Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
1072 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
MOE
BILLER
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO
BEFORE THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM
COMMITTEE
POSTAL SERVICE SUBCOMMITTEE
SUBJECT - THE
POSTAL MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1999
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear
again before you today to represent the views of the 361,000 members of the
American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, on the subject of
postal reform and your latest proposal concerning
reform -- H.R. 22.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that
I greatly appreciate the sincere effort and concern you have brought to bear on
this difficult topic. Unfortunately, as has been true with respect to similar
bills that were introduced in the last session of Congress, we have several
fundamental problems with H.R. 22 and, therefore, cannot support this
legislation as introduced.
Our objections have been expressed many times
before. The bill continues to have a prefixed formula specifying a rate cap on
"non- competitive" mail. Unlike the telecommunications industry or other
industries which have tried this form of regulation, the USPS remains a
labor-intensive operation. From our perspective, this means that if there are
unanticipated adverse changes in expenses, market demand, or competition, the
Postal Service's sole recourse -- if it is to stay within the cap -- is to
impose concessions on its workers. We cannot be sure whether such concessions
will take the form of wage and benefit givebacks, or harsher working conditions
applied for the purpose of achieving greater output. But, we can be sure that in
a labor-intensive industry, a price cap inevitably pushes downside risk of
adverse changes in price or market conditions onto workers while -- as has been
true over the last several years -- the upside benefits of low inflation and a
growing economy are retained by mailers and managers. We cannot acquiesce to
creation of this sort of scenario.
I am pleased to report to you that we
recently reached and ratified a collective-bargaining agreement with the Postal
Service. This is the first agreement reached without resort to interest
arbitration in over eleven years. The contract was overwhelmingly ratified by
64% of the APWU membership. It was not easy and both sides worked hard to
resolve a number of complex issues. The wage bargain was, of course, the most
difficult problem, given the uncertainty and volatility of the world- wide
economy. I cannot imagine how we could have worked our way through all these
problems if, in addition to everything else on the table, we had to factor in
the potential impact and risks associated with a Congressionally imposed price
cap on mail services. Indeed, it is clear to me that the existence of an
external formula shifting the downside risk of market and material changes onto
workers will make voluntary agreements, such as the one we just achieved, far
less likely and interest arbitration the inevitable norm.
While the price
cap issue is our most fundamental concern, it is not our only concern. We
continue to object to the bill's specification in Section 503 that a "letter"
may be carried out of the mail stream when the amount paid for private carriage
is at least six times the postage for the first ounce of first-class mail. While
I recognize that the "floor" for private carriage is higher than in previously
introduced legislation, the fact remains that the proposal is obviously the
first step toward postal privatization. Indeed, former Postmaster General Marvin
Runyon stated that this proposed rollback of the Private Express statutes places
four billion dollars of the USPS' first-class mail market at risk. Under the
present format of the bill, the impact of this loss of revenue will inevitably
be home by workers. Beyond the impact on our members, though, allowing the USPS'
competitors to skim the cream off of a major piece of the USPS' market in the
way proposed by H.R. 22 will obviously jeopardize the Postal Service's capacity
to provide universal mail service at uniform rates. Universal postal service is
a fundamental feature of American life and we cannot endorse any proposal which
places it in jeopardy.
Finally, we believe the proposed study of labor
management relations in the Postal Service by the National Academy of Public
Administration, set forth in Section 601, is totally unnecessary.
If the
goal here is to improve labor-management relations in the USPS, I would submit
that we have made a quantum leap in that area through the recent APWU-USPS
contract. This contract was--for the first time since 1987--agreed to by both
parties, without the interference of an outside arbitrator.
If you think
this is insignificant, then please allow me to share with you the following from
the Washington Post on January 9, 1999: "I am delighted with the outcome,"
Postmaster General Henderson said, "This is an agreement that is clearly in the
best interests of our employees and all of America."
Henderson added: "My
hat's off to Moe Billet, and his negotiating team and our negotiating team for
having the patience and the forbearance to bring a long, hard set of talks to
conclusion."
Labor Management relations in the USPS have been studied to
death. We are presently involved in ongoing work with the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service to resolve long term problems -- and that agency at least
has the benefit of direct experience with resolving labor- management conflict.
I see nothing to be gained by inserting yet another outside party into this mix.
Time has shown that we all do best when our efforts are focused on improving the
collective bargaining relationship and our mutual capacity to resolve problems.
A Republican American President with traditional conservative views, President
Richard M. Nixon, understood this when he approved collective bargaining in the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. His insight is equally valid today.
To be
sure, consistent with the overall goal of H.R. 22, we are interested in
authorizing the USPS to enter into new markets and to compete in them. Our union
has, in fact, agreed to certain "competitive" projects with respect to work that
has been contracted out. However, the price exacted by the bill for allowing us
to compete -- price caps in the USPS' major markets and yet another rollback of
the Private Express statutes -- is too high. Based on this, and notwithstanding
its many constructive elements, we cannot support H.R. 22.
Mr. Chairman,
that concludes our testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you, or
other members of the subcommittee, may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 12, 1999
