Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
FEBRUARY 11, 1999, THURSDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
925 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM
H. QUINN
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
NATIONAL POSTAL
MAIL
HANDLERS UNION
BEFORE THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT
REFORM COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
POSTAL SERVICE
SUBJECT - H.R. 22
POSTAL MODERNIZATION ACT OF 1999
BODY:
TESTIMONY OF
WILLIAM H. QUINN
NATIONAL PRESIDENT
NATIONAL POSTAL MAIL HANDLERS UNION
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE POSTAL SERVICE
H.R. 22
POSTAL MODERNIZATION ACT
OF 1999
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Billy Quinn, National President oft he National Postal Mail Handlers Union. On
behalf of more than 50,000 mail handler union members employed by the U.S.
Postal Service, I appreciate the opportunity to testify about
postal reform and H.R. 22, the Postal
Modernization Act of 1999.
Our approach to postal reform is
relatively simple, because it is motivated by two fundamental principles. First,
as we stated in our joint statement with the letter carrier unions last year, if
it is to be enacted at all, postal reform must maintain, and
indeed enhance, the operations of the Postal Service. By this
we mean that the key ingredient to any type of postal legislation is to protect
the ability of the Postal Service to provide universal service to the mailing
public. Postal employees must continue to process and deliver letters and
packages to everyone, everywhere, everyday. This universal service has to be
maintained at affordable rates, but these rates must be sufficient to protect
and support the infrastructure that universal servicerequires and to provide
postal employees with a decent and fair standard of living. We understand that
this Subcommittee agrees with the fundamental goal of universal service, and we
commend your painstaking efforts to ensure that any reform legislation furthers
this goal.
Second, and equally fundamental, we also strongly believe that
Congress should not impede upon the often complex relationship between the
Postal Service and its employees. This relationship, though at fanes difficult
if not contentious, is best carded out within the framework of collective
bargaining. The collective bargaining process should be treated as sacred, and
should not be adversely affected, either intentionally or inadvertently, by
enactment of postal reform. Indeed, as you may know, the
Postal Service and the National Postal Mail
Handlers Union just recently signed a new, two-year collective bargaining
agreement, demonstrating once again that face-to-face negotiations can and
should be the means for resolving labor disputes.
In simple terms, this
means that any reform legislation should not allow or encourage
interference in postal labor relations, either directly from
Congress through the statute itself, or less directly through the Postal Rate
Commission or the Postal Regulatory Commission or some other legislatively
imposed body. On another, more complex level, this means that the collective
bargaining process must be allowed to function without artificially imposed
constraints, such as price caps that effectively become wage caps. The
bargaining process must be allowed to set wages and benefits, and the Postal
Service must be allowed to pay for its labor costs through appropriate
postal rates.
These two fundamental principles dictate our
approach to postal reform. We therefore support legislative
efforts to truncate the overly cumbersome rate-making process, and generally
support the pricing flexibility sought by the Postal Service.
With equal vigor, we oppose any legislative reform that
effectively would limit that pricing flexibility with an unfair and unreasonable
cap on rates. If fair and decent wages require an increase in postal rates, then
the Postal Service must be allowed to raise its rates without jumping through
the overly cumbersome hoops that exist under the current PRA.Two additional
points deserve mention. First, the NPMHU generally supports the amendments
adopted by the Subcommittee last September, especially those that would add a
labor representative to the Board of Governors; provide reemployment assistance
if any postal workers are displaced by automation or
privatization; and prevent any reform legislation from
adversely affecting employee or union rights.
Finally, I would be remiss if,
on the record, I did not alert the Subcommittee to a lurking danger that is
known by everyone in this room, but that few are willing to acknowledge openly
namely, that the driving force behind particular provisions of H.R. 22 should be
the public interest, and not the interest of certain, large, profit-driven
corporations such as Federal Express or the United Parcel Service. For more than
two hundred years, the Postal Service and its employees have served the Nation
by ensuring universal service of postal communications at
reasonable rates. Postal reform that puts the
Postal Service or its employees at risk does not serve the
public interest, but rather will be remembered only as legislation that destroys
one of the unique aspects of the American experience. Thus, the primary factor
in your consideration of H.R. 22 during the coming weeks and months must be the
interest of the public in maintaining the strength and viability of the Postal
Service and its 800,000 employees. I dare say, even if others are hesitant to
say so publicly, that FedEx, UPS, and other competitors of the Postal Service
are motivated by other factors. I know the Members of this Subcommittee
recognize this reality.
We look forward to continuing to work with the
Subcommittee and its staff during the next few months to ensure that H.R. 22, if
reported out of committee, is legislation that the NPMHU can support.
Thank
you for the chance to testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
END
LOAD-DATE: February 12, 1999
