agreement in Article 9, which

(20:31):
includes general wage increases,cost of living adjustments,
the changes to the wage schedule, theelimination of the early steps in table 2,
as well as the additional increase at topstep, as well as step increases, which are
all things that we bargain inArticle 9 of the National Agreement.
There is also a way we created a method onthe website for those of you that are

(20:58):
listening or this,that you can go see exactly how
this contract would benefit you.
In the numbers I just described in thechart that you saw, and once again, if
you're listening to this and youcan't see the chart, check out the
postal record in November of this year.
My President's message,I included this chart.

(21:21):
Obviously, not everyone would be in thevery first day of their waiting period for
the next step at thebeginning of the agreement.
So some carriers would even get larger payincreases because they
would achieve another step.
So on the NALC website, if youjust go to the front page at nalc.
Org, you will see right there on the top alink to a wage calculator that we created.

(21:49):
And in this wage calculator, you justenter some information,
what step you're at, when your last stepincrease was, and it will give you exact
information onusing the same baseline that we project
with colas, but what the total economicbenefit, including general increases,
colas, step increases, and thosechanges to the wage schedule would be.

(22:12):
I encourage you to do thatJust to have that information that's
specific to you in terms of whatthat economic benefit would be.
A number of the provisions that we'vetalked about would be paid
retroactively should this be ratified.
I'm going to We'll getinto the specific pieces.
But the first point that I think is reallyimportant is that back pay here

(22:36):
is full back pay.
There is no reduction of any kind.
All of the general increases that would bepaid retroactively, as well as the cost
of living adjustments were paid in full.
They're rolled intoour base annual salary.
Those of you that have been around for awhile remember, probably
throughout our history, we've haddifferent pieces where calls were paid in

(22:58):
lump sums and things likeThere is none of that.
It's full back pain.
What would be paid retroactively?
We project that with the timeline ofratification, that we will have
the result of the ratificationvote, likely sometime in mid-January,
based on how long it has taken the PostalService historically to implement new pay

(23:22):
rates, not pay-back pay, but justchange current pay rates to update them.
We project that would takeplace sometime in early March.
So we have done some projections thatwe'll get to in just a minute
based on the idea of implementingnew pay rates in early March.
When new pay rates are implemented,that ends the back pay period.

(23:44):
So let's talk about what's included,would be included in this back pain.
There are two general wage increases,one that was effective in November of
2023, one that was effectivein November of 2024.
Both of those would be paid retroactively.

(24:04):
There are also three cost-to-livingadjustments,
one that would be effective in August of2023, another effective in March of 2024,
and another effective just a fewmonths ago in September of 2024.
Those total $2,309 a year at top step.

(24:26):
So the calculation that would be donewould go all the way back to August of
2023 for that first costof living adjustment.
For career employees, for CCAs, it wouldgo back to their first adjustment, which
would be effectively2.3% in November of 2023.
Every hour workedand paid leave, including overtime,

(24:50):
is included in backpay.
To give an idea ofhow much backpay would be, We
came up with some numbers just as abaseline to give an idea
of how much that back pay would be.
Let me first explain thebasis for these numbers.

(25:11):
We created achart or some information here for you
just to give you, onceagain, simply a baseline.
Like the numbers we discussed earlier onthe total economic benefit, this assumes
that the letter carrier at the indicatedstep is there day one in that waiting

(25:36):
period at the beginning of the agreement.
So May 20th, 2023.
The back pay period, as I also justmentioned, goes back to August.
And as pay increases are implemented andstep increases happen,
it changes back pay amounts.
In order to provide these estimates,there's really only one way to do it, and

(25:58):
that is based on 40 hours ofwork and paid leave a week.
So the numbers I'm about to give youdo not include any overtime work.
Most letter carriers worksome overtime, at least, and many worked a
lot of overtimeover the course of this back pay period.
These numbers are basedsolely on 40 hours a week.

(26:19):
And once again, for each step, it is ifyou were in that step on day one
in that step on May 20th, 2023.
So for a At CCA, the baseline amount ofback pay based on 40 hours
a week would be $1,492.
At Step AA, if you were in step AA onMay 20th, 2023, $2,359.

(26:49):
At step A, $2,436.
Step B, $2,542.
Step C, $2,647.
Step D, $2,752.
Step E, $2,858.

(27:12):
Step F, $2,963.
Step G, $3,069.
Step H, $3,174.
Step I, $3,279.
Step J, $3,388.$85.
Step K, $3,490.

(27:35):
Step L, $3,596.
Step M, $3,701.
Step N, $3,805.
Step O, $3,850, and step P, $3,856.
And once again, this isassuming you were in that step on day one

(27:58):
of that waiting period on May 20th, 2023,and only 40 hours,
just straight 40 hours each weekof a combination of work and paid
leave during the backpaid period.
Now, of course,most letter carriers worked overtime.
A lot of letter carrierswork penalty overtime.

(28:18):
Some would get paid Sunday premium.
All of the rates and overtime penalty,Sunday premium, are also increased
by pay increases.
So If you've worked overtime, and most ofyou have, your lump sum back pay is going
to be more than thoseamounts I just mentioned.
Those are provided really asnothing more than a baseline.

(28:42):
As far as the timing of back pay, shouldthe agreement be ratified,
it does take some time to calculate backpay for a couple of
hundred thousand people.
We would anticipate that if the agreementis ratified, it would take a few months.
So sometime, probably in early summeror mid-summer, back pay would be paid.

(29:06):
For those that have worked some during theback pay period and since retired,
if you worked at all during the back payperiod, you will receive that back pay.
Those that have retiredin the last agreement, it was
paid in the form of a paper check that wasmailed to the office you
worked in when you retired.

(29:29):
All right, now let's talk What about theprocess of bargaining, the economic piece.
This agreement took a long time,about a year and a half to negotiate,
which if you've been around a while,you know that's not really unusual.
Historically, we have taken a long timeto reach agreements in most of our cases.

(29:54):
The modern era of our collectivebargaining goes back to 1970,
when all those braveletter carriers walked out on strike and
to achieve collective bargaining rights,prior to 1970, we only had very limited
rights, and we had no rights to bargainover our pay or our benefits.

(30:16):
It was completely up toCongress at that time.
But the result of that strikewas legislation, the Postal Reorganization
Act of 1970that, among other things, gave us full
collective bargaining rightsand also laid out the process for our
bargaining that haslargely remained unchanged.

(30:37):
When we look at our bargaining history,what we would call the
modern era goes back to 1970.
That's since we've had fullcollective bargaining rights.
It's true that it has almost always takenus a long time to bargain a contract.
The question is, why does it take so long?

(30:59):
I think the way to answer it is not justsimply that it's always taken a long time.
It's important to understandwhy that's the case.
There's a number of reasons.
Number one,our bargaining unit
is the second largest single bargainingunit under one collective bargaining
agreement in America, public or private.

(31:21):
So this agreement affects more peoplethan all but one other in this country.
From the Postal Services point of view,what they bargain with us is what they
will pay in the future for what is theirbiggest expense
because we are the largest craft.
So it's a really grave responsibilityon both sides of the bargaining table.

(31:45):
Our union has a proud historyof never settling
for less than we could achieve in aparticular round of bargaining
based on the circumstancesthat are present at the time.
It's important, I think, at this point toget into a little bit about what happens

(32:05):
if you can't reach an agreement, becausethat dictates the way
we approach bargaining.
Part of that 1970 Postal ReorganizationLaw that outlined our process
also gave us a resolution processif we were unable to reach an agreement.
That process is calledinterest arbitration.
An interest arbitration is a process wherea panel of three arbitrators leaders,

(32:31):
one chosen by the union, one chosen bymanagement, and a neutral chair of that
three-person panel that we jointly choose,makes a decision after hearings and
evidence from both sides on what aparticular dispute, they resolve disputes.
We have used this process in years past.

(32:53):
Of course, as you bargain, you have tocontinually evaluate,
can we achieve a a better result bycontinuing to negotiate and hopefully
reaching an agreement or by continuingto interest arbitration.
We'll get to that here in just a minute,more about that thought process

(33:13):
and interest arbitration.
But back to the historyand the reason it's taken so long.
My predecessors as president,several of which I've had the pleasure of
knowing and relying on and talkingwith about throughout this process,
have all, in my opinion,always made the right decisions as to,

(33:39):
do we go forward to interest arbitration?
Do we continue to negotiate?
In our history, there have been There havebeen points in time where we have used
interest arbitration successfully.
There have been pointswhere we've done it.
Actually, the majority of thetime, it got mixed results.
But in the agreements that we've reachedover extended periods of time,
I think it's true that we have alwaysreached the best agreement we could

(34:01):
possibly reach under those circumstancesthat were present at the time.
Those circumstances involve anumber of different factors.
Of course, they involve what we feellike we need to achieve as a union.
Our bargaining goals come from primarilyresolutions that are submitted by branches

(34:22):
and state associations,debated and voted on and adopted
at our national conventions.
They become our officialbargaining positions.
In every round of bargaining,we set those goals.
We have extensive internal processeswhere we utilize the executive council.
In this round of bargaining, each memberof the executive council participated with

(34:46):
a group in reviewing those based on aparticular topic that help us
develop what those goals are.
But there are alsocircumstances surround us.
We do not live in a bubble,and we have to evaluate, ultimately for
the purpose of what do we think interestarbitration would look like, what those

(35:06):
circumstancesare, and how do they affect not just what
we're sitting at the table to negotiate,but how do they affect what would
potentially happen in interestarbitration, the preparation of our case,
anticipating what the Postal Service wouldpresent on a particular issue, and then
what we think the outcome would be.

(35:27):
This is a processthat we make decisions
on an ongoing basis in a lot of waysof, do we continue down the negotiation
road, or do we move towardsinterest arbitration?
Historically, our union has been reallygood at making the right decisions

(35:48):
and using the process to achieve the bestresult that we could at any point in time.
In this particular round of bargaining,we began with a number of goals, of
course, maintaining our cost of living,not giving up our standard of
living when it comes to our cost of livingincreases, general wage increases,

(36:11):
increasing starting pay, which we wereable to do significantly,
also increasing our ending pay,continuing our movement towards an
all-career workforce, whichwe have done through processes that have
been ongoing for the last couple of years.
As we progress through through negotiationand continued to bargain,

(36:36):
we continued to make progress.
Sometimes that progress was slow,but ultimately, we got to a place where
the Postal Servicewas willing to spend the amount of money
it would take for us to achieve our goals.
Then you have to, of course, weighthat against interest arbitration.
Fortunately, we at NALC have a lot ofexperience in interest arbitration.

(36:58):
That experience isofficers, of course, I myself have been
very heavily involved in tworounds of interest arbitration.
But interest arbitration, our preparationof our case and presentation of that
includes a lot of people.
We bring in a number of professionals.
We have a lot of professional staff,attorneys, of course, and we have people

(37:23):
in NALC that are exceptionally experiencedin interest arbitration.
I thought that it would be very beneficialas we did at the four rap sessions we had
for those of you that are tuned in here tohear from one of those who has been
involved in a number, I believe, sixrounds of interest arbitration

(37:46):
to really explain the process andshare with you a lot of the type of
conversationsthat we've had over the course of this
round of bargainingwhen making the decision
of continuing continuing to negotiate,ultimately reaching an agreement
versus proceeding to interest arbitration.
Jim Sauber is the formerChief of Staff at NALC.

(38:09):
He is an economist by trade andhas done a lot more than just being an
economist over the years for us andwas very involved in our, really led our
preparation for interest arbitrationin this round of bargaining.
Jim also is very much an expert on anumber of the topics that come up
such as the Postal Services, Finances, andthe type of things that

(38:34):
historically they have presented.
I thought it would be very beneficialfor you to hear from him, from his
perspective aboutjust interest to arbitration in general,
some about our history, just to givecontext surrounding
this round of bargaining.
Here is a former NALCChief of Staff, Jim Sob.

(38:55):
Well, thank you, Brian.
Thanks, President Ramefoul,for that nice introduction.
It's a pleasure to beback working at the NALC.
I retired at the end of 2022.
I've really enjoyed being able to comeback and help out as a contractor.
I've been serving as a consultantin this round of bargaining.

(39:17):
It's something I've really alwaysenjoyed in my years with the NALC.
I've been basically involved withevery round of bargaining since 1987, and
I personally have worked onsix different interest interest
arbitrations,two, when I was a research economist,
twice when I was a research director,and twice as chief of staff.

(39:39):
It's a process I'm very familiar with.
I'm not here today to I'm not going toweigh in on the decision that the members
are going to make about this contract,but I am here just to provide a little
historical context and to talk aboutwhat the environment was going into this
round of bargaining,how interest how interest arbitration

(39:59):
actually works,and how the financial condition is an
important issuewhen you're considering whether or not to
go to interest arbitration, and how thatfinancial condition can affect the risks
and rewards of interest arbitration.
First, just to talk aboutwhere we are historically.

(40:20):
The Postal Service has constantly had toreinvent itself to meet changing
conditions over its history.
We had a big, huge transition in We wentfrom being a taxpayer subsidized
cabinet agencyto becoming a self-supporting corporation

(40:40):
or a government-owned corporation.
That was a really great time in ourhistory when we've won collective
bargaining rights, thanks to the men andwomen who went out on strike in 1970.
But we're now in a major, huge transitionagain, once again in the 21st century.
With the Internet age,we've had a massive decline in letter

(41:02):
mail, huge growth in e-commerce.
And so it's really changing the nature ofthe Postal Service, and that certainly
will have effectnow and in the future as we do collective
bargaining on behalf of our members.
In 2009, marketing mail surpassedfirst-class mail as the
largest volume of mail.

(41:22):
And in 2016 and'17, package volume, package revenue,
passed in first-class mailin terms of total revenue.
So we're really in a quite differentsituation than we've been in the past.
And so the Pulse Service istrying to reinvent itself.
It's got a major restructuring program,trying to adjust these huge changes that

(41:45):
have happened over the last 20 years.
We're moving from a business dominated byletter mail to one in which packages
are going to carry much more ofthe weight of the universal system.
We're going to have a much moremixed and variable types of mail.
We're now delivering ballots andprescription drugs and credit cards,

(42:07):
a lot less letter mail.
Of course, the Delivering for America planis really about how do we adjust our
networks to handle this hugechange in the mix of mail.
Since the Great Recession in 2008 and '09,we've been in a period, it's this extended
period, that when we teach our class atthe Leadership Academy about bargaining,

(42:30):
We refer to this as crisis era bargainingbecause we've really been
facing a financial crisis for prettymuch nonstop since the Great Recession.
When the global financial systemcollapsed, it really hit the postal
service hard,and particularly in the industries that
produce the most mail,real estate, finance, advertising.

(42:53):
And so we lost 30% of our letter mailvolume in the course of a
very short couple of years.
And when we finally dragged ourselvesout of it, we were suddenly confronted.
Within 10 years, we had another giantrecession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,
and we lost another 20% of our letter mailvolume as mailers adjusted to

(43:18):
the economic crisis that they faced.
The contracts that President Ruland willnegotiate, those last three contracts,
were probably the most difficult in ourhistory, our 54-year
history of bargaining.
President Renfra wasa big part of those negotiations, and so
is very familiar with thechallenge of negotiating

(43:41):
contracts when the Postal Serviceis struggling financially.
Going into this round of bargaining,things have improved economically
in the labor market, certainly.
In some ways, we had the bestmacroeconomic environment for labor
negotiations than we've ever had.
Lots of unions were gettingreally good agreements.

(44:03):
As President Renfro mentionedin his presentation, a lot of these huge
gains that private companies are makingnow are recovering for lost ground in
major concessions that happenedin the period after 2008, 2009.
I was hired in this round to helporganize our interest arbitration case.

(44:29):
Now, that's something that'sunique in our system of bargaining.
Since we don't have the right to strike,Pulse Services does not have the right
to lock us out, you have to prepare.
Even as you negotiate a contract, you haveto prepare for interest arbitration to put
on the case that you would makein case you do reach an impasse.
Throughout our history, about half of ourcontracts, we've had to go to interest

(44:52):
arbitration or at leaststart interest arbitration.
That was my main duties over the last yearand a half was to work
with Cohn Weis and Simon, which is theNALC's labor law firm in New York,
to build the economic case the NALCwould make in interest arbitration.
Just a little bit about the process.

(45:14):
Interest arbitration, many of you are veryfamiliar with rights arbitration, things
that you do at the local and regionallevel in which the issues
put before an arbitratorare, what does the existing contract mean?
Are the parties complying with it.
Interest arbitration is different.
It actually is a way of settlingbargaining impasse to decide what's in the

(45:39):
contract, what the actualprovisions of the contract say.
It's a quite different process.
It's to be clear that virtually anyprovision in the national agreement can
be brought before an interest arbitration.
It's up to the partiesto make their proposals and
decide what they want to change.
Nothing's off limits.
There's nothing that's guaranteed.

(46:00):
Just because we've had it in the pastdoesn't mean we get to
keep it in the future.Everything is up for grabs.
As President Rindfro mentioned, it's atripartite system, meaning there's
actually a panel of three arbitratorsEach, the union and management, get to
name their advocate arbitrator,and between them, they

(46:21):
choose a neutral chairman.
It's a semi-judicial process.
You have court reporters and transcripts,and the cases put on by teams of lawyers,
both sides hire law firms,outside law firms, to help
them put together their cases.
It often involves weeks of hearings spreadout over many months

(46:45):
to deal with the availability of witnessesand experts, but also the availability
of the neutral arbitrator.
Both sides get to call their witnesses tosponsor testimony and provide evidence and
data in support of your case,and also to try to rebut the
other side's case as best you can.

(47:05):
There's actually three rounds to it.
You put on your affirmative casefor your demands in the contract.
Then there's a rebuttal phase, andthen finally, a server butto phase.
It's a very detailed, legalistic,judicial-like process.
At the end of it, and even at thebeginning of it, legal briefs are filed.

(47:26):
Then after all that work is done,basically what What happens is the three
arbitrators go into executive session.
They go behind closed doors,and basically the bargaining resumes
between the union and the management,and they're both trying to convince the
neutral arbitrator to choose theirproposals on all the
various contract provisions.

(47:47):
Once the neutral chairman makes his or herdecision, he or she issues
something called an award.
It's the Interest Arbitration Award.
Basically, he just writes an award thatidentifies all the changes in the contract
that he's going to award to the parties.

(48:07):
That award is final and binding.
You can't take it to court.
You can't go toThere's nobody else to appeal it to.
It's a very high-stakes process.
That's a bit about how it works.
Now, in every arbitration, I just want tomake it clear, under the law,

(48:30):
Arbitrators on an arbitration panel arerequired to consider any issue or any
bit of testimony or evidencethat either party chooses to put
before the arbitration panel.
That means really anything goes.
Any provision of the contract, everyarticle of the contract,

(48:51):
every MOU is subject to changeif the parties want to pursue it.
But there are certain issues that come upall the time that are just central to
postal interest arbitration that reallystems from provisions in the
Postal Reorganization Act.
Among these are thingslike pay comparability.
There's a standard of private sector paycomparability built into the statute.

(49:14):
That's the requirementfor the Postal Service.
They have to seek to payat comparable levels of work in the
private sector that matchthat pay and compensation.
Of course, the trick isgetting an agreement between the parties
about who that actuallyare comparable workers.
It involves not just the work they do, butthe kinds of employers they do,

(49:36):
whether they have a union,are they national, are they local?
There's a variety of areas where thePostal Service and the unions and the NALC
have never quite totally agreed onthe definition of comparability.
That whole issue gets litigatedbefore the arbitration panel.
But other things that are always in thecase include

(49:57):
things like the cost of living.
That's a central focusof the NALC is to protect the standard of
living we've achieved throughcollective bargaining.
We look at what trends inthere are real wages.
We look at industry trends Welook at labor market trends.
Basically, both sides callwitnesses on all of these issues.

(50:22):
The key articles that always come up inthe economic case include the
structure of our bargaining units.
So Article 7, in terms of the complementsof part-time versus full-time workers,
career versus non-career,and then the various levels of rights and
protections each type ofworker are entitled to.
Obviously, Article 9 is a central area ofbattle Pay Scale, is the number and scope

(50:47):
of general increases, colas, lump sumsversus general increases, step increases,
the structure of the pay scale.
All of that is determined in Article 9.
Also, Article 21 on health benefits is aperennial issue that comes
up in interest arbitration.

(51:08):
At the moment,the Postal Service's contribution is set
by the statute, the minimum payments.
It's not been a subject of debate in thisparticular round of bargaining,
but historically, it's an area thatPostal Service has really pursued.
The average private sector worker now onlygets 50% of the health premiums
paid for by their employer.

(51:29):
Our statutory levelin the '70s is actually a pretty good
level of protection.
Inpreparation for this round of bargaining,
I worked with our lawyers and the NALCstaff to come up with a set of experts.
We also rely heavily,both economic and non-economic issues, on

(51:53):
the really excellent staff, city carrierstaff employed by the NALC in Washington.
They really help put together what I thinkis the most essential part of any interest
arbitration case, which isgetting actual members of the NALC, active
letter carriers, to comeand testify on our behalf.

(52:13):
Basically, we Usually, we use these panelsto reinforce whatever our experts,
the professional economists andsociologists and
healthcare experts, we bring in lettercarriers to reinforce their messages and
really ground our case placein the working lives of our members.

(52:34):
That gives you an idea of what we did andwhat we are ready to do, if need be,
to pursue a labor contractthrough interest arbitration.
Next, I just want to talk a bit aboutthe financial circumstances that the
Postal Service is facing right now and howthat would affect the decision making,

(52:59):
both for President and the ExecutiveCouncil, about whether or not to pursue a
contract in interest arbitration.
As I mentioned earlier, I think we have achart that we could show
It shows just the difficult period of timein the history of the Pulse Service since

(53:19):
2012, this period of crisisbargaining after the Great Recession.
The Pulse Service has pretty muchconsistently lost billions
and billions of dollars.
The losses have mounted, but were largelydriven by the deep economic recessions,
both in the financial meltdown in 2008 and'09, and then later with

(53:40):
the pandemic in 2020.
Over the last For the last three years,the Postal Service has lost $24 billion
between 2020 and 2023.
That was the backdrop ofthis round of bargaining.
And this is the central partof the Postal Services case.
Whenever you do an interest toarbitration, the The biggest issue the

(54:00):
Postal Service brings up everycase is their ability to pay.
They bring up the fact thatunder the law, they're required to
make a profit and cover their own costs.
Under the law, they getno taxpayer subsidies.
So Although the ability to pay isoften the centerpiece of their case.
In 2023, the Postal Service lost six and ahalf billion dollars, and then this year,

(54:25):
just recently, they lost 9.5 billion.
Over Over this time, their annual revenuehas been pretty flat, $78 billion despite
really large increases in postage rates.
What's happened is mailers have respondedto higher rates by reducing their volume.
So these macroeconomic conditions havereally been strong headwinds for us in

(54:51):
our attempts to negotiate a new contract.
This is the overwhelming challenge that weface if we go into interest arbitration.
Let me just talk a little bit aboutinterest arbitration in terms of how
you make a decision whether to go.
It's important to know thatit's not a risk-free option.

(55:14):
It's both sides take huge risks by goingto interest arbitration because
the arbitrator, the neutral arbitrator,literally has the power to rewrite
every provision in the contract.
We've actually done fairly well ininterest arbitration, historically,
as a defensive mechanism.
Usually, in most cases, it's the PostalService who refuses to make a deal,

(55:38):
and we've been forcedinto interest arbitration.
But there have been times, particularly in1999, when The Postal Service is doing
quite well and the automationprocess from delivery point sequences was
in full swing, where we were the ones thatwanted to get to interest arbitration.
But I say in the six arbitrations I'vebeen involved in, the results are usually

(56:02):
a mixed bag because arbitrators,they're inherently conservative.
They don't like to disturb long-standingtraditions or between the parties,
but they try to help you get an agreementthat the parties could, in different
circumstances, reach on their own.

(56:23):
What that usually means isthere's a give and take.
You win on some issuesand you lose on others.
For example, the The very firstarbitration we ever did was the Healy
arbitration, and it waslike a split decision.
We got to keep our uncapped colas, butwe lost some ground on layoff protection.
In 1984, we got a great general increasesunder the Kerr Award,

(56:49):
but we also had to take a 17% cut instarting pay, which is obviously the
union didn't support.
That's the typicalexperience in arbitration.
You usually take somelosses as well as some wins.
The one pure win we ever gotwas the 1999 arbitration.

(57:10):
That was in part because we structured itin a way that was very favorable to us.
We had a last best offer arbitration,meaning the arbitrator could only take our
proposed contract or the postal service.
They couldn't pick and choose.
We had such a strong case that year.
Postal service was growing fast.
They We had big profits.

(57:31):
The job of the carrier was obviouslygetting much, much harder due to
the automation.
We had a really good case, andwe won that case as a result.
Then I guess I just want to emphasizeIt's particularly relevant to
this round of bargaining.
The two most unfavorable awards that we'veever gotten have been in the conditions

(57:55):
we're facing right now in which the PostalService is in deep financial stress.
The first time in 1991, the MittenthalAward, there was a recession in 1990,
and then the Postal Service was hit byhuge liabilities put on us by Congress,
these budget reconciliation acts wherethey were shifting billions and billions
of dollars in costs from the federalgovernment for pensions and retiree

(58:20):
health care to the Postal Service.
In that arbitration, that was the firsttime that an arbitrator basically
made decision to dramatically alterArticle 7 and created the first group of
non-career employees in the history of thePostal Service, the
transitional employees.

(58:41):
But there were other things likecashed-out colas and lump some payments.
That's when we took some big hits on thePostal Services' contributions
to health benefits.
Similarly, in 2013, in the teeth of theworst recession since the 1930s,
again, under the DAS Award, that's whenThe DAS

(59:01):
Panel decided to create a very large,almost 15% to 20% of the bargaining,
and it could be city carrier assistance.
We have much lower starting pay.
It's also when we first had thechanges to proportional colas.
I give this history to you, and again, I'mnot trying to sway your
vote one way or the other.

(59:21):
We are ready to go to arbitration if weneed to, and we'll fight like hell
to get the best contract possible.
But I do think that you should know thatthe bottom line is that
going to arbitration is not a one-way bet,and it should only be done with your eyes

(59:42):
wide open, that the possibilities arethat you can win some things,
but you can also lose them.
I think that's where I'll stop.
I hope this is helpful for all of you asyou make this very important decision.
As I said, whateverdecision you make, it's going to be the
right one, and we'll be readyto to work on your behalf.
Thank you.

(01:00:03):
That was former Chiefof Staff, Jim Solver.
Jim, thanks for that information.
You heard a lot from Jim about the processand our preparation for
interest arbitration.
As we move through this negotiationprocess, there's a couple of things I
want to point out in terms of decisions.
The first is one that I mentioned brieflyearlier, that on an ongoing basis, once we

(01:00:27):
get past the initial 90 days of bargainingand the mediation period that happens
immediately after expiration of acontract, you make an ongoing decision
about continuing to negotiate versusmoving to interest arbitration.
Of course, a decisionthat was made in this round of bargaining

(01:00:48):
was to continue negotiations because aslong as we were making progress
towards our economic goals,we thought that was in our best interests.
That's consistent with what ourunion has done for a long time.
The last piece is when you get to a pointwhere both parties have gone
as far as they'll go.

(01:01:08):
On the economic front, the Postal Service,eventually, we get to a point where it's
apparent that in terms of the cost of themof bargaining one of these agreements,
that they are not going tobe willing to go any further.
It's at that point that we decided tomove towards finishing up

(01:01:28):
a tentative agreement.
I I do think for context, you heard Jimtalk about some of the history of
bargaining, and particularly the morerecent history during the Postal
Services, post-recession of 2008, 2009,2010, beginning with the 2011 round of
bargaining, some of thechallenges that have been present.

(01:01:50):
Part of this process was,as we looked at the things that we could
achieve economically, of course, it's verynatural to compare them
to the previous agreements, of which I wasvery involved in negotiating in my time as
Director of City Delivery first, and thenfor six years as executive vice president.

(01:02:11):
Just for a few points of comparison, the2016 and 2019 agreements both included
general wage increases each year.
The average general wage increase in thisagreement is 1.3%, which is
a slight increase over the general wageincrease that we had on average each year
both the 2016 and the 2019 agreement.

(01:02:33):
Our cost of livingformula remains the same.
That has served us very well in ourhistory, and
particularly over the last few years, hasserved us very well in late
2021, 2022, in particular, we sawunprecedented increases as a result
due to inflation that was going on.

(01:02:56):
Then our wage schedule changes.
In the 2019 agreement, we added a new top
step, Step P, that every single letter
carrier that was at Step Oand had served 46 weeks in Step
O, moved to the new Step P.

(01:03:16):
At that point in time, it was $444 morethan the Step O rate at the time.
The increase that we are making to topstep here at Step P of $1,000 is more than
double what increase wasin the 2019 agreement.
There was no such increasein the 2016 agreement.
Then, particularly at the beginningof our career pay schedule in table 2,

(01:03:43):
it has been, as I mentioned, in theopening or early on,
since the 1970s, we've reduced the time totop step, and in this agreement, achieved
a significant increasein starting career pay through the
elimination of steps A, A, A, and B.
And in both the 2016 and 2019 agreement,there was no such increase.

(01:04:08):
So really, by anymeasure, the economic provisions of this
tentative agreement represent improvementsover what we saw in
the 2016 and the 2019 agreementunder very similar circumstances
in terms of the issues that impactour bargaining environment as well as

(01:04:33):
ultimately what we would encounter ininterest arbitration, as Jim explained.
For all these reasons, the decision wasmade to finish a tentative agreement.
That's not a fast process.
There's a lot of details that have to beironed out, and it took us several weeks
to do that, includinga lot of the work rule issues that I'm

(01:04:55):
going to go through in detailhere in just a few minutes.
But just to sum up the whole economicparts here, the economic package,
I think, is straightforward.
Once again, I would encourage everyone tolook at the entire economic package and
not be drawn intofocusing on one single piece such as the

(01:05:18):
general increase or anything like that.
Last thing I want to mention economically,and then we'll move on to the work rules
section, is very often there is talk andquestions that are asked,
and very well could be a question asked inthis virtual wrap session,
about step increases.

(01:05:39):
Every round ofbargaining, we bargain a number of
economic issues in Article9 of our agreement.
We talked a lot so far about the structureof general increases, the cost of
living adjustment formula that we use.
In this agreement, we made somesignificant changes to our wage schedule.
Another part there is step increases.

(01:06:01):
The reason I think this question comes upis the 2019 agreement
expired on May 20th, 2023.
Step increases continued.
The reason for that is anytime we have inour history, gotten to expiration of an
agreement, we have agreed tocontinue the terms of that agreement.

(01:06:26):
The same is true.
Right now, as we go through thisratification process, Process,
our 2019 agreement is still in effect,including every single word
and every term of Article 9.
When you read Article 9, there arespecific dates given
for general increases.
There are specific dates givenfor Cost of Living adjustments.
All those have been fulfilledin the 2019 agreement.

(01:06:51):
Step increases, however, continue,and we have agreed to continue that.
So it is not a given thatstep increases continue.
That's something thatwe have to negotiate.
We then have to agree to continue them aswe did when this contract expired in May.
And this tent of agreement includesall of those Article 9 provisions,

(01:07:13):
such as step increases.
That's why they are included in many ofthe projections, all the projections
that we have provided.
In addition to the economic factors, thereare a number of changes that we'll
just categorize as work rule changes.
And I will go through each one of themand give some level of detail.

(01:07:37):
Some of them are verysimple and straightforward.
Some of them may require a little moreexplanation, and I'm sure there'll be some
questions, and I'll answer those once wego through each of the changes.
The first is uniforms.
So let me begin with the uniformallowance changes or increases.

(01:07:59):
In May of 2025, the uniformallowance would increase to $536.
The additionalfirst-year allowance, that's included
Article 26, Section 2B,would increase by $125.
Then again in May of 2026,the uniform allowance would increase to

(01:08:21):
$549, and that first year additionalallowance would increase to $128.
Somethingthat's new in this tentative agreement is
the ability to carry over allowancefrom one year to the next.
That's something thatwe've not had before.

(01:08:42):
Currently, what happens when someone hasan allowance and they reach their
anniversary date and they lose whateverallowance they had on the book, so to
speak, they will beable to carry that over.
There is a limitation, however,that the balance at any one time cannot be
greater than thecumulative amount of the current year
uniform allowance and the previous year'suniform allowance.

(01:09:06):
Uniforms are a big issueand something that we spend a significant
amount of time in bargaining on.
Honestly, thenumbers I just gave you in those increases
were not what we spent most of ourtime on as it relates to uniforms.
What we spent most of our time on waswe've got to really reform

(01:09:29):
and modify our entire uniform program.
We have seen unprecedented increases inthe prices of the items, and we've
got a system currently that is broken.
There is no cost control.
Both us, obviously, for the purposes ofour members being able to get the items

(01:09:51):
that they needand the post of service because of the
cost that will be passed on to them,we have a mutual interest in
Really changing this program.
We have an existing MOU in ourcontract in the 2019 agreement.
It is a city carry uniform task force thatallows us to do everything
that we need to do.

(01:10:13):
While I gave you those increases in theallowance in 2025 and 2026,
I can tell you the priority uponimplementation of this agreement for us
is going to be to work with themto modify this program altogether
so that we are to build in some costcontrol and ensure that our members are

(01:10:33):
able to get the uniforms that they need.
The next section is relatedto employee complement.
I will just go through each ofthese changes fairly quickly.
We've made a small changein Article 7, Section 1C.
So currently, the language in Article 7,Section 1C, Section

(01:10:58):
1C1 and 1C2 is language that placeslimitations on the number of city care
assistance the Postal Service can employ.
This dates back to the 2011 NationalAgreement and the DASA Award from 2013
that established these caps.
The current language inArticle 7, Section 1(c)(1), limits them to

(01:11:23):
15% of the total number of full-timecity cares in any one district.
And in Article 7, Section 1(c)(2),it provides them another 8,000 CCAs, but
also limits them to 8%of the number of full-time cares
employed in any one district.
What's happened over the years is we havehad a lot of agreements to increase

(01:11:49):
complement, to convertnon-career employees to career status.
And some of those agreements haveincluded creating part-time flexibles.
And in some agreements, It's those PTFsthat counted as full-time
for the purposes of applying those caps.
In other agreements, they have not.
Essentially, it's gotten very complicatedto track the number of

(01:12:13):
full-time employees and the PTFs thatcount as full-time for the purposes
of these caps and those that don't.
So the change here is just to change frombasing it on the number of full-time
to the number of career employees.
At the time, this language was initiallyin our agreement, Back in 2013, the PTF
classification was being phased out.

(01:12:34):
That has very much beenreversed since then.
The Postal Service employs fewer CCAs thanthey have over the last
6, 7, 8 years, and that's nota result of them having less flexibility.
It's just simply a result of we'reemploying a lot more
career employees, PTF.
So it's a very simple change there thatreally shouldn't directly affect anyone.

(01:13:01):
Next isa small change to the MOU that does the
automatic conversionafter 24 months as a CCA.
That MOU is entitled City CareAssistance Conversion to Career Status.
There's a linein the MOU in the 2019 agreement
that states that those conversions, thosePTFs that are created as a result of that

(01:13:23):
MOU would count as full-time for thepurposes of the caps in
Article 7, Section 1(c).
Byus changing that language in Section 1(c),
that line is no longer necessary,so that line would be deleted.
Next is the MOU called Full-Time RegularOpportunities City Letter Carrier Craft.

(01:13:51):
This is an agreement that dates back thatthe very first version of this was created
and agreed upon in November of 2013 2018.
The DAS Award that created the City CareAssistant Classification
included language saying they would beconverted to career status when the post
service needed career letter carriers.

(01:14:11):
What it lacked was themechanism for how that happens.
We initially negotiated thisMOU to create that mechanism.
It's evolved through multiple.
First, it was just agreementswe did outside of bargaining.
Then it made its way into our collectivebargaining agreement, and we have made
a couple of modifications to this MOU.

(01:14:34):
In no particular order, the first changehas to do with the fact that this MOU was
originally written at a timewhere PTS were being phased out.
As I mentioned a minute ago,that's not the case anymore.
The number of PTFs we havejust continues to grow, which is good.
That's part of our pursuitof an all-career workforce.

(01:15:00):
We have situations sometimes wherePTFs that back in the early days of these
MOUs were given the opportunity totransfer ahead of everybody
else to go full-time.
Part of that agreement was they were givenretreat rights to return
When a full-time job came up in theinstallation, they left
where they were a PTF.

(01:15:21):
And we do occasionally encounter scenarioswhere there's another PTF that was senior
to them at the time they leftthat has not yet been converted.
This just makes clear that they cannotretreat until that PTF that was
senior to them has already converted.
Another piece that's also related to PTFs.

(01:15:41):
After the ratification of the 2019agreement, there was an MOU that we had to
do that addressedthe circumstance of someone transferring
into an installationwhere PTFs were on the roles.
This isalso a result of the fact that At the
time, this language was initiallywritten, PTS were being phased out.

(01:16:03):
Now that we havethousands of PTFs around the country, when
someone transfers in under this MOU,this language just makes clear that if
there are PTFs there,they come in as a PTF.
If there are no PTFs there and there's afull-time opportunity, they
can come in as full-time.
The last piece that I'll mention herethat is something that we've used in a few

(01:16:28):
select locations, just in ourcontinuous efforts to improve staffing and
complement, is a process to identify whatwe call letter carriers that are
on the roles and not available.
So you go in,not every post office, but in a lot of
places, you may have a carrierthat's on the roles there.

(01:16:49):
They have an assignment,but they're not there for whatever reason.
They could be out on long-term sick leave,they could be on military leave, they
could be a 204(b) someplace, Theycould be a full-time union official.
They could be injured.
There's all sorts of possibilities.
Basically, what will happen, according tothis language, is a review will be done,

(01:17:13):
and when an individual has been out forsix months or 13 pay periods,
and they have no work hours, will createan additional full-time
regular opportunity.
It's an unassigned opportunity.We would fill it.
It's just designed to increasethe full-time complement.
It does not impact in any waythe letter carrier that's out.

(01:17:37):
For whatever reason they're out, it isjust simply as a result of the fact that
they've been out, we create a full-timeopportunity to grow that
full-time complement.
This is something, once again, that we'vedone in a few locations around the
country, and it's worked really well.
I mentioned the MOU, City Care AssistanceConversion to Full-Time Status,

(01:18:02):
and that we have amended and deleted somelanguage there
that was no longer necessarybecause of Article 7, Section 1C.
The next one is a modification to an MOUentitled Additional Resources,
Holiday Carrier Assistance.
So since we've had CCAs in our craft,we've also had a category of employees

(01:18:25):
that are for use duringthe holiday season.
We We've had this for a long, long timein different classifications
of non-career employees.
But holiday carrier assistance currentlycan be hired during the December period.
We have done agreements over the last fewyears to allow the It serves to bring them

(01:18:46):
on the roles just for the purposes oftraining prior to that December period.
The changes here, thereare a couple of changes.
Number one, it extends that Decemberperiod in additional two weeks.
In Most years, that's going to be the weekof Thanksgiving and then either the week
before or the week after Thanksgiving.

(01:19:06):
Those of you that know, really, right now,peak season now starts in November.
Peak seasonused to be much more of a December thing,
but with online shoppingand e-commerce and Black Friday and Cyber
Monday and all that stuff,these resources are needed.

(01:19:28):
So it extends that period two weeks,and it allows the Postal Service to hire
these folks and get them trainedup on whatever they'll be doing.
Typically, that'd be parcel deliverybefore that period starts
where they can be employed.
It's important to point out that thismaintains protections for anyone that

(01:19:49):
could be adverselyaffected by hiring them.
Ccas that are on the roles andinstallations where holiday care
assistants are hired, they They'reentitled to all the straight-time work
prior to it being assigned to a holidaycarrier assistant, and any overtime
that needs to be worked has to be assignedto an ODL carrier prior to giving these

(01:20:12):
holiday carrier assistance over time.
Just an extension of two weeks, frankly,during a period of time where we need to
help, but maintains a protection againstanybody that could be adversely affected.
The next one that I mentioned related tocomplement is a test that we are going to

(01:20:32):
conduct, jointly,with establishing carrier technician
assignments that covermultiple installations.
So we have,for the most part, in smaller
installations, this applies tolevel 20 and below post offices.
You may have two, three routes, or you mayhave, say, seven or eight routes where you

(01:20:56):
got a carrier technician assignment, butyou have one or more that are not covered
by a carrier technician assignment.
And what this test would entail iscreating assignments that would
cover multiple installations.
It's beneficial because it providescoverage every week for someone's
non-scheduled day, but also isadditional full-time work for us.

(01:21:21):
It'll be just a test phase to begin, andwe look forward to working through that.
Next is an MOU that was new in the 2019agreement called Compliment and Staffing.
A lot of the work that we have done overthe last few years related to our
complement,improving our complement in so many

(01:21:41):
places, we've done agreements that we'veconverted hundreds of installations around
the country to an all-career model wherewe hire PTFs and
don't have non-career employeeshave resulted from this agreement.
The changes in the agreement, in thistentative agreement,
the change in this MOU, I should say, thistentative agreement, are just to

(01:22:01):
recognize that success we've had.
Also, it's a commitment to continue thatprocess, which has continued all through
this long period of collective bargaining.
We look forward to continuing that.
Next is a very small changeto a very important agreement.
The MOU is entitled Article 7, 12,and 13, Crossing Kraft and Officeize.

(01:22:26):
We refer to thiscasually as the Bridge Memo.
It dates back a number of years to dayswhen we bargain jointly with
some of the other postal unions.
And in a nutshell,this agreement says that among our craft,
the mail handlers and the APWU-representedcrafts, that the crossing craft provisions

(01:22:51):
of Article 7, 12, and 13in all of our agreements
will remain the same as they were in the1978 agreement, which is important.
I'll talk a little bitmore about this MOU layer.
But for the purposes of this change,it's just simply changing
an outdated term, man years to work years.

(01:23:15):
Next, let's talk about healthinsurance a little bit.
For the first time,I guess since the 2001 agreement,
there are no changes tohealth insurance coverage.
There are no changes to the percentage ofthe premiums that the post-service pays,
percentage of the premiums that we pay.

(01:23:35):
They remain exactly the same.
That is true for career employees.
That is true for CCAs as well.
We The post-servicecontinues to pay the same,
and we will continue to paythe same for our health insurance.
Okay, next is Article 8 and overtime.

(01:23:57):
And there are a couple ofvery significant changes here.
These are changes that are consistent withour official bargaining positions and
that we have tried to achieve in multiplerounds of bargaining
and we think will really be beneficial toour craft, and of course, keeping with the

(01:24:21):
intent of Article 8, which isto protect those that don't want to work
over time while also providingopportunities for those that do and
options for those that dowant to work over time.
So the first change that I'll talk abouthas to do with maximum work hours.

(01:24:41):
And before I get into the specifics ofthese changes,
I think we need to talk a little bit aboutand understand where we are
when it comes to maximum work hours.
So we currently havemaximum work hour limitations.
For those that are only over time desiredlist, those are included in Article 8,
Section 5G, 12 hours a day,60 hours a week.

(01:25:06):
For those that are not on the ODL, thereare limitations
in other sections of Article 8.
There are limitations in theEmployee Labor Relations manual.
So there's a lot of...
It's a little bit of a confusingissue depending on your classification.
And these are work hour limitationsthat were supposed to be Absolute.

(01:25:31):
And it is something that we deal witha lot in the grievance procedure.
Typically, where we have staffingdifficulties for various reasons, where
our members are forced to work beyondthese maximum work hour limitations.
What we pursue through the grievanceprocedure is, of course, make whole

(01:25:54):
remedies, but ultimately to stop thisproblem of our members being forced to
work is we want them to be protected fromdiscipline, that whenever they reach
their maximum work hours, they go home.
And that's what thisbargain is centered around.
So I'll go through it section by section.
The first is a new sectionof Article 8, section 2.

(01:26:19):
And we've added a paragraph Dthat basically says that full-time
carriers are not only ODLor work assignment list.
So non-ODLs, their limitation is 11 anda half hours a day, 60 hours in a week.
That's not a change in termsof what their limit is.
The limits remain the same.
But what this language says is they willnot be worked over that, and

(01:26:45):
When they reach those maximum work hours,they will terminate their tour and go
home, and they will not bedisciplined for doing so.
A couple of very importantpoints to make here.
Point number one,this does does not modify in any way
any of the other relevant sections,Article 8, Section 4 or 5,

(01:27:07):
related to the Postal Services obligationto work ODLs and others
before working non-ODLs.
It is not an extensionof Article 8, Section 5F.
It does not change thoselimits that are placed.
It only meansthat if non-ODLs reach 11.5 in a day or 60

(01:27:32):
in a week, they can terminate their tourand go home, and the contract will read
that they are protected from discipline.
Now, one issue thatWe had to deal with, and I'll get to the
ODS, a similar protectionin just a minute.
One issue that we had to reallydeal with is a pay rate here.

(01:27:54):
Currently,when someone is forced to work beyond
maximum work hoursas a result of a national arbitration
from a very respected arbitratorfrom years past named Carlton Snow,
and this actually appears in our jointcontract administration manual,
there's a remittance ofan additional 50% pay for those

(01:28:18):
that work beyond maximum work hours.
There is a new provision addedto Section 4, which covers It covers
various things, but in this context, we'retalking about a pay rate
where there is a new pay rate.
We'll talk about it in just a minute.
Odl carriers will have that protectionagainst discipline but have

(01:28:41):
the ability to volunteer.
But if any letter carrierworks over 12 hours in a day
or 60 hours in a week for any reason, itdoes not matter why, they will be paid
two and a half times pay.
So this is a new pay rate.
It is just like the overtimerate of time a half.
Penalty rate is double time.

(01:29:02):
This is a new pay rate of double timeand a half, two and a half times pay.
Okay, next, let's talk about Article 8,Section 5, and talk about
Carriers that are on the ODL.
So we have addedlanguage to Article 8, Section 5G,

(01:29:24):
specifically,that covers ODL carriers in a similar way
to what we talked about justa minute ago with non-ODLs.
So ODLs are currently limited to12 hours a day, 60 hours in a week.
That limit remains.
When those carriers reach thoselimitations, they may terminate

(01:29:45):
the end of their tour and leave.
They are not, and the post servicecannot discipline them for that.
That is crystal clear in thelanguage of the tentative agreement.
The other change hereis that the ODS of service, if needed, may
seek volunteers from the ODS,and ODS may volunteer if they wish to

(01:30:07):
exceed 12 hours in a dayor 60 hours in a week.
If they do not volunteer,they simply clock out and go home,
and they have protection from it.
If they do volunteer, that new pay ratewe just talked about would come into play.
Once they exceeded 12 hours in a day or 60hours in a week, then they would receive

(01:30:28):
that additional twoand a a half times pay.
A couple of just points to make here.
For CCAs and PTF, there are no changesto their maximum work hour
limitations or any application.
There, things remain exactly the same withthe exception of the pay rate,
the new pay rate for if they were toexceed for any reason,

(01:30:51):
12 hours in a day or 60 hours in aweek, CCAs and PTFs, just like all letter
carers, would receivetwo and a half times the rate of pay.
Next, just to clarify something,it does apply...
These limitations apply daily and weekly.
So just to give an exampleto illustrate that.

(01:31:14):
If a carrier on the ODL, let's say, works12 hours on Saturday, 12 hours on Monday,
12 hours on Tuesday,12 hours on Wednesday, and 12 hours on
Thursday, they have worked 60 hours.

(01:31:35):
If they don't want to work on Friday, theycannot be forced to work and they cannot
be disciplined for it, even ifit's a regularly scheduled day.
Let's simplify, create another scenario.
They work 12 on Saturday, 12 on Monday, 12on Tuesday, 12 on Wednesday, and then
let's say they work 8 on Thursday.

(01:31:57):
In that particular example,they will have worked 56 hours,
which means if they come in to work onthat Friday, they'll reach 60 hours after
working 4 hours, at which point, if theydo not volunteer to exceed 60 in a week,
they clock out and they go home.
And post-service, because of guaranteedtime, has an obligation to pay them

(01:32:19):
for the rest of that day, and that paywould be at the two and a half times rate.
So the work hour limitations appliesdaily, but it also applies weekly.
And the protection against discipline forterminating a tour comes into play
whenever the daily or the weeklywork hour limitations are reached.
It doesn't matter when thoselimitations take place.

(01:32:43):
The second major change to Article 8 hasto do with the overtime desired list.
In discussions in bargaining and inconvention resolutions,
for us, that our official bargainpositions at NALC conventions have
have adopted, we havetried to add additional options

(01:33:07):
for letter carriers that want tobe on the overtime desired list.
So currently, we have the work assignmentlist, and we have the overtime desired
list, which means you work overtime on anyassignment, non-scheduled day, regularly
scheduled day, up to 12 hours,or with a 10-hour preference,
which we'll cover in a minute.
The change here, we wanted to give optionsfor those that that may be willing to work

(01:33:32):
overtime or desire to work overtimeup to 12 hours on a regularly scheduled
day on any assignment, but they don'twant to work their non-scheduled day.
Also for those that may not want to worklast eight hours
on the regularly scheduled day,but they would be willing to work
their non-scheduled day up to 8 hours.

(01:33:53):
And that is what this agreement does.
So what this agreement will do is when weget to the sign-up period, beginning
two weeks before a quarter starts.
Currently, you can sign a workassignment or you can sign the ODL.
The options will be work assignment isunchanged, no change to the
work assignment list at all.

(01:34:13):
But you will then have two options.
Option number oneis a list that you will work over time up
to 12 hourson your regularly scheduled day on any
assignment, but you will not work ornot to work on your non-scheduled day.
That's number one.
Option two would beyou don't want to work past eight hours,

(01:34:39):
but you would work your non-scheduled day.
So you can sign one or the otherOr you could sign both.
And if you sign both, you are then onthe equivalent of what is today's ODL.
The only other change here is theelimination of the 10-hour preference.
So currently, when When you signthe overtime desired list, you can

(01:35:03):
indicate a preferenceto work 10 or 12 hours.
It is simply a preference.
It does not contractually limitsomeone to 10 hours.
If the management has the obligationunder A5G to use to max out ODLs, they got
to max out the 10-hourpreference people to 12.
We actually tested thisa few years ago around the country, the

(01:35:25):
elimination of it with the establishment,and now with the establishment of
these new lists and the additionaloptions, there will no longer be
a 10-hour preference.
So this just provides multiple options,more options than we currently have while
maintainingthe options that we currently have with
what we know as the ODL todayand the work assignment list.

(01:35:49):
The one thing I'll mention that's anatural question, probably from shop
stewards more than anybody else,is how on earth
does this change the way we calculate andmonitor and track and enforce
the contractual provisions aroundequitable distribution of overtime?
The answer is actually very simple.

(01:36:12):
This would be reflected, should theagreement be ratified and explained in the
J-CAM, and that is,they just simply have to,
using existing equitability rules,make people equitable
within the list that they're on.
So you've got these twoovertime desired lists.
Whoever's on one list,all those people got to be made equitable.

(01:36:34):
The people on the other list also haveto be made equitable.
So it's actually a pretty simple change.
All right, moving on to some otherimportant provisions.
Layoff protection.
We have layoff protection in our agreementfor those that have six
years as a career employee.

(01:36:54):
It's been in place a long time now.
Thankfully, it's something thatwe We have never really had to invoke.
We certainly don't anticipateover the course of this agreement having
to invoke the layoff protection,but the layout protection is continued.
This is one of those things, along withthe next topic I'll mention that is

(01:37:16):
not often talked about among our members.
It's not something as I go around thecountry and meet with our members that we
talk about a lot, but it is a topicof collective bargaining.
Layout protection continues as well asour protections against subcontracting.
Those of you that were around back inthe mid-2000s, remember, this was quite a

(01:37:40):
battle in the 2006 round of negotiationsand In that round of bargaining, we
achieved somesignificant protections against
subcontracting that are mostlyin Article 32 of our agreement, but also
mostly in the form of MOUs,and those protections continue.

(01:38:01):
So they've served us very well, andwe're happy to continue them.
Great.
Next is a modification to atask force called the City Delivery and
Workplace Improvement Task Force.
This is a bigumbrella of different

(01:38:22):
topics, and therefore, different workgroups that we do jointly with the
Postal Service and headquarters.
This task force It coversa lot of different topics.
There's a high-level oversight.
And then we assign what we callsubcommittees,
which are officers and staff from any LCthat work with managers from the Postal

(01:38:42):
Service headquarters on different topics.
And the changes that we've made hereare really more than anything else, just
to align with the way that we actuallystructured those subcommittees in practice
in the 2019 agreement.
But a lot of good thingshave come from this.
We've had a lot of productivethings related to route adjustments and

(01:39:03):
complement and staffing andwhat we do with onboarding employees and
mentoring and retaining them, whichwe'll talk about here in just a minute.
So this task force will continue We are,should disagree, would be ratified,
excited to get started with it and addressall the topics that are included there.

(01:39:24):
Next is a new MOU called the New EmployeeExperience Retention
and Mentoring program.
This was a result of that City DeliveryWorkplace Improvement Task Force.
We've tested this all over the country.
Currently, it's in a test phase still inalmost a thousand
post offices around the country.

(01:39:46):
But the idea was for us to structurethe work and the experience
for newly hired employees, some cases atCCA, some cases
that's PTFs, and just Give them the bestopportunity we could to learn,
to learn the job and to succeed.

(01:40:07):
This began as just a retentionpilot program.
It puts in, as you see, theMAU, it's very detailed.
It puts in work hour limitations duringtheir first few weeks on the job.
It also includes certain items that haveto be provided to them and just structures
the experience,the feedback that they get.

(01:40:29):
We We also had a separate mentoringpilot, at least early on, I guess, back in
2020, 2021, late 2021.
Mentoring was just identifyingan experienced carrier that could be a
point of contact for a new employee andhelp them, we then merge those two

(01:40:53):
together, and that's whatthis agreement represents.
It's been very successfulin places that we've been able to
hire employees, and we're definitelyexcited about the
possibility of implementing thisnationally just to improve staffing and
improve the experience for employeesthat we hire and NALC members.

(01:41:19):
Okay.
Next is an existing MOU that inthe tenet of agreement really doesn't
look anything like the existing MOU.We changed it so much.
The joint workplace and improvementprocess, this has been
around for a few years now.
Jwip is what we call it for short.

(01:41:40):
It was brand new, and it was mostlyheadquarters-driven.
We had varying levels of success with it,we learned a lot from it, and we have
significantly modified and addedlots of structure that will allow
us, we think, to have greater reach.
This is just an additional avenuegoing above and going beyond what we do

(01:42:05):
best, and that's enforcing our agreementthrough the grievance procedure
to address the problems we had thatcontribute to poor work environment.
The structure that we put in place,potentially with this
agreement, we think is going to allow usto really reach into more locations and
the places we have that are toxic towork because of all sorts of things.

(01:42:28):
But usually at the core of contractcompliance and people's behavior,
give us the opportunity toaddress those beyond all the things, the
methods that we already use.
Local implementation.
So our LMOUs, Brace is out there, I know,are hard at work in preparation for

(01:42:50):
local implementation.
There are no substantive changes tothe process of negotiating locally.
We one exception, and thatis what the period would be.
So the local implementation period, shouldthis agreement be ratified, would be April
third, 2025, through May second, 2025.

(01:43:13):
Let's talk, there's a couple of agreementsrelated to route adjustment that
are important for us to cover.
The first is an agreement that there's notreally any substantive change to,
but I think it's worth mentioning.
The MOU, an alternate route evaluationand adjustment Adjustment Process.
This is an agreement that we've hadgoing back to the early 2000s.

(01:43:36):
We've had six separatejoint route adjustment processes.
Back to IWrap, MyWrap, JWrap, WRAP, JWRAP,too, CDWRAP, and most recently, TIWRAP.
Each of these processes has been aresult of what this MOU established.

(01:43:58):
So this agreement continues.
We intend to continue to utilize it, totry to reach agreement
with the Postal Service on joint routeadjustment processes that are fair.
Of course, coming off our most recentjoint process, there's a lot of pieces of
it that work very well, andthere's a lot of pieces of it that in any

(01:44:21):
future joint process need to be modifiedbased on the experience that we had.
The discussions that we will have wouldstart there, just as they have in the past
with the most recentprocess, but while also
knowing what we learnedand trying our best to
come to agreement ona process that addresses those concerns

(01:44:45):
and continues to move us forward.
Because ultimately, NLC having a seat atthe table in a fair joint route adjustment
process is the best way to adjust routes.
Then we will continue towardsthe negotiating to do just that.
The next MOUis a new MOU, and it's related to joint

(01:45:08):
route adjustment processes,and it has to do with fixed office time.
Fixed office time is an issue that we,through a lot of our joint processes here
at headquarters, at least in the 13years that I've been here,
we have been very heavily engaged withthem while trying to find a better way

(01:45:29):
to evaluate Fixed office time.
Fixed office time is office timethat we spend that does not include
cacing mail and pulling down mail.
It includes things like dealing withaccountables and

(01:45:49):
dealing with checking our vehicles andpersonal needs time in the office and
going withdrawing our parcels or whateverother things we do in the office
besides Caising and pulling down mail.
And the system that we have and that we'veused in each of our previous six joint
processes isalmost exactly like the system

(01:46:13):
that's used in Chapter 2of the M-39, where the post-service does
unilateral route adjustment processes.
And what this agreement does is recognizesthat in future joint route adjustment
processes, we should improvethat system of evaluating it.

(01:46:34):
So the way office time is structured forroutes, when we evaluate them,
we come up with a standard,18 letters, 8 flash per minute,
based on the case of volume.
But we also have to have a fixed officetime piece that is considered
in that evaluation.
And in Chapter 2 of the M39,that fixed office time

(01:46:56):
has minimum time values for each line itemor different activities.
And those line items are used as minimumsto create this fixed office time.
What we currently, in a joint process, orat least in from previous ones do not have

(01:47:17):
is a way toefficiently evaluate what that fixed
office time is for every route, because itneeds to be as accurate
as it possibly can be.
Because Because if it is inflated too muchor it's too little, it causes problems
in both directions.
And ultimately, in any joint process, whatwe're trying to do is

(01:47:39):
evaluate a route based onthe time it takes the carrier to do it.
So what this does is first recognizeswe need to find a new way to do it.
We're going to do it.
And what we're going to do is find a wayto evaluate the fixed office time
that each route, that carrieron that route actually uses.

(01:48:03):
And then, because line items have beensuch an important piece of this,
at least historically,what we have agreed is that when we
make this change, we've set bareminimums for each of these line items.
And it's just a handful of line items.

(01:48:23):
We've changed some of the waysthat we would record mail.
So I'm going to go through the lineitems that are changed and explain why.
The first oneis, or actually the first two,
have to do with ways that we would recordcertain activities.
So lines 8 through 13, whichcurrently include things like handling

(01:48:48):
changes of address and markupmail and stuff like that.
That work has changed so much over theyears because of the volume that we handle
in the office in the morninghas gone down dramatically.
So rather than use line 8 through 13, weare not going to use those lines anymore.
We would still record the time it takes,but we're going to record that time on

(01:49:11):
line 21, which is office work that'sthat's occurring that's not
covered on another line item.
The next is withdrawal ofmail, which is line 15.
Withdrawal of mail is very inconsistent interms of the way it's recorded,
especially as we've established SMDCs.
In some locations, carriers have toreally take a long time to walk

(01:49:36):
a long way to get their parcels.
A lot of times that'srecorded under line 15.
So anytime that previously was recordedunder Line 15, The time,
obviously, is still there.It will still be recorded.
We just won't use line 15.
We'll also record it under line 21.
Because ultimately, where we want togo here is to simplify this process.

(01:49:56):
The things we do are eitherrecurring or they're not recurring.
And what is recurring that we doon a recurring basis should be included
in the evaluation of our route.
The other changes from what has been theminimums, the most significant
one is Line 14, accountables.

(01:50:17):
In Chapter 2, that minimum hasbeen six minutes in the office.
Based on a lot of the studies that we'vedone and post-service has done,
there's a significant change to what wedo with accountable mail in the office.
Most letter careers know the certifiedmail, which is by far the highest volume

(01:50:37):
accountable piece that we get.
Most of the time we spend handling thoseis on the street now
as opposed to in the office.
That's been a pretty significant shift.
But in any joint route adjustment processgoing forward, the minimum
would be two minutes.
So no matter how much time somebody spendson accountable mail,

(01:50:58):
and for some people that might nothingmore than getting a key, that value
will not go below two minutes.
Line 19, which is personal need,excuse me, vehicle inspection.
Vehicle inspection is unchanged.
It will not go below three minutes.
Line 20 which is personal needs.
That is the time that we spend on thelocker room, restroom, that type stuff.

(01:51:22):
Currently, the minimum of five minutes,it would not go below five minutes.
That would remain the same.
And then line 21, The currentminimum for line 21 is nine minutes.
That would be increased in a jointprocess to a minimum of 10 minutes.
So the terms of this MOUonly apply to these line items

(01:51:46):
only apply in a future joint process.
Just as importantly in this MOU is thecommitment and what that joint process
would allow us to do,and that is to evaluate the time on every
route, what the carrier actually takes,and what should be fair for them on that
route in the calculation of fixed officetime to apply to their standard

(01:52:11):
for evaluation purposes only.
This is only for evaluation in ajoint route adjustment process.
This is not for daily workloadmeasurement or anything like that.
It's only in the event we're able tocome to an agreement on a joint process.
Okay.
A few other things I'llgo through fairly quickly.

(01:52:32):
Article 2, Section 1, we have made somechanges to include pregnancy
as a protected class.
And then in the secondparagraph there, we have modified the term
handicapped employees and replaced it withindividuals with disabilities.

(01:52:55):
Also, Article 8, Section 3, this is areally good change that PTFs and CCAs
will be guaranteed at least one day offper service week.
A few changes related to leave in Article10, the monetization of
annual leaves It's a new MOU.

(01:53:15):
This would allow our members to carry overthe maximum number of leave hours
to sell back some annual leave.
There is a requirement that theycan not have exceeded 75 hours of
sick leave usage in the previous year.
Questions that often come up aboutthat, or is there any impact of FMLA?

(01:53:36):
And the answer is no.
It doesn't matter whythe sick leave was used.
It's just simply a threshold.
They have to use less than 75 hoursof sick leave, and then you can cash in
up to 40 hours of annual leave.
Cca advanced annual leave.
So upon completing a 360-day term andthen being reappointed, CCAs will be

(01:54:01):
advanced 40 hours of annual leave,which is a big step forward for us.
That's a good thing for those CCAs thatcome back after completing a term and
may want to take some time off.
Similarly, PTFs,once upon hiring, would also be advanced.

(01:54:22):
That same amount of annual leave, if theyare converted, CCA is converted to PTFs or
PTFs higher in the middle of the leaveyear, then upon becoming a PTF in whatever
fashion, they would be given a preratedamount of the 40 hours for
the rest of that leave year.

(01:54:42):
The bereavement leave MOU, Which gives usthe ability to take annual leave or sick
leave or leave without pay for bereavementpurposes for certain family members.
We've expanded the definition of familymembers to include grandchildren.
In the unfortunate loss ofgrandchildren, that would be eligible.

(01:55:05):
You'd be eligible forbereavement leave now.
A new MOU on time limitations aboutbone marrow, stem cell, blood plate,
litter organ donations forthose that participate there.
This is provided for in the elm to takethe leave, and what we did is
created their limitations,but they're consistent with what's the

(01:55:30):
typical amount of timesomeone would be absent.
So it clarifies and clears up anypotential disputes over the amount of
time someone would use.
Article 11, holidays, a couple of changes.
Officially, Juneteenthbecomes our 11th federal holiday.
We have observed that the last few years,but that will now be in our

(01:55:53):
collective borrowing agreement.
And as a result, the way wecalculate PTF hourly rates changes.
So currently, we have in whatever stepa carrier is at,
if to calculate a full-time carrier'shourly rate, you take their annual
salary and divide it by 2,080.

(01:56:15):
Etfs are not paid holiday leave on theholiday, but they are compensated for the
holidays because to determine their hourlyrate, you subtract 80 hours
currently, the 80 hours forthe 10 holidays we had prior to
Juneteenth, and divide the annual rateby 2,000 to equal their hourly rate.

(01:56:37):
With the addition of another federalholiday, that means you have to subtract
88 hours because we now have 11 federalholidays So PTF hourly rates
are now determinedby taking the annual salary and
dividing it by 1,992 instead of 2000.

(01:56:57):
Some changes in Article 12.
Throughout Article 12, there's a lot ofsections that are not and haven't been
for some time applicable to our craft.
You will see that if you look inthe J-CAM, you'll see language often that

(01:57:18):
says this is not applicableto the letter carrier craft.
We have agreed to remove all of thosesections of Article 12 that are
not applicable to our craft.
Let's just something we'vetalked about in years past.
There was hesitancy to do so for reasonsthat are really historical in nature.
I mentioned the Bridge memo earlier, theMOU, Article 7, 12, 13, Crossing Crafts,

(01:57:45):
that we are party to as well asthe mail handlers in the APW.
But over the last several years with usdeveloping our conversion to career
process and transfer process and the otherunions following that and having their own
processes, we're in a place where we'repretty comfortable with the application of

(01:58:06):
the limitations in that breach memoto go ahead and clear up Article
12 by removing these sections.
Another change in Article 12 has to dowith those that leave our craft and come
back, that leave our craft togo to a non-bargaining position.
So now, when someone leaves our craft,typically, they're going to go be a

(01:58:29):
manager full-time, but it's not justrelated, not only applicable to
going to be a manager.
When they leave and come back, if theycome back within two years,
they retain their seniority exceptfor the time they were away.
If they come back after two years, theyhave to start a new period of seniority.

(01:58:50):
The change here is to changeit two years from one year.
So when someone takes a non-bargainingposition outside of our craft and they
return, if they return after one year,they will have to start a
brand new period of seniority.
And then finally, Article 12, section5C 8 is about accessing

(01:59:19):
part-time flexible employees.
We have language in our J-Cam that makesclear that this language talks about a
quota of ETFs, which is something fromyears ago, doesn't exist anymore.
Our J-Cam makes clear that complement iscovered by Article 7,
Section 3, not by this quota.
So we agreed to deletethis entire section about accessing

(01:59:45):
PTFs, because in reality, in the absenceof a quota, there's no reason, really, to
ever have to accessa part-time flexible letter care.
Article 14 to do with safety,a pretty significant change here.
We have for a number of contracts,we've tested

(02:00:07):
a concept called district SafetyCommittees in a pilot form,
where around the country, we've had jointcommittees at the district level that
addressed a lot of differentsafety issues.
In recent years,we struggled with them, to be honest,
through some restructure with the PostalService and the way they
change your district structure.

(02:00:28):
But that will no longer be a pilot.
They will be everywhere.We will insert this.
It's going into Article 14, Section 3.
So we will havedistrict safety committees in every
district, which isa really positive thing for us.
It's another avenue to address anyissues that are related to safety.

(02:00:52):
And MOU were also related to safety.
A new MOU on air-conditioned vehicles,post services in the It's in the midst of
purchasing a lot of vehicles,and this just says they are going to put
air conditioning or make every effort toput air conditioning in all the vehicles.
If they intend topurchase a vehicle without air
conditioning, they have to talk to usabout it first if At the national level.

(02:01:17):
Tirely unlikely that would happen.
This is just a protection.
It also makes clearand obligates the post of service to
keep up with maintenance proceduresto maintain the air conditioning
and vehicles in good working order.
Okay, next in Article15, Agreement procedure.

(02:01:39):
The changes here aremostly related to step B and the things
that are administered through our NationalBusiness Agents Offices and
from headquarters.
We've gotten rid of a couple of MOUs andcombined them into a single MOU
and also put a little more structurearound the task forces that we have

(02:02:04):
in place, the MOU, DRP testing.
We put a time frame where we would gettogether and talk with
the Postal Service about.
A new MOU related to Article 15 that willcertainly be of interest to
our stewards is a commitment and someguidelines for testing an electronic

(02:02:28):
grievance system.
So this is, I think, agreat opportunity for us.
It starts withthe way we request information and receive
information request to the waywe move grievances through a process and
could really improve the efficiencyof our process and

(02:02:51):
give more visibility in terms of timeframes and time stamps and
things like that.So this, of course, will be new.
It It'll be something that we'll have todo probably a significant amount of
testing, but I think it's verypromising, at least in concept.
One point to make.
This test would applyto the portions of the grievance procedure

(02:03:17):
that we do with the postal service andmoving grievances through the procedure.
What it would not apply tois what we do internally.
For example, if in your branch, a shopsteward files a grievance, an informal
step A, gets documentation, they initiatea grievance, talk to the supervisor,
and then the process is to send it to thebranch hall or to the Formal A rep,

(02:03:40):
that internal union movement of thegrievance, more than likely, is
not going to be a part of this.
This is just aboutonce we get it Formal A, for example,
exchanging documents or appeals toFormal A, it could be a part of it.
Moving a case to Step B, it could be apart of it that we do jointly,

(02:04:00):
but it would not apply to our internal.
We would develop stuff like thatunilaterally, which is
definitely on our radar.
Okay, Article 16, Section 7,the emergency procedure, emergency
placements or suspensions.
The only change here is that individualsthat are placed on emergency suspensions

(02:04:26):
during that time that they are out in anon-pay status, they can Use annual
leave if they wish to have some income.
It's totally at their discretion.
This will not impact in any waygrievances or make-whole remedies.
It just is intended to allow themto have some immediate income.

(02:04:47):
Obviously, if someone used their annualleave here, a grievance was filed, we were
successful in a make-whole remedy, havingtheir lead balance restored would
be perfectly appropriate to request.
So it's only intended togive them the ability to have
some income in the interim.
In Article 17, a couple of changes.

(02:05:08):
One, places a requirement to have labormanagement meetings at
least twice per year.
Previously, labor management meetingsexisted, but there was no
frequency that was required.
So at minimum, they haveto happen twice per year.
And then a17th 7 has been modified significantly

(02:05:32):
to change the way that we handle dueswith the Postal Service, Union dues.
Currently, what happens is when someonejoins the Union, there's a process.
It goes through Postal Service humanresources, shared services, that
a piece of it we don't have control over.
And those of you that areout there that are involved in the

(02:05:55):
administrative side of your branch ordeal with membership rosters and dues and
stuff like that, you know thatsometimes delays happen.
But basically, the union, we will takeover the responsibility for dues
processing and just simply tell the PostalService through an electronic file
how much money to hold out from eachmember of our union,

(02:06:18):
they would then submit the money to us,and then we would do just as we do now
and distribute that money to the branchesand state associations.
In addition to that, they are going toto process allotments that we provide.
Rather than us having to use up one ofyour current payroll allotments to

(02:06:39):
contribute to anything.
For example, we have our Disaster ReliefFoundation, our Letter
Care Political Fund.
You would authorize that through theunion, and then we
would tell the post of service, onceagain, through a secure electronic file.
All right.Article 23.

(02:07:01):
This is about our rights as unionofficials to enter postal installations
to conduct official business.
It just makes clear those that are retiredor
full-time union officials that are servingin a role, they will be granted a postal
ID just to make it a little easierwhen it comes to their access.

(02:07:24):
We've talked about a lot of MOUs already,but there are others in our contract.
Most of them will continuewithout substantive change.
Some of them have minor changes, such asdate changes that don't affect
the actual meaning or application of them.
But there are five that will not continue.

(02:07:48):
And I want to, just so we'rediscussing every single modification
here, cover what those are.
Fss implementation, FSS work methods.
Those two MOUs would bedeleted from our agreement.
They would be deleted because FSS is gone.
Pos Services discontinued it, and thereis no intention of bringing it back.

(02:08:11):
So there's no need to havethose MOUs in our agreement more.
The district Safety Committee's pilotprogram, that MOU is being deleted
because, as I mentioned earlier,we have now incorporated district Safety
Committees into Article 14, the agreement.
And the other two are Article 15, DisputeResolution Process, Article 15, Dispute

(02:08:34):
Resolution Procedure Task Force.
Those two MOUs are being deleted becausethey have been combined
into the dispute resolution process, MOU.
The language is substantively the same.
It's just all been combined into one longdocument, re-arranged in an order

(02:08:54):
that we think makes more sense.
Every other MOU, we've either talked aboutthe modifications, if it was substantive
or they're being continued or beingcontinued with something as minor
as date changes.
Next, we have the questions and answers.
A lot of you send in questions, and wevery much appreciate you doing that.

(02:09:15):
Some of the questions are onsimilar topics.
A lot of the questions are things thatprobably were sent in early on that
I've already covered.
But we'll go through and try to answereach them and just be sure that
at least the topics of all thequestions have been covered.

(02:09:36):
So question number one,why was the fixed office time reduced
from 33 minutes to 20 minutes?
And does this change the M39?
Let me answer the secondpart of the question first.
No, this does not change the M39.

(02:09:56):
The new MOU on fixed office time,it's right there in the It's fixed office
time in a joint routeadjustment environment.
It's not a reductionin the amount of fixed office time.
What does MOU is a commitment todevelop a new way to evaluate it.
It describes what that new way willinclude, which is

(02:10:20):
figuring out a way to evaluate it for eachassignment, and then sets bare
minimums for each line item.
Now, if you compare those line items, as Idescribed earlier,
to the minimums that are in Chapter 2, theminimums that have been used for those
line items in previous joint processes,the most significant difference

(02:10:40):
in one of them is in line 14.
But what is this agreementsets these baselines?
It does not set the totalminimum fixed office time.
It only covers what each of thoseline items would entail in a
joint environment going forward.

(02:11:00):
Of course, in any negotiation for a futurejoint route adjustment process,
what that office time methodology wouldlook like would be part of the
negotiations and done consistently withthat MOU.
Okay, next.Other unions got massive pay raises.

(02:11:21):
Why did we only get 1.3%?
So first, in this tent of agreement, we donot only get 1.3%. 1.3% each of the three
years is the baselinegeneral wage increase.
But as we talked about in detail in thebeginning, that's only one piece

(02:11:43):
of the puzzle here.
You've got the colas, you've gotthe changes to the wage structure.
We went, I think, in great detail of allthe things that are considered
and negotiated in Article 9.
As far as the comparisons to otherunions, it's a very natural thing to do.
Certainly, it's something that we areinterested in and pay attention to,

(02:12:05):
standing in solidarity withour brothers and sisters.
We've done that for a long time, notjust over the last couple of years.
Thankfully, over the last couple of years,we've seen A lot of our sister unions
in other industries and industries moresimilar to ours have a lot of success
in the private sector in bargaining.

(02:12:25):
I would say that there are pieces that arecertainly comparable, and we absolutely
utilize that in our bargaining process.
We utilize that should we have ended up ininterest arbitration, particularly
comparability in the standard that's inthe law, as you've heard about early on.
But I will say, structurally,our collective bargaining agreement,

(02:12:50):
this tune of agreement as well as previousagreements, are different than what
we see in a lot of the private sector.
You also have to, for context,I think, look historically.
We have zero concessionseconomically in this agreement.
Nothing.
There's not one thing.Everything is an increase.

(02:13:10):
There's no change inanything that cost us money.
Our health insuranceremains exactly the same in terms
of the percentage that we pay.
All the pay increases or pay increases arecompletely rolled in to our agreements.
If you look over, let's say, the last 10,15 years, a lot of the unions that we see
the private sector having success Now,they're having success because through

(02:13:32):
difficult bargaining periods for them,frankly, their struggles and difficulty
were greater than ours.
We see a lot of unions achievesignificant increases in terms of what
they call their general increases, butthey don't have cost
of living protections.
Therefore, through this period ofinflation, they've not got near
the pay increases that we've had.

(02:13:55):
There are, generally speaking in theprivate sector, much more concessionary
things that happen in terms of the natureof a bargain between employer
and the union.
Then the dynamic of work rulesand the protections that we have are so
extensive that we've bargain over time isalso very different to what

(02:14:18):
you see in the private sector.
In some ways, it's comparable.
It certainly is better than a circumstancethat we've experienced in the past where
unions We're not having much success.
But at the same time, I think that itreally comes down to the structure of our
agreement, the way the coal formulahas served us maintaining that.

(02:14:41):
I think if you comparereally to any union over the last
decade plus in this eraof bargaining since the recession, which
had obviously affected us, but affecteda lot of other industries as well.
Our union has done really, really well.
As we talked about earlier, this agreementrepresents even more economic

(02:15:05):
benefit than the previous two.
Another piece that's just worth mentioninghere is
we've talked about the financial conditionof the employer and how that
plays into interest arbitration.
Well, that's 100% a factor in the privatesector, too, with our sister unions.
When their employers are doingwell financially, they They have success.

(02:15:31):
The fact is that we see theselarge private sector employers currently
are, in many cases, makingbillions of dollars in profits.
That creates a very different scenariothan what we currently have
with the Postal Service.
In the years past, ithas been very different.

(02:15:52):
We all would probably remember theauto-restructure, just for one example,
but that was true ofa lot of industries that really have had
different periods of struggle over time.
It's very important, I think, to lookat it with the appropriate context.
We would put our union'shistory in collective bargaining up

(02:16:15):
against any union's historyin collective bargaining.
I certainly believe that this agreementcontinues under fairly
challenging circumstances.
The structure andthe way we have bargaining in the past, it
has served us really, really and willcontinue to serve us in the future.
Okay, next is a questionabout 12-hour limitations.

(02:16:37):
Is someone who volunteers to work beyond12 hours guaranteed to work those hours
prior to a non-ODL being forced to work.
So essentially this question isjust to rephrase it a different way.
Does the post services obligationunder Article 8, Section 5G, change?

(02:16:58):
So the fact that a non-ODL can volunteer,if they volunteer to work beyond 12 or
6:00, is the Postal Service obligated towork them whenever they volunteer
prior to working a non-ODL?
And the answer to thatquestion is no, they are not.
There is no change to their obligation.
Their obligation remains to work themup to 12:00 and 6:00 under 8:00 5:00.

(02:17:18):
The fact that they now will have theability to volunteer and go home when they
reach those maximum workhours and have protection does not change
their obligation.
So their obligationis the same there as well as
in the provisions of theletter care paragraph as well.

(02:17:40):
Next one.
What happens if thecontract is not ratified?
What happens next?What's the timeline?
Do we start over?
Or is the TA the bare minimumthat we can get?
Good question.
I mentioned that we should have theratification results of the

(02:18:00):
balloting sometime in mid-January.
If the agreement is not ratified, pursuantArticle 16 of our Constitution, I would go
back to the Postal Service, obviouslyattempt to negotiate more within 15 days.
It's a time frame that Article 16of our Constitution includes.
If we are unable toreach agreement at that point, then we

(02:18:26):
would proceed to interest arbitration,which we are prepared We're
prepared to do.
As far as the timeline for interestarbitration, that would depend
on availability of a lot of people,starting with the arbitrator that we had
chosen, arbitrator Dennis Snowland,In the event the agreement's not ratified,

(02:18:50):
the reality is the likelihood of us comingto agreement with the post of service
on something else within 15 daysis probably not great.
We would likely We'll probably immediatelyreach out and
begin that scheduling process.
Honestly, we would probably be looking atspring or summer in the event

(02:19:10):
that happens for hearings.
We would need Probablyweeks of hearings, and then
it's almost impossible to predictexactly when an award would be issued.
But it's probably fair to say that wewould be talking about
sometime late in 2025.
We have at the earliest.

(02:19:31):
As far as the question about, do we startwith the TA,
is that a minimum that we could achieve?
No.
When we go to interest arbitration,what's in his TA is not relevant at all.
What we would do is probably sit down withthe Postal Service, as we've
done in previous rounds of interestarbitration, and by certain things, I'm

(02:19:55):
sure we could agree on that we wouldinclude in the agreement, but the
economic Each use would be in dispute.
Each side would present their proposals,and then the process would play out.
So you certainly do not startwith the tentative agreement.
You start at zero.

(02:20:15):
Each side isfree to propose what they want to propose
and put on their case, and then thearbitrator would issue an award.
Next question.
Are CCAs and ETFs guaranteed days offand the weekly schedule subject to change.

(02:20:35):
I think what you're asking here is,are the days that they're scheduled off
subject to change?
So the language in Article 8 requires thatthey be scheduled a day off, and that's
the Wednesday of the week before.
Is it subject to change?Yes, of course.

(02:20:57):
Scheduling for CCAs and PTFs is alwayssubject to change,
but the guarantee for the day off remains.
If, of course, someone is on a hold down,then the ability of the post service to
change that day off isexceptionally limited.
In that case.
In fact, they almosthave no ability to do it.

(02:21:21):
If they're working on Sunday, whichobviously comes into play depending on
partial delivery that happens that day.
So of a short answer, the questionis yes, it is subject to change.
But what's not subject to change is theguarantee that they're
still guaranteed that day.

(02:21:45):
It looks like L'Hierry is at the beginningof the pay scale and at the top
step got all the raises.
What about L'Hierry isin step C through O?
We talked about thisin detail earlier earlier on when I was
talking about the economic provisions.
I think that really the chart I coveredthat shows the pay increases demonstrates

(02:22:12):
that it's done in as fair way as we coulddo it, starting with step P and then
gradually increasing all theway back to the beginning steps.
And in fact, the peopleat step C through O,
those in the middle of table 2,the amount of The increase they get when
you factor in everything in Article 9 thatwe bargain from a dollar standpoint is

(02:22:36):
more than those at the beginningor the end of the pay table.
Sowe were able to maintain that in a very
fair way while alsomeeting our goals of increasing
the starting payand then increasing the top pay, which
benefits everyone once they get there.
Next is, why did it take solong to get this contract?

(02:23:00):
Why couldn't we get thisagreement a year ago?
Because we in the post service,we're not in agreement.
That's really what it comes down to.
If we could have reached this agreement ayear ago, there's a strong possibility
that we would have had this agreement atthat point in time, but
we just simply did not.

(02:23:20):
You go through a lot of differentpossibilities in bargaining
from both sides of the table,and Thankfully, that over this extended
period of time, for the reasons we talkedabout earlier, this process of postal
service became more willing as wemoved through to spend the amount of money

(02:23:43):
it would takefor us to achieve the economic benefits
that we achieve, which is, again,significantly more
than we have in the last couple of roundsof bargaining, which translates to
significantly more cost for the postalservice, which is their concern.
The idea of understanding what the otherside of the table is thinking is

(02:24:04):
always important in any negotiation.
Okay, next.
Why did we agree to the twoadditional ODL list?
Because that's an officialbargaining position of the NALC.
Resolutions to create the exact list thatwe created had been submitted and adopted

(02:24:26):
by the delegates of our convention.
Another overtime.
Can people on the work assignment listalso sign the non-scheduled day
overtime desired list?
No, there is no change to thework assignment list at all?

(02:24:48):
If you start again onthat, I don't know if that's a much idea.
Can people on the work assignment listalso sign the non-scheduled
day overtime desired list?
No.
No, there is no change, as I mentionedearlier, to the work assignment list.
If you're on the work assignment list,you're on the work
assignment list, you can't.

(02:25:08):
There's no change in that regard.
What kept us at the bargaining table solong instead of going to
interest arbitration last year?
Because we've talked about a lot of thisalready, but
we continuedto believe we could achieve through

(02:25:32):
negotiation a better result than we couldachieve through interest arbitration.
When you consider all the circumstanceswithout taking on the inherent risk, no
matter how big or small it may be,that comes with interest arbitration.
I think it's important to point out thatoftentimes in conversations,

(02:25:54):
I get questions.
I think there's sometimes a veryromanticized view of what
interest arbitration is.
Many of our members have been inarbitration hearings at the regional
level, which are conducted professionallybut are often very adversarial in nature.

(02:26:19):
Interest arbitration is a verydifferent process than that.
It is conducted in a lot of wayslike a very boring legal procedure.
There's a lot of legal argument involved,and it's just, by its nature,

(02:26:39):
a very conservative process.
Ultimately, that neutralarbitrator makes a decision
What history told us, as you heard fromJim Sauber earlier, is the results are…
Usually, neither side gets everythingthat they want in interest arbitration.

(02:27:00):
There's also, of course,risks that come along with it.
Our history tells us that thecircumstances
around bargaining, many of whichpost-service
often presents in their case to counterwhat we present, there's been some
consistency in terms of the result.

(02:27:21):
Ultimately, continuingto make progress and get closer to an
agreement was the decision that was made,and that decision was made
because we thought it would result in thebest outcome we could achieve without
taking on the risks that comewith interest arbitration.
That's exactly what I believethat this TA represents.

(02:27:45):
Our competition can get good raises.
Why can't we?
Well, I would, number one, disagree withthe fact that the idea that we
can't get good raises.
I think our union's bargaininghistory is really second to none.
We talked a lot about the structure of ouragreements and how that served us well,

(02:28:06):
and it's really served uswell over the last few years.
I mean, letter care pay hasgone up significantly, probably
as much or more than any industry.
As we talked about a minute ago, I wouldjust caution
the differencesin structures, the differences in

(02:28:27):
bargaining environments, the differencesin the way things are reported,
often you have other unions thatmay achieve a percentage increase that
has a big number on it, but that could bea union that's had no cold protection, and
their Therefore, while we've gotten25% in increases over the last few years,

(02:28:50):
they may have gotten almost nothing.
Every circumstance is very much different.
But since the word competition wasmentioned here, I I think we
should cover this a little bit.
Jim talked about this some, I believe.
But the comparability standardthat's in the 1970 law, where our wages

(02:29:13):
in the career service should be comparableto those that do similar
work in a private sector.
To us, the argument we've always made, andmade successfully for the most part, is
that that point of comparisonshould be the private shippers that
are unionized, which is one large one.

(02:29:34):
But there's always an argument therethat there's a lot of other delivery
folks that are out there these days.
It's not always a givenIf you look at this comparability
standard, historically, the relationshipbetween the compensation that we have and
the compensationthat our brothers and sisters with

(02:29:57):
the Teamsters have achieved isstayed very much consistent in ebbs and
flows based on the timing of agreementsand with the agreement that they bargain
last year, which was certainly a victory.
If you look at thattop pay in particular, which has mainly
been the pointthat in interest arbitration, we
discuss what we project our top A to be.

(02:30:19):
It maintains the same historicalrelationship, and it's very much right
in line with that comparability standard.
Okay, next.
Could we end We could end up withless if we go to arbitration.
Yes, we could end up with less.
We could end up with less overall.
We could end up witha similar economic package overall

(02:30:44):
that is divided up differently.
Maybe not as, at least in what we believeis fair, as I've described in detail.
Of course, we could end up withshort-term,
attractive short-term things that don'thave good long-term benefit, which is

(02:31:05):
very much the opposite approachof what our union's taken.
That's one of the reasons that our colahas always been so important in
bargaining, maintaining that andthe way it served us over the years.
Just to throw out one possibility,lump sum payments as opposed to

(02:31:26):
including things in the cola formula or ina really a bad scenario.
There's always a possibility ofmodifying the cold formula and giving a
larger increaseover here that long term is going to
result in our peoplemaking a lot less money.
All those possibilities are on the table.

(02:31:47):
Short answer to the question,could we end up with less?
Yeah, we absolutely could.
Obviously, as we've explained in detail,I don't have any expectation
that we would end up more.
We could definitely end up with less.
Monetization of annual leave.

(02:32:08):
A question on that, MOU.
Why is the less than 75 hoursof sick leave language in there?
That's a product of negotiation.
There are other postal employees, somerepresented by unions, some that are
managers that have the option tomonetize annual leave currently.
That's the requirement they have.

(02:32:30):
Postservice, of course, was not interestedin creating different requirements for us.
But the short answer is, I mean,obviously, our preference would be to
not have to have the maximum carry-overand not have a minimum
sick leave requirement.
You could sell back whatever you wanted,but that's the nature of negotiation.
You don't always get everything you want.

(02:32:53):
But it is consistent with the requirementsthat other postal employees have.
Last one, I think, is why do we care
about the Postal Services' finances?

(02:33:14):
Let me answer that in two parts.
Number one, we care about itin bargaining, certainly, but well, beyond
bargaining, because that's where we work.
Our job security long termis very much dependent on a successful
financially stable postal service.
We've been heavily involved in that fightfor a long time now through policy

(02:33:40):
changes that need to happen legislatively,policy changes that still need to happen.
Working with them.
Becausejob security is one thing, and then
the collective bargaining environment.
A healthy postal service,financially, as history tells us, over the
last 50 four years,it's much better for us in bargaining.

(02:34:03):
I will make this point, though.
The Postal ServicesFinancial State, in any particular point
in time, does not impactour priorities in bargaining.
It does not impact the things thatwe try to achieve in bargaining.
But it is a consideration in makingdecisions of, do you finish an agreement
or do you go to interest arbitration?

(02:34:25):
Because as Jim explained earlier,that's an issue that comes
up in interest arbitration.
It has an impact, but it has animpact because that's reality.
It doesn't have an impactbecause it's the NALC's priority.
Again, it doesn't impact what we attemptto achieve, but it is just a fact of life.

(02:34:46):
Just like I've talked a little bit aboutour brothers and sisters in the private
sector that have had some success inbargaining, the financial conditions of
their employers impact their bargaining ina positive way sometimes and
in a negative way sometimes.
Really reemphasizes the needand hopefully provides an understanding
for those that may not be as familiar asto why we are so engaged on Capitol Hill.

(02:35:12):
We're so engaged in elections.
We're so engaged withthe White House to try to ensure
that we get changes made that puts thePostal Service in a positive
financial position going forward,because that's where we work and we want
them to succeed,because that's what's best for us, but
also because of the impact that it hason our collective bargaining environment.

(02:35:38):
Thank you for joining andwatching or listening, whatever you may
be doing to this virtual rap session.
The intent of this is to educate youand give you information
so that during this ratificationprocess, you can make your own decision.
But I think it's very important that youas an NALC member,

(02:36:02):
understand the totality of the agreement,the context, and that's really what I
tried to do here is give you thatinformation and answer the
questions that were sent in.
Ballets for this ratificationprocess are in the mail.
If you haven't received yours,you will receive it very shortly.

(02:36:25):
If you're an eligible voter,and I encourage you to take advantage of
your right and participate in one thingthat our union is very proud of is
that we are the most democratic, LittleD, democratic union in this country.
All of our active membershave an opportunity to vote.
I want to take this It's been anopportunity to also thank the officers and

(02:36:48):
staff at NALC headquarters thatdid a lot of hard work for a long time
over this round of bargaining, both inpreparation
as well as the bargaining process itself,and even since, it's an agenda of
agreement to get theinformation out there.
It takes a lot of peopleto make this happen,

(02:37:11):
and they've done an excellent job, and nowit's up to you, the members, to decide.
So thanks once again for joining.
We appreciate everything that you do forour union and what you do to
serve the people of this country.
Thanks.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Virtual Rap Session on the 2023-2026 Tentative Agreement

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

Virtual Rap Session on the 2023-2026 Tentative Agreement

Dateline NBC